Punzi's Corner Blog

I was busy reading other people's blogs. Then a thought dawned on me. Can I navigate back to by own blogsite using only the blogrolls/links of my blog-friends? Can I form a "blogloop"?

The answer would be an obvious yes, simply because most of the blogs I read and link have linked me back. But the rule is, you have to use the blogrolls (or links page). If the blog has none, then it's a dead end.

But I had to verify this theory. Also, how long would the chain be?

Initially, I counted 14 blogs long. Of course, it could be longer if I give this more attention.

Here's my initial "blogloop":

Punzi
Flisha
Jaleesa
Barenaked
Jeff Vergara
Ron Allan
The J Spot
Bambit
Sam
Prada Mama
Jove
Major Tom
Bing (Warmstone)
Teacher Sol
Alan Joesel
Punzi

Ironically, I had to pull out the old reliable "pencil and paper" for this one.

I think the more accurate term for this is a "blogchain" because it comprises of "links" (get it?).

How about you? How long a "blogloop" can you form? I'm sure it's longer than this. Or are you thinking, "I have better things to do..."

A word to the beleaguered family. Your counterclaims of "destabilization," "sedition" and "undermining" are just as well-worn as your adversaries' alleged tactics. I'm guessing tomorrow, you'll let out the attack dogs to threaten everyone with prosecution. If that happens, I'm going to post a big "SEE, I WAS RIGHT!" tomorrow.

Now is simply the time to meet the issue head on. How you deal with it may define your days in power. Putting on the chiller with threats of suit may just work in the opposite and instead, fan the flames.

Good thing Miss Universe is on tomorrow. With the Filipino's legendary short-term memory, this issue may be skirted. Those who can, please vote for our Miss Philippines, Gionna Cabrera, here.

Later...

I'm going to do something different today. I'm going to merge my two current activities (namely lawyering and blogging) in this one blog. I believe I'm doing what La Vida Lawyer said he could do, but actually did'nt. He said he could give you this lecture. Of course he can. But I'm actually going to give it to you.

This will probably by the first of many. My first law blog-lecture.

Of course, I will not lecture my entire law school curriculum here. Just those useful to bloggers. And of course, I can only cover Philippine laws. So are you ready class? Let us begin.


Introduction/Definition:

Libel is defined in Article 353 of the Philippine Revised Penal Code as follows:

A libel is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act or omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.

For an imputation then to be libelous, hence criminal, the following requisites must concur:

(a) it must be defamatory;
(b) it must be malicious;
(c) it must be given publicity; and
(d) the victim must be identifiable.

By requisites, we mean, all of these must be present in any potential case for libel. Hence, there is no libel of any one of these is absent.

Let us tackle each requisite in seriatim (one after another, in series):

1. Defamatory Imputation

According to Article 353, a defamatory imputation attributes to any legal person (natural or jurdical; alive or dead), any of the following (aka, let's break it down...):

a. a crime (ex. Mr. X is an estafador, a murderer or [insert your favorite crime here];

b. a vice (ex. Ms. I is an alcoholic, a drug addict, a compulsive gambler, etc.)

c. a defect (ex. Mr. Z's has only four toenails, or has low sperm count)

d. any act or ommission (ex. Mr. S does/does not donate to the sperm bank, Mr. E conned me out of 50 bucks, etc.)

e. a condition (ex. Mr. MT is pscho, OC or AR)

f. a status (ex. Mr. BF is a bar/board-flunker, an ex-con or an ex-convento)

g. a circumstance (ex. Ms. BK's car got repossessed, etc.)

that tends to cause the one defamed dishonor, discredit, or contempt. If the person is dead, the foregoing tends to blacken his memory.

The important thing is the effect. If such imputation tends to the dishonor, discredit or contempt, or if the person is dead, tends to blacken his memory, the imputation is defamatory.

The characterization of a statement being defamatory is likewise important because of the next portion.

2. Malicious Intent

There is malice when the author of the imputation is prompted by personal ill-will or spite and speaks not in response to duty but merely to injure the reputation of the person who claims to have been defamed.

Under Philippine laws, every defamatory imputation as stated above is presumed to be malicious, even if true, if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown. Hence, if the imputation is qualified under No. 1, malice is presumed and need not be proven. The burden, then, to prove that it is not malicious shifts to the one accused (the one who made the defamatory imputation).

Truth is therefore not a defense, unless it is shown that the matter charged as libelous was made with good motives and for justifiable ends. Article 361 of the Revised Penal Code provides, in part, as follows:

"ART. 361. Proof of truth. — In every criminal prosecution for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the court and if it appears that the matter charged as libelous is true, and, moreover, that it was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the defendant shall be acquitted."

This presumtion is not applicable to all cases. In the following situations, however, malice, is not presumed and must, therefore, be also proved to make a libel case:

1. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty; and

2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions.

The privileged character of these communications is not absolute, but merely qualified since they could still be shown to be malicious by proof of actual malice or malice in fact. Here, the burden of proof to prove malice is on the plaintiff or the prosecution.

3. Publication

Publication means "to make public; to make known to people in general; to bring before the public." In the Philippines, the act of communicating the imputation to a third person already constitutes publication. In letters and correspondences, the cc: is enough to be considered publication.

Specifically put, publication in the law of libel means the making known of the defamatory matter, after it has been written, to some person other than the person of whom it is written. If the statement is sent straight to a person of whom it is written, there is no publication of it.

Putting it out in a blog is definitely publication because third persons definitely read it.

The reason for this is a communication of the defamatory matter to the person defamed cannot injure his reputation though it may wound his self-esteem.

What is punished in libel is the destruction of his reputation, what others think of him and not what he thinks of himself (his self-esteem). The only way that is accomplished is by attacking his good name in public.

4. The person defamed must be identified

Face it. The only way ruin one's reputation to actually identify the person. Each person's reputation is unique. If the character attack is general (all/some generals/government officials/[insert your favorite character] are corrupt/immoral/etc.), there is really no particular reputation destroyed. Hence, to prove libel the victim thereof must be identified.

Remember, identified does not equal named. If the description is precise enough that people will make no mistake or reasonably conclude that it is a particular person, there is already identification even if no names were mentioned.

The principles of libel become a little bit more complicated when the victim is a public official. That will have to wait for another blog...next time.

*(taken/derrived mostly from the Supreme Court case Alonzo vs. CA, GR. No. 110088, 01 February 1995 that quotes other cases)

But at this point, do you have any questions class?

No matter who you are, you always fail to find the right words when faced with people you idolize.

Yes, I mean, this even applies to me despite attending college twice. (Once for pre-law and the second for law proper, or "Juris Doctor" as conferred upon me).

Despite being a new lawyer way back in 1996 (hey! That's almost ten years ago...), I was already working for a good half year and was being introduced as a lawyer by the firm I was working for before I even passed the bar (That was scary...what if I didn't pass?...). One of my first assignments as a newbie lawyer was Assistant Corporate Secretary for our firm's client, a famous beach resort (where Angelo just spent his vacation on).

As it was a class resort (then a membership club), I was given the royal treatment during my first visit. I mean the works! Free food (always my weakness), amiable and nubile hosts (they were so pretty to look at and some of them are still my friends) and a helicopter ride to the resort!

(An aside: That resort is a four-hour drive from Quezon City, maybe three hours now given the North Luzon Expensiveway. But with a helicopter, you're there in 15 minutes from Makati! The trip was so short that once, a group left that resort by land at 2:30 pm. We left at about a quarter to 5:00 pm. by helicopter. When I arrived at the law school where I committed to play for that year's bar reviewees, they were utterly surprized when I said I just arrived from that resort fifteen minutes ago. The ones that left by land were still probably somewhere in the Pampanga that time...Helicopter rides are fantastic, but so scary...)

Now on to the main story. I arrived during the time Michael Biehn and Adrian Paul were shooting a movie nearby and hence, were billeted there. Forget Mr. Biehn, I've been following Highlander: the Series back in law school! Since I did not have the time to watch TV during weekdays, I "acquired" the appropriate degree to program my VCR and tape this show. Then, I watch a month's supply per sitting.

Here I was, standing mere inches away from someone I have only seen (and admired) on TV...There he looked on the thin side. In person, he was a well-built and tall man, with pecs that would make beauty queens insecure about their chests. And he really knew martial arts, not merely acting that he knows.

So the host introduced me to Adrian Paul, and he was so friendly. "Hi, Punzi," he said. (Of course he said my first name, but I don't want to say it here....)

Literally looking up to him in utter shock, what did I say in reply?

"Loved you in Highlander!"

OMG! He slowly backed away, probably thinking I was actually "in love" with him. Well, of course not! But that only goes to show (from personal experience) that even a lawyer who uses words for a living cannot find the correct words to say when starstruck...

How can a President, who probably earns less than a junior executive in a bank, in an economy that is suffering last year and still continues to suffer, given also a world economy under the same hole actually EARN money during these times? She must probably be a financial genius!

I just hope our President transplants her secrets to this personal financial success into the Philippine economy. That's what we are paying her to do.

When I was small (to be precise, very young) this was the only place where you can really go to. You see, I used to attend school near there (not La Salle Greenhills, mind you...) and that was the nearest comparison to a mall at that time.

When all these gigantic malls have been put up, this place still has a niche. Now, it's the celphone, "DIBIDI," PS2, PC software and gadget heaven. Being a gadget freak myself, I am naturally drawn to this place.

I recently bought a wireless gun controller for my PS2 but the input jack is the standard "yellow" RCA plug. I have been used to plugging my console through the "S-video" jack, through a specialty AV cable since the picture quality improvement is significant. Hence, I had to switch back to the "ordinary" cables everytime I play Time Crisis 3, Crisis Zone or Vampire Night. Reaching down the back of the console that is "well-entrenched" in its place is likewise a hassle.

Surfing the net, I discovered the existence of a specialty cable that has S-video output but also has a guncon port near the plug to the console. It looks something like this:

In my twenty-three years of driving (I learned how to drive when I was twelve), I have witnessed more than a lot of pedestrians crossing the street then raising their hands commanding you to stop like a cop. It's as if they have telekinetic powers or they have MMDA deputization to stop traffic just for them.

Ah, this is but one of the facets of the truly Filipino phenomenon called the "death-defying" pedestrian.

The evil side of me wants to see, for once, a pedestrian struck by a vehicle stuck in this position rigor mortis. Somebody slap me...that's too cruel. And it's not as if I never did this when I crossed the street...

Detractors of this industry are not new given its forty-year history. From the time of Imelda Marcos clearing Roxas Boulevard of billboards to the draft bill of the good Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, characterizing billboards as "blight," hence her Senate Bill No. 1714 (the proposed "Billboard Blight Act"), the OAAP has been in the forefront of resposible, legal and ethical standards in outdoor advertising. I even helped revising their Code of Ethics and By-laws myself a few months back.

So why is there an uproar now?

1. Cause of Accidents?

Some attribute these billboards as a cause of traffic accidents. This is just a popular misconception and there was never a study of this in the Philippines. Sure, there may be studies abroad but even an ordinary person would understand the peculiar traffic conditions in the Philippines. If at all there are traffic accidents caused by these billboards (and I'm not even going to concede this), it would be only minor fender-benders, not the major life-taking ones. Everyone knows that in rush hour traffic, one rarely travels above 50 kph and the average speed is only in the middle 20s. People stuck in traffic have all the time to view Cindy Kurleto, Diana Zubiri, Aubrey Miles, Phomela Barranda and... shudder Kris Aquino and Sandara Park in all their glory. If they nick an ocassional bumper, fender or door, it's probably their fault already. They are the ones driving, not these women of billboards.

2. Clutter?

The OAAP Code of Ethics and Trade Practices prescribes a viewing distance of 200 meters line of sight from the intended audience in cities (300 meters outside cities). Too technical? It simply means you must see the billboard from 200 meters away. Anything nearer is considered blocking.

This rule not only takes care of the business ethics portion of billboard advertising, it should also theoretically take care of clutter.

So why is there still clutter? Simply because not all outdoor firms are OAAP members. Hence, not all follow this rule. Why are there still non-OAAP members? The advertisers patronize them, to get the "best" site. They do not care whether they clutter/obstruct or not for as long as their ads are seen.

Also, advertising on national road rights-of-way are clearly illegal under existing laws. (Road rights-of-way=middle of the road, from sidewalk to sidewalk).The only things allowed there are traffic/informational signs.

So why can you still see advertising along the MRT posts and on pedestrian overpasses? As in most Philippine issues, implementation problems, my friend.

In fairness, the MMDA tried to implement this rule on the MRT posts but they are still there up to now. The ad company (a non-OAAP member, of course) got an injunction and the case is still pending. It even made a press release that it won in the Court of Appeals but all they really won was the the right to change the ads periodically. The OAAP is following this case intently and will make the appropriate action in the appropriate time. But that's all I can legally say about that case.

The DPWH is supposed to be on top of the situation but it obviously is not doing its job simply because these illegal ads are still there.

3. Objectionable Content?

Finally, we move to the issue of content. To this I say the old "Don't shoot the messenger..." dialogue. For the record, I'll say that the outdoor firm does not have control over the content. It is the advertiser (translation: the owner of the product/service shown in the billboard) that dictates it. This is also the domain of the Advertising Board of the Philippines or simply the ADBOARD (although is one of the founding members).

Before, pre-screening of billboard content was done on a purely voluntary basis. But after that Kinse Años controversy, I think this rule has changed. The OAAP is in the process of requiring an ADBOARD clearance before it puts up the advertiser's sign.

I even had one client (one of the biggest outdoor firm here) almost sued because it refused to show an ad with the model showing moderate cleavage. The ADBOARD receives and actually acts upon complaints by issuing cease and desist orders (remember Nakatikim ka na ba ng kinse anyos?...), which the ADBOARD (PANA) member advertiser has to follow.

Besides, there are constitutional issues involved in the matter of advertising content which cannot be dealt with in a single blog.

I have presented the side of the outdoor advertiser in the interest of fair play and I'm not getting paid for this blog, mind you. Well, not directly at least. But I personally believe in their cause, otherwise I would have not accepted them also as clients the same way as I will not take any bus company as a client.

Of course, you will form your own opinion about these issues. But at least you heard both sides and not just the "popular, bandwagon" one.

As a government consultant, I'm not really affected by this new four-day workweek experiment.

But since the terms of my engagement in this government office sometimes require me to be actually in that office, I have my share of complaints...

1. It's counterproductive. Especially when the companion memorandum came out...the 8:00 am power up, 5:00 pm aircon shutdown rule. This makes these non-aircon hours almost (I take it back, completely) useless.

2. It's based on false economy (aka., false savings). The government does not really save on this because utilities make up a small fraction of its expenditures. The bulk of government expenses goes to salaries and wages that remained unchanged.

3. Causes sleep deprivation or biological clock disruptions. Face it, we're creatures of habit and we frown upon any change. Of course, people will get used to this in time, if we stick to it long enough.

Of course, there are advantages:

1. Long weekends. (To some, reason enough...gulp gulp gulp gulp gulp!)

2. Theoretical savings for employees since they spend on laundry, transporation, etc. on four days instead of five. (Of course, the gulp gulp gulp gulp glug glug glug brought about by the long weekend may counteract these savings, even overpower it.)

3. Theoretical traffic alleviation since the rush hour gets split into four periods (the 6:00 am, the 8:00 am., the 5:00 pm and the 6:30 pm) instead of just the 8:00 am and 5:00 pm.

How about my fellow government bloggers out there, what do you say?

Once upon a time, there were these policemen who were in counterinsurgency training in Cebu.

There were training very hard in honing their skills. They became very good at it and their superiors armed them with the latest weapons.

Then they were sent out to battle at sea. They lost.

To whom? Not the NPA. Not the MILF. Not the Abu Sayaf or Jemah Islamiah. They lost to DIKYA! (Jellyfish!)

This is based on a true story... They're better off playing Counterstrike instead...

Last night, I met some high school friends at the wake of our 3rd year moderator (or class adviser), Fr. Prudencio Macayan, S.J.

He taught Mathematics (in our case, Geometry) for 33 years in the Ateneo de Manila High School. He died last 08 May 2004 at age 84, after being in retirement for only two years. I was even surprised about the "who's who" that came yesterday, that these people went through Fr. Macayan.

I personally had a bad feeling already when I saw in the Ateneo's website that the high school was looking for a new Physical Plant Director, a position Fr. Macayan occupied all this time.

Known as a "terror" and a strict disciplinarian during our time, he never forgot to address us as "men" back when we were in the throws of puberty. During last night's homily, his fellow Jesuits called him "Fr. Mac." We used to call him "Mad Mac," alluding to some sort of a "Mad Max" driving a "pimp'd out" Volkwagen Beetle.

He taught us geometry under a mango tree, back in 1986 during the time when the Philippines was about to throw out a dictator.

Hindsight is always 20/20.

How we hated, despised and, at the same time, feared, respected and even loved this mentor of ours. He brought order into our chaos, discipline into our unruliness, direction into our scatteredness. Again looking back, he never failed to address us as "men," and it was even the first word that we heard during third year. And he did transform us into men during our time.

We were the most undisciplined, unruly, scattered and disunited class during our second year. That is probably the reason why God sent Fr. Macayan on a mission to transform us into men. After he was through with us, a lot of his fellow teachers wanted to be our class moderator going into 4th year (of course, our 4th year class moderator was equally worthy, but that's another story). We became men. He succeeded.

Now, we appreciate him, respect him, love him for what he has taught us. More than the theorems of geometry, which we may have forgotten now. He taught us how to be men.

I still remember his famous quote, "Remember men, CRAM does not pay!"

"Mad Mac" is dead. We thank him and we will miss him. And the world will not be the same without him.

Only a few people know this but I could have been in computer industry.

Last week was murderous. Had a lot of work to do compounded by the May tuition rush. There was so much work that my small mom-and-pop operation (excuse me: pop only to be technical, more on that later) could not handle the load. Had to outsource them to my two affiliated law firms.

Of course that means more revenue which is always good. But the workload approaches the level I was in before my hiatus. You know, before all the things I have blogged about came to pass.

That's the beauty of a free-lancer. You get to chose how much or how little you can work. For the past two years, I'd say I was at 80% tops (80% of what? My workload when I was chief legal of the National Food Authority, I bet you did not know that...). Now, I'm approaching 100...but this may increase in the coming days. The sad part is I'll definitely blog less...

Hence, I have not given much thought to my planned spin-off/change in blog name so I decided to give it a pass for a while . With the workload, how can I even think of maintaining two blogs?

As I blog, I also only a few minutes (notice the time of this post) before we have to travel to Laguna for my cousin's wedding. My daughter's a flower girl...will post pictures....of course.

As you have noticed, I have succumed to a photo-hosting service. I was planning to keep us as anonymous as possible. But I can't help it. Too damn proud of my kids.

Anyway, that wedding is also the reason why I could not attend the iBlog summit today. So fellow bloggers, good luck on that summit. To those abroad, wish you were here to attend.

Oh, and finally, my court order came today. I officially have sole custody of my kids but not yet officially a single dad because I haven't got the time (and the extra resources) to get my annulment. The bad news: she visits the kids on Sunday afternoon, on Mother's Day even. So ironic.

So you can still expect a blog after that happens.

I'm thinking of changing the name of my blog and/or spinning off into two blogs: one as a personal journal of what's happening in our lives and the other, my legal commentaries on current events and other professional (that is, lawyerly) concerns. What do you think? I beginning to think my current blog title is a little bit lame. I couldn't think of any name when I started.

Any suggestions regarding both of these directions via tag-board, email or comment is most welcome.

Couldn't say much more for today. I have a lot of work to do. And I'm still working right now.