GMA News Channel 7 asked for a legal opinion on the Mark Solis entry to the photography contest of the Chilean Embassy, which entry (photograph) was found to have been right-clicked from the site of a Brazilian photographer’s Flickr account for which Mark Solis had apologized.
Watch for the interview on GMA 7 news!
The GMA 7 cameraman took a video of the text of the moral rights provision of the Intellectual Property Code .
Watch for the discussion!
The cameraman also took a video of Article 172 of the Revised Penal Code. Just in case the lighting wasn’t that great in the conference room (kasi the text was in small font of the crime book), here’s the provision in bigger font :
Art. 172. Falsification by private individual and use of falsified documents. — The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than P5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon:
xxx
2. Any person who, to the damage of a third party, or with the intent to cause such damage, shall in any private document commit any of the acts of falsification enumerated in the next preceding article. (underscoring supplied)
xxxx xxxx
According to Justice Aquno : A private document has been defined by the Supreme Court as “every deed or instrument executed by a private person, without the intervention of a notary public or other person, legally authorized, by which document some disposition or agreement is proven, evidenced, or set forth. “
On the other hand, “acts of falsification enumerated in the next preceding article” refer to the following:
1.Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature, etc.;
2.Making it appear that a person took part in any act when in fact they did not;
3.Attributing certain statements to a person who in fact did not make them;
4.MAKING UNTRUTHFUL STATEMENTS IN A NARRATION OF FACTS (caps and underscoring supplied: this is a pertinent provision to the action being contemplated by those who have been duped by the person in question).
5.Altering true dates;
6.MAKING ALTERATIONS IN A GENUINE DOCUMENT WHICH CHANGES ITS MEANING;
7. Issuing as an authenticated copy of an original when no such original exists;
8.Intercalating any instrument in relation to a protocol, registry, or official book.
On the GMA news network headline: “CBCP readies for RH battle before SC, Villegas vows fight for church beliefs”
At gmanetwork.com/news/nation/cbcp-readies-for-rh-battle-before-sc-villegas-vows-fight-for-church-beliefs
“Today, July 9, major online news portals headline the RH “showdown” that will be finally held in the Supreme Court, deciding if ever the long overdue passing of the long-time shelfed bill will finally turn into one of this country’s laws. I have read two other news articles which also report said RH showdown (Inquirer.net’s and Rappler’s). What struck me most is the differences in the way each headline was written. Inquirer has “Showdown on RH law” while Rappler has “RH law showdown moves to SC”. Evidently so, GMA News’s report, with just its chosen title, already puts a bias on its news story, only pertaining to the implications of the CBCP regarding today’s RH fuss.
“That in the Journalist’s Code of Ethics, aptly first in the list of eleven main guidelines is it mentioned that the journalist “shall scrupulously report and interpret the news, taking care not to suppress essential face or to distort the truth by omission or improper emphasis”. In Inquirer’s and Rappler’s report, they each present other parties involved in said RH showdown, while GMA News only puts importance on what the CBCP comments on the presentation of the RH bill to the SC. This becomes of disservice to the reader such that other important details about the RH showdown, the pro- and anti-RH parties that will also voice out their own arguments, are being left out just to, I suppose, create some CBCP-related controversy once again.” Posted by Awarewolf.
