Now, About These Bills...

Yes, this is directed to both Houses of Congress.

Where are you going?

(Courtesy of apgovernment2010.yolasite.com)

The past few days have been all about R.A. 10175, otherwise known as the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. Since some of the legislators who approved this bill are rushing to amend it, and given the overwhelming reaction of the public - a negative one, in case this needs to be spelled out - on top of the fact that the United Nations has declared internet freedom a basic human right, and add to that the many lawyers/groups who have gone to the Supreme Court to address this, we can safely assume that this bill was not fleshed out thoroughly.

And since the President has signed this, it's now a law, not just a bill.

What astonished many people - myself included - was the ease and speed by which this bill was approved. The only conclusion any rational person can come up with is that if there is political will, it can be done. If the legislators want to approve something, they can do it - see how quickly this bill was sent to the President for his signature.

So, may we direct your attention to these bills? And we ask that you act on them with the same swiftness and ferocity that you rushed the Cybercrime Prevention Act by us. Napabilib nyo kami sa bilis nyo, sana ganito din kayo sa mga ito. 

1. REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH BILL

This bill has not just been languishing in Congress for more than a decade, it's set up house, is done watching Home Along The Riles and has moved on to Korea-novelas, and has its feet up on the couch, with the rollers permanently glued in its hair.

How can we say this with finesse...oh, right: VOTE ON IT ALREADY!

Both sides have kicked around this political football, or more appropriately for us, dribbled this political basketball back and forth, with no one ever sinking a basket. Stop the period of amendments already. We, the citizens, are tired of it. What we want is an answer. Yes or no. Approve it or discard it.

Stop airing your grievances in public, wringing out sympathy, and whatnot. Desist from making veiled utterances like "at its current state, it won't have a chance of being approved" and...what's the phrase again...oh yes: VOTE ON IT ALREADY!

Let the record show who voted for and against it, as well as why.

Do this NOW so the people will judge you come election day.

You have NO REASON to delay this, given how fast you approved the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

2. FREEDOM OF INFORMATION BILL

What we, the citizens of a democratic country, want is accountability from our public officials. The only way we can ensure this is if government transactions and records are available to the public for scrutiny and review.

It may be time for a social science lesson: in a democracy, the power lies in its citizens, not public officials, who are also called public servants. So it makes sense that when the boss (that's us) gives you money (our taxes/your salary) to do a job (file bills), we have the right to know what it is you've been doing, yes?

Unless you want to contest this basic structure of democracy?

This bill will make it easier to see who's been sleeping on the job, or worse, stealing from public coffers or tampering anything illegally.

This bill is the one we want. We did not ask for a bill that will stifle our right to speak.

In case that wasn't clear, we are making it exceedingly crystal clear now.

--------------------

While we're at this, here's one thing we also want to ask:

Did you know that political dynasties are PROHIBITED by our Constitution? Eto ang nakasulat:

"The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law." (Section 26, Article II, 1987 Philippine Constitution)

If our law still hasn't defined it since 1987, can we do it now, ASAP?

We ask these questions because of the lineup being offered by "parties" - the quotes are used to distinguish it from the political parties in places like the USA, where these are anchored by issues and not personalities or name recognition - which seem to suggest that there is no such "thing" in our Constitution.

What will it take for this prohibition to be actualized in real life?

Nagtatanong lang po.

Clause-ible Denial

Some days, you have to wonder if fact has outstripped fiction in the incredulity department just a little bit too much, that J.K. Rowling may soon conceivably be working at your local burger joint for her next paycheck.

Today, a news item I caught online made me wonder if the crop of "reality shows" we've been exposed to for years was really just a worldwide, systematic attempt to prevent the expression of anything resembling surprise.

Senator Tito Sotto denies having anything to do with the insertion of the libel clause in the recently approved (signed into law by our President) Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. (See more here: http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/-depth/09/21/12/internet-libel-it-wasnt-me-sotto-says)

Is the senator happier these days?

(Courtesy of blogwatch.tv)

I stop dead in my tracks as I am reading this particular news on a mobile device, and find myself having to sit it out for a moment, to ensure that my eyes weren't fooling me.

In his turno en contra speech assailing the Reproductive Health Bill - or should I say speeches, since it went on for days - he made a statement that suggested that critics, especially of the online variety, would soon need to be wary in expressing their sentiments in cyberspace.

As soon as Republic Act 10175 was signed into law, netizens were abuzz - rightfully - about a specific provision in the final version approved that would penalize libel with a number of years in prison, without the possibility of parole.

If this is not a baldfaced attempt to silence critics of any public figure, I don't know what is.

Some points that I feel shouldn't be glossed over:

(1) Free speech is guaranteed by our Constitution. This covers the speech you may not want to hear - for instance, bigoted assumptions like comparing homosexuality as being akin to bestiality would be hysterically laughed at by any credible medical organization, but you are free to proclaim that as your "belief".

(2) Sotto focused on this very issue when he/his office (at this point, I'm not sure who does what when it comes to his public pronouncements) were roundly criticized for the issues of "plagiarism" and "translations", with it going so far as having Sarah Pope, a US based blogger, calling the senator a plagiarist, point blank.

(3) Raissa Robles, a journalist/blogger who focuses on political issues, interviewed Sotto's (now famous or infamous, depending on your view) Chief of Staff, Atty. Villacorta, who essentially admitted that Sotto was responsible for the imsertion of the libel clause. (See http://raissarobles.com/2012/09/18/who-inserted-that-libel-clause-in-the-cybercrime-law-at-the-last-minute/ for more.)

(4) The Senate record for this particular bill has a portion entitled "Sotto Amendment" which narrates how Sotto rationalized the insertion of this clause, citing Lacsa vs. Intermediate Appellate Court (161 SCRA 427) to bolster his case for it.

Given these facts, and the senator's claim that he is a victim of cyberbullying, I cannot fathom how he can distance himself from an issue that he is clearly and unequivocally passionate about. Unless his own chief of staff and the senate secretary are also part of some "conspiracy" to have the senator appear a certain way to the public?

But given the recent statements and actions of the senator the past few months, I don't think anyone is - anymore - surprised that he denies any involvement in the inclusion of libel in this recently approved law.

And that best sums it up as far as expectations for him is concerned.

Not Just For Senator Sotto

Hope his staff doesn't read it first.

(Courtesy of barriosiete.com)

Dear Senator Sotto,

Many events have taken place since my last blogpost, more than 24 hours ago.

And they have to do with your public disavowal of plagiarism on a television show; the subsequent discovery of the blogger of all this brouhaha happening halfway around the world from where she is; and her reactions - first being "amused" and then later writing a rather pointed blogpost and mentioning you directly that leaves no doubt as to what she wants to say. We also have the "apology letter" written by the head of your staff now going viral, which is basically an admission that your office committed plagiarism, and the pecuiliar way the apology came off.

See the following for full details:
http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/on-plagiarism-the-pill-and-presumptuousness/
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/08/16/12/blogger-cant-believe-work-was-plagiarized
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/lifestyle/08/16/12/sottos-office-admits-copying-us-blog

First, an admission.

I did not vote for you. That is because I have been consistently vocal about my extreme discomfort with entertainers subsequently running for public office. Personally, I feel the lopsidedness in your advantage as far as name recall is concerned: your position as entertainers assures that you will stand out in some way. And name recall is king in our elections. Or at least our brand of it.

I am well aware that as a citizen of a secular democracy, you are entitled to run for any elective office. The question is not can you?...but rather, should you? The recently deceased local King of Comedy said it quite well (and I will paraphrase it in English): It's easy to win an election, but what happens after?

Also, let me say this off the bat: I am not a lawyer, a legal expert, not even a paralegal. I am "just" a blogger - the way you casually mentioned bakit ko naman iquo-quote ang blogger should tell everyone how you view anyone who "just" blogs. But as I understand it, a senator is someone with a national mandate to write, amend, and if needed, change completely, our laws.

(Quote from http://professionalheckler.wordpress.com/2012/08/16/gotcha/)

Are you aware of what an awesome responsibility that is? I am desisting from using the word power, as that is all we have been brought up in and known, all our lives - a politician is to be feared, respected, bowed down to. I want to focus on the other side of the coin, a cliche thanks to Spider-Man: with great power comes great responsibility.

You can effect laws that can change our very lives: Economic provisions, the taxes we pay, whether foreign bases can (again) set foot in the country, the punishment to be meted out to child molesters, what it means to uphold the separation of state and religion in a tangible, concrete way and not as a vague concept only to be discussed in political science courses...

It can also affect he state of maternal mortality and teenage pregnancies in the country, one of the many issues that can be helped, even in some measure, by the passage of the RH Bill. Actual lives - human lives - are at stake by choosing which pieces of legislation to pass. That is how encompassing your responsibility as a senator is.

Which is why I cannot hide my dejection, disappointment and most of all, my anger, with this issue of plagiarism, something your chief of staff wanted Sarah Pope to stop focusing on, something you yourself dismissed nonchalantly as an attempt to discredit your person, under the (erroneous) assumption that what you have charged about the ill effects of the RH Bill cannot be countered by those who support it (they have been answered point by point squarely, by your co-senators and by many, many groups and people, over and over again).

I expect that all senators - even the ones I did not vote for - be personally responsible for what they say and do, because whether I like it or not, your decisions will affect me in a personal way. And as a citizen of this secular, democratic country, I will be bound by the laws that you and the other senators approve.

You cannot pass off this "incident" and say "my staff did it": they won't be voting on crucial bills. YOU ARE. It is your vote, your decision and your signature that will determine what passes for law in this country. It behooves you, therefore, to have armed yourself with the latest scientific findings and factual research when it comes to issues regarding reproductive health.

You do this country a great disservice by not researching things on your own, and while you are not barred from hiring people to help you with your work, it is your responsibility to ensure that they have provided you with accurate information for the purposes of crafting legislation. You do us an even greater disservice by passing this off as the work of those under you, and doing what is colloquially called a Pontius Pilate: washing your hands off the incident.

Do you not comprehend the gravity of what you may have done had the blogger not called you out on this?

Whenever I hear of "how much work" senators have to do, of how many meetings you have to attend, of how many committee hearings are scheduled, of how your backlog is so huge, it strikes me as odd - I've edited myself here - that I now see senators posing for ad campaigns of processed meats, computer universities, and even hosting morning and primetime television shows.

Surely, in between takes, you could at least verify that the information you are using as the basis for legislative decisions are, at the very least, identified by source?

This recent debacle you are now facing has reinforced my vote in the last senatorial elections as being the correct one. I am hoping that many more of our citizens will come to the same realization, too, as well as one more thing:

Public officials answer to us.

Sincerely,
Guy With A Blog

----------------------------

*As I was about to post this, a news item was alerted to my attention. I'm guessing this is how the senator plans to handle this - a friend called it Sotto Pilato.

http://www.rappler.com/nation/10692-sotto-isn%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%99t-sorry,-says-chief-of-staff