Quantcast
Channel: Thinking Pinoy
Viewing all 226 articles
Browse latest View live

"LIKE EVERYONE ELSE": VP Robredo drove with expired license?

$
0
0
The opinions expressed in this article are solely of ThinkingPinoy (TP) and do not reflect the stance of any government agency.
Yesterday, Land Transportation Office – Bicol (LTO-Bicol) posted a status update, which states:
“JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. Today, Vice President Leni Robredo came to the Land Transportation Office (LTO) Naga District Office to renew her driver's license. Just like the rest of our clients, VP Robredo took a queueing number and waited for her turn in order to complete her transaction... The office practices fairness in dealing with its clients. It delivers the same kind of quality and efficient service to all… Dios Mabalosa po sa LTO Naga! #ParaSaBayan #LTOBicolHappyToServeYou👊🏼”
The update, posted on 11 July 2017, basically said Robredo renewed her driver’s license yesterday.
Driver’s licenses, by law, expire on the license holder’s birthday [Politiko]. Robredo’s birthday [INQ] is on April 23rd, so her driver’s license must have expired on that day.

Driving without a license?

Despite the expired driver’s license, Facebook user Benjie Daisy Contreras pointed out that VP Robredo drove a car on 21 June 2017 in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Robredo drives a car in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
As Mark Lopez pointed out, the Registry of Motor Vehicles of the US State of Massachusetts [MassRMV] honors Philippine-issued driver’s licenses so Robredo, in theory, can drive cars in the state provided that her Philippine license is still valid, which is not the case.

Note that Mass RMV, like most DMVs in the United States, does not honor International Driving Permits (IDPs) or Licenses [MassRMV].
Given that Robredo does not have a valid Philippine driver’s license at the time she drove in Massachusetts, and that the State doesn’t honor IDPs, there could only have been two other ways for her to drive legally in the US, and that is through a US-issued driver’s license

The United States issues driver’s licenses to the following:
  • Citizens 
  • Resident Aliens
  • Diplomats (issued by the Department of State, not a State DMV)
Clearly, the Robredo is neither a Citizen nor a Resident Alien, as both would disqualify her from assuming the vice-presidency, so we are left with the third possibility: a driver’s license issued to diplomats.

Like everyone else?

However, diplomatic driver’s licenses are issued only to members of diplomatic missions, and I do not exactly see how Robredo can be considered a “member of a diplomatic mission”, especially since insiders in the Department of Foreign Affairs themselves told me that Robredo did not notify some diplomatic missions in the United States about her Boston trip.Moreover, affixing the seal of a diplomatic mission is required in the application form for diplomatic driver’s licenses [DoS], so which seal would Robredo use?

She’s not part of the DFA, to begin with.

However, assuming that Robredo indeed has a diplomatic driver's license and that she used it when she was doing personal errands in Boston (which, by the way, was not an official visit of any sort), then she is not "like everyone else." [ThinkingPinoy]

DONT FORGET TO SHARE! Did you like this post? Help ThinkingPinoy stay up! Even as little as 50 pesos will be a great help!

RELATED POSTS:




Conchita's Trojan Horse: Weak Mamasapano cases to provide PNoy immunity?

$
0
0
You think the Ombudsman's had a change of heart? Think again.

In the article “Aquino faces raps for usurpation of authority over Mamasapano mess [Inq]” released earlier today, Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales surprised the entire country as she indicted former President Benigno “PNoy” Aquino for usurpation of authority and graft for his involvement in the 2015 Mamasapano debacle.

Why surprising? An Aquino appointee, Carpio-Morales has staunchly shown support for Aquino’s agenda.

Let’s cite a couple of examples: the 2012 Corona Impeachment Trial, and the 2014 Napoles PDAF Scam.

Conchita vs Renato (2012): As Atty. Paula Defensor-Knack points out, Carpio-Morales agreed to provide hearsay testimony against then-embattled Chief Justice Renato Corona when she testified about Corona’s alleged bank deposits. Carpio-Morales supposedly received the information from a discovery of the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), so the AMLC should’ve testified instead of Carpio-Morales [Star]. Morales, a retired Supreme Court associate justice, is fully aware of the hearsay rule.

And before I forget, one of the prime choices for Corona’s replacement, at the time, was SC Associate her own cousin [MT], Justice Antonio Carpio [Inq].

And of course, we all know how that Corona Impeachment Trial ended.

Conchita vs JPE, Bong, and Jinggoy (2014): The Ombudsman then filed graft charges vs former Senators Juan Ponce Enrile, Bong Revilla, and Jinggoy Estrada, over their alleged involvement in Janet Lim-Napoles’ P10-billion Pork barrel (PDAF) Scam [Inq]. They were subsequently detained in the Philippine National Police (PNP) custodial center as the trial progresses.

I will not comment on whether the three senators deserve what they went through, but what’s clear to me is that the Ombudsman clearly turned a blind eye on Liberal Party members and allies who are involved in the PDAF Scam. At the top of this no-hit list is Aquino budget secretary Florencio “Butch” Abad, who gave the imprimatur of the PDAF releases [Inq].

Yes, Carpio-Morales did not include Abad in the charges even if Napoles’ herself testified that it was Abad who taught her how to use non-government organizations to steal money from the National Treasury [Star].
Now that I’ve pretty much shown you how Conchita went against her better judgement in support of the Aquino Administration, let me now focus on how she handled the cases filed against Aquino himself.

Conchita’s first jab at DAP

Carpio-Morales in 2015 dismissed the case arising from the illegal implementation of the multi-billion-peso Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) Scam, arguing that Aquino’s alleged technical malversation is not an impeachable offense and that the president enjoys immunity from suit at the time [Star].

Now, let’s recall the kinds of impeachable offenses under the 1987 constitution:
  1. Culpable violation of the Constitution, 
  2. Treason, 
  3. Bribery, 
  4. Graft and corruption, 
  5. Other high crimes, and
  6. Betrayal of public trust.
I am inclined to agree with Carpio-Morales’ verdict that technical malversation does not fall under the first five impeachable offenses, but given the number of counts of technical malversation he’s liable for, I am pretty confident that Carpio-Morales could have easily made the case fall under betrayal of public trust.

As Ambassador Bobi Tiglao pointed out, Aquino committed 1,997 counts of technical malversation through the DAP scam, owing to the 1,997 Special Allotment Release Orders (SAROs) that Aquino himself approved and signed [MT].

A couple of technical malversation cases may not constitute Betrayal of Public Trust, but almost 2,000?

I bet the public, when they elected Aquino, trusted him to be smart enough not to commit 2,000 technical malversations, yet he did.

Aquino betrayed our trust, because we trusted that he’s smart enough to NOT BE THAT STUPID.

Aquino cases post-presidency

The technical malversation case, and its subsequent dismissal, served as a reminder to Aquino critics to hold their horses until Aquino stepped out of Malacañang, and that’s what they did. That’s why Aquino was slapped with case after case after June 30, 2016.
Let us enumerate each of the cases filed since Aquino stepped down last year:
  1. TECHNICAL MALVERSATION: Activists also revived the 2015 technical malversation complaint over DAP, arguing that Aquino has lost immunity from suit [Inq].
  2. TREASON: The Duterte Administration sued Aquino and Senator Sonny Trillanes for the botched 2013 backdoor negotations with China which allegedly emboldened Beijing to become more aggressive in the South China Sea [Inq].
  3. HOMICIDE: Aquino was sued for reckless imprudence resulting in multiple homicide as a result of his alleged negligence in approving the botched 2015 Mamasapano Operation [Inq]. 
  4. USURPATION OF AUTHORITY: Aquino was also implicated as having influenced then PNP Director-General Alan Purisima to usurp authority as the latter handle the Mamasapano operation despite being preventively suspended by the Ombudsman at the time [Inq].
  5. GRAFT: Former Customs Commissioner Napoleon Morales also filed a graft complaint against Aquino and his Finance secretary Cesar Purisima, for failing to collect P100-billion taxes by allegedly turning a blind eye on Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp.’s alleged smuggling of gasoline components, imports which the firm considered nontaxable [Inq].
Now, let’s check what has happened so far.

Conchita on Aquino cases post-Aquino

Before today, there appears to be a trend of dismissal after dismissal of cases filed against Aquino.

ON TECHNICAL MALVERSATION: In March 2017, Carpio-Morales cleared Aquino of Technical Malversation raps over the multi-billion pesos DAP scam, arguing that the issuance of the SAROs “cannot be equated with application of public funds” [ABS].

Now, I do not understand how she can say public funds were not applied when SAROs themselves allow the transfer of funds from the National Treasury to whatever that SARO was for. That’s just like saying you did not help a rapist because all you did was unlock the victim’s bedroom door.

ON TREASON: In June 2017, Carpio-Morales cleared Aquino of treason charges [Inq], arguing that “Treason is a war crime. It is not an all-time offense. It cannot be committed in peacetime [MS].”

Now, I do not understand how “China wants to take away our territory since I can’t remember!” can be considered peacetime. Given how loosely Carpio-Morales interpreted the law during Corona’s impeachment, her strictness in defining wartime is nothing short of discombobulating.

So far, Carpio-Morales has dismissed two out of the five cases against aquino, so to recap, we are left with three:
  1. Reckless Imprudence resulting to Homicide vis-a-vis Mamasapano
  2. Usurpation of Authority vis-a-vis Mamasapano
  3. Graft vis-a-vis Shell’s willfully uncollected taxes
This brings us back to our main topic: the Aquino’s cases involving the Mamasapano Debacle.
As I’ve mentioned earlier in the article, the Philippines was shocked after it discovered that Carpio-Morales suddenly and uncharacteristically decided to file cases against Aquino. After so many years of protecting him, some doubters finally felt some sliver of hope that maybe, just maybe, this Ombudsman finally “saw the light”.

To cut the long story short, Carpio-Morales dismissed the homicide case, then recommended the filing of usurpation and graft cases against Aquino.

And after examining the Inquirer article, there appears to be something really, really wrong.

Conchita dimisses Homicide

Carpio-Morales dismissed the homicide angle, the angle which my lawyer-friends argued is the easiest prove among all possible cases related to the Mamasapano clash.

Homicide is essentially defined as the unjustified killing of a human being which does not constitute murder, parricide, or infanticide, and this may be committed by negligence [BatasNatin].

Aquino committed homicide on two levels:

FIRST, Aquino authorized the SAF operation despite an existing ceasefire agreement with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. He allowed the SAF to infiltrate MILF territory, despite the clear knowledge that the MILF will retaliate if engaged.

But the SECOND level is much, much darker: Aquino refused to order the Armed Forces to send reinforcements to the PNP SAF commandos, despite the latter’s request.

SAF Director Getulio Napeñas said they requested for reinforcements in as early as 6:00 AM, January 25th. He said the SAF commandos were still alive by 12 noon of the same day, waiting for reinforcements. No reinforcements came, and they lost contact an hour later.

Aquino and Purisima were monitoring the operations that entire while. During those critical hours, the two had two options:
  • Send AFP reinforcements, or
  • Order SAF to pull back, to retreat
Aquino and Purisima chose neither. The two willfully allowed 44 SAF commandos to die.

Now, tell me how that cannot be homicide. But no! Carpio-Morales argues that Aquino's allowed to go.

The Other Mamasapano Cases

Now this becomes more interesting, as Carpio-Morales green-lighted the filing of usurpation and graft raps vs Aquino, to the delight of Aquino critics.

But as it turns out, this is a Trojan Horse.

A Trojan Horse is someone or something that is used to hide what is true or real in order to trick or harm an enemy [MW] -- and we are Conchita's enemies, because we want Aquino behind bars.

I will show that what appears to be a positive development from the Common Tao’s point of view is actually something that will turn out to be against the Common Tao’s interests.
At first glance, the filing of this case appears to be the end of Aquino’s impunity under Carpio-Morales. However, this case will actually render him immune from liability over the Mamasapano Debacle.

To illustrate my point, let us discuss the two cases separately, starting with “Usurpation of Authority”.
”[The] circumstances… clearly show that Purisima acted as if he was not under preventive suspension… and as if no OIC PNP chief was designated and acting as such… Purisima would not have been placed in such a position… (despite the) preventive suspension… were it not for the complicity and influence of President Aquino,” Carpio said [Inq].
The key concept that will clear Purisima and Aquino from this charge is “preventive suspension.”


Aquino and “Usurpation of Authority”

The [Revised Penal Code Art. 177] defines “Usurpation of Authority” as:
Usurpation of authority or official functions.— Any person who shall knowingly and falsely represent himself… shall perform any act pertaining to any [government official], without being lawfully entitled to do so, shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.
Recall that Purisima was simply on preventive suspension and according to the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service [CSC]:

Preventive Suspension, nature.–Preventive suspension is not a penalty. It is designed merely as a measure of precaution so that the official or employee charged may be removed from the scene of his/her alleged misfeasance/malfeasance/nonfeasance while the same is being investigated.
An order of preventive suspension may be issued to temporarily remove the respondent from the scene of his/her misfeasance, malfeasance or nonfeasance to preclude the possibility of exerting undue influence or pressure on the witnesses against him/her, or tampering with evidence that may be used against him/her.
In lieu of preventive suspension, for the same purpose, the proper disciplining authority or head of office, may reassign respondent to other unit of the agency during the formal hearings.
In Purisima’s case, the preventive suspension only prevented him from entering PNP premises, but HE STILL REMAINED AS PNP CHIEF. Yes, he was issuing order to Napenas, but he can issue the orders remotely because outside PNP premises, he was still the PNP Chief. Moreover, the Mamasapano had nothing to do with the Werfast case, the cause of his preventive suspension.

In short, Aquino can can argue that Purisima did not pretend to be PNP chief because for all intents and purposes of the Mamasapano clash, he indeed was PNP chief.

So whose authority did Purisima usurp in this case? No one’s.

Hence, if Purisima did not usurp authority, then Aquino could not have conspired with Purisima to usurp authority. After all, conspiracy to usurp authority can only be committed if authority has indeed been usurped.

Moreover, Aquino’s approval of Purisima’s actions during the Mamasapano Clash reinforces this argument. After all, they were exchanging text message throughout the entire operation [EagleNews].

Remember that all executive power emanates from the President, and that includes PNP’s powers. PNP Officer-in-Charge Leonardo Espina was indeed bypassed, but he was bypassed through the authority of the President, the same person where Espina’s authority emanates from.

Did Aquino help usurp Espina’s authority when in fact, Espina’s authority emanates from Aquino?

In short, the usurpation case against Aquino AND Purisima will likely be dismissed.

Aquino and Graft

Aquino was also ordered charged for graft or violation of Section 3(a) of Republic Act 3019 for violating the Ombudsman’s preventive suspension “with the complicity and influence of President Aquino,” the Ombudsman said [Inq].

RA 3019 Section 3(a) states [LawPhil]:
Persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to perform an act constituting a violation of rules and regulations duly promulgated by competent authority or an offense in connection with the official duties of the latter, or allowing himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit such violation or offense.
Recalling the explanation in the previous section, Aquino can argue that Purisima did not violate the Ombudsman’s preventive suspension order to begin with, based on two reasons:
  1. Purisima was not physically present in any PNP property during the ordeal.
  2. Purisima’s orders had nothing to do with the reason for which he was suspended, i.e. Mamasapano and Werfast are unrelated.
Moreover, Aquino can also argue that his permitting to order Purisima is, no matter how fleeting, a temporary removal of PNP OIC Espina, as Aquino, being the Chief Executive, has the authority to do so. By law, Aquino did not need even need to notify Espina about such “temporary removal”.

In short, the graft case against Aquino AND Purisima will likely be dismissed.

Conchita’s Zarzuela

By dismissing the homicide case, Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales basically left the government with two extremely weak and extremely problematic cases to pursue.

This provides Aquino, Purisima, and the Ombudsman, the chance to play a short zarzuela that can easily end in time for the Ombudsman’s July 2018 retirement… and we’re already on Act One.

ACT 1: Ombudsman recommends filing of the two weak cases, which has already happened.

ACT 2: Just for show, Aquino and Purisima can mount a weak appeal at the Office of the Ombudsman, and the latter will deny it.

ACT 3: Ombudsman actually files the case, and Aquino and Purisima are arraigned.

ACT 4: The court, which can act only upon the complaint provided, will see that the preventive suspension was not violated, thereby acquitting both Aquino and Purisima.

ACT 5: After the acquittal, both Aquino and Purisima cannot be sued anymore over the Mamasapano Clash because of the Rule on Double Jeopardy, i.e. or the prohibition on the persecution of a person twice for the same offense.

This case, instead a victory for the Mamasapano widows, will actually provide immunity to Aquino and Purisima... and that’s how this became Conchita's Trojan Horse.


Epilogue

The Ombudsman has already dismissed the first three cases of Technical Malversation, Treason and Homicide. The previous section, on the other hand, shows that the Usurpation raps will eventually be dismissed, along with the bonus of protecting Aquino from any case related to Mamasapano.

Thus, we are left with one last case: Aquino’s willfully neglecting to collect P100-billion for Shell.

I think Aquino will not need help from Conchita on that one.

After all, Shell has P100-billion to win that one, right? [ThinkingPinoy]

DONT FORGET TO SHARE! Did you like this post? Help ThinkingPinoy stay up! Even as little as 50 pesos will be a great help!

RELATED POSTS:



AirAsia and that excess baggage called Jamela Alindogan

$
0
0

My gahd! I heyt drahgs.

On July 20th, AirAsia Philippines announced that it would give free baggage allowance of up to 40 kg plus in-flight meals and snacks for Armed Forces personnel assigned to peacekeeping missions.

AirAsia Philippines’ promo was launched after its CEO, Captain Dexter Comendador, witnessed the Bayanihan spirit among Filipinos as passengers of a July 18th AirAsia flight bound to Davao volunteered to take in the excess baggage of soldiers, who were also on the same flight.

One of the passengers, a certain Inday Rakel, said:
“I am blessed to somehow help them with their luggage, and that was a little thank you for the bigger job they are doing. But, we are even blessed to have these men who are ready to die for our freedom, for our land [ABS].”
At a time of extreme political division, stories like these are what this country needs. Here we saw regular Filipinos showing respect and affection to our soldiers who are risking their lives for our freedom, and a company that decides to take that same respect and affection to another level.
Yes, this is one of those moments where we can say, “Ah! I am proud to be a Filipino.”

But wait! Al Jazeera’s Jamela Alindogan won't have any of that shit.


Jamela poops on the parade

On July 21st or just last night, Al Jazeera reporter Jamela Alindogan tweeted:

I don’t get these airlines (sic) giving 40kg to soldiers from Marawi. What are they expected to bring back apart from their own bag of belongings?

Yeah, for all her supposed knowledge about what’s going on in Marawi, she really still had to ask.

One Twitter user who goes by the name Sgt. John Emmanuel Sison, replied:
I am a soldier and an officer of the AFP. Do you have any idea how much our basic deployment packs weigh? Have you carefully read the terms of the perk? Try placing a pair of combat boots in the scale and tell us how much it weighs.
Other Twitter users were not as forgiving, as IAmJennie‏ (@B3A3S0M3) tweeted
You will never get it until you learn the definition of compassion... Pero syempre money talks... Magkano po?
Another user,  Ronald Beldad‏ (@superb_RB) tweeted: 
At least they have something to offer for the soldiers. Eh ikaw anu maooffer mo? Gaga!
I, myself, replied:
Hoy Jamela, papasulubungan ka nila ng utak kaya magpasalamat ka na lang. Choosy ka pa e. Yang pagkamanhid-na-asshole mo na yan ang nagdudulot ng bashing laban sa iyo, tapos mamaya, iiyak ka naman ng bullying. Leche.

Not her first time

I myself do not know how much a soldier’s typical baggage is supposed to weigh. However, what’s important in AirAsia’s gesture is not what the company gave, but its decision to give something, no matter how seemingly insignificant it is.

But Alindogan, despite her supposed journalistic experience, went on to display such an astounding level of callousness that borders on idiocy.

And this is not her first time doing it.

In August 2016, Alindogan published a Facebook status post that reads:
Fifteen soldiers killed. Lives lost. More from the enemy’s side, reportedly. The number is expected to rise in the coming months because President Duterte has called on the Philippine Military to wipe out the Abu Sayyaf. But is it enough? Déjà vu…
Lives lost… Because… Duterte… called on… the… Military… Yes, Alindogan blamed Duterte for the deaths in the operations versus the terrorist group Abu Sayyaf. Is Alindogan high on Rugby? Does she expect the government to do nothing?

Ano, yan, Jamela, may masulat lang?

Of course, she got her fair share of acerbic and extra spicy rebukes from netizens over that stunt.

I can only see two possibilities at this point:

  1. Alindogan is so stupid that she had to commit the same mistake twice, or,
  2. Alindogan is such a famewhore that she needs to court controversy by unnecessarily provoking the grieving public then pulling out the victim card in response.

Alindogan won't admit number 1, so so we are left with number two.

Hence, let's ask, why did Jamela bother posting such stupidity?

Alindogan wants another Swedish Award?

Does Alindogan want another Swedish Foreign Ministry award?

Given a few months after her insipid Abu Sayyaf post, the Swedish Foreign Ministry and UNESCO was recognized for “for defying hate speech and threats, pursuing mission of providing citizens with the information needed to make enlightened decisions about their lives, their communities and their governments.”

I do not understand how taunting the public with mind-boggling callousness qualifies as “providing citizens with information needed to make enlightened decisions”.

I KENNAT.

Moreover, I also do not understand how online criticism agains Alindogan qualifies as “hate speech”, defined as speech that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.

Unless people are insulting her for her gargantuan pie hole, I do not see how “Jamela, you’re a moron.” qualifies an attack against national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability.

But meh, she got the award anyway, so I guess the Abu Sayyaf stunt worked.

So, will it work this time?

Awards mean little

Alindogan tweeted at 8:41 PM Manila, and I expect a deluge of criticism headed toward Alindogan’s way tomorrow morning. So, will this tsunami of criticisms earn her another Swedish Award?

Pathetic. Alindogan can say that the Swedish think she's a great person, but can she say the same about the Filipino people?

Take a look at Krizette Chu, a private citizen who raised over a million pesos to care for the widows of soldiers killed in action in Marawi. She even found ways to provide 40 scholarship grants for the soldiers' orphaned children, and she even maintains a psychological support group of sorts for the widows.

And before you say that I do nothing, my readers and I have already donated P35,000 to the AFP Education Benefit System Office, the agency that helps send soldiers' orphans to school. I sent the amount a few days after the Marawi Clash commenced. 


There are many Filipinos who are trying their darned best to help in their own way. 

Some bought and wore #SupportOurTroops shirts to boost troop morale. Some have sent relief goods to evacuation centers. Some changed their social media profile pictures to show support.

And there's AirAsia, arguably the country's lowest-cost low-cost carrier, sacrificing part of its razor-thin profit margins just to support to our troops.

Here we are, trying to make sense out of the destruction and misery brought by war, and there is Jamela Alindogan, being stupid, as usual.

Jamela, the Excess Baggage

I find it ironic that this entire thing stemmed from the issue of excess baggage. "Excess baggage"
 also serves as an idiom for “any person or thing that is unnecessary or unwanted and thus is or becomes burdensome.”

Alindogan qualifies as excess baggage: her commentaries, both unnecessary and unwanted, have become burdensome because of her relative visibility, thanks to her affiliation with a major news outfit.

I am not against journalists publishing casual posts, but I am against journalists publishing casual posts with little regard for those who are sacrificing their lives for the sake of this nation.

Jamela, you’re stupid and a pathetic award from Sweden does not make you any smarter.

I would like to believe that you have a mental disorder, but I do not want to offend those who genuinely suffer such conditions.

Regardless, Jamela, get tested, please.

P.S. O baka mamaya sasabihin mong binubully kang leche ka. STOP BEING AN ASSHOLE para di ka nakakarma.

DONT FORGET TO SHARE! Did you like this post? Help ThinkingPinoy stay up! Even as little as 50 pesos will be a great help!

RELATED POSTS:


Duterte’s SONA marks start of Rappler’s end?

$
0
0

Will Rappler close down soon?

In his 2017 State of the Nation Address (SONA), President Rodrigo Duterte took a swipe at online-only news site Rappler when he said:
“You know, if you’re a newspaper, you are supposed to be 100 percent Filipino. And yet when you start to pierce their identity, [you discover that] it is fully owned by Americans. That’s what happened. It’s just a matter of piercing the… ABS, Rappler, that’s you? Have you tried to pierce your identity and it will lead you to America? Do you know that? And yet the constitution requires you to be 100 percent --- media --- Filipino. Rappler, try to pierce the identity and you will end up American ownership.”
I think this wasn’t part of the SONA script so President Duterte said this in his trademark Binisayang Tagalog, which can be cryptic to many in Luzon, so let me restate what he said.

Essentially, Duterte said the following:
  1. Media companies are supposed to be 100% Filipino owned.
  2. Some media companies find clandestine ways to get around this restriction.
  3. Rappler, when examined, is owned by Americans.
I think it’s best to start from Square One.

But before we go further, let me provide the list of SEC filings which are the primary bases of this article:
AFS means Audited Financial Statements while GIS refer to General Information Sheets.

I would also like to acknowledge Ambassador Rigoberto "Bobi" Tiglao. His Manila Times articles have helped a lot in teaching more about what I'm about to write.

Moreover, I apologize for the typographical errors in this article. I do not have the time to check for grammar and punctuation because I have a radio guesting and a wedding to attend to today. Seriously.

Let’s go.


Rappler’s Ownership: Early Days

Rappler (Rappler Inc.)started in 2011 with the following owners:
  1. “Journalist” Maria Ressa (57%), 
  2. Mining mogul Benjamin Bitanga et al (through Dolphin Fire, 20%)
  3. DMT Ice Angels Holdings (17%)
  4. Others (6%)
Rappler’s ownership structure remained pretty much the same for the next two years, save for a short blip in October 2012, when a certain “Cappadocia Inc.” appeared to own 29% (taken from Maria Ressa’s stake), only for it disappear in its list of stockholders a year later.

Buyer’s remorse? I don't know. Your guess is as good as mine.

In July 2014, Bitanga raised his stake at the company from 20 to 31%, and another investor, a certain Benjamin So, gained a 3% stake in the media outfit.
Then came a reorganization in 2015, when Rappler drastically diluted its shares to allow its newly-formed parent company Rappler Holdings to gain a 99% stake in the media company, basically adding a corporate layer, with Rappler’s ownership structure basically mimicking that of Rappler Holdings via the Grandfather Rule.

The Grandfather Rule determines the actual Filipino ownership and control in a corporation by tracing both the direct and indirect shareholdings in the corporation [PWC].

That is, whoever owns Rappler Holdings owns Rappler Inc.

Rappler’s Ownership: Post-restructuring

Since 2015, Rappler Inc’s owners are:
  • Maria Ressa (24%)
  • Bitanga et Al (via Dophin Fire, 31%) 
  • Manny Ayala (via Hatchd Group, 18%)
  • Benjamin So (18%)
  • Public Trust and Media Group (5%)
  • Others (~5%)
DMT Ice Angels, who owned a state before 2015, initially piqued interest because its owners are unknown, with Maria Ressa once saying that it belongs to private couple who wish to remain anonymous. Some camps speculated that it’s ABS-CBN, but judging from Manny Ayala’s presence in Rappler’s board since 2011, and Hatchd’s entry after DMT Ice Angels’ exit, then DMT should have been Manny Ayala’s.

But we’re digressing.
A regular person would surely ask why Rappler would bother complicating its life by creating a holding firm – a corporate layer – when Rappler Holding’s only significant (and known) subsidiary is Rappler itself, based on Rappler Holdings' consolidated Annual Financial Statements (link to 2015 CAFS at beginning of article).

Well, a look at Rappler Inc’s annual Audited Financial Statements provide a clue.

Let's start with their yearly Statements of Comprehensive income.


If you can't see the table clearly, here's a clearer copy.

Rappler incurred P9 million in losses in 2011 and P23 million in 2012. I would say that that’s acceptable because Rappler was just starting at the time. In reality, I would even understand if Rappler repeated its 2012 financial performance in 2013.

But what happened was much, much worse: Rappler posted P71 million in losses in 2013.

Yes, it appears that Rappler is financially hemorrhaging: not just bleeding, but haemophiliac-level hemorrhaging.

A Change of Scale?

I think it’d be unfair to judge Rappler’s financial performance solely on that. After all, Rappler appears to have scaled up its operations in 2013 when it posted twice as much income as 2012 (P58 M vs P23 M) against around twice as much expenses (P127 M vs P57 M).

You see, Rappler could have benefited from economies of scale. That is, Rappler could have reduced costs by increasing production levels.

In fairness to Rappler, its Operating Expense to Revenue (OER) Ratio (lower is better) improved from around 2.4 in 2012 to around 2.2 in 2013. That is, Rappler spent 2.4 pesos for every peso it earned in 2012, and the situation improved to 2.2 pesos for every peso in 2013.Yes, Rappler is still losing a lot of money, but it can be said that the rate of loss has, whether significantly or insignificantly, gone down.

Of course, like any other company, Rappler will lose money (OER > 1) before it becomes profitable (OER < 1). And by 2013, or barely two years into existence, Rappler appears to be on its way to becoming profitable.

However, the question stands: will it reach profitability before it goes bankrupt?

I think the answer is in 2014.

Rappler registered P116 M in revenues against P148 M expenses in 2014, suggesting an OER of 1.27, a drastic improvement from its OER of 2.2 the previous year. Yes, it appears that Rappler just needs a little more time and it’s going to be profitable at last.

The drastic increase in profitability can be explained by either of the following possibilities:
  1. Rappler indeed got more income-generating deals, or
  2. Somebody injected money into Rappler and made it appear as income.
Regardless… Konti na lang, keri na si Rappler! 

Almost Broke: Rappler in 2014

But then again, does Rappler have time?

Rappler had P8 million in liquid assets by the end of 2014, and this was made possible by a P24 million cash loan from someone among Rappler’s ranks.

According to its 2014 Financials:
“The amounts owed to related parties amounting to P24,000,000 as at December 31,2014 were used for working capital purposes. These amounts are non-interest bearing and considered payable on demand.”
In short, it appears that one of Rappler’s owners extended a critical financial lifeline to Rappler, without which Rappler would’ve already been dead by mid-2014.

However, with only P8-million in cash in December 2014 and P24 million in debt that can be collected anytime, Rappler needs to get additional capital before it goes bust.

I remember a friend, who happens to be a top executive in one of the four top accounting firms in the country, telling me:
“Did Rappler create Rappler holdings to mitigate the effects of an impending bankruptcy?”
He said that Rappler can protect some of its earnings by transferring them to Rappler Holdings, which will shield those transferred earnings from bankruptcy proceedings.

But then again, Rappler is just three years old at this time. It’s still a startup, so owners can argue that it just needs a bit more capital and it’ll be fine real soon.

Enter, Foreigners!

I do not really know why Rappler had to resort to foreign money, but it did. But foreign ownership of media companies is illegal, so how did Rappler manage to do it?

Rappler circumvented foreign ownership restrictions by issuing at least US$ 4 million in Philippine Depository Receipts (PDRs) [SycipLaw], all or part of which were sold to American firm Omidyar Network and Malaysia-based NorthBase Media.

Proponents of PDR financial instruments argue that PDRs technically remove the concept of ownership in a person’s investments while allowing that person to benefit from the shares. That is, the PDR owner is technically not an owner of the shares (avoiding the issue of ownership restrictions), but just like an owner of the shares, benefits from dividends issued by the company.

Here‘s how PDRs basically work:

First, Joe (a foreigner) wants to invest in Juan (a Filipino Mass Media company), but is unable to do so directly due to foreign ownership restrictions.

Second, Joe gives money to Pedro (another Filipino company), then Pedro uses it to invest in Juan. Juan then becomes a shareholder (”owner”) in Pedro.

Third, given this, Joe appears to own part of Pedro through the legal concept called “Grandfather Rule”. Through the Grandfather Rule, if Joe owns half of Pedro and Pedro owns half of Juan, then Joe owns half of half (one-fourth) of Juan, but Joe owning any part of Juan is illegal right?

Fourth, the “Grandfather Rule” makes it near-impossible for foreigners to own any stake in local mass media companies. But PDRs are allow Joe to evade that restriction.

Here’s another way to look at it:
Pedro buys 50 shares from Juan, then Pedro repackages by creating 5 special documents with each stating something like “This document represents 10 shares in Juan.” Joe then buys those 5 documents, effectively granting Joe ownership over Pedro’s 50 shares in Juan. That is, Pedro appears to be the owner 50 Juan stocks despite the fact that Joe is really the one who owns it.
In short, Pedro serves as Joe’s dummy investor for the latter’s investment in Juan. 

That is, Rappler Holdings is the foreigners’ dummy investor for their investment in Rappler Inc.

And this is how Rappler was able to allow foreign capital to enter its bank accounts.

And here’s where it gets more interesting.

What made Omidyar nod in 2015?

American investment fund Omidyar Network announced in November 2015 that it would invest in Rappler [TiA], presumably after talks that happened between Omidyar and Rappler earlier in that year.

I think that Rappler had the stuff to impress Omidyar at that time.
  • Rappler’s core team members have impressive resumes.
  • Rappler’s bread-and-butter, its website, showed signs of continuous massive growth in web traffic.
  • Rappler has shown marked improvement in profitability, as shown by its drastically improved expense-to-income ratio (OER).
Yes, Rappler showed major promise when it knocked on Omidyar’s doors, and I can only assume that it showed the same data to Northbase Media.

Rappler demonstrated amazing web traffic growth from birth to year 2015.

Post-2015: A Broken Promise?

Omidyar et. Al. injected massive cash into Rappler in 2015, presumably with the expectation that Rappler, despite still being unprofitable, is well on its way to profitability. After all, by the looks of it, all Rappler needs is additional capital and it’s gonna be okay soon.

But after the deal, Rappler showed signs of plateauing growth, or something even worse.

Rappler indeed registered an increase in profitability with an OER of about 1.27 during the 2015 talks with Omidyar as oppose to over 2 in the previous year. By the end of 2015, however, Rappler registered around P178-million in expenses against P142-million in revenues, suggesting an OER of around 1.25.

A mere 0.02 improvement from the previous year is negligible, and it painfully pales in comparison to the OER improvement in the previous period. Worse, 1.25 is still along way to go, as Rappler needs to reach an OER of less than 1 before it gets out of the red.

Of course, a 0.02 per year decrease won’t cut it. With a 2015 OER of 1.25, it'd take Rappler 13 years of growth before it makes money, and I guess nobody has the patience to wait that long.

ReachSocial: “Not just news”

Rappler argues that it earns from more than just its website, with its “ReachSocial” providing two major services: big data analytics and social media consultancies. However, ReachSocial’s big data analytics suggest that Rappler has a sufficiently big data source, i.e. Rappler’s website traffic.

Unfortunately, Rappler’s site traffic stopped growing and started sliding in mid-2015. It recovered and beat the mid-2015 peak during the 2016 election season, but the site’s traffic continued its decline to pre-2015 levels soon after.

rank2traffic.com/rappler.com
Rappler’s Big Data Analytics services will earn only if it has a unique and proprietary big data pool to play with, and a site with shrinking traffic won’t provide that. After all, if Rappler provided nothing but generic big data services, then a client is better off consulting a company with a longer and more proven history of competence on the matter.

While it can be argued that Rappler still remains to be the third most visited mass media website in the country, the rising dominance of social media-based news, along with the proliferation of independent news site in the local market, suggests that mainstream news sites now have a smaller pie to share amongst themselves. Add Rappler’s dwindling traffic and things will look even worse.

Rappler and Social Media

Rappler’s social media performance in the Philippines, in terms of user engagement, is in the doldrums as it consistently trails behind independent one-man shows like Mocha Uson Blog, Sass Rogando Sasot, and Thinking Pinoy, each of which registers at least thrice as much engagement as Rappler. To make matters worse, Rappler also trails behind mainstream competitors ABS-CBN, GMA News, the Inquirer, DZRH, and News5.
Facebook Insights Data as of 0650 hrs GMT+8
With that said, I do not see how one would consult with someone who lags behind in social media. If Rappler knows social media, it would have demonstrated much better Facebook Insights figures.

Moreover, owing to Facebook’s privacy policy, I have reason to believe that Rappler’s more reliable social media analytics services are based heavily on Twitter. Unfortunately, Facebook, and not Twitter, is the single most dominant network in the Philippines. Thus, it’s fair to question whether Rappler’s social analytics data are representative of the entire Filipino Population.

Rappler’s losing fight on social media is best evidenced by how its CEO Maria Ressa incessantlycomplains about the unfairness of Facebook Algorithms, as she blames her competitors, sans definitive evidence, for gaming Facebook’s news feed algorithms to gain an edge over hers.

Omidyar’s Influence on Rappler

Rappler has P96-million cash at the end of 2015, and it posts an average comprehensive losses of P30-million pesos in the years 2014 and 2015. Rappler, after showing no significant improvement in OER in the past year, may go bankrupt in as early as 2018.

And here’s where the foreign ownership issue comes into play.

Ressa’s rants about how social media works started right after she met with Omidyar executives in Spain in October 2016, suggesting that something must have transpired during that meeting, something that made Ressa, reportedly an affirmation addict, anxious enough to go on a multi-article rant about how the world does not work in her favor.

October 2016 is a year after Omidyar first announced that it would invest in Rappler.

I can only speculate about what it exactly is, but what’s clear to me is that Omidyar classifies Rappler as a for-profit investment, i.e. Omidyar expects Rappler to make money. The preceding sections, however, strongly suggest that Rappler won’t do that anytime soon.

I think here’s where the prohibition of foreign ownership on Mass Media

Yes, it appears that Omidyar may be pressuring Rappler to “improve” in a manner that Omidyar sees fit. Now, Ressa may still argue that Omidyar doesn’t “own” Rappler, but I refuse to believe that the framers of the 1987 Constitution wanted foreigners to influence local mass media in any way.

Framers wanted 100% Filipino ownership of mass media firms exactly because they want to minimize direct foreign influence local on mass media operations and, by extension, on Filipino public opinion.

Rappler can argue all day about it being 100% Filipino-owned, but who are we kidding here?

Rappler’s Uncertain Future

Truth be told, I doubt that any foreign investor who is aware of Rappler’s post-2014 financials would risk betting on Rappler today.

But let’s go back to Omidyar.

It’s bad enough that Omidyar has reportedly conspired with the US government to topple a Ukrainian government, but Omidyar’s continued financial presence in Rappler can do more than just drive Ressa mad.

Remember, Rappler is not showing signs of reaching profitability anytime soon, so it shall continue to rely on capital infusions to stay alive.

Rappler is already on its sixth year, and it's gonna be harder and harder for Ressa to call Rappler a "startup", which would have justified the massive losses Rappler continously incurs.

If Omidyar finally throws in the towel and divests in Rappler (or writes off their failed investment as losses), Rappler’s PDRs will be as valuable as junk. That is, Rappler can finally say goodbye to any hope of raising any new capital from foreigners.

Thus, Rappler would be forced to swallow its pride and raise capital from local sources but…

Rappler has shown a clear bias versus the Duterte Administration, and the Duterte Government has shown a clear dislike of Rappler, as accentuated by Duterte’s 2017 SONA. In light of local businessmen’s aversion to going against the sitting government, I am confident that businessmen can find investments that pose less political and financial risks.

Now, Rappler can try to weather the financial storm, but the Duterte Government still has five more years to go. 

I believe Maria will do everything -- and I mean everything -- to keep Rappler alive. After all, it's her baby. I think she's already doing a few things right now. As to what those "few things" are, I'd rather not say.

But let's ask this one final question...

Will Rappler survive past 2022? I have my well-founded doubts. [ThinkingPinoy]

DONT FORGET TO SHARE! 

Did you like this post? Help ThinkingPinoy stay up! Even as little as 50 pesos will be a great help!

RELATED POSTS:

Customs vs Lower House: Ang Chika sa Bebot vs Mandy Saga

$
0
0
Parang kailangan atang may sibakin. Hulaan mo kung sino.

Ang gulo-gulo na ng hidwaan ng Lower House at Bureau of Customs. Based sa mga balita, nag-umpisa ito bilang congressional investigation tungkol sa P6.4 billion na shabu na nakalusot sa pantalan. Tapos, imbes na shabu ang issue, biglang natutok ang galit ng kongreso kay Atty. Mandy Anderson, ang chief of staff ni Faeldon.

Bonggang-bonggang word war ang naganap, at wala akong pinanigan dahil sa totoo lang, hindi ako ganoon ka-interesado sa mga catfights. Pero imbes na magsawa si Speaker Alvarez at Anderson, ni-level up ni Anderson ang away nang paratangan nitong nag-i-influence peddling si Bebot.

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Dalawang linggo nang araw-araw na may hearing sa kongreso, at nabalitaan ko na nagbabalak nang mag-resign ang ilang deputy commissioner ng Customs dahil wala na silang magawa kundi dumalo at mapahiya sa mga hearing. Marami pa akong ibang narinig, pero ‘di ko na babanggitin dahil ayoko nang dumagdag pa sa gulo.

Pero kailangang may gawin ako, dahil sa totoo lang, kahit hindi perpekto si Faeldon at kahit hindi perpekto si Bebot, aaminin kong walang mainam na kapalit sa kanilang mga puwesto ang bawat isa. And at the rate things are going, mukhang mutually assured destruction ang aabutin ng dalawang ‘to.

E ang problema kasi diyan, sakit yan ng ulo para kay Duterte at para sa bayan, at ayoko ng sakit ng ulo.

Dahil diyan, kinausap ko ang mga kakilala ko sa Customs, sa House of Representatives, sa Senado, sa Malacanang, at pati sa pribadong sektor, para mapagbulay-bulay ko ang issue na ito, na may layuning mahanap ang puno’t dulo ng problema.

Tara.

Ang Rekomendasyon ni Speaker Alvarez

Ayon sa mga sources ko sa customs, nag-umpisa ‘yan sa recommendation letter na ipinadala ni Speaker Alvarez sa opisina ni Customs chief Faeldon. Mayroon kasing gustong ipasok si Alvarez, si Sandy Sacluti. Ang problema, ni-reject ni Faeldon Chief of Staff Atty. Mandy Anderson ang application ni Sacluti. Tahasang sinabi ni attorney na hindi raw qualified si Anderson.

Ayon sa mga sources ko sa House of Representatives, ipinatawag ni Speaker Alvarez si Anderson para makausap sa isang closed-door meeting. Imbes raw na magpaliwanag ng maayos kung bakit niya ni-reject ang application, maangas na sumagot ang Anderson, na tipong may ere na “How dare you question my judgment?!” In short, palaban daw si Ateng imbes na kalmado sa pagpapaliwanag.

At dahil rito, uminit ang dugo ng mga taga-House kay Anderson. Ibang level ang arrive ni atcheng e: mayabang at bastos raw. So sa mismong closed-door meeting, binungangaan daw ni Bebot si Anderson.
Basically, nagtanim ng sama ng loob si Alvarez dahil sa kaangasan ni Anderson. Di ko naman masisisi ang lolo mo dahil may kaangasan nga rin talaga si atorni.

In fairness naman kay Anderson, tinakot daw siya ni Alvarez, through an assistant, kung hindi niya ipopromote si Sacluti.

Pero wait lang, bakit si Anderson ang kausap ni Bebot, e Chief of Staff lang siya?

Mandy “Mini-Faeldon” Anderson

Ayon sa mga Customs sources, makapangyarihan at impluwensiyal daw si Anderson sa BoC, kapangyahiran at impluwensiyang tila lagpas sa dapat na ine-exercise ng isang Chief of Staff lang. Let us cite a few examples:

UNA, ANG MCLE

Ang mga abogado ay sumasailalim sa Mandatory Continuing Legal Education regularly, at pinasya raw ni Anderson na ganapin ang MCLE ng mga customs lawyers sa customs mismo. Hindi naman ito illegal, pero hindi rin ito karaniwan. Ang masaklap nga lang, may mga customs lawyers na hindi isinali sa MCLE sa customs dahil hindi raw kasundo ni Anderson.

PANGALAWA, OVERSIGHT SA LEGAL 

Si Anderson din daw ang naatasang taga-evaluate ng mga output ng Customs legal department, imbes sa kung sino man ang chief legal counsel ng BoC. Again, siya ang gumagawa kahit Chief of Staff lang, at kahit wala pang dalawang taon nang makapasa sa bar exams.

May gatas pa sa labi si ate, pero binigyan siya ng ganitong kabigat na trabaho. Siya rin kaya ang dahilan kung bakit may bagong pahirap na panuntunan tungkol sa mga balikbayan boxes?

Sa totoo lang, mga 'teh, si Mandy ang unqualified para sa oversight sa legal stuff ng customs. INEXPERIENCED pa siya masyado.

PANGATLO, HIRING AND PROMOTION

Si Anderson din daw ang may hawak ng decisions relating to hiring and promotion, at kasama sa mga na-boljak ni Anderson ay si Pedro, yung aplikanteng nirekomenda ni Bebot.

In short, tila daig pa ni Anderson ang mga Deputy Commissioner ng customs pagdating sa decision-making. Ang problema, mas mataas dapat ang mga deputy commissioner kaysa kay Anderson.
Yup, parang may mali na nga. Ayon sa mga Customs sources ko, dine-derive daw ni Anderson ang kanyang epic na lakas ng loob dahil kumpiyansa siyang kakampihan niya si Faeldon.

But wait, there’s more!

Rumesbak si Anderson sa panggigisa ni Bebot nang sabihin nito sa Facebook na “I’m hoping and praying he tries so he realizes what an imbecile he is when he fails. Isn’t there anyone else in the House composed of 200+ representatives who can actually be Speaker? Nakakahiya na!,” bilang reaksyon sa isang earlier statement ni Bebot tungkol sa pagbuwag ng isang dibisyon ng Court of Appeals.

Yeah, war kung war na ito pero in fairness, tahimik naman si Alvarez after that.

P6.4 billion shabu shipment

Several weeks later, may lumusot na P6.4 billion na shabu sa Port of Manila, at ito ang paksa ng ongoing na congressional investigation. Noong unang araw ng hearing, naupo ang mga opisyal ng customs sa resource panel sa Lower House para mag-testify, at laking gulat ng mga kongresista nang maupo si Anderson kasama ang mga Customs officials, kahit staffer lang si Anderson.

E eto nga ang problema: di ba nga’t mainit ang dugo ng mga kongresista kay Anderson?

So imbes na hearing sa shabu, naging hearing tungkol sa Facebook Post ni Anderson. Nakakaloka. Ginisa ni House Majority Leader Farinas si Anderson dahil sa post na yon, hanggang paratangan na ng ilang mga kongresista ang Customs na nagco-coverup ng incompetence, i.e. ipinapain si Anderson para mawaglit ang atensyon sa nakalusot na shabu.

Dumepensa si Anderson nang sagutin niya si Fariñas ng “These are libelous and preposterous imputations and allegations which are not backed by a single iota of evidence.”

Si ate, medyo shunga. Walang libel sa congressional hearings. Anyway....

Hindi na nag-komento si Alvarez tungkol rito.

Lumala pa nang lumala

So far, eto ang mga malinaw na nangyari:
  1. Nag-endorso ng tao si Bebot sa Customs, at ni-reject ito ni Anderson with matching fireworks.
  2. Kinausap ni Bebot si Anderson with matching sermon dahil bastos ang pagkapaliwanag raw, at sumagot rin naman daw si Anderson nang pabalang.
  3. Binanatan ni Anderson si Bebot, calling the latter an imbecile sa Facebook.
  4. Nag-umpisa ang investigation sa shabu shipment, at natuon ang atensiyon kay Anderson dahil nagpabida ito sa hearing.
  5. Ginatungan ni Fariñas ang samaan ng loob ni Bebot at Mandy, at tahasang ginisa si Mandy sa hearing.
  6. Pinaratangan ni Mandy si Fariñas ng libel dahil raw walang ebidensiya ang paratang ni Fariñas kay atcheng.
Akala mo tapos na? HINDI PA!

Bumuwelta uli si Anderson nang mag-post ito sa Facebook ng free speech daw. Actually, gumawa pa siya ng sarili niyang page entitled “Atty. Mandy Anderson, CPA”. TARAY!

Well, kung fighting spirit lang rin ang labanan, llamado si Mandy.

Manipis lang ba si Bebot?

Inclined ako na maniwalang baka pinagpipilitan ni Bebot na ipasok talaga yung manok niya sa Customs. Kaya lang, may similar na sitwasyon kasing nangyari dati na nagsasuggest na hindi naman ganoon ka-petty si Bebot.

Enter Tomas Alcid.

According sa mga sources ko sa Malacanang, si Bebot ang nag-endorso kay Alcid at nilagay siya sa Port of Cagayan de Oro, isa sa mga pinaka-busy na pantalan sa bansa. Ang problema, hindi raw kinaya ni Alcid ang bigat ng trabaho, kaya’t inilipat siya ni Faeldon sa Port Irene sa Cagayan.

Bakit Port Irene? Kasi “dead port” ang Port Irene ngayon, halos walang ganap doon e.

Hindi nagreklamo si Bebot sa pagkakalipat ni Alcid doon so in fairness kay Bebot, hindi naman siya ganoon kapilit. Meanwhile, etong si Tita Mandy, tila may pangarap pang maging Social Media Superstar: gumawa nga ng Facebook Page e. At ito namang si Farinas, walang ginawa kundi mag-"Boy Gatong." Di na nga dumadakdak si Bebot, pero siya naman ang dakdak ng dakdak.

Sa totoo lang, wala akong paki kung magbangayan sila forever. Ang problema lang kasi, baka ito ang maging dahilan ng pag-atras ng kung anumang reporma na ang naisagawa ni Faeldon.

If there’s one thing na sigurado ko, iyon yung hindi kurakot si Faeldon, at alam nating mahirap humanap ng Customs Commissioner na hindi kurakot. Meanwhile, mukhang sumusunod naman sa yapak niya yung karamihan ng mga deputy commissioner.

Kaya lang, nadidiskaril ang performance ng customs dahil dalawang linggo nang walang tigil ang hearing. As in hindi na makatrabaho ang mga opisyal ng customs kasi buong araw silang nakatengga sa kongreso. Kung magtatagal pa raw ito (at mukhang magtatagal nga), may posibilidad raw na isa-isa na silang magbitiw dahil sa pagkabwisit.

Oo ganoon kagulo, ganoon kalala.

Ang Malinaw sa Malabo

Batay sa mga nakalap kong impormasyon, malinaw ang mga sumusunod:

UNA, walang political savvy si Anderson. 

Isa lang siyang loose cannon na hindi marunong magpigil kung kailangan. Aba, matabil rin ang dila ko sa ThinkingPinoy pero ang dami ko nang article ang hindi isinulat dahil alam kong magtimpi kung kailangan.

Hindi niyo ba napapansin na madalang na akong magsulat kumpara noong isang taon? Iyon ay dahil binibigyan ko ng pagkakataon ang mga taong magtino bago ko tirahin. Ang diprensiya naman kay Mandy, tira lang nang tira.

Saka mga teh, nasaan naman ang delikadesa ni Mandy nang sa kasagsagan ng word war niya with Congress e gumawa pa talaga siya ng Facebook Page? Kumusta naman ang fighting spirit ni ate?

PANGALAWA, mataas ang tiwala ni Faeldon kay Anderson.

Hindi ko ‘to maintindihan. Sophomore lawyer pa lang si ate. Oo’t Top 5 siya sa bar, pero yung diskarte at loopholes sa batas, hindi iyon nae-exam: nakukuha lang ‘yon sa experience. Despite this, tila willing si Faeldon na isugal lahat para kay Anderson. Parang may mali.

PANGATLO, malakas ang impluwensiya ni Fariñas kay Alvarez.

Bumabanat si Farinas pero tila walang imik si Bebot. Cong. Farinas, hinay-hinay lang. Hindi ka na cute, pramis. Dinetain mo na nga yung Ilocos 6 kahit labag sa batas, tapos iiskor ka pa uli? Ser, hindi lang ikaw ang anak ng Diyos.

Sa yugtong ito, malinaw na ang brouhaha sa kongreso ay nagmumula sa dalawang bagay:
  1. Angas ni Anderson.
  2. Gatong ni Farinas.

In short, may tatlo tayong posibleng course of action:
  1. Ituloy lang ang kasalukuyan
  2. Sibakin si Farinas
  3. Sibakin si Anderson

Tara’t tingnan natin ang bawat isa.

Alin ang best course of action?

UNA, continuing the status quo is bad idea. Ieerode lang nito lalo ang kredibilidad ng lower house dahil nagmumukha lang silang mga batang nag-aagawan ng kendi. Wala itong magandang idudulot, at maaaring dahil rito ay bumalik ang Customs nang tuluyan sa dati nitong gawi.

Diyos ko! Marami na tayong matitinong customs deputy commissioners! Ayaw ko silang mag-resign dahil namuryot lang sa hearing! NAKAKA-STRESS!

PANGALAWA, hindi masisibak si Fariñas. Kahit paanong tumbling pa ang gawin natin diyan, elected official si Fariñas at kahit hindi ako nakukyutan sa kanya dahil sa ginawa niya sa Ilocos 6, hindi ko maikakailang nasa kanya ang suporta ng mayorya.

Kumbaga, fait accompli na si Fariñas, wala nang magagawa doon.

At dahil rito, we are left with nothing but the third option: Sibakin si Anderson.

Ang problema? Ayaw ni Faeldon na sibakin si Anderson.

Ang lalong problema? Masisibak rin naman si Anderson kahit hindi siya sibakin ni Faeldon.

Alam niyo kasi, ang mga head executive assistants (staffers) tulad ni Anderson ay hindi allowed na mag-exercise ng kapangyarihang nangangailangan ng discretion. Yung mga nilista kong powers ni Anderson sa isang previous na section? Sa Deputy Commissioner dapat inatas yan.

Dahil diyan, panigurado kong madaling maipanalo ang kasong Usurpation of Authority laban kay Anderson, na siyang ikasisibak ni ate.

Usurpation of Authority?

Oo, tulad noong ginawa ni Undersecretary Joel Egco nang akuin nito ang dapat ay para kay Sec. Andanar lang, at tulad rin noong ipinaratang ni Ombudsman Morales kay former police chief Purisima.

In short, whether Faeldon fires her or not, she will probably get terminated anyway.

Thus, Commissioner Faeldon, I think you may want to just fire her immediately, instead of allowing her presence to exacerbate the already precarious situation. Mahaba ang pagdinig sa kaso na yan, at pihadong tuloy-tuloy ang bangayan hanggang nililitis yan. 

Sir Nic, gusto mo ba yon? Ikabubuti ba ng administrasyon yon? Hindi ser.

Besides, she’s already very pregnant so she’ll take a leave of absence na rin. Siguro, kung ayaw mo i-fire, kahit sabihan mo na lang sigurong mag-leave of absence na lang agad, pero di ko sure kung enough na ito para tigilan ka ng kamara.

Regardless, the more she talks, the more problems Duterte will have. Hindi ko sinasabing si Anderson lang ang dapat sisihin sa nangyari, pero malinaw na sinasabi kong kung tsutsugiin lang, si Anderson ang dispensable at wala nang iba.

Boss Nic, sometimes, you have to make decisions for the sake of the greater good, And this time, it's the decision to fire that sophomore lawyer who bites more than she can chew.

So, ser, ano na?

DONT FORGET TO SHARE! Did you like this post? Help ThinkingPinoy stay up! Even as little as 50 pesos will be a great help!

RELATED POSTS:



Comelec and DOTC Corruption: Wife's exposé breeds another exposé?

$
0
0
Ah, Tisha! Thank you!
Patricia “Tisha” Bautista, wife of COMELEC chair Andres “Andy” Bautista, executed a sworn affidavit accusing the husband of so many things, I don’t even know where to start. To make the explanation simpler, let me list down the basic allegations one by one [CNN].
  1. That Andy amassed hundreds of millions of pesos’ worth of bank deposits in 38 accounts, most of which are undeclared in his SALN.
  2. That Andy has real estate, some of which are undeclared in his SALN.
  3. That Andy engaged in influence peddling within the Comelec in exchange for commissions from Andy’s supposed beneficiary, the Divina Law Firm.
To back her accusations, Tisha provided Andy’ passbooks and other financial documents.

"The substantial deposits and withdrawals in each of the accounts were made within the last two years, and coincidentally, while Andy was already the COMELEC Chairman and when the 2016 National and Local Elections were conducted,” Patricia said in the affidavit.

Yeah, by the looks of it, Andy is dead meat.

But before I expound on the allegations, I think that, as a side story, I should discuss the issue of admissibility of evidence, and thanks to MyLegalWhiz for the legal resources.

Spousal Privilege

You see, spouses cannot just testify against each other, because according to Section 24(a), Rule 130, of the Rules of Court covering Spousal Privilege:
The husband or the wife, during or after the marriage, cannot be examined without the consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage…
That is, should Andy be tried for, say, graft, he can petition the courts to declare Tisha’s evidence and testimony inadmissible, as Tisha is still married to Andy and spousal privilege applies.

Now, the prosecution can argue that Tisha’s evidence is an exception per Alvarez vs Ramirez [SC G.R. No. 143439]:
“Where the marital and domestic relations are so strained that there is no more harmony to be preserved nor peace and tranquility which may be disturbed, the reason based upon such harmony and tranquility fails.”
However, the defense can argue that the existence of such a level of strain is still under debate. Tisha has been wanting to be legally separated from Any in as early as 2013, but the fact remains that both still live under one roof.

Yes, there’s a pretty good chance that the documents Tisha provided are inadmissible in court, should a graft charge be filed against Andy.

But…

But, and a big BUT

There’s a loophole. The same Rule on Spousal Privilege also provides an exception. Quoting the last half of the same rule:
“[Spousal Privilege holds] except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's direct descendants or ascendants.”
Tisha can testify against Andy and submit the financial documents if the case is Tisha vs Andy, and that’s where the last part of Tisha’s affidavit comes in.
On page nine of her affidavit, Tisha accused Andy of abandoning his financial responsibilities to family, which prompted Tisha to “file a case of Violence Against Women and Children (VAWC)… in Taguig City… against Andy for the emotional and economic sabotage… that he is performing against [Tisha] and [her] family”.

That is, Tisha can present the evidence shown in yesterday’s press conference as proof of Andy’s financial capability, and she can also testify against Andy if the need arises. After all, the VAWC case is Tisha vs Andy, which qualifies as an exception to the Rule on Spousal Privilege.

Now, you may ask: how can this VAWC case be relevant to crimes Andy supposedly committed in the Comelec?

Well, testimonies and evidence provided in court proceedings become public record after cross-examination. That is, government prosecutors for a prospective graft case vs Andy may use whatever Tisha will say and show during the VAWC hearings.In short, the passbooks, financial records, and testimonies, if introduced in this manner, will be perfectly admissible as evidence in court.

Yeah, Andy is toast if the documents turn out to be authentic.

But wait! We’re not done yet.

Now that we got the admissibility issue out of the way, there’s something else, something more important, that I have to let you know.

Andy, LDB and AMLC Red Flags

Andy’s controversial bank accounts are mostly with a certain “Luzon Development Bank (LDB)”, with the 35 LDB passbooks’s deposits totaling P329 million, or about twice as much as the Andy’s net worth in his latest SALN [GMA].

Judging from the evidence Tisha provided, it’s interesting to note the following:

First, so many bank accounts for just one person?

The US Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council’s lists this as a money laundering red flag [FFIEC], i.e. when “a customer maintains multiple accounts at a bank… for no apparent legitimate reason.”

Second, a deliberate attempt to evade AMLC’s radar?

Tisha also noted in the affidavit that the deposits to the accounts are hefty, but are less than P500,000 each. Only deposits worth P500,000 are automatically reported to the Anti-Money Laundering Council [GMA]. Yes, the numerous deposits evaded AMLC’s radar.

Third, why so much money in such a small bank?

LDB is a pretty small bank, holding only P4 billion, P3 billion, and P2 billion in deposits as of 2014, 2013, and 2012, respectively [LDB]. Thus, depositing P329 million – a large amount in relation to the bank’s size – seems to be an unnecessarily risky bet. After all, there are lots of other bigger banks that are better equipped at handling such an amount.

Prospective money launderers find it advantageous to keep money in smaller banks because these are not usually subjected to the same stringent standards that the AMLC imposes on big banks like BDO, UnionBank, and BPI.

Small banks “are being targeted by launderers, terrorist and other criminals because of their inexperience and lack of technology and processes to handle sophisticated laundering scenarios [AutoAML].”

And here’s where it gets more interesting.

Andres Bautista, the world class finance lawyer

Andy Bautista is not a stranger in banking and finance, as his resume lists banking and finance related positions left and right. According to his [LinkedIn] account, he was:
  1. Senior Associate at White & Case LLP from ’93 - ‘00, with his “practice involving general corporate law with a specialization in project finance, mergers and acquisitions, corporate restructurings and joint venture and cross border transactions.”
  2. Country Head at Allen & Overy HK from ’01 - ’06, “providing legal consulting services in all aspects of international corporate, capital markets and infrastructure financings.”
  3. Chairman of PCGG from ’10 – ’15, “tasked to recover Marcos ill-gotten wealth and recommend measures to curb graft and corruption.”
Yes, Andres Bautista is a world class finance lawyer, and with his over two decades of world class experience, he knows the ins and outs of money laundering like the back of his hand. Now, add the fact that the LDB accounts have already raised three red flags.
That is, if I will choose someone who will launder my money, I’d probably choose Andres Bautista.

Now, evidence at hand suggests that Andy might indeed be laundering ill-gotten wealth, but there are two burning questions that still need to be addressed:
  1. There are many small banks, so why did Andy specifically choose LDB?
  2. There aren’t a lot of big-ticket election cases filed in the Comelec, so how can Andy’s passbooks contain such an astronomical amount?
LDB’s ownership provides a clue.


What is Luzon Development Bank?

Laguna-based community bank LDB was founded in 1961 by the Limcaoco Family [LDB] and it has about 40 branches today. Yes, it’s larger than a rural bank, but a lot smaller than the major banks that most of us are familiar with.

LDB is a subsidiary of the Lica Group [Lica], also controlled by the Limcaoco Family, with Rene “Timmy” Limcaoco as one of its managing directors [Old Swiss Inn]. It’s the same Timmy Limcaoco who was Aquino’s DOTC Undersecretary of Planning and Infrastructure Projects.

Limcaoco was appointed DOTC Usec in 2011 upon the recommendation of then DoTC Secretary Mar Roxas. Describing Limcaoco as a successful businessman, Roxas tasked him to handle DoTC’s Public-Private Partnership (PPP) and greenfield projects sector [Inq].

Greenfield projects mean projects that start from scratch. Meanwhile, we all know what PPP’s are, and we all know that the Aquino government’s analysis paralysis made PPP’s almost impossible. Abaya retained Limcaoco when he took over DOTC, and that says something about how influential this Limcaoco is.

But here’s the fun part: Limcaoco was embroiled in so many controversies during his term in DOTC.

Let’s list some of them.

Usec. Limcaoco’s scandals

2013: US$ 30 million extortion try

In October 2013, Czech train supplier Inekon CEO Josef Husek mentioned Timmy Limcaoco’s name in his affidavit accusing the DOTC of extorting US$30 million from his company in exchange for winning an MRT supply contract.

“On 9 July 2012, upon our arrival in Manila, Czech Ambassador Josef Rychtar presented the business schedule. It included meetings with DOTC Usec Rene Limcaoco and MRT general manager Al Vitangcol the following day,” Husek said [Star].

2014: The LRT 1 extension that never happened

Remember when Aquino promised that he, along with DOTC Sec. Abaya, would have themselves run over by a train if the LRT-1 extension is not completed? Well, Limcaoco handled that non-project [Star]. As it turns out, Timmy Limcaoco is a sibling of a senior Ayala Corporation executive, and Ayala is the LONE BIDDER in the project [ABS].

O di ba!?

2013: The faulty Dalian trains

The Dalian trains that Abaya’s DOTC procured in 2013 turned out to be unusable for so many reasons, and I won’t expound on that anymore. What’s important in this article, however, is the confirmation that Dalian agreed to give a 5 percent kickback to Abaya and other DOTC officials for approving the contract.

The DOTC bids and awards committee – of which Limcaoco is part – disqualified Dalian’s rival over a minor technicality, then awarded the P3.75-billion to Dalian. That translates to around P187 million in kickbacks [Star].


Andy and Timmy

Now, you probably ask, so what does Andy Bautista have to do with all these?

At this point, it’s clear that:
  • Andy has too much money.
  • Andy has too many bank accounts.
  • Andy chose LDB.
  • Timmy’s family owns LDB.
  • Timmy is part of Abaya’s corrupt DOTC.
Now, how do we connect Andy and Timmy ?

In a press conference, Bautista said he keeps so much money in LDB because he knows the owners and trusts them. What Andy didn’t mention, however, is how well he knows the Limcaocos.

Manila Standard columnist Jojo Robles explained the link very well. 

In his column yesterday, Robles explained that Andy and Timmy are bosom buddies in the Ateneo de Manila High School section 4-A. Meanwhile, Andy’s brother was classmates with Timmy’s brother TG Limcaoco.

Yeah, Andy and Timmy are childhood friends. Even their respective brothers are also childhood friends. So yes, there must be considerable level trust between Andy and Timmy. After all, they REALLY know each other.

Ohhhhhh, this is fun!

Burning Questions

On one hand, we have a Timmy who may be handling tens (or even hundreds) of millions worth of dirty money from DOTC-era kickbacks and needs someone to successfully launder his money. On the other, we have a friend of Timmy’s who happens to be a world class financial lawyer, and who supposedly also needs a bank where he can launder money of his own.

Ain’t that pretty?

So, let’s ask:

First, when Andy Bautista said that not all of the money in those 35 passbooks are his, did he mean they belong to Timmy Limcaoco, who may have gotten it from the Aquino-era DOTC kickbacks?

Second, is it possible that, in exchange for laundering Timmy ’s dirty money, Andy will be allowed to launder his dirty Comelec money in Timmy’s own bank?

Third, Tisha discovered 35 passbooks, so is Andres hiding more money in other bank accounts that Tisha (or the public) has yet to discover?

Fourth, is Limcaoco’s “money” purely composed of “his”, or was he tasked with laundering the share of other DOTC officials like Roxas, Abaya, and Vitangcol?

Fifth, Roxas’ family – the Aranetas – own shares in major banks, but laundering money in big banks is tough, so is it possible that the Aquino-era DOTC officials entrusted the laundering of their share of the loot to Limcaoco, who owns the smaller bank?

And most importantly, did Tisha unwittingly discover part of Roxas’ 2016 election war chest?

Ah, this is just too juicy!

Too Speculative?

Some may be inclined to dismiss the previous questions as too speculative. But Central Bank data supports them.

Earlier today, I noticed that the Andy’s LDB bank accounts are almost numbered consecutively, suggesting that LDB doesn’t have a lot of depositors.
Andy's alleged LDB accounts.
Despite this, LDB experienced massive growth in deposits. 

Here is a table showing LDB’s deposit liabilities, according to Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas’ database of Balance Sheets/Statements of Condition for Thrift Banks [BSP]. I also included a third column, which shows year-on-year growth of deposit liabilities.


Sources: LDB Docs from 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017.

Now, here’s a chart that illustrates the deposit figures in the table above:


Now, here’s a chart that illustrates the year-on-year growth rate of deposits:


With these, we can see that the growth of LBD’s deposit liabilities was slowing down from 2006 to 2011, then it picked up and massively accelerated from 2011 to 2014, then decelerated again from 2014 to 2017.

By the way, 2015-2016 was the Election Season, remember? Hehehe.

The rapid growth of deposits 2012 to 2014 boosted LDB’s deposit liabilities from just P1.9 billion in 2010 to P4.79 billion in 2016, or by about 152%.

Do you see it now?

LDB appears to not be enjoying drastic growth in the number of depositors, yet it enjoyed massive growth in the total amount of deposits. Moreover, most of the growth happened from 2012 to 2014. Now, the scandals involving Timmy Limcaoco and the DOTC happened in 2013 and 2014.

Did Andy team up with Timmy and Abaya’s DOTC on a joint laundry business? 

Connect the dots. Sec. Aguirre, ikaw na po bahala. [ThinkingPinoy]

Did you like this post? Help TP stay up! 
Even as little as 50 pesos will be a great help!

RELATED POSTS:



TRANSCRIPT: Q and A with Comelec chair's brother Martin Bautista

$
0
0
A couple of weeks ago, Comelec chair Andres "Andy" Bautista's wife, Patricia "Tisha" Bautista, revealed to the public pieces of evidence that strongly suggest that the husbad amassed ill-gotten wealth during his stint in the government. 

In defense of his brother Andy, Martin Bautista, a practicing gastroenterologist in the United States, came out several days after the revelation, claiming that much of Andy's alleged wealth came from him. Martin has since appeared in several shows, and he decided to reach out to social media bloggers and newspaper columnists by granting an interview.

The interview turned out to be some sort of town hall meeting, with Martin as the interviewee and the following as the interviewers:
  1. Manila Times columnist and former Ambassador Rigoberto Tiglao
  2. Manila Standard columnist Jojo Robles
  3. DLSU Political Science Professor Antonio Contreras
  4. Atty. Trixie Cruz-Angeles
  5. Atty. Ahmed Paglinawan
  6. Krizette Chu
  7. Dr. Ethel Pineda
  8. RJ Nieto (me)
  9. Atty. Bruce Rivera, et. Al.
Bautista was barraged by questions from the interviewers and I have rearranged the contents of the actual conversation into a question-and-answer format to make it more readable. I have removed the names of the persons who asked the questions for brevity.

Here we go.

The Interview

Q1: What is your immigration status in the US right now? Are you a US citizen and if so, are you a dual citizen?
A: (I’ve been a) permanent resident since 1996.
Q: Did you state your US resident status in your certificate of candidacy?
A: I would have surrendered it had I won.
Q: So you declared residency even without surrendering your green card?
A: I had returned to the Philippines permanently in 2006.
Q: But did not surrender your green card?
A: No.

Bautista ran for Senator in 2007 under the "Ang Kapatiran" Party, and in 2010 under the Liberal Party. He lost on both occasions.

Q: To your knowledge, do u have a joint bank account with your brother in any bank in the Philippines?
A: Yes. Since I couldn't sign for some of the accounts, my sister or my mother signed for me.
Q: So you issued them an SPA (Special Power of Attorney)?
A: Yes
Q: How much was in the account?
A: We are working with a forensic accountant. (We) hired her yesterday.
Q: Did your name appear in the accounts as a co-depositor and how much was in the account?
A: I will check. After 2014, I did not have the opportunity to personally open accounts.
Q: To your knowledge do you own an account in Luzon Development bank, singly or as a co-depositor?
A: I inquired yesterday. I know I opened accounts in 2009. I will inform you as soon as I receive word. Always as a co-depositor.
Q: Why are you only asking now?
A: Because the LDB passbooks were taken without my brother's knowledge last November.
Q: You deposited in 2009 but are not aware of the status or amount. Is it fair to say that the controversy moved you to ask?
A: Especially after my brother entered government service in 2010, I don't remember inquiring, a reflection of my absolute trust in my brother.
Q: But surely you would know the initial amount?
A: 1.7 million dollars in 2000… 8 million pesos in 2000… Before they got married.
Q: May I ask the next question: Why did you choose to open accounts--with big amounts--in LDB? Apart from the owner being your friend, were you not worried about stability, as well as products and services?
A: 1993-2010 investments were for growth, 2010-present primarily for stability and security.
Q: LDB is not stable nor established, relative to other banks… Not stability on your end. But the bank itself. To be honest, many of us have never heard of the bank before this "expose." So many are asking why choose LDB?
A: Stability is relative, Krizette, compared to BDO for example, we didn't know the owners. I am inviting Darwin [Cañete] later today or tomorrow to personally view my cash deposits in the US and he will vouch that relative to my investments in our country, these are pretty small. Hindi naman po sa nagyayabang. Please consider my invitation to personally look at my US cash holdings so you can understand my level of interest with my Philippine investments.
Q: What do your friends the Limcaocos say about this and the role of their bank in the issue?
A: [No Answer]
Q: Ok, so the amounts divulged by your sister in law are small, relative to your US holdings, which explains your lack of interest in them. I hope I got that right. But when your brother joined government, did it not occur to you and your family that you should no longer be using him anymore as a depository of your funds, for his own protection?
A: (The) reason why he parked the funds in money market accounts under a trust so that he could minimally supervise the funds.
Q: But what about the SALN implications, especially post-Corona? was this discussed when he joined government?
A: I ask for your patience, the NBI will vouch for all the transactions that occurred before and after he joined government. Jojo, I didn't discuss SALN with my brother.
Q: So, basically, the position taken by the family was: let Andy handle it?
A: Yes.
Q: Why are you here? did you come on your own accord or did Andy ask you to come?
A: I am here on my own accord. I have 5 daughters in the US, school is opening this week and my pulmonologist wife is alone,holding the fort, but she understands that the honor of our family is at stake.
Q: You said you left practically everything to Andy. Can you categorically say that the monies deposited in the accounts are all sourced from family?
A: Yes.
Q: How can you be so sure? Did he give u regular updates on amounts and transactions, dates… You said you practically let him manage them.
A: As I said, after 2010, I don't recall any updates. He rolled them over and over.
Q: So you wouldn’t have data about recent deposits? Like in 2016, for example?
A: Data, in the form of redeemed coupons, bonds, expired passbooks will prove the source of all the funds.
Q: But I am asking you Sir. Are you informed?
A: Not in 2016, Sir.
Q: You said Andy rolled over the deposits. Did he ask your permission? If so, did you give him permission?
A: …I have complete faith and trust in my brother. I allowed him to fully manage my funds in the Philippines.
Q: Why did you think it’d be a good idea to reveal that the Bautistas have money with Andy that Andy STILL did not declare in his SALN?
A: I truly appreciate this opportunity and would like once again to invite all of you for a personal meeting. The SALN of my brother is factually accurate, "no perfect SALN" but very close to the real figure. Iba talaga kung tayo'y magkita.
Q: What are your sources of income sir?
A: Clinic established in 1998, with an endoscopy suite, X-ray, MRI, CT, treadmill, etc plus a pharmacy. See 120-150 patients daily. I am not worried about the IRS, for the past 6 years, my wife and I have been the biggest taxpayers of Texas County, OK. Please don't misconstrue my comments as mayabang.
A Google Streetview of the Specialty Clinics of St. Anne,  an outpatient clinic owned by Bautista, where he employs 4 other Filipino doctors,

Q: How much of your US income is represented by your personal wealth here in the Philippines?
A: Again, let me defer to the figures from the forensic investigation.
Q: So there are others sources of the money with Andy which did not come from the US?
A: My money invested with Andy all came from the US. Remember, my parents are also investors, their funds are from the Philippines.
Q: But hypothetically, you file income tax with the US. Why would you not know it for purposes of filing income tax?
A: Yes, they withhold tax on interest income.
Q: Then there should be paper trail to be able to prove it.
A: Of course.
Q: Are you completely debt free in the US, Sir? No mortgages, loans, and educational loans for the children?
A: Completely without liabilities.
Q: Yes but expenses?
A: We managed to completely pay off our clinic in 10 months in 2001. Total income of $6.5 million less expenses. Audited by the IRS in 2009. No deficiencies.
Q: Your clinic is located where? Oklahoma, right?
A: We are in the Oklahoma panhandle, no HMO, no Medicaid.
Q: Do you employ doctors and nurses? Do you do homecare? It is a rehabilitation facility?
A: 23 employees, 4 doctors (all from UP PGH), 6 nurses, 3 lab techs, reception and billing. Pure outpatient, no rehabilitation.
Q: Is your wife a us citizen?
A: Yes.
Q: No specializations?
A: Gastroenterology and pulmonary medicine… Key to success is location of the clinic, fee for service, rare in the US. My wife and I are the only liberals in the reddest of states. She can vote, I can't.
Q: Do you have fellowship on these areas?
A: My wife and I do. Both associates are board certified in family practice.
Q: Have you, your brother or your family really engaged a PR company's services, to counter the bad publicity, as far as you know?
A: No! I came home also because my brother was doing all the work aside from his Comelec duties, only yesterday did we ask some professionals to help, exceedingly lean next to Tish's.
Q: You said you invested $1.3m here in 2000?
A: $1.7m
Q: Did you add to that later?
A: Yes
Q: (How did you send money to the Philippines?)
A: Wire transfers
Q: In how many increments?
A: Bi annually
Q: Twice only?
A: 1996-2009. Sometimes once a year.
Q: To whom did you wire transfer the money, to Andy?
A: To Andy. Before they got married, everything was clearly demarcated.
Q: You earlier said you invested 1.7m in dollars in the year 2000, but you also sent money before and after that?
A: Current amount to date in 2000 was 1.7, my apologies.
Q: And there was more after 2000?
A: Yes.
Q: How much were these increments?
A: I will provide the breakdown from the accountant.
Q: The total amount remitted in the period you mentioned is more than 1.7?
A: 1.7 was the amount to date in 2000.
Q: How much did you remit in all?
A: More, will get back with you.
Q: When did you invest in Forex?
A: I did not.
Q: Out of the funds in Andy's accounts in Luzon Bank, RCBC, and HSBC how much of these were HIS funds, and can he show proof these are his. I know he is very very rich that he doesn't know the exact figures of his money, but can he give as a ball-park figure?
A: 1.7 represented the year to date investment I had with him before he got married, Patricia acknowledges this fact. He got married in 2000, my wife and I continued to invest with him.
Q: I admire your trust in your brother. You must be super-rich not to ask for some documentation from him that the money is ours, -- in case knock on wood -- something happens to you and your wife, and your children ask to get back the funds.
A: Documentation ground to a halt in late 2009, before he worked for the government. I have no knowledge regarding the pyramid scheme and modesty aside, my Philippine investments represent a small fraction of my total holdings, which I can easily prove as well.
Q: (Conjugal property rights)?
A: Andy made the demarcations between the amounts clear so Tisha would have been entitled to her rightful share. Then again, among 63 first cousins (Donato and Bautista sides) we have had only 2 divorces.
Q: So no documentation, no proof, at all that you really own P1.7M or P77m of Andy's P330m investments in LDB et al? We will just believe you since $1.7M is just change for you? So let me be clear Martin. You say the P77M in Andy's accounts are yours. Are these still there, or did you get it back? But there is no documentation. Everything is in Andy's name?
A: Redeemed bonds and time deposits will show where the funds he had been rolling over originated.
Q: Please explain, walk me through this please. My interest at this point is what happened to your money.
A: From the 1.7 million in 2000, my investments continued to grow with more remittances. The accumulated amount will form the root of the rolled over funds.
Q: If the 120-150 patients a day in your clinic, all of them are yours or us that the total number of patients? There are two other family med consultants, right? Is it accurate to say they see more patients?
A: I used to see the majority but with my advancing age, I now see 30 every morning, I play golf in the afternoon with my wife.
Q: "From the 1.7 million in 2000, my investments continued to grow with more remittances" So how much is your total money worth?
A: We have a forensic accountant determining those amounts… We retained the services of an accountant yesterday. You will be receiving exact amounts.
Q: I just want to be absolutely clear: You gave Andy $1.7 M to put int his LDB accounts. But you can't prove this. This amount has grown with additional remittances from you and with Andy investing it in bonds and time deposits. But all these you can't prove as you're waiting for forensic accountant's report. Do you have any idea or just all park-figure how much your $1.7 M has grown. Has it grown to explain all of Andy's P300 m many in LDB?
A: Our counsel advised us to let the NBI have the first look, hope you understand… Yes, my investments will cover the difference and the forensic research will validate this… My parents have also been entrusting their nest eggs with Andy, don't forget.
Q: I see you have a very large share of patients in your area. A population of 21,000 with your clinic getting 150 patients a day.
A: Our town has a meat packing plant that employs a great number of Hispanics. We are the clinic that speaks Spanish.
Q: I hate to be repetitive, how much ball park figures or percentage lang would account for the P327 million in Andy's account. Let's leave your parents or in laws out of the question muna.
A: We were assured it would take 2 weeks max, I want to give you exact numbers.
Q: You mean your $1.7 m in Andy's account just a fraction of your wealth, that you didn't really care about it, as proven by your home? Saan ba home mo? Last question, promise: is the condo in The District in San francisco yours or Andy's?
A: Copy of my deposits are in my house in New Manila, SFO condo is owned by my sister.
Q: Aside from the $1.7m and P8m you gave Andy, have you given him anything else?
A: 1.7 from 1993-2000. 2000 to 2009, to be determined.
Q: Can you at least give us a ballpark figure of the total remittances from 00 to 09?
A: Can we wait for the accountant to come up with an exact figure?
Q: E baka he's trying to determine pa a formula to generate P300 million out of P77 million in ten years.
A: I will present you proof that my Philippine holdings represent but a fraction of my US holdings, nothing far fetched.
Q: Andy said you guys ran a "forex" investment ops that works similar to a "pyramid scheme". Was it done through a company and if so, what's the the name of that company? If not, can you elaborate a bit more on how that works? Forex trading sans insider info offers minimal profit margins.
A: RJ, I don't know enough about the Forex angle, just arrived Saturday night. My brother mentioned it during his interview with Karen Davila.
Q: Martin, do u categorically say that you have no idea about the total amount you've sent to Andy? I mean, not just the 1.7 + 8, but the total. Even a figure rounded to the nearest ten million pesos or million dollars?
A: At least 250 million pesos… without any interest/investment income.
Q: Got it. What was the source of the approx 250? Pls give me an estimate nung fraction na from your own money.
A: 1/4 of my cash deposits.
Q: So 25% of the 250 is yours?
A: No, I have about 1 billion pesos cash in the US.
Q: Andy has been a finance lawyer in as early as 1993, so why wasn't he holding the money earlier?
A: He started working as a New York lawyer in '93… Some of them, remember Andy did the transfers.
Q: how much do u earn per annum in your practice in Guymon?
A: $3 million last year.
Q: Andy has PoA over your own accounts?
A: Yes.
Q: If Andy has PoA, what made u guys decide that PoA is not enough and you had to transfer the money to him totally?
A: He had total and complete control of our investments, he could not have transferred my funds in the US on his own.
Q: You said that your hospital serviced a factory whose workers are mainly Hispanics. And you took note of the fact that you are the only Spanish speaking hospital in the area. Is that correct?
A: Seaboard Farms in Guymon, Oklahoma. 4000 employees.
Q: You also said that your hospital does not cater to patients with HMO and Medicaid?
A: My clinic, not the county hospital. County is mandated to accept indigent patients.
Q: But I am talking about your clinic.
A: Factory insurance is deemed Cadillac insurance in the US… My clinic doesn't take Medicaid.
Q: So you must be takin in so many paying private patients for you to earn a lot? In a county whose media income is below the US average?
A: Yes, ang laki na nga ang bawas during Obamacare.

Notes

  1. There was supposed to be a continuation of the interview the day after this, but it didn't materialize.
  2. Bautista promised to send us copies of the financial documents, but we have yet to receive them.
DONT FORGET TO SHARE! Did you like this post? Help ThinkingPinoy stay up! Even as little as 50 pesos will be a great help!

RELATED POSTS:



The Kidnapper-Senator Risa Hontiveros?

$
0
0
Senator Risa Hontiveros took custody of the three witnesses — 31-year-old and two minors aged 16 and 13 years old — since Sunday (August 20) [MB], without authorization from the minors’ parents and/or legal guardians.

Some camps argue that Senator Hontiveros and her accomplices may be liable for violating Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, which covers Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention, so let’s see if she can indeed be sued for it.

I consulted my lawyer-friends and MyLegalWhiz.com for the preparation of this article.


Risa the Kidnapper?

The elements of the crime of "Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention" are [JLP-Law]:
  1. That the offender is a private individual.
  2. That he kidnaps or detains another, or in any other manner deprives the latter of his liberty.
  3. That the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal.
  4. That in the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances is present: 
  • That the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than five (5) days; or
  • That it committed simulating public authority; or
  • That any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made; or
  • That the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female, or a public officer.

Element 1: That Risa is a private individual.

Yesterday, PAO Chief Persida Acosta called out Senator Risa Hontiveros for refusing to turn over the underage witnesses, despite the fact that it’s PAO, along with NBI, DOJ, and PNP, that has the mandate to protect them [GMA].

If the offender is a public officer, the crime committed would be arbitrary detention, but the public officer must have a duty under the law to detain a person. Since senators have no duty to detain or take custody witnesses (only PAO, NBI, DOJ, and PNP has such authority), Senator Hontiveros shall be prosecuted as a private individual.

This fulfills the first element.


Element 2: That Risa kidnaps or detains the minors

The two victims are minors, so parental consent was required before she took custody, i.e. before she limited their liberty. However, in an interview with TV Patrol, one of the minors’ parents said [FB]:
“Actually, hindi ko alam eh. Hindi tama. Yun po yung isang foul din e. Bago po nila kukunin yung anak ko, kunin muna nila yung permiso sa akin kung papayag ba ako na sa kanilang panig ko ibibigay. Unang-una po yang Hontiveros na yan di po, hindi ko po siya nakakausap. Hindi man lang niya hinanap muna kung paano makokontak ang ina ng witness dahil minor po yan eh.”

Translation: Actually, I wasn’t informed. That’s wrong. That’s foul. Before they take custody of my child, they should asked permission from me, if I will agree to give their side custody of my child. First and foremost is that Hontiveros, I haven’t spoken to her. She didn’t even find a way to contact the mother of the witness despite the witness being a minor.
The fact that Risa did not secure consent from the parents means she kidnapped these underage witnesses.

This fulfills the second element.


Element 3: That Risa’s illegally took custody of the minors

The DOJ is the sole implementor of the Witness Protection Act [RA 6981]. Although the DOJ may call upon other executive agencies to implement the law, what’s clear is that the Senate is not an executive agency. That is, the Senate – along with any or all the Senators – have no legal authority to take protective custody of witnesses.
Now, it may be argued that the minors – aged 16 and 13 – agreed or even volunteered to be taken into Hontiveros’ custody. However, parental consent is required in cases like these, something that Hontiveros failed to secure, as shown in the TV Patrol interview cited in the previous section.

Moreover, Hontiveros essentially induced two minors to abandon their homes, thereby violating Article 271 of the Revised Penal Code, which reads:
Art. 271. Inducing a minor to abandon his home.— The penalty of prision correccional and a fine not exceeding seven hundred pesos shall be imposed upon anyone who shall induce a minor to abandon the home of his parents or guardians or the persons entrusted with his custody.
Hence, the detention of the minors, even if supposedly protective in nature, is illegal.

This fulfills the third element.

Element 4: Circumstances

Recall that the fourth element is the presence of any of the following circumstances in the commission of the offense:
(a) That the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than five (5) days; or
(b) That it committed simulating public authority; or
(c) That any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made; or
(d) That the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female, or a public officer.
Hontiveros clearly simulated the authority of PAO, NBI, DOJ, and/or PNP, thereby fulfilling the second condition. Moreover, the persons kidnapped are two minors, fulfilling the fourth condition. Now, the fourth element requires the presence of ANY of the circumstances enumerated, so the presence of (b) and (d) is more than enough.

Suffice it to say, this fulfills the fourth element.

In short, Senator Risa Hontiveros can be sued – and will very likely be convicted – for kidnapping and serious illegal detention of the two minors.

Prison sentences

The overeager Hontiveros, blinded by political ambition, committed kidnapping and serious illegal detention that is punishable by reclusion perpetua [Gov], i.e. 30-year prison term. Note that she took custody of TWO minors, so she may even be found guilty of TWO COUNTS of kidnapping and serious illegal detention, translating to up to 60 years in prison.

Hontiveros also violated Article 271 or inducing minors to abandon their home, where the penalty is imprisonment ranging from six months to six years. Again, she may be guilty of TWO counts.

Hontiveros also committed Obstruction of Justice [P.D. 1829], as she prevented witnesses from reporting the commission of any offense or the identity of any offender/s by means of force, in light of her having kidnapped the underage witnesses and PAO Chief Acosta having to call her out for refusing to turn over the same. Again, she may be guilty of TWO (or even up to three) counts. The penalty is imprisonment ranging from six months to six years per count.

(30+30) + (6+6) + (6+6+6) = 90

With these said, Hontiveros faces the prospect of having to stay for up to 90 years behind bars.

Who can sue?

For Obstruction of Justice, the DOJ, PAO, NBI, or PNP can sue her. 

As for [1] kidnapping serious illegal detention and [2] inducing a minor to abandon his home, any parent or household member can sue Senator Hontiveros. However, anybody who has personal knowledge of the commission of the offense may also file a case. Since Hontiveros was stupid enough to broadcast her deeds on national TV, everyone can be presumed to have personal knowledge, i.e. VIRTUALLY ANYONE CAN SUE HER.

Moreover, since the two witnesses are minors and no legal guardian has come forward, the concept of parens patriae (parent of the nation) applies.

In Nery vs. Lorenzo, [G.R. No. L-23096, G.R. No. L-23376]:
Concerning the protection of minors, the State's role as parens patriae burdens it with “the duty of protecting the rights of persons or individual who because of age or incapacity are in an unfavorable position, vis-a-vis other parties. Unable as they are to take due care of what concerns them, they have the political community to look after their welfare.
Moreover, in Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Del Monte Piedad [G.R. No. L-9959]:
The prerogative of parens patriae is inherent in the supreme power of every State and is often necessary to be exercised in the interest of humanity and for the prevention of injury to those who cannot protect themselves.
That is, should a parent or household member of the underage witnesses fail to file a case, the Department of Justice (DoJ) or even the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), can file a case instead, a case that is very likely to send the overeager Senator to jail.

Note that I have notified the DSWD of this issue and they're looking into the matter right now.

To cut the long story short, Senator Risa Hontiveros is in big trouble. And did I say reclusion perpetua may also include perpetual disqualification from public office? [TP]

DONT FORGET TO SHARE! Did you like this post? Help ThinkingPinoy stay up! Even as little as 50 pesos will be a great help!

RELATED POSTS:




Andy Bautista exit more likely after Hontiveros kidnapping stunt

$
0
0

In yesterday’s “The Kidnapper-Senator Risa Hontiveros”, I explained how Senator Risa Hontiveros is criminally liable for violating, among others, the law against kidnapping and serious illegal detention. Save for the usual dilatory tactics associated with moneyed defendants, I expect a pretty speedy trial, as the elements of the crime can be very easily proven.

But the ramifications of Hontiveros’ audacity extends beyond the confines of the courtroom, as her stupidest move yet come with blowbacks that her tiny brain was unable to foresee.


But before we go to that, let’s first discuss the impeachment case against the embattled Comelec chair.

The Andy Bautista Impeachment Case

Two impeachment cases have so far been filed against embattled Comelec Chair Andres “Andy” Bautista. The first one, from Atty. Oliver Lozano, will not go far because he’s basically a “serial nuisance filer”, as he has filed (usually frivolous) impeachment cases against every president since the 1990s [Star]. With that said, I doubt that there’d be a congressman willing to endorse it.

The second one filed yesterday by Rep. Jacinto Paras and Atty. Ferdinand Topacio, however, was endorsed by House Deputy Speaker Gwen Garcia, Kabayan Party-list Rep. Harry Roque, and Rep. Abraham Tolentino of Cavite[CNN].

Yes, the second one is a go.
The second complaint cited five grounds for impeachment [GMA]:
  1. Betrayal of Public Trust for failing to implement the Data Privacy Act of 2012 that led to the Comeleaks incident, the biggest data breach incident in history [NPC], where confidential information about tens of millions of voters were leaked for everyone to see.
  2. Betrayal of Public Trust for declining to assume direct control of the task force created after the Comeleaks incident.
  3. Betrayal of Public Trust for saying that the “ñ” modification is merely cosmetic in nature, effectively attempting to exonerate those responsible for it.
  4. Betrayal of Public Trust for filing incomplete SALNs.
  5. Bribery for receiving commissions from the Divina Law office.

Evaluating the Grounds

The first two grounds have been extensively discussed in a National Privacy Commission press release dated 05 January 2017 [NPC], part of which reads:
“The willful and intentional disregard of his duties as head of agency, which he should know or ought to know, is tantamount to gross negligence… A head of agency making his acts depend on the recommendations of the Executive Director or the Information Technology Department amplifies the want of even slight care...”
The third ground, meanwhile, has been extensively discussed in the 13 May 2016 article “BBM vs Leni: Comelec-Smartmatic gives Sec Abaya a run for his money”.

The fourth ground, or betrayal of public trust when Bautista underdeclared his assets, is well-ensconced in the “Corona Doctrine”, as established when former Chief Justice was removed from office for committing pretty much the same offense.

The fifth ground – bribery through the receipt of commissions from Divina Law – is a bit shaky. I have to see the actual complaint first to see if it has any chance of succeeding.

Hurdling the Lower House

Truth be told, I think that Congress may as well forget about the first, second, third, and fifth ground, as the fourth ground – SALN underdeclaration – is more than enough to convict Bautista. Surely, P 50 million in bank deposits declared in his SALN is way below the P330 million that Bautista’s wife Patricia discovered.

And even if Bautista, by some accounting miracle, manages to escape that one, the undeclared real properties are also enough to kick him out.
I have good reason to believe that the impeachment complaint will simply breeze through the House of Representatives. While some camps may argue that the supposed “supermajority” is mostly composed of political turncoats, we have to remember that a verified impeachment complaint need only gather the signatures of a third of the Lower House.

That is, it’s pretty easy to get 100 signatures from the 290-or-so congressmen, especially since 121 of these congressmen belong to the administration’s PDP-Laban Party. With 100 signatures, an endorsement by the House Justice Committee would be unnecessary, and the articles of impeachment will be automatically transmitted to the Senate for trial.

The question, however, is whether Andy will be convicted in a Senate impeachment trial, or not.

More on that later.

Comelec commissioners react

Several hours after the endorsement of the impeachment complaint, the Comelec Commissioners released a resolution requesting Bautista to file a leave or resign [CNN]. The problem, however, is that Bautista cannot possibly do either.

If Bautista files a leave of absence, the remaining commissioners can do whatever they want without Andy’s meddling: they can file a resolution that will finally ban Smartmatic from Philippine soil, or give some attention to Nelly Villafuerte’s 2013 complaint against Leni Robredo, or even conduct an internal investigation on Andy Bautista’s corruption and his alleged connivance with Divina Law.

Meanwhile, If Bautista resigns, then he will lose his partial immunity from suit, exposing him to a barrage of graft cases that he will have to battle for the rest of his life.

But like what I’ve said in a previous section, the Corona Doctrine virtually ensures impeachment in the Lower House and a conviction in the Senate for Bautista, so it appears that Andy has no way out.

Well, not really.

A Three-pronged Strategy

If I were Andy Bautista, I would use a three-pronged approach as a way out.

First, I will cling onto my Comelec post no matter what.
I will choose to remain Comelec chief until my term ends in February 2022, regardless of the public humiliation that’ll come with it. That way, I can maintain (1) partial immunity from suit and (2) significant control over the electoral process.

This way, I can temporarily ward off lawsuits as I find ways to sabotage the 2019 and 2022 elections, ensuring the victory of “friendly” candidates. Most important among these candidates is the next president, who has the power of executive clemency, a power that Andy will really benefit from.

But this won’t matter if I get removed from office so…

Second, I will ensure acquittal at the Senate Impeachment Trial.
I will probably be impeached in the Lower house, but the Senate impeachment trial is an entirely different ballgame. I can, for example, strike deals with friendly senators in exchange for an acquittal, or I can simply blackmail a few for the same effect.

Senators, however, are political animals. Thus, some of them may resist my charm for fear of losing public support, so…

Third, I will minimize public backlash by going on a massive PR spree.
I will spend like there’s no tomorrow to improve not only my own image, but also the image of the senators who will side with me. This similar to what I have been doing during these past several weeks, where I have appeared on TV shows left and right, in an attempt to deodorize my stinking reputation. Yes, the last PR spree was a failure because my brother Martin is so stupid [Transcript], but I’ll charge that to experience moving forward.

I can also tap on my allies to aid in this effort. Take for example, family friend and former DOTC Usec. Rene “Timmy” Limcaoco, whose family owns and controls Luzon Development Bank, or the bank where I deposited my presumably ill-gotten wealth. Limcaoco’s wife Melissa is a co-founder of Hatchd Inc. [CV], one of Rappler’s major investors. Thus, I can ask the Limcaocos to force the financially ailing media company to write puff pieces about me or my would-be senator allies. All three prongs should work for the strategy to succeed, and I honestly think that Andy has the IQ and the US$ to make this work. Now, let’s see how the second prong can be implement in the Senate impeachment trial.

Voting at Impeachment Trial

Senator Leila de Lima is detained for drug-related charges and Senator Cayetano has resigned to head the Department of Foreign Affairs, reducing the roster of senators from 24 to 22. Now, a two-thirds majority vote is required for a conviction, so that having 22 senator-judges means 15 convict votes are required, i.e. 8 acquit votes is enough for Andy to avoid impeachment.

The voting patterns will most likely be along party lines, similar to the pattern described in my 18 May 2016 article “Mark Villar thwarts LP’s Plan B”.

Fourteen senators will almost certainly convict Bautista, and they are:
  • The PDP-Laban Bloc (Ejercito, Pimentel, Zubiri, Pacquiao), or the ruling party.
  • The Macho Bloc (Sotto, Lacson, Honasan), that owe Bautista nothing and who usually call a spade a spade.
  • The NPC Bloc (Poe, Legarda, Gatchalian, Gordon, Sotto), that has a standing coalition with PDP-Laban.
  • Nancy Binay, who hates LP’s guts after what LP did to her father Jojo.
  • Nacionalista’s Cynthia Villar’s son Mark is a Duterte cabinet member, so she probably vote to convict.
  • Angara is an independent administration ally [GMA].
Hence, I can see only 8 potential senators who can acquit Bautista, and they are:
  1. Sonny Trillanes (Ind)
  2. Franklin Drilon (LP)
  3. Bam Aquino (LP)
  4. Joel Villanueva (CIBAC-LP)
  5. Kiko Pangilinan (LP)
  6. Ralph Recto (LP)
  7. Chiz Escudero (Ind) [FB]
  8. Risa Hontiveros (Akbayan-LP)
Escudero, Villanueva, and Recto may need sweeteners, but I believe that they can be convinced to acquit Bautista.

With 22 senator judges, 14 “convict” votes and 8 “acquit” votes, Bautista will remain in the Comelec.

Risa foils Andy’s Strategy

Andy’s problem, however, is that Senator Risa Hontiveros may have inadvertently ruined his strategy.

My lawyer-friends and I are confident that prosecutors can easily find probable cause for charges of kidnapping with serious illegal detention against Hontiveros, especially since the parents of not one but BOTH of the underage witnesses are demanding custody of their children.

And what comes after probable cause? A warrant of arrest and unfortunately for Hontiveros, kidnapping with serious illegal detention is a non-bailable offense [People vs Trestiza, G.R. No. 193833] so she can’t buy her way out of it.

A conviction is not even necessary at this point: all that's needed is detention without bail.

Thus, a kidnapping with serious illegal detention case, if filed against Hontiveros, will land her a spot in the PNP custodial center, beside incarcerated Senators Estrada, Revilla, and de Lima. And just like de Lima, detention will prevent her from participating in Bautista’s impeachment trial.

With Hontiveros down, the total number of senator judges will be reduced from 22 to 21, so that a two-thirds majority will be reduced from 15 to just 14.

But recalling the previous section, we already have 14 senators who will almost certainly vote to convict, right? Yes, Andy may still have seven allies, but with only 21 senator-judges, seven acquit votes are not enough: Andy will still get removed from office.

Senator Risa Hontiveros, thank you for your stupidity. [TP]
DONT FORGET TO SHARE! Did you like this post? Help ThinkingPinoy stay up! Even as little as 50 pesos will be a great help!

RELATED POSTS:



Bye-bye LP? Political implications of the Duterte-Marcos negotiations

$
0
0

Rodrigo Duterte never fails to surprise me.

In a 29 August 2017 speech in Malacañang, President Rodrigo Duterte said [Video]:
“The Marcoses – I will not name the spokesman – they said they’ll open everything and probably return those [assets] that were already found. They said, ‘You have a large [budget] deficit… maybe this year the projected deficit will be big,’ they said, ’ but [the amount to be returned] won’t be much. ‘But we are ready to open and bring back [the assets],’ they said, ‘including a few gold bars.’”
Yes, the Marcoses has finally decided to reach out to the government to talk about their wealth. The announcement is so simple and straightforward, even I had to take a couple of days to digest what happened. Why? Because what may happen, the way the issue was announced, and the political and economic implications of this gesture are discombobulating, to the say the least.


The Announcement

Duterte carefully chose his words when he spoke about the issue.

First, Duterte clearly said that negotiations are ongoing, and probably without asking the Marcoses if he can make such announcement. Even if the talks are very preliminary, this puts major pressure on the Marcoses. After the surprise announcement will make backing out very politically costly because the public generally hates “#paasa” or flakers.

Second, Duterte, aware of the pressure on the Marcoses, apparently tried to decrease it by saying that the amount “won’t be much”. But “not much” is a very relative term, and I think he’s trying to flip the odds to the government’s favor. The Marcoses supposedly raised the idea to help Duterte respond to a looming massive budget deficit so it will be embarrassing for the Marcoses if the talks result to a very small amount.

Third, Duterte said he will get impartial people to handle the negotiations: a former chief justice (probably the retired Chief Justice Renato Puno), a Certified Public Accountant, and a universally-recognized representative. This way, he can minimize suspicions by providing a considerable level of transparency.

Fourth, Duterte never used the word “stolen”. Duterte used the word “found”, “return”, “help”, and the like, but he never used neither “ill-gotten” nor “stolen”, and here’s where his political realism clearly shows. By not using those two words, he is paving the way for the return of the wealth while at the same time providing the Marcoses some leeway for messaging. After all, they are already trying to return some money, so why do we need to humiliate them right now?

Fifth, Duterte also said that he wants to do “something worthwhile for the Filipino”, and I think he’s on his way to doing that. The Philippine Commission on Good Government (PCGG) has been running after Marcos’ wealth for over 30 years with limited success, and here are the Marcoses intending to return money by their own initiative. Even if we’re just talking about a few tens or hundreds of billions, the amount will still go a long way in helping poor Filipinos.

Political implications: The Marcos Family

The latest initiative of the Marcos’ family is really surprising, in that it totally came out from left field. Who among any of the family’s critics thought something like this can ever happen? Regardless of the amount that will be agreed upon, the mere fact that family is now willing to even talk about it is shocking, to say the least.
Many camps argue that whatever the Marcoses will return will just be a very small fraction of whatever they got. However, we need to keep two things in mind: [1] the fact that they will willingly return it and [2] the fact that they are confident that the amount will significantly help in reducing the budget deficit, which is expected to have reached P147 billion at the end of July 2017 [MT].

Yeah, that’s a LOT of money.

But then, if there’s one thing that everybody – regardless of political color – will agree on, it’s that the Marcoses are not stupid, so they expect something in return.

What do they expect?

The Marcoses, I believe, expect political capital which translates to:

1: A possibly softer anti-Marcos stance among the anti-Marcos public
The Marcos Family may be expecting many anti-Marcos voters, many of whom were born after Martial Law, to soften their anti-Marcos stance even by a bit. While the staunchest Marcos critics probably will never forgive the Marcoses even when hell freezes over, the fact of the matter is that many voters today did not personally experience life under the dictatorship and thus do not hold much of a grudge against the former first family…. or have a favorable view of the Marcoses to begin with. Proof? Bongbong Marcos’ performance in the 2016 Presidential Elections.

2: Greater bargaining power under the Duterte Administration
I interviewed Ilocos Norte Governor Imee Marcos a couple of weeks ago and I asked her why Duterte doesn’t influence the House of Representatives regarding the Tobacco Excise Tax Hearing plaguing the Ilocos Norte Government, including the governor herself. She said she doesn’t want to impose on the president because “nahihiya”. I am not sure if she is not telling me something, but this may imply that the Marcoses, while influential in Duterte’s inner circle, is not as influential as we think. So how do the Marcoses enhance their influence? By doing the Duterte’s Government a favor.

3: A possible “recalibration” of history
In his speech, Duterte said the Marcos family’s liaison, whoever he or she is, claims that the Ferdinand Marcos took the money to protect the economy in the eventuality that he’s removed from power, in the hopes of regaining Malacañang.

I am disinclined to buy this story but truth be told, such a narrative is not a hard sell among a Filipino public that are first hand witnesses to the incompetence and corruption of Marcos’ Archnemesis, the Aquinos, along with their Liberal Party cohorts.

The Marcoses, for example, may ask the public, “What if we gave this much earlier and Mar Roxas got it?”.
Note, however, that I used the term “recalibration” instead of “rewrite” because  I doubt that anybody can drastically change what's already in history books with just one act.

When I said “recalibration”, I mean a slightly less diabolical portrayal not necessarily of the Marcos Regime, but that of the living Marcoses who have been, for decades, at the receiving end of criticisms against the late president.

With these said, I believe that the Marcos Family’s plans to return the wealth, if realized, will go a long way in making a prospective 2022 BBM presidency palatable for more people, and this will serve as a challenge to other presidential hopefuls to step up their game.

Why? Because the Marcoses have already stepped up their game… BIG TIME.

Political implications: The Liberal Party

If there’s one camp that will be most adversely affected by this development, it’d be the Aquino-aligned Liberal Party of the Philippines, the main political party that cultivated anti-Marcos sentiment and benefitted the most from it.

Let’s get a few quotes from senior Liberal Party politicians as they reacted to this news.

From Senator and Liberal Party president Francis Pangilinan[Malaya]:
"There is no reason for us to believe in the sincerity of the Marcos family. They should return ill-gotten wealth and apologize for the sins of the dictatorship. Only then we would believe in their sincerity."
From Senator and Ninoy cosplayer Bam Aquino [Abante]:
Dapat lang ibalik talaga `yan. Now ang tanong magkano po ang porsyentong ibabalik baka naman yung ibabalik po dyan kakarampot lang dun sa totoong ninakaw sa atin.
TRANSLATION: It should really be returned. Now, the question is how much will be returned because they just be returning a very small fraction of what they really stole from us.
From Vice-president and Liberal Party Chairman Leni Robredo [Malaya]:
"If they are returning the wealth... they should return everything because this belongs to the Filipinos."

What’s clear in these LP quotes is the party’s insistence on the Marcoses returning ALL of the money, despite them having no idea on how to go about that, while former President Corazon Aquino’s PCGG has been here since the mid-80s, yet it managed to recover nothing but scraps.

I think LP’s fear is rooted on their very reason for existing in the first place. In the May 2016 ThinkingPinoy article “Quantifying Discontent: An Analysis of the Bongbong Marcos Phenomenon”, I explained that for the past 30 years, the Aquinos and the Liberal Party painted themselves as the antithesis – the polar opposites – of the Marcoses. The Aquinos and the Liberal Party painted themselves as the ultimate hero as they painted the Marcos Family as the ultimate villain... and therein lies the problem.

Batman once said, “A hero is only as good as his villain,” so what if, in the eyes of the public, the “ultimate” villain turns out to not be as evil as the people thought he was?

I am not saying that Ferdie should be a saint... but he sure is not the devil incarnate.

Yes, the Aquinos and LP will lose the justification for their existence. Yeah, their most ardent supporters will continue to support them, but I doubt if their numbers would even be enough to elect a provincial governor.

The Liberal Party, which is already struggling for survival, will probably struggle even more.

Political implications: The Duterte Presidency

Individuals and states, while both basing actions on morality, use a different hierarchy of moral principles. For example, the individual may subscribe to the saying “Fiat justitia, pereat mundus (Let justice be done, even if the world perish),” but the state can’t possibly do the same if it threatens the state’s very survival [Morgenthau 1978].

That is how a Political Realist thinks. That is how Duterte thinks. Duterte the President, more than anything, is a Political Realist.

In the October 2016 ThinkingPinoy article “Genius! The Method to Duterte’s Foreign Policy Madness”, I explained how Duterte’s seemingly irrational, morally reprehensible action of cursing at then-US President Barack Obama, actually has a method to it. That is, “calling” Obama a “son of a bitch” made the Chinese public more receptive to Duterte and the Philippines, paving the way for a more independent Philippine foreign policy.

Duterte’s Political Realism has again become evident when, in response to Marcos’ offer to return some wealth, he said:
“I will accept that explanation (Marcos Family’s alibi), whether or not it is true, we can’t do much about it anyway and they’re ready to return the [the assets].”
That is, while many camps would demand the Marcoses to return an arm and a leg, Duterte took into account the PCGG’s general inability to recover assets and the government’s immediate financial needs. 

Duterte was basically made to choose between:
  1. Accepting the alibi then accepting a massive injection into government coffers, and, 
  2. Rejecting that alibi, which would make the Marcoses retract, as the PCGG spends another 30 years looking for crumbs, with no assurance of success.
To Duterte, the choice was obvious: he picked the option that will translate to real improvements to Filipino lives.
  • How many post-Yolanda houses will that build? 
  • How many hospitals will it fund? 
  • How many roads will that create? 
All these questions would be useless to ask if Duterte insisted that the Marcoses return everything, whatever “everything” means.

If the negotiations translate to a final deal and the money changes hands, this will cement Duterte’s reputation for being a doer, starkly in contrast to Mar Roxas’ “analysis paralysis”. This will enhance Duterte’s political capital and by extension, whoever he will endorse in the 2019 and 2022 elections.

Yes, there may still be many issues that the Filipino People must settle with the Marcoses. However, this development, if fully realized, will be a victory for all... except for the Liberal Party.


DONT FORGET TO SHARE! 

 Did you like this post? Help ThinkingPinoy stay up!
Even as little as 50 pesos will be a great help!

RELATED POSTS:


Bye-bye Trillanes? How far will Gordon’s ethics complaint go?

$
0
0
We are all familiar with Antonio Trillanes’ antics in the Senate. Looking back in history, I can recall that he has clashed with Senators Enrile, Sotto, Cayetano, Lacson, and Zubiri, to name a few. Trillanes got away with all of them, but it appears that he may not get away this time, when he insulted Senator Richard Gordon’s Blue Ribbon Committee, calling it a “comite de absuelto” during a 29 August 2017 senate hearing.

This case is more important that most of us think. If Trillanes is expelled, there will only be 21 active senators left, making Comelec chair Andy Bautista's prospective impeachment trial more likely to result into a conviction, as explained in "Andy Bautista exit more likely after Hontiveros kidnapping stunt".

I will not discuss anymore the “why” behind Senator Gordon’s prospective ethics complaint because I believe that the reader is already familiar with what kind of senator Trillanes is. Instead, I will attempt to explain the journey that Gordon’s complaint will take, along with the odds of it succeeding in expelling Trillanes from the Senate once and for all.


Let’s start.

When Gordon files a complaint

Senator Gordon said he’s already preparing the ethics complaint against Senator Trillanes in as early as the evening of Thursday, 31 August 2017 [Politiko]. I expect him to file the complaint on Monday, 04 September, since 01 September is a public holiday.

As expected, the Liberal Party-led minority bloc opposed Gordon’s plans per a statement signed by Senators Aquino, de Lima, Drilon, Hontiveros, and Pangilinan [News5]. Nothing new there.

In an 01 September 2017 interview at [Karambola sa DWIZ], Gordon categorically said that his ethics complaint aims not at suspending Trillanes, but from expelling him from the organization for good. I have tried searching for past incidents where the Senate expelled one of its members but I haven’t found any, so this might be a historic first for the institution.

Trillanes and Gordon have traded barbs [Politiko] since the fateful 29 August senate hearing and Gordon is showing no signs of backing down on his threat.

Yes, I think Gordon will really file a complaint, so let’s assume that he indeed will, so what’s next?


When Ethics Committee takes up complaint


The Senate Ethics committee will receive Gordon’s complaint, a hearing (or several) will be held, and the committee members will vote by simple majority on whether the complaint will be endorsed to the plenary or not.
The members of the Senate Ethics Committee are:
  1. Tito Sotto (Chairman)
  2. Ping Lacson 
  3. Gringo Honasan
  4. Grace Poe
  5. Manny Pacquiao
  6. Risa Hontiveros
  7. Antonio Trillanes

The Pro-expulsion Votes

(1) Sotto

Ethics committee chairman Tito Sotto is irked at Trillanes. During the same 29 August hearing, Trillanes accused him of trying to prevent witnesses from testifying, to which he irritatedly replied, “I said, 'Pag-aralan muna ng committee sapagkat hearsay.' It doesn't mean na 'huwag'. Huwag mo 'kong pagbibintangan [TP]."

Sotto will probably vote against Trillanes.

(2) Lacson

Lacson isn’t very fond of Trillanes either. In July 2017, Trillanes called several majority bloc senators “cowards”. In response, Lacson said, “Calling one’s own colleagues ‘cowards’ or ‘puppets’ wholesale and without qualifying, is the darndest thing he can do [Inq].” Lacson is also part of the Senate Justice Committee, and he’s been witness to Trillanes’ maneuverings during the senate hearing on extrajudicial killings held in October of last year.

Lacson will probably vote against Trillanes.

(3) Pacquiao

Pacquiao, like Sotto and Lacson, is not very fond of Trillanes either. In March 2017, Trillanes sarcastically said like some of his colleagues, Lascañas did not also become a saint after his spiritual renewal. In response, the very religious Pacquiao said, “Para bang hindi ako totoong tao, para bang yung pagiging Christian ko e fake… that’s very offended (sic) to me (TRANSLATION: Like I’m a fake person, like my Christianity is fake… and that’s very offending for me.) [Inq]”

Pacquiao will probably vote against Trillanes.

The Wishy-washy and Anti-expulsion votes

(4) Hontiveros, and, (5) Trillanes

Hontiveros and Trillanes will clearly vote against the ethics complaint, after Hontiveros previously signed a statement supporting Trillanes and Trillanes is not expected to vote against himself. Nothing surprising there.

(6) Poe

Poe said earlier today that the ethics complaint is unnecessary [Star], which I find perplexing. You see, everybody expects Poe to run in 2019, and I find it confusing that she has to release statements that will hurt her chances of getting re-elected. But she said what she said, so let’s just assume for now that she’ll vote against the complaint.

Will Poe vote for or against the ethics complaint? Anything is possible at this moment.

But with that said, let me give this short message to Senator Poe:

Grace, please think hard. Being clumped with Hontiveros and Trillanes will spell an end to your budding political career. Yes, it will end your career.

I put the odds at 50% in favor of the ethics complaint, 50% against.

(7) Honasan

The usually quiet Senator Gringo Honasan is another “wild card” because of his associations. On one hand, Trillanes was once a Honasan’s protégé. Honasan, himself a well-known coup plotter in the Cory Aquino years [LATimes], strongly supported Trillanes’ amnesty while the latter was still in jail for the failed 2003 Oakwood Mutiny [ABS].

On the other hand, he’s part of the three-senator Macho Bloc, the others being Lacson and Sotto, who are also members of the Senate Ethics Committee. Lacson and Sotto are likely to vote against Trillanes, and that fact can influence Honasan’s vote. Moreover, Duterte himself admitted to helping Honasan hide while the latter was still being hunted by previous governments [Star].

Does Gringo still have some sympathy left for Antonio, or will he side with his Macho peers?

I put the odds at 70% in favor of the ethics complaint, 30% against.

When Senate Ethics committee votes on complaint

To summarize, the probability of voting IN FAVOR of the ethics complaint against Trillanes will be:
1. Tito Sotto – 100%
2. Ping Lacson – 100%
3. Manny Pacquiao – 100%
4. Gringo Honasan – 70%
5. Grace Poe – 50%
6. Risa Hontiveros – 0%
7. Antonio Trillanes – 0%
I expect Hontiveros and Trillanes to vote against the complaint. Sotto, Lacson, and Pacquiao will vote in favor of it. Thus, it’s up to Honasan and Poe for the clincher. Note, however, that only four (4) votes are needed for the ethics complaint to prosper, so only one pro-expulsion vote is required from Honasan and Poe.

That is, I think the odds of Gordon’s complaint being endorsed to the Senate plenary are pretty good.

When plenary takes up ethics complaint

RULE XXXIV, Section 97 of the [Rules of the Senate] states:
Upon the recommendation of the Committee on Ethics and Privileges, the Senate may punish any Member for disorderly behavior and, with the concurrence of two-thirds (2/3) of the entire membership, suspend or expel a Member. A penalty of suspension shall not exceed sixty (60) calendar days.
Note that Gordon is not seeking Trillanes’ suspension: he wants Trillanes expelled from the Senate.Based on this rule, after a majority of Senate Ethics Committee members vote in favor of Gordon’s ethics complaint, it’s time endorse the complaint to the senate plenary, i.e. the senate as a whole will vote on the ethics complaint.

There are 22 active senators right now, as Senator De Lima is in detention for drug trafficking charges [GMA] and is thus unable to vote, while Senator Cayetano has resigned from the Senate after accepting his nomination as Foreign Affairs secretary [GMA].

Thus, two-thirds of 22 is 14.74, i.e. the ethics complaint needs affirmative votes from fifteen (15) senators.

Before we go any further, let me be clear about one thing: this is Politics at work. We can choose to remain naïve by convincing ourselves about rainbows, butterflies, and unicorns, but the fact remains that in this issue – and for most political issues for that matter – political loyalties and personal political interests take primacy.

Now that we got that settled, let’s move on with my predictions on voting behavior.
Probable Affirmative Votes

The PDP-Laban bloc will most likely vote in favor of the complaint. The PDP Laban Bloc members are:
1. Pimentel
2. Ejercito
3. Zubiri
4. Pacquiao
Note that Ejercito has already expressed support for Gordon's complaint [MT].

The Macho Bloc members, all of whom are also members of the Ethics committee, are expected to maintain their stances, and will thus most likely vote in favor of the complaint. The Macho Bloc members are:
5. Sotto
6. Lacson
7. Honasan
The “Lone Wolves”, who are either allied to the administration or are belligerent towards the opposition, are likely to vote against Trillanes too. These are:
8. Villar
9. Binay
10. Angara
So far, we have 10 votes in favor of expelling Trillanes, so we need five (5) more, and here’s where it gets interesting.

The NPC bloc may note vote as one in light of Poe’s pronouncements against the ethics case, so let’s evaluate those who are likely to vote affirmative.
11. Gordon
Gordon is the complainant himself. This is a no-brainer.
12. Legarda
Legarda is generally pro-administration, though not as pro-administration as, say, Pacquiao or the former Senator Cayetano. With that said, however, Malacañang sources tell me that Legarda is being considered for nomination as Environment or Social Work secretary. If that’s the case, Legarda’s political interests suggest that she will likely vote in favor of the complaint.
So far, we have 12 votes, so three more.

Sway Votes and No Votes

As mentioned earlier, several LP-aligned senators have openly opposed the ethics complaint. These are:
"No" # 1. Aquino
"No" # 2. Pangilinan
"No" # 3. Drilon
"No" # 4. Hontiveros
De Lima also opposed the complaint but she won’t vote on it anyway because she’s currently detained in Camp Crame. Trillanes is also expected to vote against the measure.
"No" # 5. Trillanes
Meanwhile, Poe can swing both ways based on her recent statements. Escudero is another “unpredictable”, so I think that just like Poe, he can swing both ways.
"Maybe" # 1. Poe
"Maybe" # 2. Escudero
So far, we have 19 senators accounted for, so we have three more to evaluate. The remaining four are:
  • Gatchalian
  • Villanueva
  • Recto

"Maybe" # 3. Gatchalian

Gatchalian been generally neutral on Duterte’s policies so far. He publicly shared differing views on the South China Sea ruling, and he was one of the first to call for a review of Duterte’s martial law decalaration. Note, however, that he ended up backing the latter [Inq].

Moreover, Gatchialian has a pending graft case at the Sandiganbayan [Inq]. Thus, it may be in his political interest to side with Duterte, since that case will probably reach the Supreme Court. By the time that case reaches the high court, Duterte would have appointed at least ten SC associate justices [TP: SC Math]. 

I think Gatchalian’s odds would be just like Honasan’s in the committee level.

"Maybe" # 4. Villanueva

Joel Villanueva, while still a member of the Liberal Party, is part of the Duterte-friendly majority bloc. Villanueva is generally seen to be pro-Duterte, after photos of Villanueva's father Bro. Eddie of the Jesus is Lord movement praying over Duterte surfaced online weeks prior to the elections. That is, I believe Eddie will exert influence on Joel’s vote.

I think Villanueva’s odds would be just like Honasan’s in the committee level.

"Maybe" # 5. Recto

Recto is generally cordial with Trillanes but Recto has joined the administration-friendly majority bloc several months ago [GMA]. In fairness to Recto, I think he is quite neutral and fair in his decisions, so he can swing both ways (50-50).


Predicting the Voting Tally

Let’s summarize what we’ve discussed in the previous section. To recall, two of the 24 senators (De Lima and Cayetano) are out, so we’ll have 22 active senators in the plenary.

The extremely highly probable affirmative votes are:
1. Pimentel
2. Ejercito
3. Zubiri
4. Pacquiao
5. Sotto
6. Lacson
7. Honasan
8. Villar
9. Binay
10. Angara
11. Gordon
12. Legarda
The sway votes are:
13. Gatchalian (70-30)
14. Villanueva (70-30)
15. Poe (50-50)
16. Escudero (50-50)
17. Recto (50-50)
The extremely highly probable negative votes are:
1. Drilon
2. Pangilinan
3. Trillanes
4. Hontiveros
5. Aquino

The $64 Question: Backdoor Negotiations?

The odds of Gordon’s ethics complaint receiving a 2/3 affirmative vote are pretty good, but it is by no means certain. Thus, it’s important for Gordon, along with other camps who want to expel Trillanes, to secure three out of the five sway votes. Thus, we are left with the following questions:
  • Will Gordon use political capital to convince the senators? 
  • Will there be a rare display of decisiveness on the part of Poe?
  • Will Joel Villanueva decide based on what his dad would want?
  • Will Recto, after years of being an LP outcast, emancipate himself from the party’s clutches?
And most importantly…
  • Will the Duterte Administration influence the Senate?
Your guess is as good as mine but whichever way it goes, I think that Trillanes’ immediate political survival is very seriously under threat.

And here's a special message to Senator Poe: Your decision on this matter may make or break your political career, so please vote wisely. They nation's eyes are on you right now [TP].

DONT FORGET TO SHARE! 
Did you like this post? Help ThinkingPinoy stay up! Even as little as 50 pesos will be a great help!

RELATED POSTS:



Gordon’s Ethics Complaint: Recent discoveries suggest Trillanes is toast

$
0
0
Recent discoveries about dynamics inside the Senate virtually ensure Trillanes’ expulsion.

A Quick Recap

In “Bye-bye Trillanes? How far will Gordon’s ethics complaint go?”, I analyzed the Senate’s possible voting behavior on Senator Richard “Dick” Gordon’s prospective ethics complaint against Senator Antonio “Sonny” Trillanes IV, based on each senator’s political interests.

If you haven't read that article, I strongly suggest that do before you read this one.

In that article, I explained the steps involved in the processing an ethics complaint, namely:
  1. Someone files a complaint.
  2. Ethics committee (EC) hears the complaint then votes on it. The complaint will be endorsed to the senate plenary if a simple majority (50% + 1) approves of it. The committee has seven in it, so four votes are required.
  3. If EC endorses the complaint, then senate plenary tackles it and votes on it. The complaint will successfully cause the suspension and/or expulsion of the senator-in-question if it gathers two-thirds of the senators’ votes. There are 22 in the plenary, so fifteen votes are required.
In seven-person Ethics Committee, I predicted that the Sotto, Lacson, and Pacquiao will almost certainly vote for the complaint, so the vote of either Honasan or Poe is necessary.

In the 22-person plenary, meanwhile, I predicted twelve “yes” senator-voters, namely: (1) Pimentel, (2) Ejercito, (3) Zubiri, (4) Pacquiao, (5) Sotto, (6) Lacson, (7) Honasan, (8) Villar, (9) Binay, (10) Angara, (11) Gordon, and (12) Legarda.

I also predicted the five “no” senator-voters, namely: (1) Aquino the Ninoy Cosplayer, (2) Pangilinan-Cuneta, (3) Drilon, (4) Hontiveros, and (5) Trillanes.

With this, I explained that it would be necessary for three of the remaining five “maybes” – (1) Gatchalian, (2) Villanueva, (3) Recto, (4) Poe, and (5) Escudero – to vote for the complaint if the Trillanes is to be expelled.

Discovery No. 1: Trillanes will be forced to inhibit

DLSU Political Science professor Antonio Contreras informed me today that the “defendant” in an ethics complaint is not allowed to vote on it, and this totally changes the ballgame.

Let’s recall the members of the Senate Committee on Ethics and Privileges:
  1. Sotto
  2. Lacson
  3. Pacquiao
  4. Honasan
  5. Poe
  6. Hontiveros
  7. Trillanes
Trillanes is a part of the Senate Committee on Ethics and Privileges. If he will not be allowed to vote, then the total number of members is six. Like what I’ve explained in the previous article, Sotto, Lacson, and Pacquiao will almost certainly vote in favor of the complaint. Thus, even if Honasan, Poe, and Hontiveros vote to dismiss the complaint, the tally will still be 3-3.

The committee chairman – in this case Sotto – usually provides the tie-breaker vote, but owing to the sensitivity of the issue, my senate insider-friends and I predict that Sotto will push for the convening of the “Committee of the Whole”, similar to what happened in 2010 when then Senator Maria Ana Consuelo “Jamby” Madrigal filed an ethics complaint against then Senator Manuel “Manny” Villar, Jr., over the C-5 controversy [Senate].
The “Committee of the Whole” rule refers to the whole membership of a legislative house, in this case the Senate, sitting as a committee and operating under informal rules [MW]. Thus, even a 3-3 tie vote will result in a de facto endorsement to the Senate Plenary, as the members of the “Committee of the Whole” and the members of the Senate Plenary are, pretty much, one and the same.

In short, Trillanes’ forcible inhibition inevitably results into a endorsement of Gordon’s ethics complaint to the Plenary.

Now, Trillanes will also inhibit from voting at the “Committee of the Whole”, so the total number of voter-senators will thus be 21.

But wait, there’s more!

Discovery # 2: Trillanes may move to exclude Gordon from voting

As the defendant, Trillanes may file a motion to exclude the complainant Gordon. Gordon may accede to Trillanes motion, although this will still be subject to voting by the Committee of the Whole. Thus, we are left with two scenarios: (A) Gordon votes, and (B) Gordon inhibits.

If Gordon votes, the total number of senator-voters in the plenary will be 21, so that the required two-thirds majority vote to expel Trillanes is 14. If Gordon inhibits, the total number of senator-voters in the plenary will be 20, and two-thirds will still be 14.

Truth be told, I believe it won’t matter much because Trillanes has made so many enemies in the Senate, it won’t be too difficult to find someone who’ll vote against him.

Let me explain further.

Discovery # 3: A not-so-solid Liberal Party

Let’s exclude Gordon and assume that only 11 will surely vote to expel Trillanes, so we need three more for 15 votes (2/3 majority), as only 20 will be voting on the ethics complaint.

As you may recall, four (4) senators – (1) Aquino the Ninoy Cosplayer, (2) Pangilinan-Cuneta, (3) Hontiveros the Kidnapper, and (4) Drilon – have already issued a statement in support of Trillanes [Star]. All these four Senators are from the Liberal Party (LP). Well, Hontiveros is Akbayan, but we all know that Akbayan is “LP Lite”.

Interestingly, the other two LP senators – Villanueva and Recto – did not sign the statement, and for good reason. Villanueva is technically from CIBAC but he ran under the LP ticket.
Senate insiders told me that both Recto and Villanueva strongly dislike Trillanes and they will almost certainly vote against the coup plotter. For one, my senate sources told me that both have less than rosy words to say about Trillanes when speaking about the latter in the senate corridors.

Yes, my senate sources are very confident that the two will vote against Trillanes, bringing the total of “yes” votes to 13.

One more.

Discovery # 4: Escudero likely to vote “No”.

The remaining “maybes” are Poe, Escudero, Gatchalian.
Let’s face it: Escudero is a TraPo (traditional politician) in every sense of the word. He looks like one, talks like one, and acts like one. Despite that, Escudero, unlike Hontiveros, is not stupid. He is an astute politician, in the sense that he knows how to play “survival politics”.

In that case, I am confident that he will vote “no” because of the prospective Andy Bautista impeachment case.

In “Andy Bautista exit more likely after Hontiveros kidnapping stunt”, I explained that Escudero may be convinced to acquit embattled Comelec chair Andres Bautista, because Bautista’s removal may uncover Escudero’s reported maneuverings during the 2016 National Elections.

According to my sources, Escudero gave the Comelec the go-signal to transfer votes for him to VP Leni Robredo, allowing the latter to overtake Bongbong Marcos by a hair's breadth [FB].

Thus so far, we have 13 “expel” votes and 5 “retain” votes.

Discovery # 5: Gatchalian’s and Poe's respective predicaments.

The remaining “maybes” are Poe and Gatchalian and we still need one more vote to expel Trillanes from the senate.
Gatchalian has a pending graft case at the Sandiganbayan, as I’ve explained in a previous article. Thus, it may be in his political interest to side with Duterte, since that case will probably reach the Supreme Court. By the time it does, Duterte would have appointed at least ten SC associate justices [TP: SC Math] or even eleven, as Chief Justice Lourdes Sereno may be removed as her impeachment case gains major traction in the Lower House [Star].

Poe, on the other hand, is part of Senate President Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel’s majority bloc. Poe’s term ends in 2019, and I am confident that she’s gunning for re-election. Even if she votes in favor of Trillanes (or abstains, which essentially has the same effect), she may still win in 2019.

The problem, however, is whether that prospective 2019 senatorial win, despite being a win, may still turn out to be an embarrassment. Recall the Poe was on top of the senatorial winners in the 2013 elections. Her placing anywhere lower than 3rd will be politically humiliating because it will imply that the populace isn’t as confident in her as before. And I think this will happen if she doesn’t vote to expel Antonio, who is probably the most hated public figure right now, except possibly for… No, Trillanes really is the most hated today.

Absolving Trillanes will also be disastrous for her long-term political ambitions. Remember that she ran for president in 2016 and lost, but the general consensus back then was that she’s still too young and inexperienced for the presidency. To be fair, many of those who didn’t vote for her, and even some who did, felt that she has better chances if she runs in 2022.

But if she absolves Trillanes, she might as well kiss those dreams goodbye.

Harsh? Yes, but true.


Discovery #6: Duterte will call Koko

Now, let’s recall that we have 13 “expel” votes so far, and we need one more vote from either Gatchalian or Poe. 

President Rodrigo Duterte has repeatedly said that he doesn’t meddle with the affairs of the legislature. But I have reason to believe that this is just lip service. Duterte isn’t stupid: he will use backdoor channels to get things done.

We all know that Duterte has publicly displayed his dislike of Trillanes, with him even announcing that he’d advise his son, Davao City vice-mayor Paolo Duterte, to remain silent at the senate hearings [CNN].

Earlier today, Duterte even likened Trillanes to a terrorist group when he said in a mix of Cebuano and Tagalog [Inq]:
“This Trillanes (is a) political ISIS. He has no talent. He will not… he does not even know (the difference) between a democrat and a member of a party. How can I expect (him to know)? He lacks… what he knows in life is not enough.”
The list goes on and on but what’s clear is that, if given the option, Duterte would probably rather have Trillanes become a private citizen. 

I expect Duterte to discreetly summon Pimentel to Malacañang and ask the latter to serve as a “senatorial whip” and influence the majority members to vote in favor of Malacañang’s interests. Poe and Gatchalian are both members of the senate majority, of which Pimentel, being the Senate President, is the de facto head.

Imagine the humiliation on Pimentel’s part if it turns out that the majority bloc is a majority bloc only by name?

I believe that Pimentel is an astute politician. Unlike Hontiveros, he is not stupid: he is a bar topnotcher for crying out loud! I am confident that he can find a way to whip Poe and Gatchalian into submission, if only for the sake of his own political survival.

Note, however, that he needs only one more vote, and I am confident that Poe and Gatchalian, neither of whom are idiots like Hontiveros, will yield. With that said, I predict 14 or even 15 votes in favor of expelling Trillanes, and only five votes against.

Thus, even with Gordon out of the picture, Trillanes will still be toast

UPDATE: 1:51 AM 04 September 2017

I was notified that Gatchalian's graft cases have been dismissed by the Sandiganbayan months ago, thus giving Gatchalian less incentive in voting against Trillanes. For now, I will assume that Gatchalian will vote to dismiss the ethics complaint, so that makes Poe's vote necessary for Trillanes' expulsion.

Grace, moment mo na! Don't let the people down!!![TP].

DONT FORGET TO SHARE! 

 Did you like this post? Help ThinkingPinoy stay up! Even as little as 50 pesos will be a great help! Just click the link below! :-)

RELATED POSTS:



The Impeachment Gambit: Connecting Trillanes, Bautista, Sereno, Robredo, and Marcos

$
0
0

After gaining lots of very useful contacts from the House of Representatives, I have discovered that the much-touted supermajority has finally started flexing its legislative muscles.

Inday, ilabas na ang chopping block!



Yesterday, Senator Richard Gordon finally filed an ethics complaint against Senator Antonio “Sonny” Trillanes IV. Referring to the complaint, Gordon said in an ambush interview yesterday, “It’s going to be filed today... I don’t need signatories. I have the support of more than 10, more than 12, more than 14 [senators] [GMA].”

Yes, the wheels have started turning and the public is very happy with the development, but let’s not lose sight of the forest for trees, because it appears that Trillanes’ expulsion from the senate is just a small part of a series of moves in what appears to be a chess gambit.

DEFINITION: A gambit (from ancient Italian gambetto, meaning "to trip") is a chess opening in which a player, more often White, sacrifices material, usually a pawn, with the hope of achieving a resulting advantageous position [Brace 1979]
There are four key pieces involved in this gambit:
  1. Senator Antonio “Sonny” Trillanes 
  2. Supreme Court Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno 
  3. Commission on Elections (COMELEC) chair Andres “Andy” Bautista 
  4. Vice-president Maria Leonor “Leni” Robredo 
That is, a series of events, starting with Trillanes expulsion, will lead to a political chain reaction that may virtually annihilate any significant level of power that the Liberal Party has today.

Note that this will not be an article about what should happen. It is instead about what will likely happen in the Philippine political scene, an arena that’s has so far been more lively and exciting than even the sappiest Mexican telenovela.

Let’s go.

Move No. 1: “Impeach” Trillanes

In Sunday’s “Gordon’s Ethics Complaint: Recent discoveries suggest Trillanes is toast”, I explained how Gordon’s ethics complaint will have the support of a least 13 senators, with the vote of Senator Grace Poe OR Senator Win Gatchalian being the crucial 14th vote to complete the two-thirds majority required to expel Trillanes. There will only be 20 or 21 senators who will vote on the complaint.

Gordon, however, said yesterday that he has the support of 14 or more senators, so it appears that Gordon may have secured the Gatchalian’s support.
A highly-placed source from the senate independently confirmed that Sen. Gatchalian is very likely to support Gordon’s petition. So yeah, it seems that Gordon isn’t bluffing.

While some netizens tell me that this should have been filed a long time ago. But then, remember that a certain Abelardo de Jesus filed an ethics complaint against Trillanes back in March 2017, and it didn’t gain any traction [ABS]. That is, I think Gordon’s complaint was filed at just about the right time because it gave Trillanes enough time to piss off a sufficient number of senators.

As far as I am concerned, it’s just a matter of time before Trillanes, along with his horde of consultants, bids the Senate goodbye.

Trillanes’ pending exit, along with Sen. Leila de Lima’s detention and Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano’s resignation, will put the total number of active senators to just 21. Thus, the original two-thirds majority from 16 (based on 24 senators) will be reduced to 14 (based on 21), making convictions in impeachment trials much easier to achieve.

As I have explained in my 26 August 2017 article “Andy Bautista exit more likely after Hontiveros kidnapping stunt”, there are eight would-be senator-judges who are likely to vote “acquit” in a prospective impeachment trial and that one of them is Trillanes. If Trillanes exits the senate, the maximum number of “acquittal” votes will be 7. Adding the fact that only 21 will be voting, Trillanes’ exit makes a “sure acquittal” scenario impossible.

Now, let's set that aside and talk about Andy.

Move No. 2: Impeach Bautista

There are several impeachment cases filed in the House of Representatives (HoR) today. They involve the following figures:
  1. Supreme Court Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno 
  2. Commission on Elections (COMELEC) chair Andres “Andy” Bautista 
  3. Vice-president Maria Leonor “Leni” Robredo 
  4. Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales 
Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales is set to retire in July 2018, or barely over ten months from now. Honestly speaking – and I believe most congressmen will agree with me – I think that impeaching Carpio-Morales will be a waste of time for the simple reason that she’s about to exit anyway. Meanwhile, I have read the verified complaint for the impeachment of Comelec chair Andy Bautista filed by Atty. Ferdie Topacio and former Negros Oriental Rep. Jacinto Paras. You can read for yourself by clicking here. Among the four or so grounds for impeachment cited, I believe that the fourth ground – SALN misdeclaration – is more than enough to get Bautista convicted in a senate impeachment trial.

A source, who’s part of the HoR leadership, told me that Bautista has sent feelers to the office of House Speaker Pantaleon “Bebot” Alvarez. That is, Bautista supposedly informed the House leadership that he is intending to resign from his position soon.

With that said, I believe that the Lower House is giving Bautista some time to do it, so that it can focus on the other pending impeachment complaints, one of which may be transmitted to the Senate sooner than expected, and I am referring to…

Move No. 3: Impeach Sereno

There are two verified complaints for the impeachment of Chief Justice Lourdes Sereno: one filed by Atty. Lorenzo “Larry” Gadon, and another by the non-government organization Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption (VACC). So far, Gadon’s complaint has been endorsed by 25 representatives [GMA] while 16 endorsed that of VACC [Inq].

Interestingly, another senior HoR source told me that a large number of representatives have volunteered to endorse these complaints but the House Speaker told them not to sign them yet, and for good reason.

You see, I checked the executive summary of Gadon’s complaint and the number of grounds cited is mind-boggling. For example, Topacio’s 22-page impeachment complaint against Bautista cites only four or five grounds, while Gadon cited TWENTY SEVEN. By simple ratio and proportion, Gadon’s actual complaint must’ve been almost a hundred pages long, and that’s not even counting the annexes!

Among the grounds cited are the following:
  1. Falsifying two Supreme Court resolutions and a temporary restraining order, 
  2. Delaying action on the retirement benefits of judicial personnel,
  3. Manipulating and delaying a resolution after she lost in the voting, 
  4. Manipulating shortlists of judicial nominees in three different occasions, 
  5. Manipulating the Judicial and Bar Council itself, 
  6. Using public funds to finance an extravagant lifestyle, including booking opulent hotel rooms, flying on first class, and having large contingents during official foreign visits. 
  7. Ordering Muntinlupa judges not to issue warrants of arrest against Sen. Leila de Lima 
The list goes on and on. 

Suffice it to say, submitting this lengthy complaint as it is, may result in a senate trial that’ll last forever.

You can check the executive summary of the impeachment case against CJ Sereno by clicking here.

Thus, I agree with Speaker Alvarez when he said said, "Kung gusto lang namin na dumiretso sa impeachment court, kayang-kaya. Pwedeng gawin… Pero ayaw kong gawin. Kasi gusto ko, dito pa lang i-hearing muna natin. Para makita muna natin kung may ebidensya ba o wala, whether it can stand trial in an impeachment court.”

Yeah, I appreciate Bebot’s prudence because there’s no point in hearing all twenty-seven grounds, as proving just one ground will be enough to remove Sereno from the judiciary.

I find Gadon’s complaint exceptionally long and meaty, and it happens to be so because…

According to another HoR source, Supreme Court associate justices who have grudges against Sereno very willingly provide the evidence for her impeachment case. The source even told me that one of the associate justices keeps on calling a senior congressman to ask the latter about the progress of the complaint.

With that said, I am confident that the proponents of the impeachment case against Sereno will find no trouble in looking for evidence. Adding the fact that the pro-Sereno Senate minority bloc lacks numbers, I can confidently say that Sereno, like Trillanes, is toast. 

Move No. 4: Impeach Robredo

The first – and probably the most important – impeachment complaint filed in the Lower House is against VP Leni Robredo, yet it’s the one that has apparently gained the least traction.

According to another HoR source, it’s because the supermajority has never really tested its cohesion, that most house members are scared of endorsing the complaint because of potentially cataclysmic reprisals from the Liberal Party, if and when the latter regains power, e.g. in 2022 when Duterte steps down.

Sereno and Bautista’s removal, made more likely Trillanes’ expulsion, may encourage the representative to temper their fears. That is, Sereno and Bautista will serve as the guinea pigs – the laboratory rats – so the HoR can see how far it can go. That is, the removal of these two can embolden the congressmen to support the impeachment case against Leni Robredo.

Yes, if Trillanes, Sereno, and Bautista go bye-bye, Leni will probably go bye-bye too.

The Trillanes-Bautista-Sereno-Robredo Connection

Interestingly, Sereno, Bautista, and Robredo share at least one common denominator: Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos, Jr.’s (BBM) pending electoral protest.

First, Bautista reportedly conspired with Senator and losing VP candidate Francis “Chiz” Escudero to transfer the latter’s 2016 votes to Robredo, allowing the latter to win over Marcos by a hair’s breadth [FB].

Second, Sereno has seemingly been finding ways to further delay the progress of BBM’s electoral protest case. In my article “#OustDuterte: Leni, Lourdes, Loida, LP, and Plan 0117”, for example, I explained how the Sereno stalled by delaying the preliminary conference on the BBM protest case. The preliminary conference, which should have been held in late August or early September of last year, was held almost one year later in July 2017 [CNN].

Third, Robredo, obviously because she’s the respondent in the BBM electoral protest case.

Let me tell you why this is relevant.

By removing Trillanes, the senatorial roster will be down to 21, so that the required two-thirds majority conviction will be easier to obtain, i.e. it’ll be easier to remove Sereno, Bautista, and Robredo, assuming that none of them will resign before that happens.

By removing Bautista, it will be easier for BBM to access Comelec records because Bautista isn’t there to cockblock him. It will also be easier to subpoena Bautista because he cannot hide behind his powerful Comelec throne anymore.

By removing Sereno, a speedier trial on the electoral protest will ensue, as Sereno won’t be there to delay the proceedings anymore. No more waiting for months and months just to wait for even more months and months.

By removing Leni Robredo, the prospective ex-VP will run out of reasons for delaying the case. For one, she cannot use the “I don’t have money” alibi [Inq] anymore, an alibi that she has used to further delay the proceedings. After all, Robredo’s removal implies her becoming a private citizen again, i.e. she will be able accept donations without many legal roadblocks.

In short, the removal of the three will speed up the BBM case.

But it doesn’t end there.

2019 Senatorial Elections

Speeding up the protest case is essential for BBM because he may need to have it resolved before May 2019, i.e. the 2019 senatorial elections because he will suffer from the “Defensor Doctrine”, after some highly-placed sources in Malacañang told me that BBM plans to run for senator in 2019.
DEFENSOR DOCTRINE: In Defensor vs Ramos [P.E.T. Case No. 01], the Presidential Electoral Tribunal ruled that the late Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago’s 1992 electoral protest case against then-President Fidel V. Ramos has been rendered moot and academic after Defensor-Santiago ran and took office as Senator in 1995.
That is, if BBM runs for senate in 2019 and takes office, his electoral protest against Robredo, where he has paid P66 million so far [CNN], will be dismissed. Thus, removing Sereno and Bautista is well within BBM’s political interests, whether he admits it or not.

Some may argue that the Marcoses may let Ilocos Norte Gov. Imee Marcos run for Senate so BBM can avoid forfeiture of the case. However, this comes with great political risk because many northern politicians agree that without a Marcos in Ilocos to keep the entire province together, bloody feuding among Ilocano political warlords may resume.

Thus, the scenario that’s most beneficial, as far as the Marcoses are concerned, is one that involves a pre-election resolution of the electoral protest case.

The Marcos Wealth Negotiations

With that said, the timing of the Marcos Family’s offer to settle with government is fascinating, to say the least.

If you can recall, I said in Friday’s “Bye-bye LP? Political implications of the Duterte-Marcos negotiations” that these Marcos wealth negotiations may translate into a Marcos Family with greater bargaining power under the Duterte Administration.

Are the Marcoses supporting the removal of Trillanes, Bautista, and Sereno? I can try to ask Ilocos Norte Gov. Imee Marcos about it, but will she dignify that question? Of course, not. I wouldn’t if I were in her place.

Well, as the saying goes:
“In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.”
Regardless, what’s clear here is that at the end of the day, what we might see is a real life chess game that will put Kasparov, Spassky, and Fischer to shame.

The flip-side of all these, however, is that the administration must exercise great prudence in messaging if not in strategizing, [TP]

DONT FORGET TO SHARE! 

 Did you like this post? Help ThinkingPinoy stay up! Even as little as 50 pesos will be a great help! Just click the link below! :-)

RELATED POSTS:



What did Chito Gascon do?

$
0
0
This is the continuation of “Who is CHR Chair Chito Gascon? [Part 1 of 2]”.

NOTE: This article was originally published in August 2016, but I decided to re-publish it in light of recent events.

Jose Luis Martin “Chito” Gascon arrived onto the national stage in 1986. Then the chairman of the University of the Philippines Student Council, he was among the first to heed the call of Cardinal Sin’s call to join the First EDSA Revolution [PCIJ].

Gascon was the youngest member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution. Four years later, Congress named him as youth sector representative, giving him a direct hand in crafting the country’s laws [PCIJ].

For much of the 1990s and 2000s, I didn’t see anything controversial or blatantly questionable about him. He graduated from the University of the Philippines College of Law in 1996, and received a Master’s in International Law from Cambridge University in London a year later [LinkedIn].

Then I stumbled upon 2009.

LP Director and PNoy Usec Chito Gascon

Jose Luis Martin “Chito” Gascon became the Liberal Party’s (LP’s) Director-General in 2009. He openly supported then-Senator Noynoy Aquino’s bid for the presidency.

“I can’t give any indication on whether he would announce his presidential bid. I only have hopes and dreams that he would do so tomorrow,” Gascon said, after being asked whether the senator will finally announce his presidential candicacy [GMA].

Aquino eventually won the presidency in 2010, but not without controversy.

In May 2010, authorities were poised to investigate Quezon Governor and LP Treasurer Rafael Nantes for the discovery of drug transshipments and manufacturing base on Quezon’s Icolong Island [Balita], suggesting that drug money may be have been used to fund the 2010 LP campaign. Unfortunately for Nantes and luckily (?) for LP, Nantes died in a chopper crash a week after the announcement [TVPatrol].

The Nantes Issue happened during Gascon’s term as the Party’s Director-General. That is, Gascon was LP Director General from 2008-2011 and was the Political Director of its successful 2010 National Electoral Campaign [Liberal].

Yes, Gascon helped run the 2010 LP campaign with an alleged druggist as its treasurer.

Gascon stepped down from LP leadership in 2011 and was appointed Undersecretary within the Office of Political Affairs (OPA) by President Aquino (PNoy) [Star].

There isn’t much to be said about his performance in the OPA: he was one of the members of the Peace Panel [OPAPP] that attempted to forward the Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL).

Of course, we all know that the Liberal Party-dominated Congress allowed that bill to die a natural death [Star], as the draft bill purportedly violated the constitution [ABS], the same bill that was drafted with Gascon’s help.

Gascon stepped down four years later to be appointed Chairman of the Commission on Human Rights in June 2015 [Star].

Here is where things start to get really interesting. 

Mayor Duterte and de Lima’s CHR

In “Who is CHR Chair Chito Gascon? [Part 1 of 2]”, I explained that while de Lima reasonably succeeded to prove that extrajudicial killings exist, she failed to prove the crucial element of extrajudicial killings being systematically sanctioned by the national government.

Why is this element crucial? Because it is the reason behind this whole media circus to begin with.
Did any of the witnesses say Duterte himself ordered it? No. Did any of the testimonies or evidences show Duterte himself tolerated extrajudicial killings? No. But then, the failure to link these extrajudicial killings to Duterte is nothing new.

In early 2009, then CHR Chair Leila de Lima launched an inquiry into the existence of the Davao Death Squad, with Duterte as her prime suspect [Preda; Mindanews]. By September 2009, de Lima still wasn’t able to find conclusive evidence proving the existence of the vigilante group Davao Death Squad (DDS), let alone Duterte’s complicity, and the probe eventually died a natural death [Inq].

In 2012, CHR chairperson Loretta Rosales said the commission wants the Ombudsman to investigate Duterte, based on the results of the previous probe that the commission conducted on the alleged presence and operations of the DDS [TV5], still no conclusive evidence.

As of May 2015, no DDS-related cases were ever filed against Duterte. An exasperated Duterte said, “If she (de Lima) files a case, I’ll waive the preliminary investigation, but she has to execute an affidavit because I’m going to question her,” he said [Inq].
Asked recently about why Duterte was never charged, de Lima said, “We don’t have enough evidence against them. There [was] no one to execute a sworn affidavit to prove the existence of the death squad. [MT]”
Yes, six years of investigations and nonstop allegations and not a single case was filed for lack of probable cause.

Candidate Duterte and Gascon’s CHR


On 28 June 2015, LP said it hopes to Duterte will back Mar after Duterte shelved his own presidential bid [GMA], with Roxas “casually visiting” Duterte twice in a span of two weeks [Inq], and we all know how that ended up.

On 07 December 2015, Duterte declined all VP offers and declared his candidacy via a technicality [ABS].

On 11 December 2015, five days after Duterte filed his candidacy, the CHR announced that it will, for the third time, probe Duterte’s alleged rights abuses [GMA], with Gascon on the lead [CNN].

On 13 December 2015, Aquino and LP-led Malacañang publicly backed CHR’s probe [Star].

The timing of the CHR probe reeks of the stench of politicking.  But I admit that it's too early to say that at this point, so let's investigate a little bit more.
On 11 March 2016, rumors surfaced that the CHR was readying charges against Duterte for his alleged involvement in extrajudicial killings in Davao City [Star]. CHR did not press charges, essentially showing that the new round of investigations failed to yield significant results.

On 11 May 2016, the best CHR can say is they’ll be watching. Gascon said, “As all public officials will take oath to uphold the Constitution, we will hold that President-elect Duterte will stand for human rights [Inq].”

Seven fruitless years since the 2009 investigation and CHR found nothing significant enough to build a case against Duterte, yet the CHR and de Lima continue to hound Duterte with allegations.

Duterte never begged for mercy and he did not even block these investigation attempts, yet CHR still failed to indict Duterte. Why? CHR found no evidence linking him to these deaths. Because if there were, Roxas and de Lima would have been drooling like mad dogs.

It’s August 2016, three months have passed since then, and we are faced with yet another investigation.

Judging from Gascon’s insistence on the International Criminal Court angle [Star] despite the lack of evidence, the CHR has pretty much pre-judged Duterte.

Is CHR violating Duterte’s civil and political rights by doing so? But CHR’s mandate is protect citizens’ civil and political rights, right? 

Oh, the irony.

With these said, it is clear that the CHR, for seven years, has focused its resources on a crusade against Duterte, despite the chronic lack of evidence which, by the way, is the exact same thing that the CHR is required to produce. Should the CHR focus on allegations that actually have evidence to back them up? What’s confusing for me is CHR’s silence on another, more gruesome, extrajudicial killing case that, unlike the Duterte issue, provides a wealth of evidence.

I am referring to the worst post-Martial Law government-sanctioned human rights violation: The Hacienda Luisita Massacre

The 2004 Hacienda Luisita Massacre 

I am notorious for writing extremely long articles. Hence, to reduce the word count, here's a video clip taken during the 2004 Hacienda Luisita Massacre [TP: Hacienda Luisita]:




Police and army units killed at least seven protesting farmers [MS] and injured hundreds [Int’list]. More deaths followed in the succeeding years [GMA].

A decade later in 2014 and before Gascon became CHR head, CHR Commissioner Atty. Norberto dela Cruz and Region III Director Atty. Jasmin Navarro Regino confirmed various reports of grave rights violations in Hacienda Luisita during its field investigation held on April 29, 2014 [LuisitaWatch].

Despite these findings, nobody has been arrested as of April 2016 [DavaoToday].

I googled for news articles between 01 June 2015 to 26 August 2016 using the keyword “Gascon Luisita” [Google]. Google returned eight news articles, and none of them directly concerning Hacienda Luisita.

Over a year into Gascon’s CHR chairmanship, Gascon has not done anything to resolve the human rights violations in Hacienda Luisita. I was not even looking for cases filed against the Hacienda’s owners: even a reminder of an ongoing investigation will do. But no, there weren’t any.

No pronouncements from Gascon, despite the CHR’s 2014 confirmation that grave rights violations were committed.

Machinations and Hacienda Luisita

The massacre is just a small part of the decades-long struggle of Luisita farmers for their rights over Luisita land per the Comprehensive Land Reform Program in 1988 [L.A.Indymedia].

Using legal sorcery, the Cojuangcos held on to the land up to this day.

Now, let’s recall that anger over the extrajudicial killings arises from the notion that summary killing has become the President’s policy. To prove this, at least one of the following conditions must hold [TP: Gascon P1]:
  1. Duterte formally ordered summary killings, or
  2. Duterte tolerates abuses of law enforcement officers.
Now, sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose, so let's apply the same standards on PNoy vis-a-vis the Hacienda Luisita issue.

On the Hacienda Luisita issue, the second condition holds.

PNoy stance on the Luisita issue was clear as he and his ally, losing 2016 LP presidential bet Mar Roxas, defended the injustices against the Luisita farmers.
A few days before the 2010 Presidential elections, ABS-CBN published a list of alibis from PNoy, Roxas, and Hacienda Luisita spokesmen, suggesting that the Cojuangco Family’s wealth depends on the Noynoy presidency [ABS].

One of PNoy’s alibis reads, “Kami na nga po ang naaapi d’yan (We are already the ones being oppressed there).”

Despite PNoy’s stance, the Supreme Court sided with the farmers.

SC rules on Hacienda Luisita

On 25 April 2012, the Supreme Court unanimously decided to ordered the distribution of almost 5,000 hectares land to farmers and fixing the valuation for just compensation to the 1989 value of the land, making the land more affordable for the poor farmers [Inq]. Cabreza even wrote,
“Ecstatic cheers from weeping farmers shattered the silence on the court premises, after the tribunal allowed Hacienda Luisita farmers to keep their lands at a very low cost [Inq].”

While the decision was unanimous, one Supreme Court justice agreed with Hacienda Luisita Incorporated’s appeal that the 2006 valuation be used instead. That justice’s opinion, of course, was not adopted [Inq].

Who was that justice who sided with Cojuangcos? Maria Lourdes Sereno [Inq].

A month later, Chief Justice Renato Corona was impeached [Inq], with PNoy’s Malacañang allegedly bribing senators P50 million each to vote against him [GMA].

Who replaced Corona? Maria Lourdes Sereno [ABS].

The Supreme Court’s decision was final and executory, and it was up to Aquino’s Department of Agrarian Reform to implement the court order.

Through corporate-legal mumbo-jumbo, reclaimed ownership of the 6,453-hectare Hacienda Luisita, reducing the farmer-beneficiaries who were supposed to own the land under the agrarian reform program to sakadas or plantation workers [MS], instead of making them bonafide landowners under the Agrarian Reform Program.

As of yesterday, or almost 30 years after CARP’s launch and four years after the 2012 SC decision, the farmers still do not own the lands they till [Inq].

Question: Did Chito Gascon’s CHR do anything about it?

Answer: Nope. Nope. Nope. 

Rodrigo versus Luisita

On the Luisita Issue, the Aquino Administration clearly tolerated Hacienda Luisita Incorporated’s excesses to the detriment of poor Tarlaceño farmers. A countless number of articles, investigations, testimonials, admissions and other pieces of evidence say so.

Despite the preponderance of evidence, however, Gascon’s CHR deems the Luisita issue a non-priority.

On the Duterte Issue, the sequence of events in the previous sections clearly show the lack of evidence to pin down Duterte. An investigation in 2009, another in 2012, another in 2015, and another in 2016, all failed to produce sufficient evidence.

Despite this, Gascon’s CHR has been going after Duterte for seven years and running.

Thus, I ask, why?

Being its former director general and campaign director, Gascon has extremely close ties with the Liberal Party, and the Liberal Party’s head was PNoy, who also happens to be the poster boy of the Cojuangco Family, the “owners” of Hacienda Luisita.

Meanwhile, Duterte has become the Liberal Party’s archnemesis since he declared his candidacy. Duterte’s trademark in the past couple of months is his war on drugs. Unfortunately for LP, this will hurt, as many of its members and its appointees have been implicated in the drug trade [TP: Ronnie; TP: Robredo; TP: Mayors].

Interestingly, the Duterte Administration made peasant rights activist Rafael Mariano DAR Secretary. His first order as DAR Sec? Distribution of Hacienda Luisita land [Star/Yahoo].

Now, what would happen if Gascon somehow succeeds to remove Duterte from Malacañang?

The answer is simple:

A President Leni Robredo from the Liberal Party. [ThinkingPinoy]


DON'T FORGET TO SHARE!

RELATED POSTS:

Did you like this post? Help ThinkingPinoy stay up! Even as little as 50 pesos will be a great help!

CHR as “legal fiction” and the removal of Chito Gascon

$
0
0
I have read some posts questioning the legal existence of the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines, with the argument being that there is no enabling law creating CHR. That is, while the Constitution provides for the creation of a CHR, the current CHR is created only by virtue of an executive order, which is EO 163 s. 1987.

EO 163, which was issued in May 1987, or three months after the 1987 was ratified. This date of issuance is important in light of the 1987 Constitution’s Transitory Provisions.

Specifically, Art. XVII Sec. 6 of the 1987 Constitution states:
"The incumbent President shall continue to exercise legislative powers until the first Congress is convened."
EO 163 s. 1987, which was issued way before the First post-EDSA Congress convened. That is, despite being just an EO, EO 163 has the force and effect of a Republic Act because Cory had ersatz dictatorial powers right after EDSA and right before Congress convened. The First post-EDSA congress convened in July 1987, about two months after Cory Aquino issued EO 163.

In short, EO 163 sufficiently provides legal existence for CHR so no, CHR's legal existence is not in question. 

This bears repeating: THE CHR IS NOT LEGAL FICTION.

But wait, there's more.

Why bother asking?

Truth be told, a lot of Filipinos aren’t very happy with the CHR of late, and many are calling for its abolition mainly due to its disturbing politicization.

For example, former Liberal Party Director-General and current CHR Chair Chito Gascon has been travelling all over world denouncing allegedly Duterte-sanctioned human rights violations, despite the fact that (1) there is no concrete evidence that the HR violations are indeed sanctioned by the palace and (2) it is not within the CHR’s mandate to go overseas and disparage the government.
I think, however, that the Commission on Human Rights should not be abolished because the issue here is less on the legitimacy of CHR’s real purpose and more on doubts surrounding Chairman Gascon’s real motives.

The House of Representatives share the same opinion, in my belief. After appropriating a measly P1,000 annual budget for CHR, House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez said he may reconsider this if Gascon resigns [GT].

But of course, Gascon will NOT resign. Let me tell you why, then let me tell you what we can do about it.

Why Gascon will not resign

If Gascon resigns, LP will lose its best propaganda tool.

The continued existence of a political party depends on its ability to project political relevance, and this is possible mainly through having party members occupy influential positions in government, positions that they can use for propaganda. That is, the continued existence of a political party is concomitant to its access to propaganda tools.
Unfortunately for Gascon’s Liberal Party, its members occupy only six key avenues of power, and these are:
  1. The Vice-presidency, via LP Chairperson Leni Robredo,
  2. The Senate, via the 5 LP stalwarts senators,
  3. The Ombudsman, via Aquino-appointee Conchita Morales, and
  4. The Commission on Elections, via Aquino-appointee Andres Bautista
  5. The Supreme Court, via Aquino appointee Maria Lourdes Sereno.
  6. The CHR, via former LP director-general and Aquino-appointee Jose Luis “Chito” Gascon.
Now, let’s discuss the effectiveness of each.

LP’s Propaganda Tools

FIRST, VP Leni Robredo tried to disparage the Duterte Administration, but she has neither the widespread charisma nor the intellectual aptitude so she’s largely ignored. Case in point, her popularity ratings continue to dip, with her net approval rating rivalling that of former VP Binay at his lowest point.

SECOND, LP is also losing steam in the Senate. It’s primary attack dog Trillanes is toast. Its next attack dog, Senator Leila de Lima, is in detention for letting her primordial itch pave the way for the drug menace. It’s third attack dog, Kidnapper-Senator Risa Hontiveros, has become the nation’s laughing stock after gloriously bungling several times, and is at immediate risk of being perpetually disqualified from public office for wiretapping Justice Secretary Aguirre.

Thus, we are left with Senators Aquino, Pangilinan, and Drilon. Note that the other two LP senators Villanueva and Recto are already members of the Senate majority bloc so I wouldn’t consider them part of LP’s propaganda arsenal.

LP Senators from left: De Lima, Aquino, Pangilinan, Drilon, and Hontiveros. Trillanes is from the Nacionalista Party but he has no party loyalty, and serves as LP's attack dog in the Senate.
Now, Drilon and Pangilinan are LP stalwarts, but they’re political chameleons. While they would defend LP, they simply are not the kind of people who would stick their neck out for their party.
Aquino, on the other hand, appears to have presidential ambitions, and if he has been intently watching Leni Robredo, he must have realized that attacking the massively popular administration will obliterate his political future.THIRD, the Ombudsman in itself is not a very powerful propaganda tool because it needs to work alongside other officials to pin someone down. And even if it were, Ombudsman Morales will step down in July 2018, so her days in power will be over 10 months from now.

FOURTH, Comelec isn’t a very powerful propaganda tool either. It’s relevant only during the election season. Moreover, the embattled Bautista’s hold on power is already questionable, as fellow Comelec commissioners called for his resignation amidst the Andy-Tisha scandal.

FIFTH, the Chief Justice isn’t a very powerful propaganda tool, as CJ’s typically inhibit from speaking publicly and let’s be honest: only a handful of Filipinos actually spend time reading her court decisions.

Thus, we have only one avenue left: The Commission on Human Rights.

Thus, If Gascon resigns, LP will lose the single most effective propaganda tool in its arsenal. So yes, Gason will not resign. But then, is resignation the only way to kick Gascon out?

Removing Chito Gascon

Some camps argue that Chito Gascon can only be removed through impeachment. But it seems that very question whether Gascon is an impeachable official or not, so let’s ask:
Is the CHR chairman an impeachable official?
The 1987 Constitution clearly lists down the types of impeachable officials. Specifically, Art. XI Sec. 2 lists impeachable officials as:
  1. The President
  2. The Vice-president
  3. The members of the Supreme Court
  4. The members of the Constitutional Commissions, and 
  5. The Ombudsman.
Thus, Gascon is an impeachable official if he’s a member of a constitutional commission. Thus, let’s ask:
Is the CHR is a constitutional commission?
At first glance, it appears that the CHR indeed is a constitutional commission, as an entire article in the Constitution is dedicated to its creation. However, Article IX, explicitly entitled “Constitutional Commission”, does NOT include the CHR in its list of constitutional commissions.

Specifically, Art. IX (A) Sec. 1 states:
The Constitutional Commissions, which shall be independent, are the Civil Service Commission, the Commission on Elections, and the Commission on Audit.
Yes, there’s no CHR in the list.

Some camps may argue that the CHR, while not explicitly listed in Art. IX as a constitutional commission, can still be considered a constitutional commission because the Constitution itself created it.

I found a very interesting sentence in EO 163 s. 1987, Sec. 2(d), which states:
The Chairman and the Members of the Commission on Human Rights shall receive the same salary as the Chairman and Members, respectively, of the Constitutional Commissions, which shall not be decreased during their term of office.
Take a harder look at the phrase “the same as… the... members… of the Constitutional Commissions...”. Cory used the phrase “of the Constitutional Commissions” instead of “of other Constitutional Commissions”, implying that Cory herself may not have considered the CHR a constitutional commission to begin with.

But that’s not enough to definitive answer the question so…

Fiscal Autonomy of Constitutional Commissions

Article IX (A) Sec. 5 of the 1987 Constitution states:
The [Constitutional Commissions] shall enjoy fiscal autonomy. Their approved annual appropriations shall be automatically and regularly released.
In short, if the CHR is a constitutional commission, then the CHR should enjoy fiscal autonomy.

However, in CHR Employees vs CHR [GR No. 15536], the Supreme Court said:
“This Court is convinced that the [Constitutional Committee] had intended to grant to the respondent the privilege of having its approved annual appropriations automatically and regularly released, but nothing more.”
The High Court ruled that the CHR enjoys limited fiscal autonomy, as opposed to absolute fiscal autonomy accorded to the Constitutional Commissions. That is, if the CHR is a constitutional commission, then the Supreme Court would have categorically stated that CHR has fiscal autonomy in accordance with Art. IX (A) Sec. 5... but the Supreme Court did not. 

CHR cannot be a constitutional commission. 

Yes, the CHR is a Constitutional Office but it is NOT a Constitutional Commission.

Let’s me restate:
The Supreme Court said the CHR enjoys LIMITED fiscal autonomy, which means it is not a Constitutional Commission, which enjoys full fiscal autonomy. Because CHR is not a constitutional commission, its members are NOT in the list of impeachable officials. 

Particularly, CHR chair Chito Gascon is not an impeachable official.

Not impeachable means no Immunity

Gascon’s not being an impeachable official means he does not enjoy the limited immunity accorded to impeachable officials like Comelec Chair Andres Bautista and Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales.

For example, Greco Belgica’s disbarment case versus Ombudsman Morales was dismissed on the grounds that impeachable officials are immune to lawsuits that would in effect impeach them, as evidenced by Ombudsman vs CA and Mojica [GR No. 146846], where it’s stated that:
“The Ombudsman or his deputies must first be removed from office via… impeachment… Should the tenure of the Ombudsman be thus terminated by impeachment, he may then be held to answer either criminally or administratively e.g., in disbarment proceedings…”
With Gascon not enjoying immunity, we can actually file administrative or criminal charges against him, charges that will not be dismissed on the ground of immunity, charges that, if proven, will merit his removal from the CHR.

Again, impeachment for Gascon won’t be necessary: it’s just a matter of filing (and winning) administrative or criminal cases for Gascon to be removed from CHR… and my sources tell me that a case is already in the works. [TP]
DONT FORGET TO SHARE! 

 Did you like this post? Help ThinkingPinoy stay up! Even as little as 50 pesos will be a great help! Just click the link below! :-)

RELATED POSTS:




#CocoyGate: Senator Sotto, here's the guy you're looking for

$
0
0

THIS ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN IN COLLABORATION WITH  VOVPH AND SASS ROGANDO SASOT.

Since the start of the Duterte Presidency, the opposition and their numerous allies in mainstream media have demonized Duterte-aligned social media personalities, accusing us of being part of some well-oiled, large-scale propaganda machine, an allegation that they have so far failed to substantiate.

Leading the pack is Rappler CEO Maria Ressa, and her best evidence against us is some testimony from a single anonymous source, which I find utterly pathetic. And all the while, they have been turning a blind eye on anti-government, Liberal Party-aligned pages such as Madam Claudia, SilentNoMorePH, ChangeScamming, and the relatively new Pinoy Ako Blog.

So just like what my friend Sass Rogando Sasot and I have been doing since god-knows-when, let us do what mainstream media wilfully neglects to do: investigate these pages and see if there’s a puppeteer behind them.

Note that I am not against anonymous blogs, as I was once the most notorious anonymous blogger in the Philippines. However, I made sure that I did not break laws with whatever I write, something that the anonymous blog SilentNoMore PH cares little about.

I wanted to be anonymous because I do not want fame. However, some appear to stay anonymous, not to evade the limelight, but to evade accountability.

SilentNoMore versus the Senate

A few days ago, SilentNoMore PH called majority bloc senators “Malacanang Dogs” for not signing the Senate Resolution calling for an investigation on alleged extrajudicial killings in the country [TV5].

The senators named by SilentNoMorePH are:
  1. Sen. Vicente “Tito” Sotto
  2. Sen. Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel
  3. Sen. Cynthia Villar
  4. Sen. Richard Gordon
  5. Sen. Juan Miguel Zubiri
  6. Sen. Emmanuel “Manny” Pacquiao
  7. Sen. Gregorio “Gringo” Honasan
Referring to these seven senators, SilentNoMore PH said:
“Their loyalty is to the palace, not to Filipino people whose votes gave them mandate to begin with… These senators’ votes are reflective of their stance: They don’t care about lives. They don’t want to hold this government accountable. They only care about their alliance with Malacanang… These are the senators who will block any action that would investigate the sins of the government. These are the senators whose silence lead(s) to continuous murder of poor and innocent children”
The problem? These seven senators were not even notified that there was such a senate resolution to begin with. That is, they cannot possibly say no to a question that was never asked to them in the first place.

All seven senators are visibly incensed over SilentNoMore PH’s irresponsible post, with Senator Sotto even planning to file cyber libel cases against those behind the social media entity.

But there’s a problem: Who are behind Silent No More PH?

And that’s what I’ll try to answer, and more.
Silent No More PH 
Site URL: http://silentnomoreph.com/ 
Facebook URL: https://www.facebook.com/silentnomorePH

Domain Privacy

In April 2016, I published “#BangkoSerye: Sonny Trillanes and his Hacker-Friend”, where I successfully uncovered self-proclaimed hacker and Magdalo member Bem Pontejos as the administrator behind EllenTordesillas.com.

I did that using a simple WhoIs lookup, which basically shows the contact information of a website’s registrant, administrator, and tech contacts.

WhoIs lookups, however, do not always work because of domain privacy services, or paid services that allow website owners to hide their identity by using third-party contact information in lieu of their own. In the BangkoSerye issue, Bem Pontejos immediately subscribed to domain privacy services from WHOISGUARD to hide his details, even if it was already late.

Unfortunately, SilentNoMore PH also has domain privacy protection, with its registrant, admin, and tech contacts showing as “Contact Privacy Inc.”, which is obviously a domain privacy services provider.

Hence, WhoIs won’t be very useful in unmasking SilentNoMore PH (SNM PH).

But wait, there’s more!

Google AdSense

Serving Google Adsense advertisements, such as the one seen below, is the most popular way to earn money from a website. SNM PH’s website silentnomore.ph has such advertisements.
So let’s ask: who’s earning money from SNM’s website?

The funny thing about Google Ads is that Google requires site administrators to verify their identity and physical addresses before they are even allowed to insert ads in their websites.

Google verifies addresses by sending snail mail containing a passcode to administrators. Upon receiving the letter, the administrators use these passcodes to activate their respective accounts. This makes the process very tedious for residents of countries like the Philippines since the letters are usually mailed from the United States. For example, it took me three months before I received my Google Adsense letter, and only then was I able to serve ads on ThinkingPinoy.net.

Thus, it’s not impossible for ads served on SNM’s website to originate from a Adsense account that’s also used by other websites.

Now, Google Adsense source codes, when inserted into a web page, show the ad’s Google AdSense Publisher ID. The Google Adsense Publisher ID is a unique numeric identifier for a Google AdSense Account. Thus, knowing who’s behind SNM is just a matter of getting the Publisher ID in SNM’s ads and comparing it to the publisher IDs of sites whose owners are already known.

Why? Because it’s the owner of the AdSense Account who financially benefits from all the Google ads served using that account, regardless of what website those ads are served. Surely, no moron will allow others to steal earnings from his own website.

If I were a website owner, why would I let my site’s ad earnings go to somebody else?


SilentNoMorePH

SNM PH’s desktop version has an advertisement field at the top of the home page and we can get the Google Adsense Publisher ID through the following steps:
  1. Open Google Chrome. 
  2. Right-click on the ad 
  3. Choose “Inspect” from the drop-down menu 
  4. Press CTRL+F (find tool), type “ca-pub”, and press enter. 
After performing these steps, you will see something similar to the following image:

The number immediately succeeding “ca-pub”, which is “pub-8283971809912134”, is the Google AdSense publisher ID of whoever owns or controls SilentNoMorePH.

At this point, the question would be “So what other sites serve ads with the same publisher ID?”

Sister Sites!

With the publisher ID already known, it’s now just a matter of finding other websites whose administrators are already known and whose Google Ads feature the same publisher ID.

Using the same process of finding publisher IDs, we found out that the ads served on ProPinoy.net also feature the same publisher ID “pub-8283971809912134”, as shown below.


ProPinoy 
Site URL: https://propinoy.net/ 
Facebook URL: https://www.facebook.com/ProPinoy.net

But it doesn’t end there.Madam Claudia’s site ads also use the the publisher ID “pub-8283971809912134”, as shown below.


Madam Claudia
Site URL: https://madamclaudiaako.com/Facebook URL: https://www.facebook.com/MadamClaudiaOfficialPage/
In short, Cocoy Dayao, the Chairman and Editor-in-Chief of ProPinoy.net, also owns or controls the websites of SilentNoMore PH and Madam Claudia, websites whose content are shared in their respective Facebook Pages.

There are also three other sites that share the same publisher ID “pub-8283971809912134”, as shown below:

These sites are:

1: WeSupportBamAquino.com - pro-Bam website that attacks critics of Bam Aquino.

INTERESTING. DOES BAM AQUINO HAVE A HAND IN ALL THESE?

2: ThinkingMillenialsPH.com - a site that focuses on attacking pro-Duterte bloggers, all are anti-Duterte posts.

3: PulisPatola.com - a fake news site that focuses on attacks against the credibility of the police force.

We’re already here anyway, so we might as well check other anonymous websites and see if they’re also owned or controlled by Cocoy Dayao.

Cocoy controls even more anonymous sites

I also checked the publisher ID used in the ads served in the following sites:

ChangeScamming
Site URL: https://changescamming.net/ 
Facebook URL: https://www.facebook.com/NaDuterte/ 

Backroom Politics 
Site URL: https://backroompolitics.net/ 
Facebook URL: https://www.facebook.com/backroompolitics 

Pinoy Ako Blog 
Site URL: https://pinoyakoblog.com/ 
Facebook URL: https://www.facebook.com/pinoyakoblog/
As it turns out, all three sites use the Google Adsense Publisher ID “pub-1068157602481996”. Below is a screen recording showing how I extracted the publisher IDs of all six sites:
Now, Sass Rogando Sasot has earlier shown that Cocoy Dayao is the administrator contact of Pinoy Ako Blog (PAB), which PAB later acknowledged in a blog post [PAB], though PAB claims that Dayao is just a webmaster (administrator) and not the actual content creator behind PAB.

Regardless, what’s clear here is that Cocoy Dayao is the administrator not only of PAB, but also of Backroom Politics and ChangeScamming. If Dayao sees nothing wrong in being a potential accessory to a crime, then that’s his problem, not ours.

But wait... there’s more, a lot more!

It appears that Cocoy Dayao owns or controls six sites so far, but a more comprehensive search shows that Dayao owns or controls many other fake news sites.

Leveling-up the Research

Using a paid TCPIPUtils.com subscription, I checked for sites using the two Google Adsense Publisher IDs linked to Dayao. TCPIPUtils is a “freemium service”, or a service that can be used for free, but whose features are limited unless a user has a paid subscription.

First and just for kicks, I did a reverse Adsense lookup on my own Google Adsense Publisher ID “pub-2492942939032867” and it shows only two sites:ThinkingPinoy.com and ThinkingPinoy.net, domains that I actually own, as shown below:

Second, I did the same on the ID “pub-8283971809912134”, as shown below:

Aside from ProPinoy, Madam Claudia, and Silent No More, three other websites with one being twentyeightfourteen.com, where the [about page] is a writeup about Cocoy Dayao, suggesting that Dayao owns or controls this site.

Third and most interestingly, I did a reverse Adsense lookup on “pub-1068157602481996”, as shown below:

Aside from PinoyAkoBlog, ChangeScamming, and BackroomPolitics, Dayao also owns or controls the other smaller news or opinion sites such as:
  1. anunabes.com - a supposedly hip news site whose associated facebook page didn’t pick up steam and thus was apparently abandoned.
  2. dikukurap.com - a fake news site that calls Duterte supporters “Duterte D*ck Suckers
  3. dotreport.org - an seemingly abandoned and generally oppositionist opinion blog.
  4. duterteadminnews.com - an apparently pro-Duterte site but its Facebook page got only 92 likes, suggesting that whatever Cocoy’s plans here were abandoned. There are only 4 posts.
  5. fightfortruth.club - supposedly a fact checking site, although it focuses only on fact checking obviously fake news sites using a clear anti-administration bias. Updated once a week.
  6. FixPH.org - another fake news site that called Senator Gordon a “d*ck” as it accused the senator of conniving with Sen. Pimentel in a power grabe against Sen. De Lima.
  7. kolektibo.com - a seemingly abandoned pro-Duterte site.
  8. PilipinongPalaban.com - a staunchly pro-Leni site. No traction though.
  9. politikanginamo.com - another fake news site. According to one of its more recent articles, “Wapakels (si Duterte) kung bata man o matanda, buntis o may kapansanan, inosente man o hindi. Basta sabihin ng mga DDS army na adik ka, patay ka!”
  10.  SocialPatrol.ph - an Liberal Party-leaning website where one of the articles even talks about “The Lighter Side of the Senator Trillanes’ AMA on Reddit

Yeah, that’s a lot, and I am only talking about those websites that I was able to find.

How many more does Cocoy Dayao own or control?

What to do with Cocoy Dayao

Dayao, in his LinkedIn and [UpWork] profiles, calls himself the “Chief Technical Officer” of a certain “Lab Rats Technica Digital Consulting”, a Lipa-based single-proprietorship IT services firm and at this point, it is clear that Cocoy Dayao is involved in these sites in a significant capacity.

We still have to verify if he himself creates some or all of the content for these sites, or if he has associates who help him with it. However, I am inclined to believe the latter because the sheer number of these websites and their varying tones of writing suggest an organization behind the effort as opposed to just one martyr.

Does Dayao do this for love of country, or does he have other motivations? According to his linkedin account, he was a PCOO consultant from 2012 until PNoy stepped down in June 2016. Besides, he does web programming and development for a living.

Dayao is not that smart, as evidenced by his monumental carelessness that led to the creation of this article. Thus, it’s not unlikely that there’s someone behind him who’s calling the shots, who’s providing the funds.

Being the administrator of several fake news sites, Dayao should be invited to the October 4th Senate Hearing on Fake News so the Senate can find out who the brains and the money behind this Liberal Party Propaganda Machine.

Who knows, this might actually be the well-oiled, well-funded propaganda machinery that Maria Ressa has been talking about?

Has Ressa been barking up the wrong tree the entire time?

At the rate things are going, apparently so. [ThinkingPinoy]

DONT FORGET TO SHARE! 

 Did you like this post? Help ThinkingPinoy stay up! Even as little as 50 pesos will be a great help! Just click the link below! :-)


RELATED POSTS:


#CocoyGate: Senator Villar, let me link Cocoy to Bam and Kiko

$
0
0
Senator Cynthia Villar, I think I'm on to something.


In last week’s “#CocoyGate: Senator Sotto, here’s the guy you’re looking for”, I explained how several opposition-aligned websites share a common webmaster: Edward Angelo “Cocoy” Dayao, practically uncovering a massive anti-administration propaganda machine.

In that article, I looked into the Google Adsense advertisements served in these sites and compared them to the advertisements served in websites known to be owned or controlled by Dayao.

That is, I showed that Dayao’s Propinoy.net uses the same Google Adsense Account as SilentNoMorePH, MadamClaudiaAko among others.
    Moreover, I showed that Dayao’s PinoyAkoBlog uses the same Google Adsense Account as ChangeScamming, BackroomPolitics among other.

    And now, what?

    Defending Cocoy

    As the article went viral, several opposition bloggers have come to the rescue, arguing that Dayao is just a domain reseller who has nothing to do with the day-to-day operations of these websites.

    But I beg to disagree.

    Domain resellers do not inject their own advertisement codes in the domains that they sell. Moreover, the fact that Dayao earns money from those websites on a continuous basis is sufficient proof of Dayao’s complicity in their operations.

    Besides, why would a website owner let go of website revenue, no matter how small? Adsense can be set up to do automatic bank deposits, so why would a website owner ignore such a revenue stream that basically doesn’t require a lot of maintenance?

    Moreover, for the sake of argument, isn’t it too coincidental that all of these sites were sourced from the same person?

    Assuming for the sake of argument that the anti-administration websites are operated by independent entitites, it’s likely the somebody must have referred those entities to Dayao.
    Well, Dayao owns the single-proprietorship IT consulting company “Lab Rats Technica” [SHC] and according to Lab Rats’ website, Cocoy created the website for the Office of Senator Kiko Pangilinan [LabRats].

    But is that the only connection? Sounds pretty thin to me.

    And that, my friends, is what I’ll explore further in this post.

    The ProPinoy Connection

    I myself do not believe that Cocoy generates content for all these sites on his own: there’s so many, it’s humanly impossible. Thus, I felt that the next logical step is to do some online sleuthing to check for other potential conspirators, i.e. other potential suspects.

    The first clue came when I stumbled upon a 21 May 2013 post in Senator Bam Aquino’s official facebook page, which features a photo showing Bam shaking hands with a jeepney driver and with the accompanying caption:

    “What’s interesting to note here is how Aquino ran a well-rounded campaign. He worked on the ground, and he worked online and offline to deliver the message” ~Cocoy Dayao

    Following the Dayao quote that Aquino used is a backlink to one of Dayao’s ProPinoy articles, as shown below:



    Now, the photo in itself is insufficient proof, but it does raise reasonable suspicion, so I dug even deeper, and I found an interesting connection.Recall that that the infamous SilentNoMorePH and ProPinoy share the same webmaster, Cocoy Dayao, and that Dayao calls himself the “chairman and editor-in-chief” of ProPinoy.

    Interestingly, ProPinoy was co-founded by Cocoy Dayao and a certain “Niña Terol”.

    Let me repeat: we have shown in last week’s article that whoever is behind ProPinoy is also behind SilentNoMorePH and so far, we know that Cocoy is it’s chairman and editor-in-chief.

    Now, according to her CNN author bio, Terol is a co-founder of deputy editor of Pro-Pinoy [CNN]. More specifically, according to her personal blog, she is the President and Deputy Editor of ProPinoy [Terol].

    Who is Niña Terol?

    But wait, there’s more! I checked Niña Terol’s [LinkedIn Account] and if Terol somehow decides to take it down, you can find a saved PDF printout by clicking here.

    ProPinoy co-founder Niña Terol

    Looking at Terol’s past jobs per her LinkedIn profile, we see that she was:

    1: New Media Bureau Head
    2010 Liberal Party Senatorial Campaign (2010)
    Current LP senators who also ran for senator in 2010 are Risa Hontiveros and Franklin Drilon. It's also interesting to note that embattled Comelec chair Andy Bautista's brother Martin also ran under LP's 2010 ticket.

    2: Executive Director
    Pipol Power Institute (2012)
    A nonprofit that is “dedicated to the full realization of People Power in the national life and in the international arena [PPI FB]”. Sitting as Chairman is Jim Paredes.

    3: Communications Head
    Senatorial Campaign of Bam Aquino (2012-2013) 
    Terol said she “heads overall communications and new media operations for the senatorial campaign of Benigno Bam Aquino of the Liberal Party of the Philippines. Manages messaging and issues management, news media and digital operations.”

    4: Political Communications/New Media Head
    Office of Senator Kiko Pangilinan (2009-2013)
    Terol said her “high-level tasks include communications planning and execution, messaging and branding, networking, (and) liaising”, among others.

    5: Communications and Messaging Head
    Office of Senator Bam Aquino (2013-2014)
    She “headed overall communications, messaging, and digital operations”.

    6. Writer, Editor and Project Manager, 
    TAYO Magazine of the TAYO Awards Foundation
    Bam Aquino was president of TAYO Foundation from 2009 to 2013 [Senate]. Today, the Office of Sen. Bam Aquino still partners with TAYO foundation [TAYO].

    I don't know but isn't the link too obvious? It was practically LP, especially Bam and Kiko, who built her career. She worked as Kiko's New Media (READ: Social Media) head for FOUR YEARS for crying out loud!


    TP’s Takeaways

    Terol, with Dayao, co-founded ProPinoy.net, the sister website of SilentNoMorePH and Madam Claudia and so far, this is how I see it:

    I have shown in the previous article that Dayao has sufficient technical know-how to set up the websites, but he doesn't have the communication skills to complete the formula... ...and Terol, Dayao's close associate, can provide that.
    But Terol is not just any other social media marketing specialist. She is someone whose skills were honed during her lengthy stint as a "New Media Head" for Bam Aquino and Kiko Pangilinan and the rest of the Liberal Party.


    Should Sen. Sotto also ask NBI Cybercrime Division to investigate Terol?

    Yes, he should. ASAP.

    There are still a lot of questions that must be answered to uncover this whole mess but one thing's for sure: Cocoy Dayao is one crappy web security consultant. [ThinkingPinoy]

    DONT FORGET TO SHARE! 

     Did you like this post? Help ThinkingPinoy stay up! Even as little as 50 pesos will be a great help! Just click the link below! :-)

    RELATED POSTS:




    #CocoyGate: Cocoy's Missing? Hey NBI Cybercrime, here’s another name

    $
    0
    0

    THIS ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN IN COLLABORATION WITH SASS ROGANDO SASOT. FEATURE IMAGE CREDITS GO TO VINCIT OMNIA VERITAS PHILIPPINES (VOVPH).


    It’s been several days since I published “#CocoyGate: Senator Sotto, here’s the guy you’re looking for”. In that article, I explained that a certain Edward Angelo “Cocoy” Dayao, who claims to be a former PCOO consultant in his own LinkedIn profile, is deeply connected to the fake news website SilentNoMorePh.com that libeled the seven senators not too long ago.

    To shed light on the matter, the senate invited Dayao and I to the 04 October 2017 senate hearing on fake news. A senate source informed me the day before that Dayao will be attending, but I was sorely disappointed after discovering that he was a no-show. And as expected, it was I who was put on the hot seat, as oppositionist Liberal Party senators grilled me one after another, as if I was the accused and not Dayao.

    And you know what happened then.

    But is Cocoy the only possible suspect?


    Note: Please forgive me for typos. I don't have an editor and I'm really tired right now. 

    #NasaanSiCocoy (#WhereIsCocoy)

    Senate Public Information Committee chair Senator Grace Poe said she would’ve wished to conclude the hearings right then and there, but she instead decided to suspend it because Cocoy Dayao has to be found and interrogated first. After all, Cocoy Dayao’s the central figure in this issue and no one else.

    Because of his non-appearance despite the senate’s invitation, the Senate has subpoenaed Cocoy Dayao to force him to appear in the next hearing.

    Three days after that fateful Wednesday hearing, I asked my senate sources if there’s any progress towards finding Cocoy, and they told me that they haven’t found a trace. Flight is a sign of guilt, but whatever.

    Cocoy is missing, and that’s a problem.

    What we know so far

    Suffice it to say, Dayao is key to solving the mystery, and that key is MISSING. If Dayao somehow pops up from nowhere in the near future, then all’s well. But if he doesn’t, then the quest of the seven senators for who’s behind the “Seven Deadly Sens” campaign will grind to a halt.

    Now, the problem with the first #CocoyGate article is that Sass, VovPH, and I found only ONE person connected with SilentNoMore, and that is Cocoy Dayao.
    A succeeding article, “#CocoyGate: Senator Villar, let me link Cocoy to Bam and Kiko”, cites another name – Niña Terol-Zialcita – as another potential suspect, but aside from Terol-Zialcita’s involved in ProPinoy as its Deputy editor-in-chief and co-founder, there is no evidence showing that she has any significant web development skills, so for now, I’m willing to set her aside.

    In short, if Dayao remains missing, then we’re at a dead end. And in times like these, what I typically do is sit in a corner, go back to basics, and retrace the steps.

    So let’s do that.

    Back to Basics

    First, the kerfuffle in the Senate started from the seven senators’ complaint about SilentNoMorePH’s 26 September 2017 post accompanied by an article entitled “Malacanang Dogs in the Senate: Pimentel, Sotto, Gordon, Villar, Zubiri, Honasan, Pacquiao”. It was then followed by another blog post entitled “Labanan ang #7DeadlySens!!!”, a pun on the “7 Deadly Sins”.

    Second, we know from “#CocoyGate: Senator Sotto, here’s the guy you’re looking for” that:
    1. Google advertisements served in SilentNoMorePH, ProPinoy, Madam Claudia, ThinkingMillenials, PulisPatola, BackroomPolitics, and WeSupportBamAquino originate from the same Google Adsense Account with publisher ID “pub-8283971809912134”.
    2. Cocoy Dayao is a founder and Editor-in-chief of one ProPinoy.
    3. A single Google Adsense Publisher ID (pub-1068157602481996) also owns or controls over 20 other sites, including, but not necessarily limited to, ChangeScamming, BackroomPolitics, Politikang Ina Mo, and Pinoy Ako Blog.
    4. Cocoy Dayao is the registered administrator contact of Pinoy Ako Blog.
    It’s clear, at this point, that the collective wrath of the seven senators is focused on SilentNoMorePH.

    But is it just SilentNoMore?


    Pinoy Ako Blog

    In “Labanan ang #7DeadlySens!!!”, SilentNoMorePH paired each senator to a specific “deadly sin”, though it wasn’t specific as to which is paired to what. As if taking a cue from SilentNoMorePH, Pinoy Ako Blog expanded SilentNoMorePH’s the #7DeadlySens post by providing more libelous specificity.
    Published a day after SilentNoMorePH’s post, Pinoy Ako Blog’s “The Unfortunate Seven” states:
    “Ito ang mga senador na ayaw matigil ang pagpatay sa mga menor de edad na Pilipino. Iboboto mo pa ba sila? (These are the senators who do not want a stop to the killing of Filipino minors. Will you still vote for them?)"
    Pinoy Ako Blog then showed a series of infographics that paired each senator with a specific deadly sin:
    1. Lust for Senator Sotto, calling him a “rapist, plagiarist, and bigot”. 
    2. Gluttony for Senator Villar, saying she’s “galit sa extra rice”.
    3. Greed for Senator Pacquiao, calling him a “tax evader”, a womanizer, and a former drug addict.
    4. Sloth for Senator Pimentel, saying he lacks balls and a disappointment to his father.
    5. Wrath for Senator Honasan, accusing him of stealing P30 million in pork barrel funds
    6. Envy for Senator Zubiri, accusing him of electoral cheating. 
    7. Pride for Senator Gordon, calling him a “perpetual political butterfly” and for whitewashing the Matobato-Lascañas senate investigations.
    Now, why is this important?

    SNM and PAB

    The Senators are fuming at SilentNoMorePH, but they should be angrier at PinoyAkoBlog, for the simple reason that the latter did more damage to their reputation. And don’t forget that both are owned or controlled by the same Cocoy Dayao. That is, it’s likely that those behind PAB are also behind SilentNoMorePH.

    But how exactly did PAB do more damage?
    “Engagement per post (EPP)” is a social media analytics metric that measures a post’s “interestingness” to an audience. That is, higher EPP scores means a post spreads to more people [TP:Mainstream vs Indie].
    EPP is defined by the following formula:
    Engagement per Post = Engagement ÷ Number of Posts
    A look at Facebook Page Insights data taken at 1713 hrs, 08 October 2017, shows that while SilentNoMore has higher absolute engagement figures compared to Pinoy Ako Blog, the latter posted only a small fraction of what the former did.

    Facebook Page Insights data taken at 1713 hrs, 08 October 2017
    From the data in the image and using the EPP formula, EPP for SilentNoMorePH is 1,270 while that for PinoyAkoBlog is 4,911. That is, PinoyAkoBlog’s libelous posts may have done about 3 times more damage to the seven senators’ reputation, compared to SilentNoMorePH’s posts.

    And just like SilentNoMorePH, Cocoy Dayao owns or controls PinoyAkoBlog.

    I have a reasonable suspicion that SilentNoMorePH and PinoyAkoBlog, owing to their similar content and talking points, and common webmasters, and possibly, a common financial beneficiary.

    Now, recall that I myself said in during the #CocoyGate #SenateHearing that Cocoy, who has web development skills, may be working with a bunch of content creators because of the sheer number of sites that Cocoy controls.

    So, let’s ask:
    Who are the content creators behind SilentNoMorePH and PinoyAkoBlog?

    Who are Cocoy’s Content Creators?

    Of course, the content creators are anonymous, but there’s an easy way to find a few clues.

    You see, SilentNoMorePH and PinoyAkoBlog both run on WordPress, which is probably the most popular content management system for websites on earth. And because WordPress is popular, a lot of people know how it works.

    Now, adding the character string “/wp-json/wp/v2/users” to a WordPress-powered blog’s web address reveals the login IDs of the site’s users. Thus, let’s try checking the following:

    1. Silentnomoreph.com/wp-json/wp/v2/users
    2. Pinoyakoblog.com/wp-json/wp/v2/users

    For SilentNoMorePH, here’s a video showing how I did it:

    And for PinoyAkoBlog:


    Let me list down the information I got.

    For SilentNoMorePH, four users showed up. These are:
    1. User “Admin“, with display name “Charlie“
    2. User “Vic“, with display name “Vic“
    3. User “JD“, with display name “JD“
    4. User “Maria“, with display name “Maria“
    For PinoyAkoBlog, five users showed up. These are:
    1. User “Admin-2“, with display name “admin“
    2. User “Kit“, with display name “Full Retard“
    3. User “Admin“, with display name “Mr. Pinoy“
    4. User “Jover“, with display name “Mr. Pinoy“
    5. User “Apple“, with display name “Mr. Pinoy“
    And here’s where things get interesting.


    Who are these people?

    It is common for internet users to use their nickname for their online login ID’s, and I suspect that at least one among those login ID’s I found is a real nickname (or even the real first name) of the corresponding user.

    Now, the nicknames “Vic”, “Maria”, “JD”, “Charlie”, “Apple”, and “Kit” are too generic, so I admit that my online forensic skills are not enough to find out who they are. However, the last remaining username, “Jover”, is interesting.

    I think I can do something with it because Jover is a relatively rare first name.A simple google search using the search term “Jover PinoyAkoBlog” [A] shows a certain “Jover Laurio” diligently sharing PinoyAkoBlog’s posts on a public Facebook group “NETIZENS FOR CONSCIENCE AND BRAVERY (NetCAB)”



    It’s interesting to note that Edwin Lacierda is also a NetCAB member.


    IMPORTANT NOTE:
    Laurio may delete her posts (and even her account) as soon as she finds out about this article, so I archived the pertinent pages using the third-party service Archive.is. That is, every hyperlink with the text “[A]” links to the archived snapshot of the hyperlinked page immediately preceding it.
    For example, for the sentence “ThinkingPinoy wrote this article [A].”, the page linked to “[A]” is an archived copy of the page linking to “ThinkingPinoy”.

    Enough with that. On with the analysis.


    Jover Laurio on Facebook

    Now it’s time check her NetCAB posts. Note that each of the following several images contain two screenshots: one when the mouse pointer hovers over Laurio’s post share timestamp, and another with mouse hovering over PinoyAkoBlog’s post timestamp.

    1 — “Andanar: Nameke, Napahiya, Nabisto, Nagtago? | Pinoy Ako Blog”
    Share Timestamp: 31 May 2017, 7:05 PM
    PAB Timestamp: 31 May 2017, 7:02 PM



    2 — “Accomplishment daw ni Calida | Pinoy Ako Blog
    Share Timestamp: 08 June 2017, 8:08 PM
    PAB Timestamp: 08 June 2017, 8:07 PM



    3 — “Ganito Kamahal ang Kasinungalingan at Fake News | Pinoy Ako Blog
    Share Timestamp: 10 June 2017, 9:54 PM
    PAB Timestamp: 10 June 2017, 9:52 PM


    4 — “Usec. Kat de Castro, kayo po ba ang nag-adjust? | Pinoy Ako Blog
    Share Timestamp: 01 June 2017, 10:46 PM
    PAB Timestamp: 01 June 2017, 10:44 PM


    5 — “Walang Alam OR Ayaw lang Mapahiya? | Pinoy Ako Blog
    Share Timestamp: 11 June 2017, 07:31 PM
    PAB Timestamp: 11 June 2017, 07:30 PM


    6 — “Secretary Aguirre: Abogado o Scriptwriter? | Pinoy Ako Blog”
    Share Timestamp: 05 June 2017, 08:20 PM
    PAB Timestamp: 05 June 2017, 08:16 PM




    Let’s tabulate the time differences between PinoyAkoBlog’s posts and Laurio’s shares:

    • Post No. 1: ~3 minutes
    • Post No. 2: ~1 minute
    • Post No. 3: ~2 minutes
    • Post No. 4: ~2 minutes
    • Post No. 5: ~1 minute
    • Post No. 6: ~6 minutes


    Here are some of Jover’s other shares:


    As we can see, Laurio’s shared PinoyAkoBlog’s posts almost immediately after the latter posted them on Facebook. Now, is Jover just a rabid PinoyAkoBlog fan, or is she one of PinoyAkoBlog’s administrators?

    At this point, it’s too early to tell. But we are not done yet. Let’s take a look at Jover’s tweets.

    Jover Laurio’s Tweets

    Jover goes by the twitter handle“MissJover” [A].

    Now, let’s check some of her latest retweets of PinoyAkoBlog’s tweets.

    1: 05.Oct.2017 | Retweet Timestamp: 3:09 PM | PAB Tweet Timestamp: 3:07 PM



    2: 05.Oct.2017 | Retweet Timestamp: 4:31 PM | PAB Tweet Timestamp: 4:29 PM



    3: 03.Sept.2017 | Retweet Timestamp: 10:50 PM | PAB Tweet Timestamp: 10:48 PM



    4: 01.Sept.2017 | Retweet Timestamp: 8:01 PM | PAB Tweet Timestamp: 7:46 PM


    5: 30.Aug.2017 | Retweet Timestamp: 6:16 PM | PAB Tweet Timestamp: 6:09 PM


    Let’s tabulate the time differences between PinoyAkoBlog’s tweets and Laurio’s retweets:

    • Tweet No. 1: ~2 minutes
    • Tweet No. 2: ~2 minutes
    • Tweet No. 3: ~2 minutes
    • Tweet No. 4: ~15 minutes
    • Tweet No. 5: ~2 minute

    Again, as we can see, Laurio retweeted PinoyAkoBlog’s tweets almost immediately after PAB tweets. And again, is Jover just a rabid fan, or is she one of PinoyAkoBlog’s administrators?

    Seriously, Laurio's devotion to PinoyAkoBlog is tenacious, to say the least.


    The Laurio-Dayao Connection

    Looking further into Laurio’s tweets, Sass and I discovered that Laurio has been in contact with Dayao from way back, as evidenced by a 28 December 2015 tweet where Laurio basically “pep talked” Dayao, as shown below [A]:

    Four months later on 04 April 2016, Laurio “pep talked” Dayao again, as show below [A]:


    Interestingly, on 17 Jun 2016, or around the time Laurio was sharing PinoyAkoBlog’s posts on Facebook, Laurio even relayed Dayao’s web development advice to blogger Raissa Robles [A].


    On 26 February 2016, one of Laurio’s “lawyer-friends” [A] gave her a brand new 64 GB Ipad Air. She’s so thankful for it that, in reply to Dayao’s congratulatory tweet, she even said:
    “Thanks Coy! I feel so blessed! Ang mahal kaya nito, alam ni God na di ko kayang bumili on my own”

    I think the previous exchanges are sufficient to show that Dayao and Laurio know each other better than simple online acquaintances. Dayao even uses Laurio's content for his facebook posts, as shown in a cached copy of Dayao's Facebook Note entitled "Warning: The next social media account Team Duterte steals could be yours", with a backlink to Laurio's Twitter account.

    Yeah, they follow each other. They know each other well.

    TP’s Takeaways

    Let me sum this whole thing up.

    First, let’s list down what we have discovered:

    1. While SilentNoMorePH is the focus of the #SenateHearing, it has to be pointed out that PinoyAkoBlog did more damage to the seven senators’ respective reputations.
    2. SilentNoMorePH and PinoyAkoBlog share the same web administrator, and that’s Cocoy Dayao.
    3. SilentNoMorePH’s and PinoyAkoBlog‘s respective libelous articles about the Senate Resolution 516 scandal share the same talking points.
    4. PinoyAkoBlog’s users include a certain person going by the username “Jover”.
    5. A little more sleuthing shows that Laurio shares and retweets PinoyAkoBlog’s posts almost immediate after PinoyAkoBlog’s administrators post them on Facebook or tweets them.
    6. Laurio knows Dayao, and their exchanges can be traced as far back sa December 2015.
    7. Judging by the quality of their exchanges, Laurio and Cocoy seem to be pretty emotionally close.
    8. Laurio even gets web development advice from Dayao.

    Now, let me ask this one simple question:
    How many persons with the first name “Jover” will you ever meet in your life?
    More specifically:
    How many Jovers can Cocoy possibly know personally?
    Oh, before I forget: PinoyAkoBlog previously said Sass is an idiot because PAB's blogger is female.

    Sounds just about right.

    The preponderance of evidence suggests that NBI Cybercrime should contact Jover Laurio and ask her more than a few questions. Luckily, she published her entire name online on 28 February 2017 [A].



    Her complete name is MARIA JOSEPHINA VERGINIA NATURAL LAURIO.


    NBI Cybercrime, if you can’t find Cocoy, find her. 



    Oh, and by the way, she studies at Lyceum Law [ThinkingPinoy].

    DONT FORGET TO SHARE! 

     Did you like this post? Help ThinkingPinoy stay up! Even as little as 50 pesos will be a great help! Just click the link below! :-)

    RELATED POSTS:

    #CocoyGate: Mar Roxas'“special assignments” for PR operator Joyce Ramirez

    $
    0
    0

    Hey Mar Roxas and Joyce Ramirez, if you want more after this, just let me know.

    During my first two hours speaking at the #CocoyGate #SenateHearing and possibly owing to first time jitters, the #NasaanAngPangulo scandal accidentally slipped my tongue. I was really very nervous then, and since I swore to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, I virtually told every truth that was in my mind at the time.

    In PR terms, I think that slip of mine was a miscalculation, no matter how minor. That slip could have totally derailed the #CocoyGate issue, so I was really relieved that it didn’t. Regardless, mainstream media “tried” to report on it: “tried” because the articles that came out were essentially slanted in favor of the accused, with none of them – except GMA News (Thank you!) – asking for my side.

    Truth be told, I have already lost interest on the #NasaanAngPangulo issue, until one of my little birds told me a few days ago that the PR operator mentioned in my article – PR Asia Worldwide’s Joyce Ramirez – ordered her fleet of social media allies to attack me online. I think my very highly placed little birds have no motive to lie, so I think it’s reasonable to say, from my end, that Ramirez committed an egregious mistake.

    You see, I am not the kind of guy who lays all his cards on the table. I always leave a couple of aces up my sleeve for use if and when the need arises. Suffice it to say, let me use one of them against Ramirez today.

    NOTE: I didn't proofread this article anymore. I'm too tired already.

    The Year was 2015

    In the February 2017 ThinkingPinoy article “#NasaanAngPangulo: Mamasapano, Mar Roxas’ Ambition, and a PR operator”, I explained that a friend, former National Youth Commissioner and former MTRCB member Michael “Mike” Acebedo Lopez, told me a really good story.

    Lopez said that in 2015, then DILG Secretary Mar Roxas, in a desperate attempt to salvage his presidential ambitions, engaged in a multi-million peso black propaganda campaign against then President Benigno “PNoy” Aquino, a campaign that aimed at pinning all the blame on the latter over the SAF44-Mamasapano Scandal, effectively shielding Roxas from Mamasapano-related bad press.

    According to Lopez, close Roxas aide and then DILG Usec. Tomasito “Tom” Villarin commissioned publicist (i.e. PR operator) Joyce Ramirez to launch a Mamasapano-related Twitter campaign focused specifically against PNoy, in the hopes of minimizing the bad publicity that his principal Mar Roxas, a de facto superior of the SAF 44 policemen, would receive.

    Lopez did not specifically name Ramirez, but other sources provided me with that information.
    Lopez, who has a hatred of all things yellow, said he helped Ramirez by providing a list of Twitter hashtag, one of which was the “legendary” #NasaanAngPangulo, the hashtag used for the anti-Pnoy campaign that was launched at exactly 6:00 PM Manila on 29 January 2015.

    Lopez said Ramirez maintains business connections with major social media players, which allows her to force any issue into the Twitter trending list and like clockwork, #NasaanAngPangulo trended worldwide shortly after its launch.

    As evidence, I provided an excel file that was last modified in 2015, showing Joyce Ramirez as its author. The excel file basically used the #NasaanAngPangulo campaign as case study that she used for pitching her services to other politicians.

    Ramirez orders an attack?

    Roxas has since denied links with Ramirez and #NasaanAngPangulo. But that's expected.

    Meanwhile, Ramirez reacted to my revelation at the Senate with a statement, part of which reads:
    “For the first time in my life: I felt like an activist. I had to do something and ask the question: WHERE IS THE PRESIDENT? I was actually surprised that it became a viral hit. Let me tell you now, that was unintentional. We just posed the question out to the socialverse, hey WHERE is the President? Nothing is wrong with asking a question.”
    Referring to ThinkingPinoy, Ramirez also said:
    “Only fame whore, social climber would invent such claim.”
    Unlike many people, I am immune to name calling, so I’ll let that second quotation go. Actually, I was even tempted to let the entire thing go because Ramirez, while an interesting figure, is a very small fish to fry. I think she’s a waste of cooking oil.

    But based on what my little birds told me, her recent actions warrant an Armageddon.
    According to my little birds, Ramirez recently ordered her fleet of pro-Duterte influencers to attack my page. I don’t exactly know what triggered her, especially since I never really mentioned her or anything related to her during the past couple of weeks.

    Well, a few minor social media players tried to attack me recently. They called the #CocoyGate Senate Hearing “a little Poe-Cayetano 2022 show”, which, I feel, shows total disrespect for Senator Grace Poe who could not have handled the hearing more fairly. (Thank you, Grace.)

    Are they part of Ramirez’s fleet? I don’t know, but quoting Roosevelt:
    “In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.”
    Well, I’ll fart on them rainbows that smell like World Peace with a hint of cinnamon.

    Like this, Joyce. LIKE THIS. 

    Ramirez and PR Asia Worldwide

    Before we go any further, it’s worthy to note that Ramirez used #NasaanAngPangulo on her own company’s twitter accounts:


    Ramirez's company Publicy Asia / PRAsiaWorldwide owns @INTERXN

    She even appeared to be glad that the hashtag was featured on TV Patrol!



    But of course, those two screenshots are just circumstantial evidence.

    We need more... and more is what I'll give you.


    Anyone other than Lopez?

    My mentor, Manila Standard columnist and former editor-in-chief Jojo Robles, taught me how to treat sources. He said I should always wait for a second independent source to corroborate what my first source said. And because I am a very obedient student, I looked for not only one, but two other sources for this issue.

    DISCLAIMERS:
    • I have several other sources aside from Lopez and these two, but I will not be using the information they gave just yet. As I've said, I don't lay all my cards at once. 
    • I will take every step to ensure that none of Ramirez’s post-Roxas clients will get entangled in this article, for the simple reason that they may not have been aware of Ramirez’s proclivities. 
    • If your name somehow gets entangled, don't blame me. Ask Joyce. 
    Now that we've gotten that out of the way, the two additional sources I have for this article claim that they used to be part of Ramirez’s social media influencer fleet, but they had a falling out because Ramirez is a cheapskate, i.e. they said she doesn't pay people well.


    First Source spills beans on #NasaanAngPangulo

    I shall conceal the identities of the other two sources because doing otherwise may jeopardize their livelihood. I will, however, provide some relevant – VERY RELEVANT – screenshots.

    Both sources, who we shall call Source 1 and Source 2, were part of Ramirez's fleet of social media influencers, i.e. they were part of the twitter campaigns Ramirez commandeered.Referring to Ramirez, Source 1 said:
    “Nakalimutan nya yata na madaldal sya dati. Hahahaha! Kaya tigilan niya mga paninira n'ya dahil madaldal sya! Hahaha!”
    Source 1 then gave me three screenshots allegedly showing Ramirez’s instant messages (IMs) dated 29 January 2015. I have redacted other IMs to protect my source’s identity, then combined Ramirez’s IM’s into one neat graphic.


    "INTERXN" is what Ramirez calls her fleet of social media influencers.


    Based on the screenshots, Ramirez wrote:
    “We have a special assignment. Can we trend 6PM later? It is special political operations.”
    Six p.m. of 29 January 2015? That's exactly what Lopez told me!

    Ramirez added:
    “Our assignment is to amplify that PNoy snubbed the 44 dead policemen.”
    Ramirez appears to be referring to the arrival of the bodies of 44 Special Action Forces (SAF) slain in the botched Mamasapano Clash. Pnoy was absent during the arrival ceremony, attending instead the opening of a car plant somewhere in South Luzon.

    Ramirez wrote:
    “Tweets about heroism, PNoy not showing up at the rites, being a coward, shame, etc.”
    I think it’s clear now that the supposed Twitter campaign is against Pnoy.
    “Big money on the line for the team as much as P250K (Php 250,000) each but per INTERXN policy each must present work delivery in prep for the elections.”
    Joyce may have been referring to her influencer fleet when she said “team” and the payment per influence when she said “P250K”.

    Interestingly, she said “in prep for the elections”. Was she intending to use a supposedly confidential black propaganda operation as marketing material from the onset?

    I mean, I dislike Roxas, but I kinda feel bad for him in this particular aspect of the matter.

    But we’re not done yet.


    #WishKoKayPNoy: 2nd Source, 2nd Campaign

    My second source, another former member of Ramirez’s social media influencer fleet, provided me screenshots of their group chats, where Ramirez appeared to be providing specific instructions for yet another anti-Pnoy social media black propaganda campaign.



    In the screenshot, Ramirez wrote:
    “Wag masyado hard sell kay Mar ha and pumili kayo matinong photos wag yung mukang stunt PR (sic). Act like news outlets.”
    Ooohh, instructions to create fake news?
    The IM was accompanied by a sample tweet that reads:
    “Respeto at Hustisya para sa Fallen 44. #WishKoKayPNoy”
    The sample tweet included photos of Roxas taken during the SAF 44 arrival ceremonies.

    OOHHH, SNEAKY! Aktibista ka lang talaga, Joyce? Talaga lang?

    Orders from up above?

    Based on the evidence, Ramirez appeared to have machinated at least two Twitter campaigns against Roxas’s own principal, President Benigno Aquino III, with the second campaign launched barely a week after the first.


    Based on another screenshot, Joyce was acting on someone else’s orders, presumably from DILG Usec. Tom Villarin, basing on Lopez’s information.

    Ramirez wrote:
    “Eto daw #WishKoKayPNoy inject positive images na si Mar Roxas ang humarap sa burol so paki-Google photos positive spin for Mar pero wag hard sell or halata. Photos na lang ikalat no words let the people comment wag tayo.”
    One of her influencers replied with a photo, and Ramirez responded with:
    “Yes, mga ganyan. Discreet kundi aawayin tayo ng lahat.”
    Judging from the 08 February #WishKoKayPnoy sample tweet, this exchange of IMs happened around 08 February 2015.

    And yes, it appears that Mar Roxas is indeed the beneficiary of both Twitter campaigns.

    But Pnoy’s loyal minions in Malacañang seem to have caught wind of Ramirez’s online operations.

    PNoy's Malacañang smells something fishy

    On 18 February 2015, or a little over a week later, Ramirez re-emerged in the group chat.



    Ramirez wrote:
    “Hello if any of you posted something anti government kindly delete cos people are accusing us of destabilization. Remember to always keep neutral. Delete muna any post na may government related content cos we are being monitored daw by government kahit wala naman tayo pinost na masama for your safety thanks.”
    Ok, hold on one second!

    FIRST, it’s clear that the two twitter campaigns #NasaanAngPangulo and #WishKoKayPnoy were intended to discredit then President Aquino, so I do not understand how Ramirez could say that “they’re not doing anything bad”.

    SECOND, it’s also difficult to understand how Ramirez’s fleet of influencers can “keep neutral”, since the two campaigns specifically are black propaganda. Thus, I can only surmise that Ramirez meant the exercise of greater subtlety among her minions.

    THIRD, it’s interesting that Ramirez seems to have acknowledged the presence of a Pnoy-era online monitoring team. Was Ramirez referring to the “Malacañang Call Center” that former PCDSPO chief Ricky Carandang reportedly created? Was Ramirez referring to the the same Aquino-era Malacañang Call Center where Palace-sponsored cyber operations – including troll operations – allegedly took place?

    And by the way, Pinoy Ako Blog’s Jover Laurio was seen with Carandang in 2015.

    Laurio with Carandang. 


    Coincidence? Ask Roosevelt.

    Regardless, what’s clear here is that whatever deal Ramirez had with the Roxas camp was more than just a one-off affair and that Ramirez loves sipping her own Kool-Aid.

    But it gets even more interesting from here.


    Like a scorned lover

    At some point, Ramirez seems to have become unhappy with her deal with Roxas’ camp, as evidenced by a screenshot of her chat with one of her then-closest influencers, provided to me by no less than that influencer himself/herself.


    Apparently referring to Roxas, Ramirez wrote:
    "Di man lang niya isipin puwede natin siya ituro for destabilization."
    In an earlier conversation and based on pronoun antecedents, the influencer asked her if it’s really Mar Roxas who ordered the black propaganda campaigns:


    Ramirez replied:
    “Told yah. It’s him.”
    According to the screenie, the influencer even offered to save the pictures as evidence.

    Ramirez also wrote:
    “Hard mo na masusuka tao sa kanya not branding.”
    Judging from his screenshot, Ramirez ordered the influencer to hard-sell Mar Roxas, which is the total opposite of her orders at the beginning, which was to subtly sell Mar Roxas and nothing more.

    Hard selling means blatantly and shamelessly promoting something. This tactic is generally frowned upon by the PR community because it is usually off-putting for target audience.

    Essentially, Ramirez seems to have instructed her influencers to hard sell Roxas, i.e. still fulfill her agreement with the Roxas camp while sabotaging it at the same time.

    Ramirez apparently went as far as threatening to preserve evidence about their transactions when she wrote:
    “Beat your own prof losers. Evidence pa ha. DILG making orders against PNoy so stupid.”
    Yes, at this point, it appears that Ramirez is sabotaging her own client.

    It's interesting that Ramirez has so much confidence on her PR skills. I mean, if she's really good, then why am I writing this article right now?

    But how did it come to this point? Why did these even happen?

    Money. Money, Money

    Another screenshot from 25 February 2015 provides more insight about the why behind the what:

    Based on the image, Ramirez wrote:
    “Ibabasura ko yang Mar hanggang ngayon di nagbabayad puro utos ang DILG ang kakapal.”Ramirez, presumably out of anger or sheer disappointment, called Mar a “squatter”.
    But another screenshot suggests that her vendetta didn’t end there:


    Ramirez wrote:
    “Villarin DILG Usec. Wala bayad as if. Sa sobrang galit ko pinadala ko kay VP Binay.”
    Ramirez posted an image showing her message to then Vice-president Jejomar Binay’s camp, which reads:
    “BayanMuna and the reaffirmist groups are one of the primary movers behind the oust Pnoy activities. They join VP Binay, Peping Cojuangco, GMA, the Napoles senators and corrupt businessmen like Bobby Ongpin in an unholy alliance to use the #saf44 as a way to oust PNoy. To the SAF, PNP, and AFP remember that these communists are the same ones responsible together with the NPA of (sic) killing thousands of your brothers in arms. Huwag magpapagamit sa mga communista!!!”
    I am not sure if Ramirez was telling the truth here, especially since she appears to be spiteful during the times those messages were sent. What’s clear, however, is that she may have committed a major mistake: she sent Binay a message that is against Binay.

    I guess that’s why my sources told me that the Binays never hired her.

    If I were a Binay and after seeing that, why the hell would I? VP Binay, good call!


    Akbayan Party-list

    I think that you, the reader, have come up with your own conclusions about this issue based on what you’re read in this article. However, let me raise some points that you may have missed out on.

    Two factions, Balay and Samar, dominated politics inside the Aquino-era Malacañang.

    In as far as presidentiables, Roxas headed the “Balay Faction” while Binay headed “Samar”. At the time, Roxas’ presidential hopes were in danger because VP Binay’s was consistently outperforming him in popularity surveys.

    Evidence suggests that Roxas’ Usec. Tom Villarin was Joyce Ramirez’s contact, i.e. the one who calls the shots in as far as the two black propaganda campaigns are concerned. Villarin, along with the pretty much the rest of Akbayan Partylist, was affiliated with the Balay Faction, i.e. it is in Villarin’s interest to make Roxas win in 2016.

    Given available data, it is entirely possible that Villarin and Akbayan launched the aforementioned black propaganda campaign without Roxas’ consent. On the flip side, however, Villarin is pretty much Roxas’ right-hand man in those days, so it’s quite hard to believe that Roxas knew nothing of the operations.

    After all, have all SM employees personally met Henry Sy?

    Evidence clearly suggests that that Akbayan Partylist – where Senator Risa Hontiveros belongs – is into black propaganda. Surely, Villarin would not have acted on his own because such a massive black ops requires thorough coordination and funding.

    But I guess they fell short on funding because Ramirez was pissed.

    Regardless, I think this adds new color to the recent fake news controversy involving the seven-or-so EU parliamentarians whose photos were splashed on national broadsheets. One of the persons in the picture is actually not even European: it’s Tom Villarin.

    The brown guy is Tom Villarin.

    A gentle warning to current and former clients

    As promised in the disclaimers, I took every step to ensure that none of Ramirez’s post-Roxas clients will get entangled in this article, for the simple reason that they may not have been aware of Ramirez’s proclivities.

    You are politicians. You need publicity to survive. I understand that perfectly. Besides, I do not like burning bridges unnecessarily.

    Note, however, that based on the data provided above, it’s best for you to find ways to ensure that Ramirez will not do to you the same thing she did to Roxas.

    I know all of you, and I think that all of you, despite your respective flaws, have the potential to change this country for the better. Don’t let Ramirez take that opportunity away from you.

    With that said, I think I now understand why oppositionists like Pinoy Ako Blog accuse me of being a paid hack, because it seems that most political content creators in the past were on the payroll of some PR operator, so they thought I’m cut from the same cloth.

    I’m sorry to disappoint you, but the best thing I got from any politician is free food.

    But of course, I do not speak for the other bloggers, like those who pulled the “Poe-Cayetano 2022” issue out of their own @$$. Who knows, would it be outlandish to suspect that they're on Ramirez's payroll too!?

    Anyway, let me finish this article with this piece of advice for Miss Ramirez:
    Joyce, you need a career shift. Mag-TESDA ka na!
    DONT FORGET TO SHARE! 

     Did you like this post? Help ThinkingPinoy stay up! Even as little as 50 pesos will be a great help! Just click the link below! :-)

    RELATED POSTS:


    Contreras was not "fired": he was disinvited, just like Leni Robredo

    $
    0
    0

    I started ThinkingPinoy with the intention of talking about Politics and little else. The problem, however, is that I have not seen a drama queen of your caliber before. I didn't want to respond to your round-the-clock passive-aggressive dilawan-type status posts because I hate drama, except when that drama involves a national issue.

    I write because I want to help people make better political decisions. I do not write to gain sympathy and attention. Truth be told, I do not really care if other writers have other intentions, but their freedom to choose their reason for writing ends where they start trampling on me and my work.

    IMPORTANT NOTE: I really do not want to talk about this issue but the attacks have gotten so vicious that it might affect the reputation of my blog among my social media followers and it might also harm the reputation not only of Karambola, but DWIZ as well. Yes, I have to address this before the issue gets out of hand. 


    It's been a week since you left the show, yet you haven't stopped ranting about it. Truth be told, kulang na lang e mahiya sa iyo si Tisha Bautista: she's never appeared as bitter as you.

    I initially told myself, “Okay, he just needs to vent, so let him vent.” I watched you disparage the show and the network not only through your profile page, but also through the different social media chat groups, some of which I am also a member of.

    I tried to be as patient and understanding to you as possible. In one of the chatrooms, I even gently told you:
    “With all due respect Prof. Ton, I think some introspection is in order.”
    To which, you replied:
    “I have. The reason given to me was exactly what I said. Leni wanted me out. What is there to introspect? It is weird since it looks like a delayed reaction. I have not been talking about Leni. I did not personally attack her. In any case thanks for the reminder.”
    At that point, I realized, “Wow, he really thinks there's nothing wrong with him.”

    I asked Jojo if that's true, and he said it's not. I found out that you just cherry-picked that statement and disregarded everything else that he said.

    The problem: the Leni thing constitutes a very small portion of what Jojo really told you.


    I kept my silence in spite of that, out of my respect for the more senior co-producers. I was made a co-producer of the show before you got disinvited.
    The problem, however, is that you allowed your diva-hood to get the better of you when you used your Manila Times column to bring the drama to a whole new level. I do not know if you named names in your column, but let's not kid ourselves: we all know who and what you're talking about.

    So I apologize if I didn't read your article-rant in its entirety because simply reading the title made me vomit my innards.

    But one of my long-time OFW readers did and she messaged me about it. She said:
    “Araw-araw, naririndi na ako kay Contreras. Hindi pa nakuntento, sinulat pa sa column niya.”
    It's sickeningly juvenile, Professor, so I decided to take matters into my own hands. I have become a co-producer of the show and I don't like the way you disparage the show's and the station's respective reputations.

    This will be the last time that I will talk about this issue, and I leave it to the public to decide who's telling the more believable version of events.

    That is, to set things straight, let me tell you my version of the story behind your leaving Karambola sa DWIZ.


    “Fired”?

    You weren't fired because firing you requires the existence of an employee-employer relationship vis-a-vis the Karambola sa DWIZ radio show, a relationship that is non-existent because there is no contract between you and anybody in Karambola's management or that of the radio station. 

    In short, you were Karambola's regular guest.

    That is, when one of the show's heads, veteran journalist Jojo A. Robles, told you that he was “letting you go”, he meant he was disinviting you from the show.

    Yes, the operative word here is not “termination”, but “disinvitation”.

    That is, Karambola simply withdrew your invitation to be a guest. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Yes, Prof. Conteraras, you were disinvited, just like what the President did to VP Leni Robredo in Malacanang's vin d'honneur earlier in January [SunStar].
    Now, some people may be asking why you weren't offered a contract. That's a fair question. Well, the hosts told me that you weren't offered a contract because they feared that you're one gigantic drama queen. 

    It's safe to say that after your week-long-and-still-ongoing-and-still-intensifying rants, those fears are not unfounded.

    Now that that has been clarified, let's answer the next logical question: “Why were you disinvited?”

    You fail at instrospection, professor, so let me do the introspection for you.



    "Disinvitation"

    I do not know if you yourself claimed that your anti-Leni Robredo stance caused your disinvitation, but it appears that most netizens believe that Leni tried to find ways to kick you out of it.

    That is mostly incorrect. 

    I have spoken with the team and while it is true that someone in management raised the issue of your unabashed hatred for Robredo, that in itself is not reason enough for them to let you go. I myself love criticizing Robredo, perhaps as much as you do, yet they decided to invite me to the team.

    Leni or no Leni, the decision to disinvite you from the show came even before I entered the picture. You see, the show's producers have been planning to disinvite you months before that fateful Monday morning. It was not because of any new development, but because of chronic issues that the shows' hosts and the station's management found, issues that adversely affect the quality of the show's content.
    The most senior producer talked to you that morning to deliver the bad news as gently as possible. He said he's at least giving you the rest of the week so you won't be embarrassed. You said you'll just leave right then and there, and the producer thought the matter has been settled and it's time to just move on for both sides.

    The show did not announce your exit and you weren't even prevented to make up an alibi to explain your exit. For one, you could have just told the public that you decided to leave the show because of scheduling issues and got the entire thing over with.

    But no, you announced your "termination" minutes before the live stream, exposing us to a barrage of angry comments that lasted the entire show.

    No, Prof. Tonton, that isn't how grown-ups behave. Yes, I myself am childish at times, but you're older than I am: you should know better.

    The problem is that you don't.

    Specifics

    You know what, I was the one who defended you as they were mulling your disinvitation. But they have become so sick and tired of you that no amount of defending could have saved your neck. But “sick and tired” is too vague a term, so let me list down the specific reasons one by one.

    First, Pre-show Prep Issues

    There was a general impression that you do not perform sufficient pre-show preparation. There have been many times when your comments on particular issues consist basically of motherhood statements that provide little value to the listener. While complete mastery of every new political issue is not expected, the show's producers expect commentators to give insights that occasionally elicit “Ay, oo nga no!?” from listeners.

    For example, there have been more than a few instances where co-host Conrad Banal interrupted you with snarky comments. Those snarky comments were subtle instructions for you to level up your game. The problem, however, is that you weren't able to take the hint despite being a year into the show.

    Second, Credentialism

    You also have a penchant for resorting to credentialism when you run out of motherhood statements to blurt out. You love to shamelessly invoke your “academic background”, which in effect tells the audience that they have to believe you regardless of how insipid your commentary is. That's just like ABS-CBN News insisting that they're credible just because they wont this and that award.

    At the end of the day, nobody cares about where you're from: what they care about is the quality of your ideas.

    But the problem is further exacerbated by your unnecessary penchant for jargon. Professor, our audience do not have formal training in the social sciences, so you have to speak in a language that they readily understand. You don't do that.

    Third, Hijacking Topics

    Your peers in the show also felt selfishness on your part whenever you hijack topics. Take, for example, the time when you changed the topic from the Marawi Clash to e-Jeepneys. I mean, come on, e-Jeepneys? The hosts were trying to bring back the topic to Marawi, but you interrupted them so much and so often that they weren't able to. For almost half an hour, we were forced to listen about your thing with e-Jeepneys as we watched the Facebook Live viewer count plunge like Leni Robredo's Trust Ratings.

    You know why Conrad sometimes suddenly talks about economics? It's to shut you up, because the show's hosts notice that you talk less when economics is the topic. That's how bad the situation has become.

    Fourth, Airtime Hogging

    Despite the previous two points, you chose to airtime hog: you love listening to yourself too much. There have been more than a few occasions where you did 5-minute monologues without allowing anyone among the co-hosts to talk. It would have been acceptable if those were 5 minutes worth of mind-boggling insights, but they weren't.

    Haven't you noticed those episodes when Jojo or Conrad or Jonat barely talked for an entire segment? It's because of you. Worse, you don't even let anybody speak while you're in between thoughts, and you do this by repeating sentences over and over until your brain catches up with your mouth.

    Fifth, Egotism

    Another issue that everyone raised was your humongous ego. While egotism in itself is not necessarily bad, your ego has adversely affected the quality of discussion in Karambola. Karambola has slowly become more toxic because of it, and the show's hosts managed to mitigate the toxicity only by getting out of your way. But the show is called Karambola: a monologue is no karambola.

    Take, for example, that time when we criticized ABS-CBN/ANC's editorial decision-making when they chose to pit Jover Laurio with a peripheral figure to the #CocoyGate issue. You did not let us expound on how she broke the law and instead forced the conversation to focus on Jover's penchant for name-calling. Your contention that her calling you a “balahura” is important may be true, but it surely is less important than Laurio violating the Revised Penal Code.

    Sixth, Sense of Entitlement

    This bears repeating: you were just a regular guest. Despite this, you usurped editorial control by inviting other people to substitute for you when you're out of town. That's just like lending someone your precious car, only for that person to lend it to someone else without even asking for your permission.

    Professor Ton, do not give to others what does not belong to you.

    Seventh, Sub-optimal Ratings

    A radio show costs serious money to produce and broadcast and just like TV shows, ratings decide the fate of the show. You were brought into Karambola because you had a relatively massive online following. I have spoken with the show's hosts and they said it's the primary reason why you were invited to the show. The problem, however, is that your following did not translate into significantly better ratings.

    The numbers speak for themselves.

    Eighth, Integrity Issue

    One of the show's hosts even told me that you said months ago that your close friend Joyce Ramirez can help bring in sponsorship deals to the show, a sort-of promise that never materialized. What's more interesting, however, are your constant efforts to “reconcile” me with Joyce, something that I cannot imagine will happen.

    You offered, in multiple occasions and with the other hosts as witnesses, to organize a meeting with Joyce and me so we can patch things up. What I do not understand, however, is what we should patch up.

    My #NasaanAngPangulo and #WishKoKayPnoy articles reported about the duplicity of the Liberal Party and Joyce Ramirez, and I do not understand how a meeting with Joyce will correct what she has already allegedly done.

    I specifically remember that time when I spoke with Joyce's post-Roxas politician-client and warned him of my article that would be published days later because I hate dealing collateral damage. 

    Yes, we're talking about the same Joyce Ramirez who allegedly headed LP-Akbayan black propaganda social media campaigns, where Mar Roxas reportedly tried to pin all the blame over Mamasapano on PNoy just to salvage his 2016 presidential ambitions.

    Right after I said that, you brazenly ordered me, right in front of that politician's face and with several other people as witnesses, that I should stop writing against Joyce Ramirez.

    We were all stunned. Who are you to censor my blog? I think even that politician was stunned, as evidenced by the politician's camp reportedly firing Ramirez a few days later.

    After the article's publication and ensuing brouhaha, Ramirez reportedly told the politician that she knew of the article's existence days before its publication because you told her about it yourself.

    Did you divulge confidential information to the exact person who I was about to expose?

    Tonton, which side are you on? Duterte's side, as long as it's not against PR operator Joyce Ramirez? What do you owe Joyce, really? 

    My little birds told me a few things and many others, but I'd rather not mention them anymore.

    A Final Word

    Yes, Professor, I partially agree that your unabashed hatred for Leni Robredo is a factor behind your disinvitation, but that reason was thrown in only because the producers still had enough remaining sympathy for you, enough for them to feel the need to protect your large and fragile ego.

    They gave you a full year to fix your act, but they felt that you believed that you were so good, you didn't have to get better. They partially agree with you: you did not improve indeed.

    The producers were hoping that you would exit quietly, just like what everyone did before you. You know why job interviewers interviewers in general reject applicants who trash-talk their previous companies? First, because people generally hate whiny people. Second, because those applicants are likely to do the same thing if and when they leave.

    Jojo Robles, Conrad Banal, Mon Tulfo, and many other bigger radio and TV celebrities were once fired from their stations, but they had the decency to avoid whining about it. Instead, they just moved on and looked for better opportunities elsewhere.

    But unlike them, you had to whine like a child who's got his candy stolen.

    Professor Tonton, you are years older than I am, and people expect you to display an EQ that's at least higher than a 32-year-old's.

    With these said, will you choose to finally show some grace in adversity, or will you continue to whine until kingdom come?

    It's up to you but if choose the latter, do us a favor by not whining in front of PR operator Joyce Ramirez, your dear friend.

    I have spoken to the show's producers about it and they said that in keeping with media tradition, they will not utter a word. But I am TP: I do not share the same level of fortitude as my co-producers.

    You can whine till kingdom come but I'm sorry, you are not the most important topic on earth.

    Please, Professor Contreras, let this be the last of it.

    That's all I have to say about the matter. [ThinkingPinoy]

    DONT FORGET TO SHARE! 


    RELATED POSTS:


    -->
    Viewing all 226 articles
    Browse latest View live