Infographic #YolandaPH (Philippines Haiyan) Update, Agence France Presse: More than 7,700 dead or missing, 4 million displaced or rendered homeless (data, image and graphics by Agence France Presse)
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.
Media Law: Yolanda death toll: NDRRMC bureaucratic requirement for the dead to be counted as fatality
Some students (from previous semesters) suggest that essay questions be added to the “objective” questions of exams.
“Essay” questions however are not any easier: examinees who fail to provide any legal basis to the answers beyond saying, generically, “human rights are being violated!!” get zero points.
Here is the BONUS QUESTION FOR THE DEC. 11 EXAM; the examinee has 24 hours from the Nov.- 27-discussion on right of access (we will discuss right of access, so you have 24 hours from then), or up to Nov. 28 at 7pm to post your answer.
The examinee may post the answer in his/her own platform (FB, Tumblr, Blogspot, WordPress) and paste the hyperlink in the comments section here; or may type up the answer in the comments section of this space; or may email it to R addressed to me. You may use either your real name/ student number or pseudonym – in the case of the latter, inform R of your real name.
For five points to be credited as bonus of the Dec. 11 exam (therefore, on Dec. 11, instead of 15 points as bonus, only 10 points max will be provided in the bonus section), you may type in your answer to the following “essay” question (please provide the arguments for the three parties, as stated below):
The NDRRMC, after imposing a gag order on government employees involved in NDRRMC operations, announced last Nov. 22 that the death toll from Typhoon Yolanda would be based on the combined certification of the mayor and the municipal health officer, and not on actual bodies retrieved, and therefore tolled the death toll at 4,198 Nov. 22. This Saturday, the death toll of 5,235 has remained unchanged despite bodies being unearthed everyday.
“(When) Asked why the recorded number of fatalities remained the same despite reports of bodies being retrieved in Tacloban City and other areas, he (the NDRRMC spokesperson) said Interior Secretary Mar Roxas had directed local chief executives to submit official reports duly signed by the mayors or governors to the NDRRMC.
“ “The reports are coming in trickles. Although there are reports that more bodies are being recovered, so far we have yet to receive [official] reports from local chief executives,” he said. “ (inquirer.net)
A netizen took to task the government officials (members of the Liberal Party) who imposed a gag order and are enforcing an “only- certifiably-dead” death-toll-policy, and said it was a violation of the right of access. A follower of the Liberal Party answered that the right of access applies only to records.
For the examinees:
1.Argue for the netizen and provide the legal basis.
2.Argue for the NDRRMC and the Liberal Party in enforcing the policy and provide the legal basis.
3.Argue for the apocalyptic believer that the retrieved bodies cannot be counted as dead because under the “28 days dead gestation” principle, the bodies are still within the zombie zone.
