if on mobile device: Pls click “Listen in browser” on the soundcloud pod below to play …
a John Lennon original, live,
what else
Breaking Rappler
(News peg: The Securities and Exchange Commission today revoked the corporate certificate of Rappler on the ground that it violated the constitutional ban on foreign ownership of media organizations for getting investments from Omidyar of eBay founder Pierre Omidyar, to boost its capital, and issuing “Philippine Depository Receipts” (PDRs, or certificates evidencing that money was provided) as instruments of investment of said company.)
The best of lawyers will tell Rappler to file an MR (motion for reconsideration) with the SEC, to get an injunction from the Supreme Court (on grounds of prior restraint: “any form of prior restraint comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption AGAINST its constitutional validity.” (New York Times vs. United States, etc.); failing which: To continue publishing Rappler and make sure the PDRs (investment instruments) are held by Filipino corporations or Filipino nationals, or if worse comes to worst: To publish Rappler using another personality – either another corporate personality or individual natural persons.
In other words, the best of lawyers can make Rappler continue publishing.
But how much are you willing to bend?
And how far are you willing to go to accommodate the whims of this regime?
If you let the new media overlords get away with this – who will be next in the chopping block?
ABS-CBN? — with any number PDRs it has issued or with its legislative franchise?
GMA News 7? — with its NTC permit to operate?
If all of us are willing to bend and willing to twist our torso to please the new media overseers – who else will be hauled over?
Twitter is foreign-owned, WordPress is foreign-owned, Google is foreign-owned — hell, any number of mediocre lawyers can argue that all Facebook users are operating on a foreign-owned platform.
How far are we willing to bend and when do we know we are already breaking?
if on mobile device: Pls click “Listen in browser” on the soundcloud pod below to play today’s animated Christmas theme at:
Supreme Court issues circular on the use of Clipart/ cartoons/ drawings/ artwork in pleadings in view of Syjuco use of clipart in criminal affidavit-complaint vs. FPNoy Aquino
The Supreme Court (SC) en banc issued a circular on the use of cartoons and Clipart in pleadings today following the filing of a complaint by Syjuco against former President Benigno Aquino using Clipart and drawings in his pleading. Quoted below is the SC circular:
SC Circular No. 12-15-2017
On the Use of Cartoons/ Clipart in Pleadings
In view of the practice of certain litigants or lawyers in using “Clipart” in their pleadings, the Supreme Court en banc hereby issues the following circular amending the Revised Rules of Court: 1.Any cartoon, artwork, drawing used in a pleading should be original and drawn by the lawyer or litigant himself using a stylus and touchscreen, or pencil and paper (watercolor and other media may also be used as long as the artwork is allowed to dry before being filed in Court). 2.Any downloaded or rightclicked Clipart image should be properly attributed to its source with proof that permission from Clipart was secured for the use of its images. 3.Said cartoon, artwork, drawing, whether original or downloaded, shall be accompanied by a dialog box with text summarizing the causes of action; the evidence offered/ presented; the legal arguments in support of the causes of action; and the reliefs prayed for. 4.Said cartoon, artwork, drawing used in pleadings formally filed in Court shall be admissible in evidence as proof of the lawyer’s or the litigant’s mental and emotional age, and without prejudice to applications for other reliefs such as a petition for medical or clinical evaluation of the parties responsible for the cartoons, and for other purposes.
5.For this purpose, any physician, medical doctor, psychiatrist, and similar medical professional whose services may be required to evaluate the lawyer’s or litigant’s mental and emotional state shall be properly compensated for, with costs against the parties responsible for the cartoons, Clipart, and similar doodles.
This circular shall take effect immediately upon posting and publication in the Supreme Court website. SO ORDERED. 15 December 2017, Supreme Court of the Philippines, Manila.
(Credits: as stated in the embedded images; images by TJ Roxas GMA7 News)
if on mobile device: Pls click “Listen in browser” on the soundcloud pod below to play the song…
Highlights: Today’s House Justice com hearing on impeachment of CJ Sereno:
House SC court administrator Midas Marquez on the stand as resource person:
Supreme Court court administrator Midas Marquez’s salary grade is equivalent to that of a justice of the Court of Appeals. However, unlike a justice or a judge, he is not conferred with any jurisdiction – jurisdiction being defined as the power to hear and decide cases, and to enforce orders. He does not preside over any court as justice or judge, he is not authorized to hear cases and decide disputes: Jurisdiction is conferred by law. Basic. He is therefore not a Justice; he is not even a judge. In order not to miseducate the public, especially young people, the congressmen should stop addressing said resource person as “Justice” or “Justice Midas” or “Justice Marquez”. In keeping with his name, he should be addressed as …. (drumroll) — King Midas. “If your honors please, very material”
