Senator Chiz Escudero responds courtesy of Abante-Tonite Online

Disbarment

SEN. CHIZ ESCUDERO

Share

Dear Senator Chiz, Nais ko pong maghain ng disbarment complaint laban sa Clerk of Court ng Supreme Court, sa mga kagalang-galang na mga huwes ng Court of Appeals, mga commissioners ng National Labor Relations Commission, Labor Arbiter at sa abogado ng kumpanya. Magkano ka­yang halaga ang gagastusin para maharap ang kasong ito? Maaari ko bang isampa ang kaso habang ako ay nasa ibang bansa? Kung pwede ba magsampa ng disbarment case habang ako ay nasa ibang bansa, paano ang procedure? Maraming salamat po. Lubos na gumagalang, Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr. Dear Antonio, Ang halaga ng isang disbarment complaint ay nakadepende sa kung sino ang kukunin mong abogado upang magrepresenta sa iyo pati na mga fi­ling fees. Mahalagang malaman mo na dahil ilan sa nais mong sampahan ng kaso ay mga justice ng Court of Appeals, kailangan mong mag-file ng verified complaint sa Supreme Court mismo (Rule 139-B, paragraphs 1 and 2, Rules of Court). Maaari mong isampa ang kaso through a representative at kailangan mo munang gumawa ng isang Special Power of Attorney (SPA) pabor sa representative mo na nagsasabi na siya ay authorized na kumatawan sa iyo at magsampa ng kaso habang nasa ibang bansa ka. Kung ikaw ay nasa ibang bansa na, dapat consularized itong SPA mo. Sumasaiyo, Senator Francis "Chiz" Escudero Ilakip ang inyong pa­ngalan at address sa inyong ipadadalang mga katanungan at mga suhes­tyon. Maaari kayong magpadala ng liham sa tanggapan ng pahayagang ito sa No. 167 Liberty Bldg., Roberto Oca St., Port A­rea, Manila o e-mail sa saychiz@chizescudero.com. Maaari ring magpadala ng mensahe sa pamamagitan ng text: CHIZ <space> mensahe sa 2976.

R.A. No. 3019 VIOLATORS, DAPAT MAPARUSAHAN WAG PAMARISAN

Dear Senator Chiz,

Maligayang bati po sa inyo!

Nasa ibaba po ang ilang provision ng Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act na may mahalagang kaugnayan sa mga issue na idinudulog ko sa inyo.

Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) xxx

Section 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. — In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared to be unlawful: xxx
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions. xxx
Section 11. Prescription of offenses. — All offenses punishable under this Act shall prescribe in ten years. xxx
Nabanggit ko po ang mga provision ng R.A. 3019 dahil kaugnay po niyan ang aking ilalapit na asunto sa inyo. Nais ko pong maisampa ang kaso laban sa mga sumusunod na kawani ng ating pamahalaan, una, isang clerk of court ng Supreme Court, pangalawa, tatlong hukom ng Court of Appeals, pangatlo, tatlong comissioners ng NLRC, at pangapat, isang labor arbiter dahilan sa kanilang evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence and wilful ignorance at pandaraya sa kanilang pagtupad ng tungkulin nang kanilang sangayunan na gamitin ng kumpanya ang aking retirement benefits bilang pambayad sa akin noong tangalin ako sa trabaho bilang separation pay. Ang retirement benefit ay dapat galawin lang sa panahong magreretiro na ako. Ito po maliwanag na pandaraya ngunit dahil sa wilful ignorance and negligence ng mga kawaning nabanggit ay naipagkait sa akin ang katarungan at nakuha ng kumpanya ang labis na kapakinabangan.Nakurakot nila ang alin man sa aking retirement benefits o dili kaya ay ang aking separation pay..
Dagdag pa rito, ang hindi nila pagtutol sa paglabag ng kumpanya sa Job Security provision ng aming CBA na nagsasaad ng ganito, The union recognizes the right of the company to contract out work. However, no employee shall suffer loss of employment out of contracted out work. Noong tanggalin po ako sa trabaho ay maraming trabaho namin ang ipinakontrata ng kumpanya, itong provision na ito ay hindi man lang TINUTULAN o isinalang alang ng ating mga lingkod bayan na humawak ng asuntong ito, bagkus ay buong buo nilang sinang-ayunan ang paglabag na ito sa aming CBA. Marami pa pong iba. Malaki po ang pakinabang ng kumpanya sa gross wilful and unlawful negligence at pandaraya nila na nagdulot ng ibayong pinsala sa akin. Ang mahalaga po ay malaman ninyo ang aking nais na maisampa ang kaso laban sa kanila bago matapos ang sampong taon, sa dahilang kapag di sila nasampahan ng kaso at mapanagot ay mananatili sila sa katungkulan at patuloy na maghahasik ng kabuktutan sa ating bayan at kung sakaling sila ay maparusahan, ito naman ay magsilbing halimbawa na ang kabuktutan ay walang puwang sa ating pamahalaan at di dapat tularan o pamarisan.
Ako po ay malugod na maghintay sa inyong tugon at mga mungkahi upang ang mga lingkod bayan na nabanggit ay di makatakas at maparusahan sa kasalanang kanilang ginawa. Marami pong salamat.


Lubos na gumagalang,
Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr.

Mission Statement by an International SHELL's Critiques

Dear Sen. Chiz,

Below is a mission statement by a group of critiques whose  experiences, beliefs, convictions and aspirations are exactly similar to mine.  They have searched and seen how SHELL conducts her business  in a worldwide perspective.  I  myself  in my own niche in TABANGAO SHELL REFINERY  witnessed , experienced and been a victim of the same coersive, corrupt, deceptive and inhumane  management  culture. The plague is not only confined in the fences of the refinery but also in the halls and hallways of  DOLE ,  the Judiciary and in a number of government offices and institutions.

I know that these revelations are not alien to you but maybe the venom that SHELL injected into our system

have paralyzed  our leaders' will to fight. I believe you are not among those who did not even resist and worse corraborated  with SHELL in the expense of the their own dying  people.

With pride Sen. Chiz,  I present to you their Mission Statement : xxx

         
Mission

royaldutchshellplc.com

is an entirely

non-commercial website
Our objectives are simple. We want Royal Dutch Shell executives to act at all times in accordance with Shell General Business Principles which include the claimed core principles of honesty, integrity, openness and respect for people in all of Shell's dealings.
This is surely not an unreasonable ambition given that the principles were devised by Shell, are promoted by Shell and are supposedly current and binding on all Shell operations everywhere. In other words, we are only asking Shell executives to do what they already claim to be doing.
The plain fact is that if Shell executives had abided with the SGBP, scandals such as the reserves fraud involving blatant deceit and cover-up, the preventable Brent Bravo deaths which flowed from the Shell "Touch F*** All" safety culture on North Sea Platforms, and the more recent PR humiliations arising from outrageous examples of greenwash advertising, could not have occurred.
We do not believe that it is morally acceptable that Shell executives are indemnified so that even if they cheat, deceive and cover-up serious misdeeds, treating shareholders and the public as gullible fools, they are still able to walk away as winners. In the case of Sir Philip Watts, with a severance package/pension pot reportedly worth $18.5 million USD. We think that this is disgraceful situation at odds with all ethical norms including the SGBP and will continue to say so on this website.
The SGBP is being been used as a PR tool to promote undeserved confidence in the scruples and honesty of Shell senior management. For example, the SGBP featured in the Form 20F Declarations filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission thereby generating confidence in the proven reserves volumes which had been inflated i.e. were false.
While Shell execs continue to make pledges of ethical trading which they flout, we will continue our humble efforts to expose their hypocrisy and we welcome the support of others who like us are not prepared to put up with such deception.
The gap between Shell rhetoric and reality is evidence from Shell's appalling track record including a leadership role in price fixing cartels, numerous Clean Air Act violations, repeated environmental infringements, multimillion dollar fines for groundwater contamination, more fines for unauthorised venting and flaring of gas. We also have to add to this litany, Shell's exploitation and reckless disregard of the safety of its employees: xxx

Regards,

Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr.

 

 

SHELL as SEEN by Others' EYES

Dear Sen. Chiz,

May I show you some salient points that it is not only my
co-workers in TABANGAO SHELL REFINERY and
myself  been victims of  SHELL's  ridiculous and anomalous
management philosopy.
Please see my research bounty today.

In the wake

of Shell

"lies corruption,

despoliation

and death":

Andrew Rowell

in his

remarkable article

"Unloveable Shell,

the

Goddess of Oil"

Jun 5th, 2008

by John Donovan.

Unloveable Shell,

the Goddess of Oil

By John Donovan
In view of the overnight news from Nigeria it seems an appropriate time to publish for the first time on the Internet the most dramatic masterpiece about Shell and its atrocious track record, especially in Nigeria, that we have ever seen. Authored by Andrew Rowell, it was published by The Guardian over 10 years ago on 15 November 1997 under the title: Unloveable Shell, the Goddess of Oil
It is a large PDF file, so please be patient while it loads.
http://www.shellnews.net/PDFs/Guardunlov15Nov1997-1.pdf
The following extract is from a stirring letter to the editor of The Guardian by Mark Moody-Stuart published in the Guardian newspaper in response to the article.
Moody-Stuart said:

"…the Statement provides, for our employees to follow and for the outside world to judge us by, an ethical framework which is mandatory, not optional… just having those principles is not enough. In the past… an oil company could say 'trust me' and expect that to be enough. Today, people say, 'tell me – listen to me – show me'. Trust has to be earned by transparency. That's one of the most important lesson's we've learned in Shell…"

It appears from the news that in fact Shell has not been listening.
Dr Huong, the Shell whistleblower being sued for defamation by EIGHT Royal Dutch Shell companies, may wish to bring this article to the attention of the Trial Judge and ask why Shell did not sue Andrew Rowell or The Guardian for libel.
If anyone has a copy of the complete letter from Mark Moody-Stuart, we will happily publish it. The content was mentioned in correspondence I had with Moody-Stuart at the time.
Printed below is the text of the article (we do however recommend looking at the original article via the above link so that you can view the dramatic graphics)

The Guardian: Unloveable Shell, the Goddess of Oil
November 15, 1997
For a century, Shell has explored the Earth to make our lives more comfortable. But in its wake, says Andrew Rowell, lies corruption, despoliation and death
The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh went to the Shell Centre on the Thames riverside near Waterloo last Tuesday, to crown the company's centenary celebrations. Critics claim the timing of the Queen's visit was slightly unfortunate: it came just one day after the second anniversary of Ken Saro-Wiwa's death in Nigeria: he was campaigning against Shell's oil exploitation in the region.
The Shell Transport and Trading Company (STTC) has risen from its humble roots in a cramped office in the East End to become one of the most successful corporations of the century. What we collectively know as "Shell" is in fact more than 2,000 companies. Last year, the Shell Group's profit was a record pounds 5.7 billion, the proceeds from sales of pounds 110 billion. "Were our founder, Marcus Samuel, to reappear today, I do not think he would be displeased with what has grown from his efforts," says Mark Moody-Stuart, STTC's chairman.
As part of the centenary celebrations, the cream of the City were invited to a reception at the Guildhall. There is also to be a commemorative book. Whilst it may mention the Shell Better Britain Campaign, and even the controversy over Brent Spar, not everyone will agree with the authorised biography's version of Shell's history. Here is a less authorised approach.
After it merged in 1907 with its rival Royal Dutch, the Royal Dutch Shell company was formed; its first chairman was the Dutchman Henri Deterding. By the 1930s, Deterding had become infatuated with Adolf Hitler, and began secret negotiations with the German military to provide a year's supply of oil on credit. In 1936, he was forced to resign over his Nazi sympathies.
During the early 1940s, as the world waged war, Peru and Ecuador had their own armed border-dispute – over oil. Legend in Latin America says that it was really a power struggle between Shell, based in Ecuador, and Standard Oil in Peru. The company left a lasting reminder of its presence in the country: a town called Shell. Activists in Ecuador are seeking to get the town renamed Saro-Wiwa.
In the post-war years, Shell manufactured pesticides and herbicides on a site previously used by the US military to make nerve gas at Rocky Mountain near Denver. By 1960 a game warden from the Colorado Department of Fish and Game had documented abnormal behaviour in the local wildlife, and took his concerns to Shell, who replied: "That's just the cost of doing business if we are killing a few birds out there. As far as we are concerned, this situation is all right."
But the truth was different. "By 1956 Shell knew it had a major problem on its hands," recalled Adam Raphael in the Observer in 1993. "It was the company's policy to collect all duck and animal carcasses in order to hide them before scheduled visits by inspectors from the Colorado Department of Fish and Game." After operations ceased in 1982, the site was among the most contaminated places on the planet, although Shell is now trying to make it into a nature reserve.
At Rocky Mountain, Shell produced three highly toxic and persistent pesticides called the "drins": aldrin, dieldrin and endrin. Despite four decades of warning over their use, starting in the 1950s, Shell only stopped production of endrin in 1982, of dieldrin in 1987 and aldrin in 1990, and only ceased sales of the three in 1991. Even after production was stopped, stocks of drins were shipped to the Third World.
Another chemical Shell began manufacturing in the 1950s was DBCP, or 1,2 -Dibromo-3-Chloropropane, which was used to spray bananas. This was banned by the US Environmental Protection Agency in 1977 for causing sterility in workers. In 1990, Costa Rican workers who had become sterile from working with the chemical sued Shell and two other companies in the Texan Courts. Shell denied that it ever exported the chemical to Costa Rica and denied that it exported it to any other country after the ban in 1977. The case was settled out of court.
Just as people had begun to question Shell's products, so they began to challenge its practices. In the 1970s and 1980s, Shell was accused of breaking the UN oil boycott of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) by using its South African subsidiary and other companies in which it had interests. Shell, singled out by anti-apartheid campaigners for providing fuel to the notoriously brutal South African army and police, responded by hiring a PR firm to run an anti-boycott campaign.
By the 1980s criticism of Shell's operations was spreading. From Inuit in Canada and Alaska, to Aborigines in Australia and Indians in Brazil, indigenous communities were affected by Shell's operations.
In the Peruvian rainforest, where Shell conducted exploration activities, an estimated 100 hitherto uncontacted Nahua Indians died after catching diseases to which they had no immunity. Shell denies responsibility, and says that it was loggers who contacted the Nahua. By the end of the decade, the company's image was suffering in the US and UK, too.
In April 1988, 440,000 gallons of oil was discharged into San Francisco Bay from the company's Martinez refinery, killing hundreds of birds. The following year, Shell spilt 150 tons of thick crude into the River Mersey, and was fined a record pounds 1 million.
But by now, the company was responding to growing international environmental awareness. "The biggest challenge facing the energy industry is the global environment and global warming," said Sir John Collins, head of Shell UK, in 1990. "The possible consequences of man-made global warming are so worrying that concerted international action is clearly called for."
Shell joined the Global Climate Coalition, which has spent tens of millions of dollars trying to influence the UN climate negotiations that culminate in Kyoto next month. "There is no clear scientific consensus that man-induced climate change is happening now," the lobbyists maintain, two years after the world's leading scientists agreed that there was.
At the same time, the company has taken its own preventive action on climate change and possible sea-level rise by increasing the height of its Troll platform in the North Sea by one metre. By 1993, as Shell's spin-doctors were teaching budding executives that "ignorance gets corporations into trouble, arrogance keeps them there", 300,000 Ogoni peacefully protested against Shell's operations in Nigeria. Since then 2,000 have been butchered, and countless others raped and tortured by the Nigerian military.
In the summer of 1995 there was the outcry over the planned deep-sea sinking of the redundant oil platform Brent Spar, and in November Ogoni leader Ken Saro-Wiwa was executed, having been framed by the Nigerian authorities. At the time Shell denied any financial relationship with the Nigerian military, but has since admitted paying them "field allowances" on occasion. This year in Nigeria, the three-million-strong Ijaw community started campaigning against Shell, leading to another military crackdown.
"The military governor says it is for the purpose of protecting the oil companies. The authorities can no longer afford to sit by and have the communities mobilise against the companies. It is Ogoni revisited," says Uche Onyeagucha, representing the opposition Democratic Alternative. In Peru, Shell has returned to the rainforest. It acknowledges "the need to consider environmental sustainability and responsibility to the people involved", but the move is still criticised by more than 60 international and local environmental, human-rights and indigenous groups.
"Shell has not learnt from its tragic mistakes," says Shannon Wright from the Rainforest Action Network, which believes there should be no new fossil-fuel exploration in the rainforest: "They continue to go into areas where there are indigenous people who are susceptible to outside diseases." Meanwhile, Shell publicly talks of engaging "stakeholders".
It hopes that we, as consumers, will continue to give it a licence to operate. However, for each barrel produced, the ecological and cultural price increases exponentially. Everyone knows we need to reduce our consumption of oil: but Shell's very existence depends on selling more of it. Senior executives are said to be "girding our loins for our second century" because "the importance of oil and gas is likely to increase rather than diminish as we enter the 21st century". Can we let that happen?
——————————————————————————–
THIS WEEK'S essayist, Andrew Rowell, is a freelance environmental consultant who has written extensively on the oil industry. He is author of Green Backlash – Global Subversion Of The Environmental Movement (Routledge, 1996)

I have more to show you ,  Sen. Chiz.
Regards,
Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr.

My Daughter Opts to Quit

The TRUTH will set you FREE.

dear Sen. Chiz,

mabuhay po tayo...

Narito po sa baba ay isang sulat na ipinadala ko sa
balitangamerica@abs-cbni.com na kung saan ay ipinaliwanag ko ang
aking katayuan at layuning ipagpatuloy ko ang usaping labag sa batas
na pagtanggal sa akin sa trabaho, kaakibat ang paghingi ng payo kung
ano pa ang aking mabuting gawin ngayong ang aking anak na humaharap sa
asunto ay nawawalan na ng pagnanais na ipagpatuloy pa ito dahil sa
nasasaksihan niyang kabulukan ng sistema sa ating pamahalaan...sayang
lang aniya ang hirap at panahong gugugulin muli rito...bukod sa sama
ng loob na makita mo ang mga ikinikilos at ginagawa ng mga lingkod bayan
na imbes na bigyan buhay ang mga batas ay sila pa mismo ang kumikitil dito.

Heto po ang sulat:

xxxxxxxx
dear balitang america,

i am a filipino immigrant residing at 324 w. casurina pl. beverly
hills, florida, a former employee of Pilipinas Shell Petroleum
Corporation in her Tabangao Shell Refinery, who, after almost 25
years, terminated my employment. i filed a labor case of illegal
dismissal against SHELL which is now the subject of my petition for
review on certiorari that has been DENIED WITH FINALITY few weeks
ago..

i felt that the order was highly irregular being that the decision
document is only one page and signed only by the clerk of court and no
specific reasons why the said petition was denied.

hence, i wanted to pursue the case even more vigorously, but my
daughter to whom i entrusted with a special power of attorney to act
in my behalf said that she is no longer interested in pursuing the
case for she had witness how intense corruption is in the government,
so with the administration of justice in our country. she lamented
our efforts will just lead us to nowhere.... i could not blame her.

i could not even force my daughter to act against her will... but
still i want to pursue the case up to the extent of seeking disbarment
of court officials and/or officers who deliberately committed fraud
and maliciously ignored the law and jurisprudence pertaining to the
illegal termination of employment i filed against the respondent
company.

the lawyer representing me on this case resigned for some personal
commitments , before this case reached the appelate court and from
then on seeking for the services of another lawyer became illusive as
one after another commented that i am against a formidable opponent
and advised me to be practical and just quit.

but quitting has not been an option and never it will be, inspite of
my lawyer and now my daughter leaving me behind...
given this situation, still i want to continue with my cause...what
else can i do ?

sincerely,
antonio l. buensuceso jr.xxxxxxxxx


Akin rin pong nais ipaalam na ako ay una na ring nagsimulang makipag
ugnayan sa inyong tanggapan ngunit noong una lang pong pagkakataon ako
nagkasuerte at yung mga sumunod ay pawang mga FAILED DELIVERY na.

Ayaw ko pong isipin na hindi ninyo nais na ako ay tulungan...ang
sinasabi ko na lang sa aking sarili ay patuloy kong gagawin ang
aking panawagan hanggang dumating ang pagkakataon na mapansin nyo
rin ako sa kabila ng libo-libong mamamayan na nais ring abutin ang
inyong butihing palad..

lubos na gumagalang,

antonio l. buensuceso jr.

ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION-TERCERA PARTE

The TRUTH will set you FREE.

dear Sen. Chiz,

mga pagbati pong muli...mabuhay po tayo....

Ang assumption of jurisdiction po ng secretary of labor na bukod sa kakatwang tyempo nito (una pang ibigay kaysa noong hilingin ito) ay hungkag sa wastong pag-aaral. Nararapat lamang ay binalikan ng butihing kalihim ang mga naging kaganapan noong nagdaang dalawang strike na naganap sa SHELL REFINERY noong dekada otsenta.

Unahin natin noong pamunuan ni Dort Manalo, may isang buwan din na nag-aklas ang TASREA ngunit sa ganoong kahabang panahon ay hindi nahinto ang operasyon ng SHELL REFINERY. Tuloy tuloy ang dating ng krudo (raw material na i-proproceso) at tuloy walang hinto ang operasyon ng planta at tuloy rin ang paglabas ng produkto sa lahat ng customers nito.

Pangalawa. noong pamunuan ni Cesar Alcaraz, ganoon rin may isang buwan ring nag-strike ang unyon ngunit muli sa ganoong kahabang panahon ay nanatiling tumakbo ang operasyon ng SHELL REFINERY at patuloy na nakapag supply ng produkto sa kanyang mga consumer ang kumpanya.

Ang dahilan kung bakit kaya ng SHELL na gampanan ang kanyang commitment sa kanyang mga consumers ay kakaramput lang dami ng mga kawaning manggagawa sa SHELL na kasapi ng TASREA. Sa bilang naming humigit kumulang sa 110 kasapi na nag-aklas kumpara kabuuang higit sa isang libo na naglingkod sa SHELL, pinagsama-samang managerial, supervisors, contractors, operator trainees, retirees, pipeline operators from FPIC, sa loob at labas ng SHELL REFINERY na patuloy ring naglingkod habang may strike ay matagumpay nilang napunuan ang kakulangang dulot naming humigit kumulang na 110 miyembro ng TASREA.

Nakita at batid na namin na kahit na kami ay mag-welga ay patuloy pa rin matutugunan ang pangangailangan ng mga consumer at hindi kailanman na ang strike ng TASREA ay naging banta o magiging banta sa national interest.Napipilitan lang kaming magwelga para ipaalam ang aming mga hinaing at hindi para pinsalain ang operasyon ng refinery.

Noong panahon ng strike binahagi po namin sa apat na grupo ang lahat ng kasapi ng unyon. Isang grupo sa umaga, isang grupo sa hapon, isang grupo sa gabi at isang grupo ang nakapahinga. Sa madaling salita ay may mga 25 katao ang kabuuan ng isang grupo na magbabantay sa pitong gate ng refinery kaya magkatatlo o minsan magkaapat lang ang nakapag babantay sa bawat gate at ang tatlong jetty (pier daungan ng mga crude, refined products at LPG shipping vessels) hindi na po namin kayang bantayan at dyan po malayang nakakalabas pasok ang mga kawaning patuloy na nagtratrabaho sa loob ng refinery.

Tuloy po ang dating ng barkong may lulang krudo tuloy din po ang mga barko na nagkakarga naman ng produkto. Ang tanging napigil namin ay ang pagkakarga sa trak mula sa depot sa loob ng refinery subalit nagagawa rin nilang kargahan ang mga trak na iyon sa Pandacan Depot dahil sa ang pipeline mula Tabangao hanggang sa Pandacan ay tuloy-tuloy rin ang operasyon. Ganoon din po ang operasyon ng black oil(fuel oil) pipeline, tuloy-tuloy po ang operasyon kaya ang langis na pang gatong sa mga industriya ay lubusang nakarating sa mga kinauukulang gumagamit nito. Dagdag pa rito ang katotohanang hindi lang ang SHELL ang gumagawa at nagbabahagi ng naturang mga produkto. Nariyan ang PETRON, CALTEX, at iba pang independent distributors na makukunan ng nasabing mga produkto. Samakatuwid maliwanag nating makikita na kahit na nagwelga sa dalawang pagkakataon ang TASREA ay hindi kahit minsan naparalisa ng welga ang operasyon o ang pagkukulang sa pamilihan ng mga naturang produkto. Kaya ang welga ng TASREA ay hindi threat sa national interest.

Ang sinasabi ng kalihim kaya niya ginamit ang kanyang kapangyarihang assumption of jurisdiction sa labor dispute ng SHELL management at TASREA ay dahilang ang strike ay threat sa national interest ay isang kathang isip lang na hindi batay sa aktual na pangyayari at karanasan.

Ginagamit lang na dahilan ang national interest upang magamit ang kapangyarihan na assumption of jurisdiction upang pigilan ang ligitimong paghingi namin ng kaukulangang kita para sa aming pangangailangan. Uupuan ng kalihim ang asunto at hihintayin kaming magutom at nang sa ganoon kahit na hawot o tuyong isda ang nasa hapag ay mapipilitan na rin kaming kainin iyon dahilan sa matinding gutom...

Napakasakit ang ginagawang ito sa aming mga manggagawa, Sen Chiz
Tulungan mo sana kami.
pause po muna..

antonio l. buensuceso jr.

ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION-SEGUNDA PARTE

The TRUTH will set you FREE.

dear Sen. Chiz,

greetings pong muli... mabuhay po tayo...
ipagpapatuloy ko po ang paglalahad ng ating sinusubaybayang assumption of jurisdiction bukal ba ng korapsyon series... ngayon po ang segunda parte.

Napakaraming beses na po nating nasasaksihan ang ginagawang nationwide strike ng mga manggagawa sa sangay ng transportasyon tuwing sila ay may hihilinging dagdag sa pasahe sa mga panahong tumataas ang presyo ng produktong petrolyo, malaya nilang naisasagawa ang kanilang welga na walang assumption of jurisdiction order sa anumang sangay ng pamahalaan na nakasasakop rito. Ito bang welga na ito ay hindi issue ng national interest ? Hindi po ba nakasasama sa national interest na paralisahin ang transportation mula Luzon, Visayas at hanggang sa Mindanao. Napakaraming negosyo at hanapbuhay at mamamayan ang napipinsala. Hindi po natin maitatanggi na ang nationwide na welga ng sangay ng transportasyon ay higit na matinding kaso na nakakasama sa ating national interest. Bakit wala pong sangay ng pamahalaan ang kumikilos na kahit batid nilang ang tanggapan nila ang pinagkalooban ng batas na magbigay ng order na assumption of jurisdiction upang sa ganoon ay mapigilan ang welga upang magiging tuloy-tuloy ang daloy ng produkto at serbisyo at sa ganoon ay walang pinsalang maranasan ang mga tao at ang ating ekonomiya? Ano po kaya kung ang industriya ng transportasyon ay pag-aari ng Shell o ibang multi national corporation na ang interes ng naturang korporasyon ang mapapahamak... wala pong welga ang magaganap dahil po sa kapangyarihan ng assumption of jurisdiction order na ipinagkaloob ng batas na kaagad na gagamitin ng takdang sangay ng pamahalaan. Alam na natin kung bakit ganoong kabilis na pagkilos ang ating masasaksihan. Marahil nais nilang pangalagaan ang national interest.... maniniwala po ba kayo ? Si Juan dela Cruz mabibilog ba nila ang ulo ? Interest ng tiwaling humahawak ng kapangyarihan at multi-national corporations' interests ang kanilang isinisigaw na kasagutan. Kaya po mabuting maimbitahan sa isang hearing sa senado ang pinuno ng sangay ng pamahalaan na sangkot sa maaaring korapsyon na nakapaloob dito.
Nang sa ganoon ay makapagbalangkas ang kapulungan ng angkop na pananggalang laban sa sinumang pinuno ng pamahalaan na utak ng korapsyon at kabuktutan.

Itutuloy ko pong muli....
Marami pong salamat sa inyong panahon.

Nagpupugay,

antonio l. buensuceso jr.

AJ-assumption of jurisdiction

The TRUTH will set you FREE.

dear Sen. Chiz,

greetings pong muli... mabuhay po tayo...
Akin pong tanong.....
AJ-assumption of jurisdiction bukal ba ng Korapsyon

Ang kapangyarihan pong assumption of jurisdiction sa labor dispute ng Office of the DOLE Secretary ay labis pong naglulubog sa mga manggagawa sa lusak ng pagkaalipin, paghihirap at kawalang pag-asa. Mabuti sana ay kapag nag-utos ang kalihim ng assumption of jurisdiction ay aksyunan agad niya ito sa isang nakatakdang panahon. Yun po ang masama kanya pong kukunin ang jurisdiction sa paghahatol sa labor dispute pagkatapos ay uupuan lang niya ito. Nararapat po ay bigyan ng kaukulang sanction o kaparusahan ang kalihim kapag hindi siya nakapagbigay ng desisyon sa loob ng takdang panahon, kasama na rito ang pagbabalik ng karapatan sa mga manggagawa na ipagpatuloy ang bantang pag-aaklas kung kinakailangan.

Dito po sa kaso ng TASREA (Tabangao Shell Refinery Employees Association) laban sa Shell management taon po ang nakalipas ngunit wala pang inilalabas na desisyon ang kalihim. Nangyari pong sa paraang ito tinutulungan ng kalihim ang Shell management o alin mang kumpanya upang supilin ang karapatan ng mga manggagawa sa patas na pasueldo. Sa sistemang ito inilagak natin ang mga manggagawa sa pang-aalipin ... pilit nating muli silang magtrabaho labag sa kanilang kagustuhan... habang ang management naman ay tagumpay sa kanilang nais na wage increase moratorium habang inuupuan ng kalihim ang kaso. Habang tumatagal upuan lalong lumalaki ang pakinabang ng Shell o alin mang kumpanya.

Sa ganitong kalagayan hindi po mahirap isipin na may tatlong (3) na nakahandang pagkilos ang kalihim:
1) Dagliang paghatol sa kaso, base sa katotohanan at patas, yan ay kapag hindi bumuo ng matamis na pakikipag-ugnayan ang kumpanya, Inasahang mapait sa panig ng kumpanya.
2)Uupuan ang kaso hanggang ang mga manggagawa na mismo ay manglupaypay sa gutom at tuluyan ng sumuko. Maaring bilhin mas mababang halaga kaysa bayaring taas sa sahod ng mga manggagawa.
3)Isang desisyon na maaring patas at hango sa katotohanan ngunit ilalabas lang kung sakaling magkabukingan o magkakagipitan. Kung walang magbibigay puna ay ikukubli na.

Hinihingi po namin ang inyong tulong... alisin po natin sa kagawaran ang katiwalian...
antonio l. buensuceso jr.

good and not so good news

Dear Sen. Chiz,
Please read more here.
Greetings pong muli sa inyo... mabuhay po tayo...

Meron po akong good news sa inyo . Napili po akong "EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH" for the month of January 2009 ng aking pinagtratrabahuhan. Ako po ay labis na natuwa sa kaganapang iyon. Pero kung may good news ay meron din naman pong not sa good news.

Natanggap ko po ang message ng aking anak mula dyan sa atin na yun raw pong isinumite naming "motion for reconsideration" para sa pag-aaral muli ng asunto ko laban sa PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION GR-183273 ay "DENY WITH FINALITY".

Ito po isang pahina lang at ang may lagda ay ang clerk lang po ng First Division ng Korte Suprema at wala sinumang huwes ang nakalagda rito. Sa ngayon po ako ay nagsasaliksik kung may jurisdiction ang clerk na husgahan ang merito ng asuntong ito. Sa akin pong paniniwala ay hindi abot ng clerk ang kapangyarihan na nararapat sa mga huwes. Hango po sa CHAN ROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY, xxx COURT RECORD AND GENERAL DUTIES OF CLERKS AND STENOGRAPHERS, Rule 136 sec. 4. Issuance by clerk of process- the clerk of the superior court shall issue under the seal of the court all ordinary writs and process incident to pending cases, the issuance of which does not involve the exercise of functions appertaining to the court or judge only, and may under the direction of the court or judge make out and sign letters of administration, appointments of guardians, trustees and receivers, and all writs and process issuing from the court.xxx Maliwanag po ipinagkakait po sa kanya ang kapangyarihang nararapat sa mga huwes lamang. Wala sa kanyang kapangyarihan na hatulan ang asuntong ito. Ngayon kung yun ang hatol ng mga huwes nararapat lamang na ang mga huwes na naturan ang siyang lumagda rito at kailangan na isulat nila ang kanilang mga "specific" na kadahilanan para pawalang bisa ang aking petisyon.

Nararapat lamang na ipaliwanag kung anong batas o ruling ng hukuman ang nagpapawalang saysay sa aking mga hinaing reklamo lalo na ang aking paghahabol na hindi ako binayaran ng separation pay. Ang katotohanan po ay retirement pay ko lang ang ibinigay sa akin at sa intensyong linlangin ako ay tinawag nila itong separation pay.

Alam po natin Sen. Chiz, na ang retirement pay ay bunga ng itinatadhana ng REP. ACT No.7641 ito po ang batas na nag-ameyenda Art.287 ng PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 442 na nag-utos na maglaan ng retirement pay para sa kanilang mga kawani kung sakaling wala pang retirement plan ang naturang kumpanya. Kaya po ang retirement pay na tinangggap ko ay halagang laan para sa aking retirement na itinakda ng batas laan para sa aking katandaan. Kaya yun po ay aking isinubi at saka ko gagalawin kapag ako ay matanda na at wala ng kapasidad pang magtrabaho. Ito pong provision ng batas na ito ay lingid sa kaalaman ng clerk of court na binanggit ko sa itaas.

Sa akin pong palagay ay hindi niya napagtanto o siya ay guilty sa tinatawag na "gross ignorance of the law" sa dahilang hindi niya alam na ang SEPARATION PAY ay ang perang inilaan ng batas para tanggapin ng isang kawani sa panahong siya ay matangal sa trabaho angkop sa paraang itinatadhana ng batas at ang halagang ito ay laan para gastusin ng kawani sa kanyang mga pangangailangan habang siya ay naghahanap muli ng bagong pagkakakitaan.
Maliwanag po na ang retirement pay at separation pay ay magkabukod na pananagutan ng kumpanya sa dahilang sila ay bunga ng bukod at magkaibang batas.
Kaya po ang ginawang pagbasura ng clerk of court ng First Division sa aking petition ay isang pagkakamali ... she might have shown to have committed an error that was gross and patent, deliberate or malicious, been motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption, ignored or contradicted or failed to apply settled law and jurisprudence.

Maaari po bang maalis siya sa BAR at tungkulin pag napatunayan ang kanyang mga pagkakamali?

Muli po Sen. Chiz, humihingi po ako ng inyong tulong...
Tuloy po ang laban para sa katotohanan... para katinuan ng palakad sa ating pamahalaan...
Para sa DIYOS at sa BAYAN...
antonio l. buensuceso jr.
petitioner

A Glimpse of My Childhood

Dear Senator Chiz,



Mabuhay po tayo!



Sa pagpapatuloy po ng aking salaysay, ay mangyari pong ilahad ko sa inyo kung ano po ako noong kabataan.



At 9, my age, I was in Grade III. I remembered one of the lessons in Social Studies is how one can show patriotism and love for country. My classmates responded from a simple singing the Philippine National Anthemn, Lupang Hinirang, standing straight with the palm of the right hand over the left portion of the breast; and to the heroic dying for the sake of the country.

But what caught my interest most is the idea about our economy : the transfer of goods and services from sellers and buyers. It was expressed in our lesson as " Patronize our own products." This meant that I should buy products made in the Philippines and by Filipinos themselves.

Impregnated by that idea I promised myself that from then on, I will patronize only Filipino enterprises and products.

On a Sunday not long after the week when patriotism was discussed, my mother, auntie and I went to Batangas City about 7 or 8 kilometers from Bauan to buy some goods. It was expensive in Bauan so, going to Batangas City gave a cheaper option.

We rode a jeepney and it took us some 15 or 20 minutes to get to Batangas City.

When the shopping was over, Auntie and my mother were a bit thirsty,hungry and tired. They decided to have a break in a nearby Chinese looking restaurant which I suggested, we should not (my apologies to my Chinese friends) . I told them we should go to the Filipino restaurant on the side citing lessons I learned from school. However, they insisted of going to the Chinese restaurant leaving me behind.

So, imbued with the idea of patriotism, I moved not to join them and walked my way to Bauan. I traced back the way where we pass through and abled to cruise the highway alone. I reached Bauan all by walking penniless, thirsty, hungry and tired.

I did walk for a cause at age 9.



Till then, Sen. Chiz...



Sincerely,

Antonio L.Buensuceso Jr.

(Petitioner)

Truth Ires Shell Management

Sen. Chiz,

Mabuhay po tayo Sen. Chiz !

As I continue showing causes and motives behind Shell's management anger on me, let me discuss some truths that pained them most.

1. The Perfect Attendance Award Scheme is actually a Shell's management scam.
On this scheme which I called scam, the employee is advised not to avail any of his 15-days sick leave and 5-days personal/emergency leaves to become a Perfect Attendance Awardee. At year end, if the employee failed to comply with the directive will most likely to suffer job stagnation, and he who did will be given Perfect Attendance Award recognition and a G. E. flat iron as a token of appreciation and a promise of promotion but his 15-days sick leave and 5-days personal/emergency leaves shall be forfieted in favor of the Company.
The real cost of these sick, personal/emergency leaves if the employee avail of these leaves is not only 20 days but 50 days because the employee who availed of these 20 days will be paid 20 days. In his absence, another employee will be coming in as his replacement and shall be paid 20 days plus 10 days overtime rate. So, it summed up to 50 days.
In otherwords, an awardee is giving away 50 days worth of labor in exchange for a G.E. flat iron , an Award Certificate and an empty promise of promotion. Shell bludgeoned her employees into this inequity in no less than 30 long years.
Since my first year of employment, I've pleaded for sanity, fairness and justice be instituted in the system, and all throughout my years of employment and until the couple of years before I was terminated, I made a pledge not to have my hair cut until management would at at least give sanity to the Perfect Attendance Award Scheme. However, management wanted inequity preserved on her favor and opted to expel me out of the system.

2. The Collective Bargaining Agreement concluded before I was terminated is peppered with controversies and irregularities. I was pursuing, among others, the truth behind the missing minutes of 3 negotiation meetings wherein the economic provision of the CBA is discussed. The reason why the requirement of 2 union member (not an officer) to act as witnesses to the proceeding was waived. They conducted these discussions seemingly under the cover of darkness.

My inquiries continued as what are the underlying circumstances how the two key union officers received a company sponsored trip to Singapore and then to Thailand immediately after the conclusion of the contoversial CBA. Contriversies doubled further when the whole set of union officers were called to a sumptous party in a 5-star hotel in Makati few days after the closure of the CBA. As informations and evidences were being unearthed one by one perpetrators fear truth be gradually exposed further and suffer culpability. Thus, sought to stop the inquiry in any means available to them. They chose to boot me out of the refinery.

Till then Sen. Chiz ....

Sincerely yours,
Antonio L. Buensuceso
(Petitioner)

Personal Grudges Against Me Exposed

Dear Sen. Chiz Escudero,

Mabuhay po tayo !

Eto po ay ang patuloy kong pagpapaliwanag ng aking kaso laban sa Shell na nasa Korte Suprema na sa kasalukuyan : GR No. 183273 Antonio Buensuceso vs. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation / Rico Bersamin .
This all stemmed from the personal grudges against me of my employer as manifested by his consequential acts or ommissions on the following incidents:

Management even extend his grudges down to my son.

1. My son, a Shell scholar from high school to college (scholarship granted after passing competetive examinations) . He graduated from DLSU, Taft Ave. Manila and not was not recognized by Shell management nor given at least a word of congratulations when he got first place in the April 2002 Electronics and Communications Engineering Board Exams. The Bauan Municipal Council had conducted a torch parade for him and it was a day of celebration of the "common folks" in the refinery but Shell management acted as if they did not know about it.

Likewise what Management did to my relative.

2. Withdrawal of payment of Performance Related Bonus to Ritchie Coronel, a resignee and had moved to the USA. His pay for his PRB was already in the payroll but when I was about to receive that payment on his behalf, management witheld the payment upon knowing that Ritchie Coronel is my relative.

Deliberate denial of my right to due process.

3. At the last Collective Bargaining Agreement before I was terminated, I learned that the maximum rate of increase was given to employees of a certain department on account of their long 16 years of service, not on account of their position which is supposed to be of a lesser rate. Nevertheless, they were given the maximum rate of increase, 10%. So, just like them I should be given the maximum rate of increase on account of my even longer years of service, 24 years. Employees on that department are actually on the same wage level structure as myself, thus, I believed that the same treatment should be applied to me.
I filed a petition for wage adjustment invoking the same principle applied to the mentioned department but my petition was never given a chance to be heard and was deliberately ignored inspite of my persistent follow-up by the management in collusion with other members of the Labor Management Council on that time. Hence, my right to due process is deliberately denied.

Management imputed upon me worst humiliation in my life.

4. With the help of management supervisors, who have no choice but to follow management instructions, management impugned upon my person the gravest humiliation in my life wherein they rated me the poorest work performer among all 130 operators. I was humiliated in the face of my colleages, friends and family and the whole wide world who happened to read about the "ranking" documents that they have made published. With that stigma they maliciously attached to my reputation, how could I find another gainful employment using the same job experience. Management knew fully well that I can not defend myself in that ranking process because if I did defend myself it would mean participation in the ranking exercise and thereby giving the redundancy program the cloak of legality which they want me to unwiitingly admit. So, I declined to participate. But I contested that the redundancy program is illegal and since the ranking exercise is brought about by an illegal endeavor, ergo, it is illegal as well.

These acts and ommissions, among others, by the management clearly showed personal ill-will motives against me, extended down to my son and relative. These incidents devastatingly annihiliated me as a person, and a worker. Please, Sen. Chiz, help me....

Sincerely yours,

Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr.
(Petitioner)