Malampaya fund released to Napoles NGOs & Malacaňang Gloria DBM approved it = PLUNDER complaint. DAP funds to Napoles NGOs, Malacaňang PNoy & DBM approved it = P——

Malampaya fund released to Napoles NGOs & Malacaňang (Gloria 2009) DBM approved it = PLUNDER complaint. DAP funds diverted to Napoles NGO,  Malacaňang (PNoy2012) & DBM approved it = P——

     (Use the same evidence, fill in the blanks…)

      I have nothing to write today… No one is spelling out that:  the two fund releases — from the Malampaya fund and from the DAP fund — have the same evidence against the Malacaňang officials who signed the memos, the first set was  Malacaňang 2009; the second set was Malacaňang 2012…

    ….are you able to follow?   got it…? am i talking too fast… here it is in long form….. slow motion…

     The Malampaya fund was released to Napoles NGOs. The fund release was made possible because Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Eduardo Ermita, and DBM Secretary Nonong Andaya approved it. They were named as respondents in a plunder complaint filed by the DOJ and the NBI. This was P900 million.

      The DAP funds allotted to Senators Jinggoy, Bong, Bongbong, Tito, were released to Napoles NGOs by the DBM and Malacaňang. Malacaňang officials said the the fund release was made possible by the President and the  DBM Secretary. Fill in the blanks: Therefore,  ______, ________, and ____________, together with _______, __________, et al should be named as respondents in a ____________ complaint.

       It’s the same evidence. Signatures of the three officials on memos approving the allotment and fund releases.

     Ok. here is the longer version:

      Based on the DOJ and NBI complaint filed with the Office of the Ombudsman last Thursday: The Malampaya fund was released to the Napoles NGOs – these are: Dalangpan Sang Amin Utod Kag Kasimanwa Edn.; Saganang Buhay sa Atin Foundation Inc.; Kasaganahan para sa Magsasaka Foundation Inc.; Ginintuang Alay sa Magsasaka Foundation Inc.; Ginintuang Pangkabuhayan Foundation Inc.; Micro Agri Business Citizens Initiative Foundation Inc.; Karangyaan para sa Magbubukid Foundation Inc.; Kaupdanan para sa Mangunguna Foundation Inc…

      That was in 2009. The President then was Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, the Executive Secretary was Eduardo Ermita, the DBM Secretary was Nonong Andaya. All three including 20 other government officials and Janet Lim-Napoles, et al, were named as respondents in a plunder complaint filed by the DOJ last Thursday based on documentary and testimonial evidence. The evidence against Gloria, Eduardo Ermita, and DBM Secretary Nonong Andaya were their signatures on memos endorsing or approving the allotment and fund release.

     News peg from a news daily: “In a radio interview, deputy spokesperson Abigail Valte said the Palace was “surprised” when it read the story in the Inquirer that Senators Jinggoy Estrada, Ramon Revilla Jr., Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and Vicente Sotto III had written letters requesting the transfer of funds initially allotted to the Department of Agrarian Reform to the National Livelihood Development Corp. (NLDC), and naming certain NGOs as their conduits in the implementation of the project.”

     “Valte said the parties concerned, including the government, should establish whether there was truth to reports that the senators actually named the Napoles’ NGOs as recipients of the funds from the DAP.”

“The senators have denied the accusations, saying their signatures were forged.

“When asked why the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) allowed the senators to divert their allocations from the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) to these NGOs, Valte said: “Best to ask Secretary (Florencio) Abad.” “

     So… can see…Here it is… 

      2012, the President is PNoy; Eduardo Ermita’s job is now Paquito Ochoa’s job; and the DBM secretary is Butch Abad. DAP funds were allotted to senators by these three officials in the following amounts, among others: “Based on documents obtained by the Inquirer, Estrada, Revilla and Marcos supposedly sought the release of P100 million each, and Sotto P70 million from the DBM on various dates from Dec. 22, 2011, to March 21, 2012.”

       Or a total of at least P370 million.

      As you can see, i’m not diverting anyone’s attention  from the Napoles cases – these two are Napoles cases involving as they do, Napoles NGOs; and the following are named here: Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Eduardo Ermita, Nonong Andaya: Malampaya fund for P900 million. And then, the DAP fund for at least P370 million  for the four senators, Jinggoy, Bong, Bongbong, Tito, released to the Napoles NGOs,  and those who approved the fund releases in Malacaňang, namely… Ok…. I won’t put their names in the same line, I separated the paragraph because…didn’t want to name them in the same paragraph… kayo na lang

      The DAP funds allotted to Senators Jinggoy, Bong, Bongbong, and Tito, were made possible by the approval of President PNoy, DBM Secretary Butch Abad, and the executive secretary. These DAP funds  were diverted to Napoles NGOs. These are : National Livelihood Development Corp. (NDLC), and “Revilla named three Napoles NGOs—the Ginintuang Alay sa Magsasaka Foundation Inc. (GASMFI), Countrywide Agri and Rural Economic Development Foundation Inc. (Cared), and the Kaupdanan Para sa Mangunguma Foundation Inc. (KPMI). The first two NGOs were to receive P30 million each, while KPMI was to get P40 million. xxx Estrada listed the Agri and Economic Program for Farmers Foundation Inc. (AEPFFI) and the Agricultura para sa Magbubukid Foundation Inc. (APMFI) which would each “implement” P35 million worth of projects. The remaining P30 million was to be implemented by the Social Development Program for Farmers Foundation Inc. (SDPFFI).” (from the Inquirer).

      Eduardo Ermita’s defense and Nonong Andaya’s defense were that:  they just signed documents as a matter of course and “hindi ko naman alam na may mga nag-aabang duon para kunin ang pera…” –Nonong Andaya.

      Butch Abad when asked by the Inquirer about the funneling of DAP funds to the Napoles NGOs said that  he was not responsible for it, the questions should be directed to the implementing agencies…


      i hate writing this. 






Newspeg:  The  Supreme Court  in a Jan. 17 two-page minute resolution upheld the Ombudsman’s dismissal of the criminal complaint filed by former solgen Frank Chavez against former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, et al. in connection with the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) fund  in 2004.

    Here’s the announcement of the Supreme Court at their website:

“In a two-page minute resolution dated January 17, 2013, the Supreme Court effectively upheld the Office of the Ombudsman (Ombudsman)’s dismissal of the criminal charges filed by former Solicitor General Francisco I. Chavez against former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, et al. in connection with the alleged misuse of Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) funds in 2004.


“In his Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, Chavez, among others, sought the reversal of the assailed Ombudsman rulings approving  the resolution of a Department of Justice (DOJ) Panel of Investigators that recommended the dismissal of malversation charges against Arroyo for the alleged illegal transfer of P530,382,445 in OWWA Medicare Fund to the Philippine Health Insurance Corporation (PHIC) and of the $350,000 from the OWWA Capital Fund to several labor attachés in the Middle East during the US-Iraq crisis. (Chavez v. Arroyo, GR Nos. 203884-85, Min. Res., January 17, 2013)”

      Lawyers say they’ve been pinkslipped when they get this kind of “decision”/ “resolution”– it’s usually two paragraphs, the rest of the page/ space being taken up by the title, the names of the parties, addresses, the cc’ed names again, the names of the participating justices.

   A petition for review and certiorari under Rule 45 — i don’t know about you,  but Rule 45 petition for review is not easy for me.

     This kind of “appeal” raises only questions of law and review is not a matter of right but of “sound judicial discretion”. The following are the pertinent rules of procedure:

“Rule 45. Sec. 6. Review discretionary.—A review is not a matter of right, but of sound judicial discretion, and will be granted only when there are special and important reasons therefor.  The following, while neither controlling nor fully measuring the court’s discretion, indicate the character of the reasons which will be considered:

“(a)            When the court a quo has decided a question of substance, not theretofore determined by the Supreme Court, or has decided it in a way probably not in accord with law or with the applicable decisions of the Supreme Court; or

“(b)            When the court a quo has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or so far sanctioned such departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of the power of supervision. (4a)”


Yearender: And…the Top Ten Most Searched & Most Trending in 2012

    What were people most interested in in 2012?


        What did they talk about, jeer at, applaud, diss, like,  stalk, fancy, celebrate this year when the world did not end? Here they are — the top ten most searched and most trending:

        According to Yahoo Philippines at–philippines-year-in-review–who-was-the-most-searched-personality-of-2012

 the following are the    most searched news subjects in the Yahoo Phil search engine (hard news):

        “1. Ronald Llamas. The prominent Filipino activist and the current political adviser of President Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III, was caught buying pirated DVD in January this year.

      “2. Iggy Arroyo. Late Negros Occidental Representative Ignacio Arroyo died due to liver ailment in London in February.

      “3. Renato Corona. Former Supreme Court Chief Justice was the first official to be impeached in May.

          “4. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. Former President and the current Pampanga Representative’s arrest, hospitalization and failed attempts to seek medication abroad made her one of the top newsmakers of the year.

          “5. Jessie Robredo. The interior minister in President Aquino’s cabinet died in plane crash in August.

         “6. Senator Vicente “Tito” Sotto III was accused of plagiarism during Reproductive Health Bill Debates in September.

        “7. Senator Antonio Trillanes IV was accused of working for Beijing in the dispute between the Philippines and China over Panatag Shoal in the West Philippine Sea.

       “8. Supreme Court chief justice Maria Lourdes Sereno became one of the Top 10 newsmakers on Yahoo! for being the youngest appointed SC chief justice in September.

       “9. Peace panel chair Marvic Leonen. The chief negotiator signed the framework agreement with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front in October.

     “10. Juan Ponce Enrile. The senate president led the impeachment of the former Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona. “


          Here, also, are the top ten overall most searched personalities  in the Yahoo Network  Philippines:

        Top 10 search queries in the Philippines   

     1. Jessica Sanchez

      2. NBA

      3. Sarah Geronimo

      4. Anne Curtis

      5. American Idol

      6. Angelica Panganiban

      7. Marian Rivera

      8. Grace Lee

      9. KC Concepcion

      10. Bianca Gonzalez

       Yahoo Philippines places the following top ten search subjects in the U.S. in 2012:

1. Election

2. iPhone5

3. Kim Kardashian

4. Kate Upton

5. Kate Middleton

6. Whitney Houston

7. Olympics

8. Political Polls

9. Lindsay Lohan

10. Jennifer Lopez

        And….the top ten most trending topics or most viral stories in the net based on Yahoo Philippines analytics are….

        “1. #Amalayer: Paula Jamie Salvosa, a 23-year-old student was caught on video berating a guard on Light Railway Transit. The video as well as the student’s Twitter handle went viral online.

     “2. Carabuena: Robert Carabuena, an employee of Philip Morris International physically assaulting a Metro Manila Development Authority officer was caught on video and subsequently went viral.

      “3. #Sinotto: Following the plagiarism accusations involving Reproductive Health bill critic Senator Vicente Sotto, netizens coined the term “Sinotto”; the hashtag posts became immediately popular with those poking fun translating famous English quotes to Tagalog or vice versa.

        “4. Claudine vs. Tulfo brothers: A brawl involving showbiz couple Raymart Santiago and Claudine Barreto and Inquirer columnist Ramon Tulfo at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport’s Terminal 3 became an Internet sensation.

        “5. Noemi Lagman: Missing girl was reunited with her family thanks to social media’s help.

       “6. Noynoying: Anti-government protesters in the Philippines found a new way to poke fun at President Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III. “Noynoying” which means doing nothing, was a protest against the President.

       “7. Anti-epal: Social media site that became a venue for the public to share photos of public servants who’ve displayed their names or images in public places to advance their political careers.

        “8. “Hero dog” Kabang:Philippine hero dog Kabang saved two young girls from being run over by a motorbike but lost her snout and upper jaw by being hit by the front wheel of the motorbike.

         “9. Batangas: A Hollywood style signage in Taal Volcano of Batangas became the butt of online jokes.

       “10. Zendee Rose Tenerefe: The “random girl”on You Tube lands recording contract and invited to Ellen DeGeneres show.”


          What do you think? What were the crowd obsessions of  2012?


breaking news, as of 11:20am, July 25: Ex-president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo goes home today

Breaking News:Ex-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo goes home today

      Former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo walks free today from her detention at the Veterans Memorial Medical Center (VMMC) after having posted a one-million-peso bail a couple of hours ago for the poll sabotage case filed against her last year. Bayan members are holding an “emergency picket” in front of the VMMC to protest the impending release of the accused and what the protestors called the “incompetence” of the government prosecution team in handling the case. 

      Electoral sabotage is a capital offense, non-bailable if the evidence of guilt is strong. The principal witness in this case gave hearsay testimony while the corroborating witnesses disappeared or refused to testify. 

     As of press time, the accused and her legal team are waiting for  a copy of the release order and preparing for her release. 

          (do you like my lead…? it’s complete, it’s real-time! it’s picturesque, gives the necessary consequence  that she walks free today. commentaries later!  have to go to media law classes, the assignment and lecture today is freedom from prior restraint;  i don’t really lecture for seven hours, i do a song- and- dance number in between to entertain.           )

The next news post probably is: Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo holds thanksgiving mass. Then a small dinner party. Then a bigger “unity party”. Those who wanted her charged and jailed are not invited.

Inquirer publishes mug shots of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (re-published by this blog: People vs. Arroyo et al for electoral sabotage, a capital offense)

The Inquirer publishes mug shots of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (republished by this blog: People vs. Arroyo for electoral sabotage, a capital offense)

       In the interest of the right of the people to know whether or not the police and other civil servants performed their duties in the arrest and booking of the  

the accused,and whether the government in general is performing its duty in ensuring that the laws of the land are being followed, these photos  which the Inquirer said were the mug shots of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in People vs.  Arroyo for electoral sabotage are being republished in this blog. 

The Inquirer caption is as follows: “MUG SHOTS These mug shots of former President and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo did not come from the Pasay City Regional Trial Court which has refused to release the police photos. Sources who requested anonymity sent the photos to the Inquirer. CONTRIBUTED PHOTO”

Beyond public curiosity and voyeurism, there is a public interest to be served in monitoring the proceedings in the case People vs. Macapagal-Arroyo. No right of the accused is being violated in the publication of the mug shot. Prof. Perfecto Fernandez in his book “Mass Media Law” compiled pertinent jurisprudence on the matter, and referred to them as“four principal types of prejudicial publicity which interfere with the right of the accused to a fair trial”; they’re in four categories:  (1) prejudicial material such as publication of previous criminal records, results of lie-detector tests, confessions or witnesses of so-called witnesses not yet admitted by the court, etc. 2) sensationalized reporting; (3)vigilantism by the press; (4) excessive publicity (Fernandez, Mass Media Law). Publication of the mug shot of the accused, obviously, does not fall under any of these: there is no sensationalism because it is not exaggerated or manipulated, it is not gory, graphic, or shocking; there is no vigilantism because there are no statements or implication of guilt of the accused here; there is no excessive publicity because it is the first time we are seeing the photos and they deserve front-page treatment because of the newsworthiness of the case; and there is no prejudicial material here because these are mere attachments in the mittimus (file) of the case already classified as public records.  It is not the right of the accused that is at issue here but the caprice of her team to make sure that there is no historical record available to the public of the arrest of the accused. As to “humiliation” involved — geez,  we are so way past that after the airport spectacle which the then respondent caused upon herself. (She is in good company — look at Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton)

Neither are the mug shots a matter of security of the state. Since when were mug shots ever classified as “Top Secret”, “For Your Eyes Only”, “Strictly Confidential”? Show me a law that says that the publication of the mug shot of the accused is a matter of public safety that cannot be done without clearance of the court. On the other hand, the order of the court — to the public in general! — not to print, publish, show, the mug shot of the accused is tantamount to saying, do not look at the face of the accused when she was photographed for booking — an order that runs into constitutional issues far greater than the right to travel. I’ll be darned if you’re going to punish the press for performing its role in informing the public of the developments in this case. Are you about to cite the Inquirer in contempt for  performing its public duty? And what about the other media organizations and news sites that showed the mug shot as published by the Inquirer — TV shows such as the always-provocative Dos por Dos of Anthony Taberna and Jerry Baja of ABS-CBN DZMM where i first saw these photos? Are you about to punish for contempt Gani Yambot, Mike Enriquez (who showed the Inquirer photos, too), Felipe Gozon, Charo Santos, Gabby Lopez, and a host of internet site users? There are not enough jails for all the editors, news directors, section editors, publishers, news site producers, bloggers, layout artists, caption-writers, of this country to be detained in. A legion of lawyers, media alliances, people’s organizations,  will descend upon you like angels on a rampage — don’t mess with the freedom-of-the-press- free-speech-clause and right-of access clause. There is no constitutional right for a public figure to look good at all times. No accused anywhere in the world can claim constitutional guarantee to  mellow lighting during mugshot-taking — ask Lindsay Lohan.