On the plan of Covid Shield Commander PNP Lt Gen Eleazar to monitor social media: Facebook posts can be monitored by anyone without a court order, and the content thereof can be used in evidence, or admissible in evidence; but the internet surfing activity and the dashboard cannot be put under surveillance without a court order, and anything obtained therein without a court order would be inadmissible in evidence. (i can give the controlling cases in a bit.). Note po however that the complaint for quarantine violation against PNP NCRPO Chief Debold Sinas based on FB posts has not been resolved po , or the resolution has not been filed as a criminal charge in the courts. You might want to make a policy decision on that po muna.
ABS-CBN Teleradyo anchors, analytical Ricky Rosales and witty Cory Quintos, press urgent questions on the MTRCB plan to regulate Netflix, iWantTV, other video streaming apps (embedded video below, scroll down)
Live interview by Teleradyo “On the Spot” news program on ABS-CBN cable yesterday morning Sept. 4, 2020
Many thanks for the sponsors of these timely, relevant news interviews. (very appreciative that all news interviews of blog admin have sponsors. This helps the workers involved in the production). The advertising spots in the middle or before the last two minutes of this interview are: Tide Perfect Clean and Tribute to Frontliners by Unilab. The ads you will see might vary : Marami pong salamat.
(apologies for not having enough time to hair-dry and no-salon-visit for six months. Also, my internet connection, a 5G LTE, starts to lag during the discussion on getting a court order as required for surveillance of an individual’s online surfing activity …
In that portion, the internet buffering makes it sound like a form of somnambulation, sorry powz.).
Many thanks, Myraleigh ♥and Jane Leah ♥: L’ O_ _ _ _ Paris Color La Palette nude eyeshadow c/o of Myra (she bought it so we don’t have to say the brand name) and the delicate multicolor crystal bracelet handmade by Philippine SME artisans, c/o Jane. Many thanks to students, colleagues, journalists, law professors, friends, who inspire us when discussing the nature of cyberspace through the years which blog admin often described in lectures as “infinite, if you can imagine what infinity looks like…”
(music credits: as stated in the embedded pod and vid)
It seems three months late though, still, the Supreme Court is expected any Tuesday now of this month to issue a ruling on the issue of whether or not the NTC can summarily shut down without any hearing, and without the minimum requirements of due process, a news media organization that is the ABS-CBN network, during the pendency of its franchise application in Congress (on a petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by ABS-CBN a week after it was summarily shut down on May 5, 2020).
The inaction of the Supreme Court until it was too late can be seen by some as perhaps a testament to its seeming indifference, at best: an inaction that allowed events to overtake the legal issues presented before it — because now the franchise had been denied by 70 committee members of Congress without any substantial showing (substantial evidence) of violations of laws as basis for “killing” the franchise (the phrase “kill the franchise” being a quote from one of the committee leaders).
In other words, the issue presented before it (the grave abuse of authority of the NTC in shutting down a news organization without due process while the franchise application is pending) had become moot and academic because the franchise had been “killed” by 70 committee members …
… unless the Supreme Court seriously takes up its judicial function and takes judicial notice of the televised public congressional hearings, and traverse the legal issues presented by the “killing” of the franchise being based not on substantial evidence of violation of laws but on the way that the news network had in the past exercised its editorial judgment — perceived by some congressmen as “biased”.
Based on its inaction for months that show its indifference, it may continue taking this road of indifference to the violation of the fundamental rights of the people, and dismiss the case for mootness without a substantive discussion of the issues raised, even for academic purposes.
Or the members of the Supreme Court can wake up one sunny Tuesday morning and decide: “Why don’t we traverse the constitutional issues once and for all and discuss whether or not Congress can deny a franchise based on no standard of evidence at all?”
Would that they could care for the time given to them when they could still make a difference.
