inquirer.net pasted the link of a 42.55-minute youtube video of the Yolanda Nov. 14 Tacloban Roxas-Romualdez meeting.
my notes:
1.The source of the youtube video is Philippine Star columnist Cito Beltran, who confirmed this in his column today. He said that Tacloban Mayor Alfred Romualdez gave it to him.
2. DILG Secretary Mar Roxas yesterday did not deny the shorter version of this video except to say that it was not complete or not contextualized. Secretary Roxas himself has a full verbatim transcript of the Nov. 14 meeting, therefore, he apparently has a full audio recording or a full video of that meeting.
3.Based on these – the confirmation by the uploader Cito Beltran and by the Tacloban mayor and the indirect confirmation by the DILG secretary — the video seems to be a faithful recording of 42.55 minutes of the Nov. 14 meeting (there’s a teeny-weeny jump in the middle but it does not seem to alter the information contained in the video).
4.Legal implications: The Nov. 14 exchange is not a form of “private communication” but an official meeting of government officials therefore RA 4200 does not apply; besides, even the DILG secretary recorded it — he showed on TV yesterday that he had a full transcript of it.
2.The video is not of broadcast quality, and one needs to strain one’s ears to hear some parts of it; a full transcript is required.
3.Why is the Nov. 14 meeting important (including the meetings that took place between the President and the Tacloban mayor)?
It gives us the context of the rescue operations, the relief operations, the desperate looting of warehouses, the scattered dead bodies on the streets of Tacloban that remained uncollected, and now uncounted for not being identified.
(i’m trying to get a full transcript of the video).
Both parties do not deny that: The Tacloban mayor was required by the national government to execute a letter saying that he was no longer functioning, or that he could no longer discharge the functions of his office.
The explanation of the DILG secretary for this is that they would not want to be perceived as being improper in taking over the functions of the local government (“there may be questions about the legality” is what he said in the Nov. 14 meeting).
The explanation of the Tacloban mayor is that: his lawyer said that declaring that you were no longer able to discharge the functions of your office was tantamount to “constructive resignation”.
My notes: The lawyer had basis – there are Supreme Court decisions that state: Even if the government official did not expressly use the word “resign”, the court would construe the surrounding circumstances as a form of “constructive resignation” . (I don’t agree with this SC Decision but there it is. )
Today, gma7 news online indirectly quotes the DILG secretary: “The secretary went on to warn those “spreading lies” to “better be careful” as the DILG has a mandate to act for a local government official rendered “ineffective” by a disaster.”
In other words, if this news story is accurate, the DILG secretary yesterday warned the Tacloban mayor to stop “spreading lies” and “better be careful” because … “DILG has a mandate to act for a local government official rendered “ineffective” by a disaster.”
Is the DILG secretary referring to the preventive suspension powers of the President under the Local Government Code?
Can you… preventively suspend the Tacloban mayor for “spreading lies” on ground that he has been rendered “ineffective”?
Can you?
The palace (but speaking thru Sec. Coloma) had distanced itself from what it characterized as “Roxas-Romualdez issue” (DZMM) but in that Nov. 14 meeting, the DILG secretary was representing the national government and was speaking for the President (“you are a Romualdez and the President is an Aquino”). President Noynoy never disavowed the DILG secretary.
3.What kind of evidence is the video?
maybe we should paraphrase SOCO and Gus Abelgas “dahil hindi nagsisinungaling ang ebidinsya…SOCO scene of the crime operative. dadalhin kayo ng abs-cbn soco… sa mismong sentro ng imbestigasyon… bawat hakbang ng mga forensic investigations… ay aming sasabayan hanggang sa ang pagpupursigi sa paghanap ng katotohan… gamit ang siyensya, lohika at pagkamaparaan… ay humantong sa pagkalutas ng kasong aming tinututukan…” For two pennies, i will give you my best Gus Abelgas voice impersonation.
In the hierarchy of evidence, a video, properly authenticated, is considered documentary evidence; and object and documentary evidence are deemed more reliable than testimonial evidence, or more reliable than the say-so or the after-the-fact statements of the parties.
ANC announced that an hour from now (at 11am), the DILG secretary, the defense secretary, the social welfare secretary, would hold a press briefing.
People vs. Janet Lim- Napoles for serious illegal detention. News peg: DZMM reported that the accused filed an urgent “Motion for a Bill of Particulars” in this case at 4pm today.
The following are the pertinent provisions on the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure on this:
“Rule 116 Arraignment and Plea. Section 9. Bill of particulars. — The accused may, before arraignment, move for a bill of particulars to enable him properly to plead and to prepare for trial. The motion shall specify the alleged defects of the complaint or information and the details desired. (10a)
“Section 10. Production or inspection of material evidence in possession of prosecution. — Upon motion of the accused showing good cause and with notice to the parties, the court, in order to prevent surprise, suppression, or alteration, may order the prosecution to produce and permit the inspection and copying or photographing of any written statement given by the complainant and other witnesses in any investigation of the offense conducted by the prosecution or other investigating officers, as well as any designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible things not otherwise privileged, which constitute or contain evidence material to any matter involved in the case and which are in the possession or under the control of the prosecution, police, or other law investigating agencies. (11a)
“Section 11. Suspension of arraignment. — Upon motion by the proper party, the arraignment shall be suspended in the following cases:
“ (a)The accused appears to be suffering from an unsound mental condition which effective renders him unable to fully understand the charge against him and to plead intelligently thereto. In such case, the court shall order his mental examination and, if necessary, his confinement for such purpose;
“ (b)There exists a prejudicial question; and
“(c)A petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor is pending at either the Department of Justice, or the Office of the President; provided, that the period of suspension shall not exceed sixty (60) days counted from the filing of the petition with the reviewing office. (12a)”
A motion for a bill of particulars is filed by an accused who thinks that the Information (formal charge) against him/her is too general. In other words, the accused wants to find out from the prosecution: What overt acts in detail are you charging me with and what evidence do you have against me? This is based on the right of the accused to be informed of the charges against him/her, or to be informed of the particularities of the overt acts he/she is accused to have committed.
The arraignment is on Sept. 9; if the Court grants the urgent “Motion for a Bill of Particulars” before Sept. 9, the prosecution must file the bill of particulars asked for on or before Sept. 9. If the Court does not act promptly on the motion or, if the Court grants and the prosecution complies, but the accused is not satisfied with the bill of particulars , the accused on Sept. 9 may either move for a suspension of the arraignment (reset or defer) on grounds of a prejudicial question under Sec. 11 (abovequoted).
If a motion for suspension is denied right there and then, and the accused is compelled to enter a plea, the accused may refuse — the court would then order that a plea of “not guilty” be entered for the accused.
Motions, motions. Act on the motions before Sept. 9, okay?
I haven’t seen the Information (formal charge) for serious illegal detention filed against Janet Lim-Napoles, and therefore would have to refrain from giving an opinion on how detailed or how general it is.
