AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL is 50 years old.

Amnesty International

Press Release

May 27, 2011

Largest Human Rights Organization of the world turns 50: Renews Commitment to Freedom and Justice

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL is 50 years old.

Amnesty International members in the Philippines will join the Global Call to Action to tip the scales against repression and injustice, with a Toast to Freedom on May 28, 2011, as it commemorates its 50th anniversary.

Toasts to Freedom will be held in dozens of countries all over the world. In the Philippines, simultaneous toasts cum concerts will be held in Luneta Park (NCR), Tetuan Park (Zamboanga City) and Quezon Park Ball Field (Dumaguerte City). Members of Amnesty International will also hold simple gatherings in various places in the country.

Dr. Aurora Parong, Director of Amnesty International Philippines said, “We will join more than 3 million members and supporters all over the world for the Toast to Freedom and will take action to tip the scales against human rights violations and for justice to prevail. In our 50 years of existence, we have seen that ordinary people, even through simple letter writing, can help change the world and make a difference in people’s lives. What matters are strong commitment and persistent actions for human dignity.”

“We are renewing our commitment to act for human rights in various forms – from letter writing to online petitions, facebook, twitter and whatever action is necessary to reject human rights abuse and promote human rights, “ said Mr. Ritzlee Santos, Chairperson of the Board of Amnesty International Philippines.

The 50thanniversary of the largest human rights organization of the world comes at a time when peoples in different countries of the world experience repression and injustice and continue to struggle for freedom from fear and want .

Amnesty International recently launched its Annual Report on Human Rights 2011 2 weeks ago and stated that in many parts of the world, millions of people do not have the right to free speech; people live in fear due to torture, extrajudicial executions and enforced disappearances; whole communities have been profoundly affected by greed, their lands poisoned or taken from them by big corporations and government neglect. The human rights watchdog noted that in 2010, there were :Unlawful restrictions of freedom of expression in 89 countries; Torture occurs in 98 countries; Unfair trials in 54 countries and Prisoners of conscience in 48 countries.

“Amnesty International first made its presence here in the Philippines during martial law. During those dark days of our nation, the Amnesty candle shone in many prison cells where political opposition to the dictatorship suffered torture and inhumane treatment. Amnesty International members from Norway, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands wrote letters to the political detainees and their families to tell them that they are not alone and they have concerned citizens of other nations watching and monitoring their cases. Bags and bags of letters were sent to government officials including Marcos to call for the release of prisoners of conscience.

In the 80’s, I remember hundreds of letters from the Netherlands sent to prisoners of conscience in a detention center in Nueva Vizcaya. These letters boost the morale of the detainees, especially those who had been jailed for a long time, and made the soldiers in the detention camp improve their treatment of the detainees, “ shared Director Parong, who was also a political detainee during martial law.

“ Letter writing for prisoners of conscience in the Philippines started in 1984, when Amnesty International worked for the release of 50 political prisoners, many of whom were trade union leaders, including the late Congressman Crispin Beltran. Letter writing continues until now. Last year, we are happy to have helped in the release of Nobel Peace awardee DawAung San SuuKyiin Myanmar – it took years of action to achieve her release from house arrest. And members find joy when we are able to get somebody out of prison,” added Mr. Santos.

Amnesty International helped in disseminating information on human rights in various parts of the world. It has encouraged millions of peoples to take action for human dignity.

“Five decades of campaigning for human rights has led to, among others, the release of tens of thousands of prisoners of conscience. We helped make torturers international outlaws through our leading support for the establishment of the 1984 Convention against Torture. We helped end the untouchable status of powerful leaders who commit the most horrific crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes by offering key support to the establishment and effective working of the International Criminal Court (ICC). We helped push 87 governments to abolish the death penalty. Together we contributed to efforts to stop the irresponsible trade in arms, munitions and equipment that inflicts misery and carnage on hundreds of thousands of people every year and. And together, we helped push human rights up in the political agenda in many countries and within some corporations,”narrated Dr. Parong.

Amnesty International notes that despite the repression and injustice, a human rights revolution exists - people are overcoming fear and suppression of their rights and taking action to defend human rights.

“We honor the human rights defenders in the Philippines and various parts of the world who have the courage and determination to face risks to assert human dignity. Today, we ask each one again to renew commitment to human rights actions, not only for peoples in the Philippines but everywhere. We need to take solidarity action and stand together for human rights”, concluded Mr. Santos.

Dr. Parong finally made an appeal, “Join us, take action and let us change minds, policies and the world. Let us make governments, armed groups and corporations accountable for human rights abuse. Let us take action to realize a world where every person enjoys the human rights embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”

Egypt unrest: Full text of Hosni Mubarak's speech

10 February 2011Here is the full text of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's speech on Thursday night, in which he said would transfer some powers to his deputy but would not not step down until elections in September.(FROM: BBC)I am addressing the youth of Egypt today in Tahrir Square and across the country. I am  addressing you all from the heart, a father's dialogue with his sons and daughters.

I am proud of you as the new Egyptian generation calling for a change to the better, dreaming and making the future.

First and foremost, I am telling you that the blood of your martyrs and injured will not go in vain. I assure you that I will not relent in harshly punishing those responsible. I will hold those who persecuted our youth accountable with the maximum deterrent sentences.

I tell the families of those innocent victims that I suffered plenty for them, as much as they did. My heart was in pain because of what happened to them, as much as it pained their hearts.

I am telling you that heeding to your voice, your message and demands is an irretraceable commitment.

I am determined to live up to my promises with all firmness and honesty and I am totally determined to implement (them), without hesitation or reconsideration.

This commitment springs from a strong conviction that your intentions are honest and pure and your action. Your demands are just and legitimate demands.

The mistakes can be made in any political system and in any state. But, the most important is to recognise them and correct them as soon as possible and bring to account those who have committed them.

I am telling you that as a president I find no shame in listening to my country's youth and interacting with them.

The big shame and embarrassment, which I have not done and never will do, would be listening to foreign dictations whatever may be the source or pretext.

'Defined vision'

My sons, the youth of Egypt, brother citizens, I have unequivocally declared that I will not run for president in the next elections, satisfied with what I've offered my country in over 60 years during war and peace.

I declared my commitment to that, as well as my equal commitment to carrying out my responsibility in protecting the constitution and the people's interests until power and responsibility are handed over to whoever is elected in next September, following free and candid elections with guarantees of freedom and candour.

This is the oath I took before God and my country and one which I will keep until we take Egypt and its people to a safe harbour.

I have set a defined vision to come out of this crisis and to carry out what the citizens and the youth have called for in a way which would respect the constitutional legitimacy and not undermine it.

It will be carried out in a way that would bring stability to our society and achieve the demands of its youth, and, at the same time, propose an agreed-upon framework for a peaceful transfer of power through responsible dialogue with all factions of society and with utmost sincerity and transparency.

I presented this vision, committed to my responsibility in getting the nation out of these difficult times and continuing to achieve it first, hour by hour, anticipating the support and assistance of all those who are concerned about Egypt and its people, so that we succeed in transforming it (the vision) into to a tangible reality, according to a broad and national agreement with a large base, with the courageous military forces guaranteeing its implementation.

We have started indeed building a constructive national dialogue, including the Egyptian youths who led the calls for change, and all political forces. This dialogue has resulted in a tentative agreement of opinions and positions, putting our feet at the start of the right track to get out of the crisis and must continue to take it from the broad lines on what has been agreed upon to a clear road map and with a fixed agenda.

From now to next September, day after day, we'll see the peaceful transition of power.

Constitutional reforms

This national dialogue has focused on the setting up of a constitutional committee that will look into the required amendments of the constitution and the needed legislative reforms.

It (the dialogue) also met about the setting up of a follow-up committee expected to follow up the sincere implementation of the promises that I have made before the people.

I have made sure that the composition of the two committees is made of Egyptian figures that are known for their independence and experience, experts in constitutional law and judges.

In addition to that, the loss of the martyrs of the sons of Egypt in sad and tragic events has hurt our hearts and shaken the homeland's conscience.

I immediately issued my instructions to complete the investigation about last week's events (the clashes between pro- and anti-Mubarak demonstrators) and submit its results immediately to the general prosecutor for him to take the necessary legal deterrent measures.

Yesterday, I got the first report on the top priority constitutional amendments proposed by the committee of justice system and law experts and that I have set up to look into the required constitutional and legislative amendments.

In response to the proposals in the committee's report, and in compliance with the prerogatives of the president of the republic, in conformity with Article 189 of the constitution, I have submitted a request today asking for the amendment of six constitutional clauses: 76, 77, 88, 93 and 189, in addition to the annulment of clause 179.

Moreover, I am asserting my readiness to submit, at a later time, an (additional) request to change any other clauses referred to me by the constitutional committee, according to the needs and justifications it sees fit.

These top-priority amendments aim to ease the conditions for presidential nominations, and the fixing of limited terms of presidency to ensure the rotation of power, and the strengthening of the regulations of elections oversight to guarantee their freedom and fairness.

It is in the judiciary's prerogative to decide about the validity and membership of MPs and amend the conditions and measures on the amendment of the constitution.

The proposal to delete Article 179 from the constitution aims to achieve the required balance between the protection of the nation from the dangers of terrorism and safeguarding the civil rights and freedoms of the citizens which opens the door to the lifting of the emergency law following the return of calm and stability and the presence of suitable conditions to lift the state of emergency.

'In one trench'

Brother citizens, the priority now is to bring back trust between Egyptians, trust in our economy and our international reputation, and trust in protecting the change and movement that we have started from turning back or retreating.

Egypt is going through difficult times which it is not right for us to allow continuing, as it will continue to cause us and our economy harm and losses, day after day, which will end in circumstances which those youths who called for change and reform will become the first to be harmed by.

The current moment is not to do with myself, it is not to do with Hosni Mubarak, but is to do with Egypt, its present and the future of its children.

All Egyptians are in one trench now, and it is on us to continue the national dialogue which we have started, with a team spirit, not one of division, and far from disagreement and infighting so that we can get Egypt past its current crisis, and to restore trust in our economy, and tranquillity and peace to our citizens, and return the Egyptian street to its normal everyday life.

I was as young as Egypt's youth today, when I learned the Egyptian military honour, allegiance and sacrifice for my country.

I have spent a lifetime defending its soil and sovereignty. I witnessed its wars, with its defeats and victories.

I lived the days of defeat and occupation, I also lived the days of the (Suez) crossing, victory and liberation.

It was the happiest day of my life when I raised the flag of Egypt over Sinai.

I faced death many times as a pilot, in Addis Ababa, and numerous other times. I never succumbed to foreign pressure or dictations.

I kept the peace. I worked towards the stability and security of Egypt. I worked hard for its revival and for its people.

I never sought power or fake popularity. I trust that the overwhelming majority of the people know who Hosni Mubarak is. It pains me to see how some of my countrymen are treating me today.

'Immortal identity'

In any case, I am completely aware of the seriousness of the current hard turn of events as I am convinced that Egypt is crossing a landmark point in its history which imposes on all of all to weigh in the higher interests of our country and to put Egypt first above any and all considerations.

I saw fit to delegate presidential jurisdictions to the vice-president as defined by the constitution. I am certain that Egypt will overcome its crisis.

The will of its people will not break. It will be back on its feet with the honesty and loyalty of its people, all its people.

It will return the machinations and glee of those who were gleeful and machinated against it.

We, Egyptians, will prove our ability to achieve the demands of the people with civilised and mature dialogue.

We will prove that we are no-one's servants, that we do not take instructions from anyone, and that only the demands of the citizens and the pulse of the street take our decisions.

We will prove all this with the spirit and tenacity of Egyptians, through the unity and cohesion of the people, and through our commitment to Egypt's dignity as well as its unique and immortal identity, for it is the essence and the base of our presence for more than 7,000 years.

This spirit will continue to live within us for as long as Egypt and its people are present. It will live in every one of our peasants, workers and intellectuals. It will remain in the hearts of our old men, our youth and our children, Muslims and Christians. It will remain in the minds and conscience of all those yet unborn.

I say again that I lived for the sake of this country, preserving its responsibility and trust. Egypt will remain above all and above everyone.

It will remain so until I hand over this trust and pole. This is the goal, the objective, the responsibility and the duty. It is the beginning of life, its journey, and its end.

It will remain a country dear to my heart. It will not part with me and I will not part with it until my passing.

Egypt will remain immortal with its dignified people with their heads held high.

May God preserve the safety of Egypt and watch over its people. May peace be upon you. 

AN APPEAL TO THE PRESIDENT: Protect COCOY TULAWIE, PROTECT HUMAN RIGHTS

HIS EXCELLENCY BENIGNO SIMEON AQUINO III

President

Republic of the Philippines

Dear Mr. President:

Greetings of Peace and Justice!

We come to you with a great sense of urgency and concern over the plight of our colleague in the human rights movement, MR. TEMOGEN “COCOY” TULAWIE who is a long standing human rights defender in the Province of Sulu. We have known the human rights work of Mr. Tulawie over the last 10 years and we have seen how he courageously took up the cudgel of justice, rule of law and human rights in his small embattled island. In highly militarized areas in Mindanao such as in Sulu and Maguindanao where the rule of law is taken over by the rule of warlords and private armies, the price of human rights is very very high – human rights defenders in these areas pay for it with their lives and freedom. Such is what had happened in the Maguindanao massacre, such is what is happening to Mr. Tulawie now.

Among other invaluable contributions to the struggle for human rights defense in the islands of Sulu, Mr. Tulawie took the frontline in resisting warlordism and military rule when, with the support of human rights groups and civil society organizations in the province, Colonel Natalio Ecarma, Commanding Officer of the 3rd Marine Brigade stationed in Sulu and the Provincial Governor of Sulu withdrew the imposition of an ID system in January 2008. The issued IDs were seen by the residents of Sulu as an insult to their culture and religion, and is part of the religious profiling that has been on-going in the name of “war against terror”. Sulu residents also raised the concern that the military enforcement of the ID cards likens the province of Sulu to a “garrison state”. Mr. Tulawie also opposed the putting of the province under Emergency Rule and organized several human rights campaigns, including the conduct of fact-finding missions and the expose of the series of gang rapes in the islands which pointed to warlords’ sons and members of the Civilian Emergency Forces (private armies turned civilian armed forces under the employ of the Governor of Sulu) as perpetrators.

All this earned the ire of powerful politicians in the province, not least of whom Governor Abdusakur Tan who initiated a legal persecution against Mr. Tulawie. Governor Tan had warned civil society groups against human rights reporting saying that this is detrimental to the image of Sulu. On July 22, 2009, he filed a case of Multiple Frustrated Murder and Attempted Murder at the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 3 of Jolo against Mr. Tulawie, alleging that the latter was involved in the bombing incident of May 13, 2009, which wounded 12 persons including the Governor. Witnesses produced by the Governor had now retracted and admitted to a forced confession and one had been found dead after a reported jailbreak. Mr. Tulawie, on the other hand, had to go into hiding after a warrant of arrest had been secured against him by the court.

OUR APPEAL

Mr. Tulawie is prepared and willing to face the charges filed against him. Considering who he is up against, he is fearful for his safety and that of his family once he comes out in the open, and he needs adequate protection to safeguard their lives and security . Mr. Tulawie strongly believes that now is the most opportune time to face these charges against him, at the time of your administration and with your policies on strengthening the Justice Department, eliminating extrajudicial killings, broadly supporting just peace and giving redress to decades of neglect of the Moro and other peoples of Mindanao.

We believe that the exigency and magnitude of this case merit the attention of the highest official of the land. We are, therefore, respectfully appealing to your Office to intervene in the case filed against Temogen Tulawie. We believe that it is only you, Mr. President, who can afford him the necessary protection against the ongoing legal and judicial harassment against his person. We also appeal to your presidential powers to grant and issue an executive clemency that will make Temogen Tulawie a free man again.

                                     


TO SUPPORT THIS PETITION AND SIGN IT:
CLICK HERE THANK YOU!

TO UNDERSTAND MORE ABOUT THE ISSUE:

CLICK HERE FOR THE CASE BACKGROUND

BREAKING NEWS: U.N. says it’s not OK to kill people because they are gay

NEW YORK – The United Nations General Assembly just voted on a crucial resolution on extrajudicial executions and other unlawful killings that, for the first time, includes explicit language protecting LGBT people.

This resolution urges member states to thoroughly and promptly investigate all killings committed for any discriminatory reason, even on the basis of sexual orientation.

The vote was 93-55 with 27 abstentions.

The opposition mostly came from Arab and African nations where human rights are limited.

Last month, a General Assembly resolution opposed the unjustified killing of minority groups, including the LGBT community. It drew widespread criticism, and the United States lead the effort to amend the resolution.

MY TAKE:

I wish they could publish the countries who voted against the resolution so we may know.

SPEAK UP: STOP DISCRIMINATION Today is Human Rights Day

10 December 2010 -- On this day in 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which has become a universal standard for defending and promoting human rights. Every year on 10 December, Human Rights Day marks the adoption of the Universal Declaration. It is celebrated around the globe that "All human beings are born with equal and inalienable rights and fundamental freedoms".

This year's commemoration highlights and promotes the achievements of human rights defenders who fight to end discrimination. Human rights defenders protest abuses of human rights, advocate for justice and seek to protect the victims of human rights violations. They demand accountability for perpetrators and transparency in government action. In so doing, they are often putting at risk their own safety, and that of their families.

Some human rights defenders are famous, but most are not. They are active in every part of the world, working alone and in groups, in local communities, in national politics and internationally. 

Human Rights Day 2010 emphasizes the primary responsibility governments have in enabling and protecting human rights defenders. The Day's theme “Speak up, Stop Discrimination” is also intended to inspire a new generation of defenders to speak up and take action to end discrimination in all of its forms whenever and wherever it is manifested.

Source: Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)

THE SK: Breeding Ground for Plunderers

by: June Salomon Radi

Calls for the abolition of the Sangguniang Kabataan is escalating and made by many sectors including the Catholic church. It has been proven that the sanggunian is made a training ground for corruption, teaching young minds the “art” of corruption in government.

The recently concluded election was just a glaring example of the corruption cited. Massive vote buying was just like a norm rather than an exception and people in government who were supposed to uphold the rule of law rather took it aside, were those that led the buying and assisted the vote buyers and applauded the takers and sellers, not forgetting the buyers, for making their crimes easily pulled off.

The media on the other hand made it frenzy on the airwaves, every elections, it has become a laughing matter rather than an issue to be addressed and done away.

Here are true instances of the corruption, call it your way bit I would rather call it such:

In one barangay, there were two candidates for the SK top post, and there were only 3 voters. It is true because only 5 of them qualified the age bracket while others were not interested to register. One of the registrants support one candidate while the other supports the second contender leaving only one that would make or break their ambitions. The first candidate offered the voter (P20,000) cash through his parents but the other offered him a brand new motorcycle. Well, obviously, the motorcycle was the option.

Another barangay instance was grand, the total voters were around 200 and there were two contenders. The other was the son of the incumbent punong barangay, the other was a kin of a moneyed politician. Two days before the elections, around 80 voters were herded, taken from their families one after the other so as not to create a commotion and kept it a silent maneuver, and they successfully kept the voters at bay in a resort which was an hour away from their place of residence, like they were on vacation, swimming, eating and karaoke the whole duration. On the day of the elections, they were taken to the precincts in a group of 5 and all of them were given money before departure. The maneuver succeeded and who could say there was nothing wrong with it?

Another instance happened in two barangays, I only knew  two and it is possible that it happened in many others. The result was, in these two barangays, there was only one candidate, unopposed. They were unopposed because the would be contenders were offered cash so as to discourage them from running, and they backed out The term discourage was used because the cash went with a threat. Spell it as you like, the threat.

Another instance was the bidding gone bad. The other party went to his opponent offered him P30,000. The former was insulted and replied, they could counter offer 100,000 also asking the first offeror to back out. It became a war of money and the first offeror did not know the Art of War as written by Chairman Mao Tse Tung that in order to win the war, one must “know his enemy”.

The night before the elections, if you went to the Rotonda, one cold that late night there were around 50 teenagers, sitting around the fence of the horse back riding areas in their jackets and near them was a ten wheeler truck parked, it was theirs as the others did not disembark and stayed in the open truck, resting, sleeping, talking. I asked one of them as I went passed them and she replied “hakot SK”.

The National Organization of the SK was not spared as the present National President who is an ex oficio member of the National Youth Commission is hounded by graft charges at the Office of the Ombudsman, at a very young age.

The law which created the SK which is the Local Government Code (RA 7160) I am certain was made with good intentions. It is the implementing arm of the law which made it evil, though many camps would say that the law was created with a lot of loopholes. Never have I heard of a perfect law, the Congress was blind as the law was there for more than 2 decades and not one dared to amend it for the better , and again, a lot of SK elections already went their ways.

The SK further widened the opportunity for political dynasties which is another thing that Congress has failed to define and address through an enabling law prohibiting political dynasties as stated in the 1987 Constitution. They never dared to address political dynasty as the lawmakers themselves violated it, the laws of morality and conscience. They themselves are from various dynasties and prohibiting political dynasties is for them, political suicide.

These victors of the recent SK polls were taught in their early lives how corruption works, and for sure, they themselves would constitute the people who will make this country fall deeper into debt and embarrassment, more corruption and cancer of society as Rizal pointed out.

With all these, I am hoping that Congress would address this scare of society. But on second thoughts, would they address the abolition of the SK when the SK officialdom is composed of their children, brothers, sisters, family members? I would rather wait and see.

RUFFY BIAZON'S NIGHTMARE WITH CEBU PACIFIC: It could happen to you!

A Sweet Vacation Turned Sour — Thanks to Cebu Pacific Air

by: Ruffy Biazon

It was a vacation that we had planned and yearned for, a vacation that would give me the opportunity to catch up on the lost time with my children who had endured my divided attention between them and the public.

With the kids on a long break from their school, my wife and her sisters planned a joint family vacation in Boracay, which we knew that the kids would enjoy since they all love going to the beach together.

It was a perfectly planned trip, from the reservations of the flights including reserved seating on the plane (which is a paid option offered by Cebu Pacific Air), transfers and room assignments as well as the activities that we were going to do while in the world famous island.

To sum it all up, it was a wonderful time spent with the family, filled with happy memories, unforgettable experiences for the kids (like riding the Zorb and introductory scuba diving) and precious moments with loved ones. As pristine as the powdery white sands of Boracay, our vacation was simply perfect.

But as they say, all good things must come to an end, and so our perfect vacation ended and we had to go home. Little did we know that not only was our vacation ending, it was going to be capped off on a sour note, thanks to Cebu Pacific Air’s customer service which was nowhere near satisfactory.

My initial dissatisfaction (and irritation) with Cebu Pacific had something to do with our flight booking and reservations. In order to make our travel easier, we availed of Cebu Pacific’s seat selector program where you can reserve specific seats for a fee. We decided to pay the extra amount just to make sure that we will get the seats most convenient for us and our travel plan. On the way home to Manila, we reserved the front row seats for me, my wife, our three children aged 11, 8 and 4 and one yaya.

In connection with that, we had pre-determined seating arrangement, which enabled us to better manage the kids and in case of an emergency, we had a plan of action on how to handle the children. The plane’s configuration is six seats to a row with an aisle in the middle, making it a 3-3 seating arrangement.

Our plan was to have our four year old son sit with my wife and the yaya and the 11-and 8-year old sit with me. It was all part of our family plan.

But those plans went to ruin as soon as we settled down into our seats just before the plane was set to taxi for it’s take off position. Being the front row passengers, we were the last few to board the plane. But we were told by the flight attendant that we couldn’t occupy those seats because the minimum age requirement for an emergency exit seat (which the front row seats were because they were right beside the main door) was 15 years old.

Of course we understood that it was for safety reasons, although when we checked in, it never occurred to me that passengers on the entire row had to be 15 years old and above. Form what I knew, as long as the passenger right next to the door was old and capable enough it was fine.

But safety measures are there for a reason, so it wasn;t really the issue at hand. The issue at hand was that we underwent a series of steps in the booking process where we could have been advised by Cebu Pacific about the limitations in the seating.

When we booked for the flight online, the ages of all the passengers were required. After that, when we talked to an agent to arrange for the reserved seats (which we specified to be the front row seats), the agent asked for our children’s ages. When we checked in at the airport, we were required to physically present our children to the personnel at the check in counter. In all those steps, we could easily have been informed by Cebu Pacific personnel about the safety rule of a minimum age requirement for the front row seats.

But Cebu Pacific personnel allowed us to get bookings, reservations and check in for the seats that we reserved. And paid for.

And so it was that after we had settled down in our seats, our children were asked to vacate the seats they were already sitting in. In comparison with other airlines that I have flown with both here and abroad, if safety issues require passengers to exchange seats, the flight attendants first look for a passenger willing to exchange seats and then THEY assist the passengers in moving from one seat to another.

In our Cebu Pacific experience, they simply asked us to unseat our children and transfer somewhere else. The flight was fully booked, so obviously, if our children were to transfer seats, other passengers would have to be displaced. The flight attendants did not make a move to assist us in asking other passengers but instead, a ground staff who came on board told my wife “ma’m, maupo na kayo para maka take-off na yung eroplano” (ma’m just sit down so that the plane can take off).

The Cebu Pacific staff and flight attendants acted as if it was purely our fault that the plane could not depart immediately. As we were trying to figure out how to exchange seats to comply with what the flight crew wanted, our four year old son began crying because he did not want to leave the seat he was already sitting on. All the commotion that was going on gave the other passengers the impression that we were the ones holding up the plane, on simple reason of seating arrangement. It was indeed embarrassing.

Finally, my wife and sons aged 11 and 8 were able to transfer to the second row, with our 4 year old seated on my wife’s lap since he did not want to part with her. The three passengers seated on the second row transferred to the front and one seat was left vacant. All those seats were paid for by us under the seat selection program of Cebu Pacific, but we never got to use them.

Payment for the reserved seats are not really that big an amount. But my point is that we could have been spared the additional expense, aggravation and embarrassment if Cebu Pacific had been more diligent and efficient in implementing it’s rules. As I stated, we do not have a problem with the safety rule. But it was Cebu Pacific’s inefficiency that brought us to that situation.

In addition, Cebu Pacific’s flight crew displayed utter lack of knowledge and skill in dealing with the situation, not to mention poor customer handling and communication. Instead of assisting us in finding a solution, they just stood there making comments that simply did not help.

All the while I struggled to keep my cool and just tried to pacify my son. He eventually quieted down and the rest of the flight was uneventful. I realized that it was pointless to confront the flight crew because I believed that the root of our problem (the booking, reservations and check in) was beyond them. Even their poor performance was something that needed to be taken up with their higher ups, not them.

So I decided to keep quiet and just bring the matter up to the duty manager of Cebu Pacific as soon as we landed. It has always been my belief that complaints should immediately be brought to the attention of supervisors or higher ups who can make decisions or take action. It is pointless to rant and rave to the rank and file because they are not in the position to actually do something to solve the problem. And most of the time, they are the problem. So it is best to bring it to the attention of the bosses.

Upon landing, I immediately looked for Cebu Pacific staff to ask for the duty manager. It took me a couple of minutes to find one, since at the arrival area and all the way to the baggage claim, there was no Cebu Pacific desk or staff around.

I immediately informed the person that I wanted to speak to the duty manager because I wanted to lodge a complaint. The person asked if it was about luggage because he might be able to help. I told him that I don’t think he could help because the matter of my concern was not about luggage but about the bookings and our failure to avail of the seats we paid for.

At that point, I as a paying customer, wanted to bring my concern to the attention of a responsible Cebu Pacific official because I wanted to make sure that my concern would be attended to properly. I knew that if I left the airport without making the complaint, either the company will just give me delaying tactics until I forget about it. I’ve seen it happen before.

I was told that if I wanted to talk to the manager, I could go up to his office in the third floor. I said no, I want to speak to him there at the baggage claim area because we had four big suitcases with us and I didn’t want to leave my wife and three young kids and the yaya waiting by themselves.

The person said that the manager was busy and that perhaps I can just go up to the office. I reiterated that I wanted to speak to the manager personally and if he could come down to meet with me. I also stressed that I was a paying customer who wanted to complain and I believed that it was the manager who could address my concern. I asked the person to specifically tell the manager that I wanted to file a complaint before him.

The person I was talking to left and returned after about 13 minutes. He then told me that the manager was busy. So I asked him, “Is he too busy to talk to a complaining customer?”. The guy simply repeated that the manager was busy. He then asked me to fill up a complaint form.

In the past, I have filled up so many complaint forms and 100% of the time, nothing happened. That’s how it is here in this country, whether government or private, complaint forms have a way of simply fading away. That’s why I wanted to speak to the manager person to person.

But it seemed that he was too busy to attend to a complaining customer. Is this a reflection of company attitude towards the customers they are supposed to serve? What kind of customer service philosophy are they teaching in Cebu Pacific?

So my original complaint regarding the booking, reservations and check in got bumped down the ladder of importance. That duty manager, who was too busy to attend to a complaining customer, or even assign someone else to at least hear me out, suddenly became number one on the list.

I filled out the form, expecting that it will get nowhere, but I am determined not to let this pass. The person who was talking to me, the one who gave me the form, said that I can call customer service. I said not only will I bring this matter up to customer service, I will bring this matter up to their top honcho.

Now, if I do that and still, nothing happens, then I shouldn’t be blamed if I call Cebu Pacific Airlines the crappiest airline I’ve ever flown. (www.ruffybiazon.ph)

to where? i do not know...

HONGKONG LABOR ATTACHE BULLIES LOWLY VICTIMIZED OFW: Talking about unsung heroes

Agnes, the distressed overseas Filipino worker (OFW), clicked her mobile phone on record as she entered his office. Imagine the horror she had at every moment with him.

His name is Romulo Salud, the labor attache of the Philippines to Hong Kong.

Some people call him Romy. I CALL HIM MONSTERIN A GOVERNMENT POST!

In the said meeting, Labatt Salud told Tenorio: ‘Wag mong gagamitin yang karapatan. Dahil karapatan ko rin… kung tatanggapin kita o hindi. Wag mong pagdidiinan mo sa akin yang karapatan mo ha?’  [Don’t use the word “right”. Because it is also my right if I am going to accept you or not.]

FATHER COMPLAINS ABOUT INVASION OF CHILDREN'S RIGHTS IN AMERICAN AIRPORTS

An Open Letter to the Walt Disney Company

 by Arthur M.M. Krolman

Robert A. Iger
President & C.E.O.
Walt Disney Co.
500 South Buena Vista Street
Burbank, CA 91521

Dear Mr. Iger,

I am writing for your advice about how to best enjoy a great Walt Disney World experience with the new prohibitive TSA/commercial airlines "security" shenanigans. 

My wife and I have two children (one strapping 14 year old boy and our beautiful little girl, 12). They would just love to go to Disney World and we would love to take them – but now we don't know how to get there! 

Please allow me to graphically explain. On the way to Disney World at the airport, United States government agents now force children and their parents to make a difficult choice between:

1. a dose of ionizing radiation concentrated almost entirely on your skin to create a nude image on the government's computer screen. They call this Whole Body Imaging, or WBI. Please see attached sample image of a male subject, also here. Note that the detail of the image, even before zooming in, allows the viewer to see that the glans is uncircumcised.

2. a government agent using his gloved fingers to grope/frisk/probe the exterior of the child's entire clothed body (including inspection of private parts) in order to ascertain the same detail of information as the WBI would have done (see above). They call this Enhanced Pat-down.

3. police escort to interrogation by TSA security as to your reasons for refusing the above two choices...followed by confirmation that you did not verbally abuse any government agents...followed by being permitted to turn around and go home.

As you can imagine, none of these choices appeals to us. Other than a fleet of Disney private planes or opening scaled-down Disney World resorts all across the country, how do you recommend that paying customers get to your resorts if decent caring for their children now prohibits them from using commercial airlines? 

Now that you are aware that children must submit to nude photography or inspection of private parts in order to enjoy the Disney experience (and on the way home), your silence on this issue may be seen by many as passive agreement with this new pathway to your business, which I am sure is not the case.

Please confirm.

Regards,

Arthur M.M. Krolman
CFA Founder and President
Krolman Corporation
56 Roland St., Suite 201 Boston, MA 02129

SEE THE LETTER AT:  
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/krolman1.1.1.html

LET THE SUPREME COURT KNOW THAT YOU SUPPORT THE RESTORATION OF INTEGRITY IN THE PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT. SIGN THIS PETITION

PLEASE CLICK ON THE LINK  TO SIGN THE PETITION. THANK YOU.

RESTORING INTEGRITY: A STATEMENT BY THE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW ON THE ALLEGATIONS OF PLAGIARISM AND MISREPRESENTATION IN THE SUPREME COURT

THIS IS THE OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF THE UP LAW FACULTY REGARDING THE PLAGIARISM AND MISREPRESENTATION IN THE SUPREME COOURT WHICH THE LATTER DID NOT TAKE LIGHTLY AND RECENTLY ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE ORDER TO THE FACULTY WHY THEY SHOULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE OF THEIR STATEMENT. 

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

RESTORING INTEGRITY:

A STATEMENT BY THE FACULTY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW ON THE ALLEGATIONS OF PLAGIARISM AND MISREPRESENTATION IN THE SUPREME COURT

An extraordinary act of injustice has again been committed against the brave Filipinas who had suffered abuse during a time of war. After they courageously came out with their very personal stories of abuse and suffering as “comfort women”, waited for almost two decades for any meaningful relief from their own government as well as from the government of Japan, got their hopes up for a semblance of judicial recourse in the case of Vinuya v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 162230 (28 April 2010), they only had these hopes crushed by a singularly reprehensible act of dishonesty and misrepresentation by the Highest Court of the land.

It is within this frame that the Faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Law views the charge that an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court committed plagiarism and misrepresentation in Vinuya v. Executive Secretary. The plagiarism and misrepresentation are not only affronts to the individual scholars whose work have been appropriated without correct attribution, but also a serious threat to the integrity and credibility of the Philippine Judicial System.

In common parlance, ‘plagiarism’ is the appropriation and misrepresentation of another person’s work as one’s own. In the field of writing, it is cheating at best, and stealing at worst. It constitutes a taking of someone else’s ideas and expressions, including all the effort and creativity that went into committing such ideas and expressions into writing, and then making it appear that such ideas and expressions were originally created by the taker. It is dishonesty, pure and simple. A judicial system that allows plagiarism in any form is one that allows dishonesty. Since all judicial decisions form part of the law of the land, to allow plagiarism in the Supreme Court is to allow the production of laws by dishonest means. Evidently, this is a complete perversion and falsification of the ends of justice.

A comparison of the Vinuya decision and the original source material shows that the ponente merely copied select portions of other legal writers’ works and interspersed them into the decision as if they were his own, original work. Under the circumstances, however, because the Decision has been promulgated by the Court, the Decision now becomes the Court’s and no longer just the ponente’s. Thus the Court also bears the responsibility for the Decision. In the absence of any mention of the original writers’ names and the publications from which they came, the thing speaks for itself.

So far there have been unsatisfactory responses from the ponente of this case and the spokesman of the Court.

It is argued, for example, that the inclusion of the footnotes from the original articles is a reference to the ‘primary’ sources relied upon. This cursory explanation is not acceptable, because the original authors’ writings and the effort they put into finding and summarizing those primary sources are precisely the subject of plagiarism. The inclusion of the footnotes together with portions of their writings in fact aggravates, instead of mitigates, the plagiarism since it provides additional evidence of a deliberate intention to appropriate the original authors’ work of organizing and analyzing those primary sources.

It is also argued that the Members of the Court cannot be expected to be familiar with all legal and scholarly journals. This is also not acceptable, because personal unfamiliarity with sources all the more demands correct and careful attribution and citation of the material relied upon. It is a matter of diligence and competence expected of all Magistrates of the Highest Court of the Land.

But a far more serious matter is the objection of the original writers, Professors Evan Criddle and Evan Fox-Descent, that the High Court actually misrepresents the conclusions of their work entitled “A Fiduciary Theory of Jus Cogens,” the main source of the plagiarized text. In this article they argue that the classification of the crimes of rape, torture, and sexual slavery as crimes against humanity have attained the status of jus cogens, making it obligatory upon the State to seek remedies on behalf of its aggrieved citizens. Yet, the Vinuya decision uses parts of the same article to arrive at the contrary conclusion. This exacerbates the intellectual dishonesty of copying works without attribution by transforming it into an act of intellectual fraud by copying works in order to mislead and deceive.

The case is a potential landmark decision in International Law, because it deals with State liability and responsibility for personal injury and damage suffered in a time of war, and the role of the injured parties’ home States in the pursuit of remedies against such injury or damage. National courts rarely have such opportunities to make an international impact. That the petitioners were Filipino “comfort women” who suffered from horrific abuse during the Second World War made it incumbent on the Court of last resort to afford them every solicitude. But instead of acting with urgency on this case, the Court delayed its resolution for almost seven years, oblivious to the deaths of many of the petitioners seeking justice from the Court. When it dismissed the Vinuya petition based on misrepresented and plagiarized materials, the Court decided this case based on polluted sources. By so doing, the Supreme Court added insult to injury by failing to actually exercise its “power to urge and exhort the Executive Department to take up the claims of the Vinuya petitioners. Its callous disposition, coupled with false sympathy and nonchalance, belies a more alarming lack of concern for even the most basic values of decency and respect. The reputation of the Philippine Supreme Court and the standing of the Philippine legal profession before other Judiciaries and legal systems are truly at stake.

The High Court cannot accommodate less than absolute honesty in its decisions and cannot accept excuses for failure to attain the highest standards of conduct imposed upon all members of the Bench and Bar because these undermine the very foundation of its authority and power in a democratic society. Given the Court’s recent history and the controversy that surrounded it, it cannot allow the charges of such clear and obvious plagiarism to pass without sanction as this would only further erode faith and confidence in the judicial system. And in light of the significance of this decision to the quest for justice not only of Filipino women, but of women elsewhere in the world who have suffered the horrors of sexual abuse and exploitation in times of war, the Court cannot coldly deny relief and justice to the petitioners on the basis of pilfered and misinterpreted texts.

The Court cannot regain its credibility and maintain its moral authority without ensuring that its own conduct, whether collectively or through its Members, is beyond reproach. This necessarily includes ensuring that not only the content, but also the processes of preparing and writing its own decisions, are credible and beyond question. The Vinuya Decision must be conscientiously reviewed and not casually cast aside, if not for the purpose of sanction, then at least for the purpose of reflection and guidance. It is an absolutely essential step toward the establishment of a higher standard of professional care and practical scholarship in the Bench and Bar, which are critical to improving the system of administration of justice in the Philippines. It is also a very crucial step in ensuring the position of the Supreme Court as the Final Arbiter of all controversies: a position that requires competence and integrity completely above any and all reproach, in accordance with the exacting demands of judicial and professional ethics.

With these considerations, and bearing in mind the solemn duties and trust reposed upon them as teachers in the profession of Law, it is the opinion of the Faculty of the University of the Philippines College of Law that:

(1) The plagiarism committed in the case of Vinuya v. Executive Secretary is unacceptable, unethical and in breach of the high standards of moral conduct and judicial and professional competence expected of the Supreme Court;

(2) Such a fundamental breach endangers the integrity and credibility of the entire Supreme Court and undermines the foundations of the Philippine judicial system by allowing implicitly the decision of cases and the establishment of legal precedents through dubious means;

(3) The same breach and consequent disposition of the Vinuya case does violence to the primordial function of the Supreme Court as the ultimate dispenser of justice to all those who have been left without legal or equitable recourse, such as the petitioners therein;

(4) In light of the extremely serious and far-reaching nature of the dishonesty and to save the honor and dignity of the Supreme Court as an institution, it is necessary for the ponente of Vinuya v. Executive Secretary to resign his position, without prejudice to any other sanctions that the Court may consider appropriate;

(5) The Supreme Court must take this opportunity to review the manner by which it conducts research, prepares drafts, reaches and finalizes decisions in order to prevent a recurrence of similar acts, and to provide clear and concise guidance to the Bench and Bar to ensure only the highest quality of legal research and writing in pleadings, practice, and adjudication.

Malcolm Hall, University of the Philippines College of Law, Quezon City, 27 July 2010.

(SGD) MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN

Dean and Professor of Law

(SGD.) FROILAN M. BACUNGAN

Dean (1978-1983)

(SGD.) PACIFICO A. AGABIN

Dean (1989-1995)

(SGD.) MERLIN M. MAGALLONA

Dean (1995-1999)

(SGD.) SALVADOR T. CARLOTA

Dean (2005-2008)

and Professor of Law

REGULAR FACULTY

(SGD.) CARMELO V. SISON

Professor

(SGD.) PATRICIA R.P. SALVADOR DAWAY

Associate Dean and Associate Professor

(SGD.) DANTE B. GATMAYTAN

Associate Professor

(SGD.) THEODORE O. TE

Assistant Professor

(SGD.) FLORIN T. HILBAY

Assistant Professor

(SGD.) JAY L. BATONGBACAL

Assistant Professor

(SGD.) EVELYN (LEO) D. BATTAD

Assistant Professor

(SGD.) GWEN G. DE VERA

Assistant Professor

(SGD.) SOLOMON F. LUMBA

Assistant Professor

(SGD.) ROMMEL J. CASIS

Assistant Professor

LECTURERS

(SGD.) ARTHUR P. AUTEA

(SGD.) ROSA.MARIA.J..BAUTISTA

(SGD.) MARK R. BOCOBO

(SGD.) DAN P. CALICA

(SGD.) TRISTAN A. CATINDIG

(SGD.) SANDRA MARIE O. CORONEL

(SGD.) ROSARIO O. GALLO

(SGD.) CONCEPCION L. JARDELEZA

(SGD.) ANTONIO G.M. LA VIÑA

(SGD.) CARINA C. LAFORTEZA

(SGD.) JOSE C. LAURETA

(SGD.) DINA D. LUCINARIO

(SGD.) OWEN J. LYNCH

(SGD.) ANTONIO M. SANTOS

(SGD.) VICENTE V. MENDOZA

(SGD.) GMELEEN FAYE B. TOMBOC

(SGD.) NICHOLAS FELIX L. TY

(SGD.) EVALYN G. URSUA

(SGD.) RAUL T. VASQUEZ

(SGD.) SUSAN D. VILLANUEVA

(SGD.) GIGO ALAMPAY

(SGD.) RODOLFO QUIMBO