LAFF TAYM MUNA

COURTESY OF JOEY V. AND FRIENDS

SA BAKERY

Pulubi: Palimos po ng cake.

Ale: Aba, sosyal ka, ah! Namamalimos ka lang, gusto mo pa ng cake.... o eto pandesal!

Pulubi: Duh! Ate?! B-day ko kaya today?!?

BOY: Wala akong kwentang anak para sa inyo! Lahat ng ginagawa ko puro mali! Lagi nalang ako mali!!! Di 'nyo na ako mahal!

AMA: Nagkakamali ka anak?

BOY: See! Mali na naman ako!!!

Nanay: Ang lakas mo kumain pero di ka mautusan. Ang kapal mo!

Anak: Kapag yung baboy natin malakas kumain, natutuwa ka. Sino ba talaga ang anak nyo, ako o yung baboy? Umayos ka nay! Wag ganun!

BF : May ibibigay akong gift sa iyo, pero hulaan mo muna!

GF: Sige, clue naman...

BF: Kailangan ito ng leeg mo.

GF: Kwintas?

BF: Hindi... PANGHILOD!

(Sa loob ng Mall)

GUY: LOVE, yan ang dati kong girlfriend.

Jowa: Ang pangit pangit naman!

GUY: Wala akong magagawa, yan talaga ang weakness ko ever since...

JUDGE: Ano ba talaga nangyari?

ERAP: ? (di nagsasalita)

JUDGE: Sumagot ka sa tanong.

ERAP: Naman eh!!! Kala ko ba hearing lang to??? Bakit may speaking?

inspiring quote of the day:

"hindi ako tamad. Hindi ko lang alam kung saan ko ibubuhos kasipagan ko."

TEACHER: okay class our lesson for today is science. What is science?

PEDRO: ako ma'am! Ako ma'am!

TEACHER: okay Pedro, what is science?

PEDRO: science is our lesson for today.

AMO: inday, paalisin mo nga yung pulubi sa labas ng bahay.

(nilabas ni Inday)

INDAY: off you go! Under no circumstance this house would relent to such

unabashed display of vagrant destitution!

PULUBI: oh! I'm so ashamed! Such a mansion of social climbing freaks!

(nakakuha na ng katapat si Inday!)

BOB: nakakamagkano ka sa 1 araw?

PULUBI: nag-uumpisa kasi ako ng 8am. Ngayon 9am na. naka 80 na ko.

BOB: hindi din masama noh? Ano mabibili mo niyan?

PULUBI: pwede na tong isang espresso macchiato sa starbucks!

DOC: umubo ka!

PEDRO: ho! Ho! Ho!

DOC: ubo pa!

PEDRO: ho! Ho! Ho!

DOC: okay.

PEDRO: ano po ba sakit ko doc?

DOC: may ubo ka.

in a miss gay pageant:

HOST: how can we uplift our economy today even though we are under economic crisis?

BAKLA: (namutla) mga bakla! Akala ko ba miss gay ito? Quizbee pala!

MEKANIKO: sir, hindi ko po naayos preno ng kotse niyo.

CUSTOMER: ha?! Pano yan?

MEKANIKO: nilakasan ko na lang po ang inyong busina! Happy trip na lang po!

Divorced father: anak pag-uwi mo bigay mo sa nanay mo itong cheke at sabihin mo 18 yrs old ka na, huling cheke na makukuha niya for child support tapos tignan mo kung ano ang expression ng face niya.

Anak: mom, sabi ni dad bigay ko daw sayo itong cheke, last support na niya ito sakin kasi 18 na ako. Pagkatapos tignan ko daw expression ng face mo.

Mom: sa susunod na pagbisita mo sa kanya paki sabi salamat sa suporta kahit di mo siya tatay! Pagkatapos tignan mo expression ng face niya!

BOY: dad, tulong naman sa assignment ko. Find the least common denominator daw.

DAD: ha? aba'y elementary pa lang ako eh hinahanap na nila yan ah! Aba'y di pa ba nila nakikita?

BOY1: nakakakawa naman lola mo.

BOY2: bakit?

BOY1: nakasabay ko kasi magsimba nung isang araw, ubo ng ubo.

Pinagtitinginan nga ng tao.

BOY2: papansin lang yun!

BOY1: bakit?

BOY2: bago kasi blouse niya!

A boss confused about his Math asked his secretary:

If I give you P3M less 17%, how much would you take off?

SECRETARY: everything sir! Dress, bra, panty!

TEACHER: mga bata, alam niyo ba na ang bawat butil ng palay ay galing sa

dugo't pawis ng mga magsasaka?

MGA BATA: eeewwww!

STUDENT: ma'am, pagagalitan niyo po ba ako sa bagay na hindi ko naman

ginawa?

TEACHER: natural hindi.

STUDENT: good, di ko po ginawa assignment ko!

PARI: halika sa sulok

MADRE: bakit po?

PARI: sara mo pinto.

MADRE: wag po!

PARI: patayin mo ilaw!

MADRE: diyos ko po!

PARI: tamo rosary ko. Glow in the dark!

Sa kasalan

PARI: sana ang donation mo ay katumbas ng ganda ng pakakasalan mo.

GROOM: eto P5, father.

Tinignan ng pari ang bride.

PARI: eto P4 sukli mo iho.

Sinoli ni Erap ang libro sa library.

ERAP: sobrang dami ng characters wala naman storya.

LIBRARIAN: kayo pala kumuha ng telephone directory namin!

SA OSPITAL.....

WIFE: hon, nahirapan ako huminga.

HUSBAND: kung nahirapan ka ng huminga, itigil mo na.

GF: magaling! At sino tong baby na nagtext sayo?

BF: ah eh kumpare ko yun! Lalake yun! Baby lang palayaw.

GF: oh eto replyan mo. Hindi daw kayo tuloy at may mens daw ang tarantado!

Nagbubungkal ng lupa si Erap para magtanim. Akala ng nakakita niloloko lang

siya dahil wala naman siyang tinatanim.

BANTAY: sir, wala naman kayong tinatanim ah.

ERAP: bobo! Seedless to!

ANAK: nay, ano po ba yung 10 commandments?

NANAY: yun yung sampung utos ng Diyos.

ANAK: mas makapangyarihan pa po pala kayo sa Diyos eh!

NANAY: bakit?

ANAK: ang dami niyong utos eh!

Thought to ponder:

Hindi kaya ang dahilan ng pagbaha sa panahon ni Noah ay pinutol niya lahat

ng puno para gumawa ng napaka laking arko? ano sa tingin mo?

Si Erap nakabasag ng vase sa Museum, yung attendant nataranta.

ATTENDANT: naku sir, more than 500 years old na po yang vase.

ERAP: hay salamat. Akala ko bago!

--
Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr.

SHELL PAYS FOR HER WRONGDOING BUT NOT IN THE PHILIPPINES

Shell Oil Company to Pay $2.2 Million Settlement to Resolve Federal False Claims Case

May 11th, 2011 by John Donovan.

Tuesday, 10 May 2011: Contact: Patrick Etchart, ONRR (303) 231-3162

WASHINGTON–(ENEWSPF)–May 10, 2011. Shell Oil Company, Shell Offshore Inc., Shell Frontier Oil & Gas Inc., and Shell Western Exploration and Production (Shell Defendants) have agreed to pay the United States $2.2 million plus interest to resolve claims that the companies violated the False Claims Act by knowingly underpaying royalties owed on natural gas produced from Federal leases, the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the U.S. Department of Justice announced today.

The agreement was reached among the Shell Defendants, the Department of the Interior through its Office of Natural Resources Revenue (ONRR), and the Department of Justice. The total payment, including interest, is $2,287,145.74.

"We are required to ensure that energy companies accurately report production and pay the required royalties," said Chris Henderson, Acting Assistant Secretary for the DOI's Office of Policy, Management and Budget. "We will continue to pursue any case where companies do not follow the rules."

"Natural gas is a non-renewable resource. When the United States allows companies to remove gas from public lands that belong to all of us, we must require those companies to pay all of the royalties they owe, because those funds support important federal programs from which we all benefit," said Tony West, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division of the Department of Justice. "Through cases like this, we are keeping our commitment to protect public lands and the valuable resources they contain."

The Office of Natural Resources Revenue, part of the DOI's Office of Policy, Management and Budget (PMB), is responsible for collecting and disbursing royalties from energy production that occurs onshore on Federal and American Indian lands, and offshore in the Outer Continental Shelf. Each month, companies are required to report to ONRR the value of the natural gas produced from the Federal leases and to pay a percentage of the reported value as royalties.

The settlement announced today resolves claims that Shell underpaid royalties for natural gas production on Federal leases.

The settlement with Shell arises from a lawsuit filed by Harrold Wright under the Federal False Claims Act. Under the qui tam, or whistleblower, provisions of the Act, private citizens may file actions on behalf of the United States and share in any recovery. Because Mr. Wright is deceased, his heirs will receive $572,000 as part of their share of the $2.2 million settlement.

According to Henderson, the Shell settlement follows several other agreements with other energy companies in recent years that have returned approximately $230 million to the Federal Government.

The investigation and settlement of these matters were jointly handled by the Justice Department's Civil Division and the Department of the Interior's Office of Natural Resources Revenue, with assistance from the Department of the Interior's Office of Inspector General, and Office of the Solicitor.

SOURCE ARTICLE

Posted in: Business Principles, Corporate Governance, Gas, Litigation, Oil, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Shell, Wikipedia.

Tagged: False Claims Act · Litigation · Oil · Royal Dutch Shell Plc

← Shell Oil, affiliates to pay $2.2M to settle allegations they underpaid royalties owed to USShell Oil Companies to Pay $2.2 Million to Resolve Allegations of Royalty Underpayments from Federal Lands

ART. 2232 CIVIL CODE

Iniwanan sa simbahan  IKAW AT ANG BATAS Ni Atty. Jose C. Sison (Pilipino Star Ngayon) Updated April 28, 2011 12:00 AM Comments (4)

ANG kasong ito ay nag-umpisa sa isang pag-iibigan na puno ng pag-asa at pagmamahalan. Sinundan pa ng detalyadong pagpaplano at magarbong preparasyon na humantong lang sa pagkapahiya at kalungkutan.

Ito ang kuwento ng isang dalaga na tawagin nating Cindy. Nagkaroon siya ng nobyo na ang pangalan ay Robert. Nakilala niya ito sa isang kilalang unibersidad kung saan sila parehong nag-aaral. Ang relasyon ng dalawa ay kalat sa buong eskuwelahan dahil na rin sa tamis ng kanilang pagmamahalan. Sa kanilang mga ka-klase, kitang-kita na isang relasyon ito na hahantong sa simbahan at magiging masayang-masaya ang dalawa.

Nagpatuloy ang relasyon nina Cindy at Robert hanggang makagradweyt sa kolehiyo. Natuloy ang engagement at nagplano ng kasal ang dalawa. Ang tradisyonal na pamanhikan ay sinunod. Kumuha ng lisensiya sa kasal. Ang kasal ay tinakda ng Setyembre, isang Sabado sa isang kilalang simbahan. Maganda ang mga imbitasyon na ipinalimbag at ipinadala sa mga kaanak, kakilala at kaibigan ng dalawa. Ang gown ni Cindy, mga damit sa selebrasyon, iba pang damit ng mga abay at flower girl ay binili at inihanda na. Kinontrata na ang isang five-star hotel kung saan gaganapin ang reception ng kasal. Kahit nga ang mismong kama o "matrimonial bed" pati ang lahat ng mga gamit ay binili na. Ngunit, dalawang araw bago ang kasal, nakatanggap ng isang nakababahalang sulat si Cindy mula kay Robert. Sinasabi nito na ipagpaliban muna nila ang kasal dahil sa posibleng pagtutol ng ina ng lalaki. Pero sumunod na araw ay sinabi naman ng lalaki na walang problema at tuloy ang itinakdang kasalan. Sa kasamaang-palad, iyon na ang huling narinig ni Cindy mula kay Robert. Ang pinakaaaba-ngan na kasalan ay nakansela. Sa tindi ng sama ng loob at pagkapahiyang naranasan, kinasuhan ni Cindy at ng kanyang pamilya si Robert para maghabol ng danyos. Makakakuha ba si Cindy ng bayad sa danyos-perwis­yong inabot?

OPO. Ang ordinaryong pangako ng kasal ay hindi naman talaga tatanggapin na kaso sa korte. Walang ma­gagawa kung sakaling hindi ito panindigan. Kaya lang ang ginawa rito sa kasong ito na pormal na pagtatakda ng ka­ sal, magarbong paghahanda at detalyadong preparasyon, pagkatapos ay bigla na lang iiwanan ang kawawang ba­baeng papakasalan sa altar ay ibang usapin na. Kaila-ngang panagutan ni Robert ang lahat ng bayarin at danyos dahil hindi na ito simpleng paglabag sa ating kinamulatang tradisyon. Hindi limi­tado ang sakop ng kayang ikaso sa tao. Ayon sa ating batas (Art. 21 Civil Code), ang kahit sino na kusang loob na gagawa ng isang ba­ gay na makakapanakit sa iba sa paraan na kontra sa moralidad, tradisyon o panuntunan ng publiko ay dapat magbayad ng danyos-perwisyo. Maari pa nga na ang danyos ay magmula sa pagkapahiya (moral) o para hindi na siya tularan ng iba (exemplary damage) (Art. 2219[10] & Art. 2232 Civil Code). Bilang basehan ay puwedeng gamitin ni Cindy ang desisyon sa kasong Wassmer v. Veles 12 SCRA 648.

SO WITH THE CALLUSES ON THE 'EYES OF THE COURT'

President: No more blindfold on 'eyes of bureaucracy'

By Christine O. Avendaño, Leila B. Salaverria
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 03:28:00 05/11/2011

Filed Under: Government offices & agencies, Accounting and Audits, Graft & Corruption, Civil & Public Services, Housing Mortgage & Loans

MANILA, Philippines—President Benigno Aquino III Tuesday told state auditors—"the eyes of the bureaucracy," in his words—that they could now do their job of safeguarding the public coffers without fear that they would be stopped.

Speaking at the 112th anniversary celebration of the Commission on Audit (COA) at its office in Quezon City, the President urged state auditors to join his administration's fight against corruption, saying that things were now different under his watch.

"If before, auditors were afraid to reveal the anomalies they see in government transactions, now you are given the power to be free, brave and fearless in your duties. If before, unscrupulous officials tend to raid the public coffers, now just hearing the name COA would strike fear in them and they would withdraw," Mr. Aquino said in a speech delivered in Filipino.

"Being the eyes of the bureaucracy, you know that no one is blindfolding you in tracking down anomalies. No one is stopping you to speak up against things that are not right, and no one is tying you so you can fulfill your mandate to be honest and loyal guardians of the people's money," he said.

Top women

Mr. Aquino made special mention of both COA Chair Grace Pulido Tan and Commissioner Heidi Mendoza in his speech.

He said it was important in his crusade against corruption to bring into the commission people who could be trusted and would not consider any government official as a sacred cow. He said this was why he did not hesitate to appoint Tan as its chair.

"And when we met Heidi Mendoza, we also did not pass up the chance to appoint her as commissioner," he said of the woman who blew the whistle on the irregular transactions made by former military comptroller Carlos Garcia.

The President also said those named "Heidi" or its variants were apparently women who were fearless and who would not exchange principles for bribes. He cited the efforts of auditor Haydee Pasuelo from Iloilo City, who was able to stop three agencies from spending P97.8 million and discovered that two government officials had been able to steal more than P1 million.

Pasuelo was named COA's outstanding employee for the year and received an award from the President.

Mr. Aquino also called on state auditors not to accept bribes from agencies whose records they were examining, whether in the form of a house, a car or money.

The right path

"This is true service. This is the right path. This is the realization of our goal for change, and you auditors are in the frontline of this fight," he said.

The President said he expected the new Ombudsman who would replace the resigned Merceditas Gutierrez would be able to work well with the COA.

"If the COA files a case in the Office of the Ombudsman, we are expecting that it will be attended to and studied well, that it will not be just put in a corner, or that it will be resolved with the people ending up losing," he said.

The President is now waiting for the Judicial and Bar Council to submit a short list of nominees for Ombudsman.

Stellar auditors

Gutierrez, who was impeached by the House of Representatives, was to have been tried at the Senate this month. She submitted her resignation to Mr. Aquino last week.

Despite threats to their lives, a group of state auditors have examined the records of numerous transactions and have gone the extra mile to uncover irregularities involving public funds, primarily the scam involving Pag-IBIG housing loans.

On Tuesday, the COA honored them in a ceremony attended by a President for the first time.

Two groups led the awardees—Audit Team 3 from Regional Office VII (Central Visayas) in Tacloban City, and Audit Team 6 from its Regional Office I (Ilocos) in San Fernando—which had uncovered bogus borrowers, ineligible developers and other irregularities involving the Home Development Mutual Fund or Pag-IBIG.

The irregular transactions involved over P500 million in funds. The members of Audit Team 3 are Rodulfo Ariesga, Alicia Malquisto, Imelda Oballo, Elena Merida and Josefina Galos. The members of Audit Team 6 are Sabiniano Cabatuan, Pelilia Veloso, Herminia Laforteza and Nixon Niera.

The Pag-IBIG loan scam had also headlined legislative inquiries.

According to the COA, the auditors of Team 6 did not have an easy time because they received threats to their safety when they were scrutinizing the housing records. The officials they were investigating also delayed the submission of reports and records, and offered self-serving explanations.

Those they had investigated also resorted to misrepresentations to distract the team's attention from the issue.

The COA said the accomplishments of Team 3, which is considered the whistle-blower of the Pag-IBIG loan scam, helped enhance the commission's image and credibility, especially when the team testified at congressional hearings on the bogus housing loan borrowers.

Team 3's technique in uncovering the anomalies will help future investigations because it shared its audit programs that can be implemented nationwide, the COA said.

COA's role in governance

The commission commended Pasuelo for her work disallowing the expenses of three government agencies amounting to P97.84 million, and which have also resulted in the dismissal of two government officers for malversation of public funds amounting to P1.25 million.

The expenses that Pasuelo had disallowed included disbursements for financial assistance to volunteer health workers, procurement of digital sterilizers for a hospital and payment of extra cash gift to employees of the provincial government of Iloilo.

The COA said Pasuelo's accomplishments heightened the people's awareness of the commission's role in good governance and in the fight against graft and corruption.

THE NATIONAL TREASURY IS PEOPLE'S MONEY

Theres The Rub
Missing link
By Conrado de Quiros
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 00:12:00 03/08/2011

Filed Under: Graft & Corruption, Government offices & agencies, Government Contracts, Judiciary (system of justice), Military, State Budget & Taxes

ARE WE making great strides in the fight against corruption?
Yes and no.
The yes is patent. You compare the Senate hearings on the NBN deal with the one we have on the Garcia plea-bargaining case, and you see that the differences are monumental.
In the NBN case, you had a sense of the Senate working under a hostile environment. That environment was a government determined to cover up the perfidy, not least because it involved its highest officials leading up to the First Couple themselves. Though some of the senators performed brilliantly, with no small help from Jun Lozada, unearthing not just an entire conspiracy to defraud the public but an entire culture behind it—"moderate the greed" was one of the mind-boggling concepts it bequeathed to us—you had a feeling it would go the route of the Jose Pidal case, the "Hello, Garci" case, the Mega Pacific case.
Which it did.
In today's investigation of the generals, you have a sense that the Senate can really get to the bottom of things, no small thanks to a government giving it no reason not to. The senators have been spirited in their interpellation, or interrogation. I particularly like the part where Franklin Drilon put Edgardo Yambao in a quandary by asking him if he was waiving his right to deposits totaling P255 million in various banks after he denied owning them. It made him reconsider his position posthaste. Not an easy choice: future loss of freedom for money laundering and/or tax evasion or immediate loss of a fortune for abandoning a claim to it.
You have the sense that this time around, the crooks won't just be found, they will be punished. The newfound zeal has already driven someone to end his life, though that is probably more a testament to his own moral code than to the Senate's heightened acuity. But though Angelo Reyes may be a fluke, his death helps to push back the culture of impunity, which applied not just to murder but to theft. Before this, the corrupt could rob the country blind and expect not be touched—not by the shadow of jail, not by the breath of death. Reyes' death showed they can. Where their own hand fails, justice can always lend a hand.
Along with Merceditas Gutierrez's impending impeachment, President Aquino's "Pag walang corrupt, walang mahirap" seems to be getting a lot of traction. Those two things, the Senate hearing on Garcia and Gutierrez's impeachment, are bound to impact on each other and reinforce each other, making them more than the sum of their parts. The signs are hopeful in that respect.
So, yes, we are making inroads in the fight against corruption.
The no is a lot less patent but no less real. You can see that too in one vital similarity between the NBN hearing and the Garcia one. That is the lack of public outrage surrounding it.
There is public interest surrounding it, but not widespread outrage, not deep-seated opprobrium, not complete and utter reprehension. There were pockets of it during the NBN hearing, particularly after Lozada narrated his abduction, and there are pockets of it now, particularly after Reyes took his own life. But it does not seep downward.
That's the missing link in our investigations of corruption, in our hearings about pillage. In other countries, public opinion is very much a part of those investigations and hearings, public revulsion at the crooks, civil or military, is very much an element guaranteeing that they will be found out and punished. Not so here.
One is tempted to say that the solution is to exhort the public to be more vigilant of their rights, to be more watchful about their liberties, to be more jealous about their property. In part that is true: A great deal of indifference and cynicism has seeped into the culture, no small thanks to the last nine years, which needs pushing back. But it's really more than that. Because the problem really is not that we are tolerant of the robbery that is taking place before our eyes, it is that we cannot see the robbery that is taking place before our eyes.
The common reaction from the man in the street, "Sila sila lang naman 'yan," suggests the depth of the problem: It's just a division of spoils. If corruption is robbery at all, it is robbery between public officials. They are robbing each other, they are screwing each other. They are not robbing us, they are not screwing us.
To be jealous of your property, you must know that it is your property. That's the crux of the problem. Elsewhere in the world, that is very clear. Taxes are the people's money, the national treasury is the people's money, the money that public officials use is the people's money. That is not at all clear here. We do not really see taxes as our money. We—the poor especially who imagine they do not pay taxes anyway when in fact they do courtesy of VAT—do not see taxes as something we entrust to government to give back to us in the form of roads and bridges and schoolhouses. We see taxes as gratuity, or tong, we are required to give our officials in the same way that serfs give up part of their harvest to their lords, in the same way that vassals give tribute to their masters. Once we give it to them, it is no longer our property, it is theirs.
We do make paeans to taxpayers' money as being the people's money, but that hasn't seeped into the culture, that hasn't seeped into the national consciousness. That is what needs to be done. The fight against corruption cannot be waged solely by government. That is impossible; all that it will lead to is a reasonably honest government succeeding in moderating the greed. So long as the people themselves are not incensed by corruption because they do not see it as stealing from them, so long will it thrive, moderated or not.
We've still a long way to go.

DISCIPLINING JUDGES SHOULD BE TRANSACTED IN PUBLIC

How Judges Hide From Justice

By ROBERT H. TEMBECKJIAN

Published: May 22, 2005

IN the last three months, the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct has publicly disciplined four metropolitan-area judges: two from Brooklyn, one from Manhattan and one from Westchester. Apart from some intense public commentary over the merits of these decisions - three public censures and one removal from office - these cases had at least one thing in common. They were all conducted in secret. That should be changed.

Judges are among the most powerful of public servants. They decide who goes to jail, who wins or loses millions of dollars and who gets custody of children. Public confidence in their integrity and impartiality is essential to the rule of law. While a vast majority of judges are honorable, there will always be some who engage in unethical behavior. Disciplining such judges is important business that should be transacted in public, just as any civil or criminal trial would be.

In 38 states, judicial misconduct hearings are indeed open to the public. Not so in New York, where proceedings that stretch over months are held behind closed doors. Only when the results are announced does the public even learn such cases existed. By then, it is usually too late to convey in a meaningful way the strength of the case, the credibility of the witnesses and the merits of the defense. The four recent decisions in New York offer cases in point.
The commission voted to remove a Surrogate's Court judge in Brooklyn for awarding a long-time friend millions of dollars in fees from estates where there was no executor, without confirming that he had done enough work to earn such fees. The judge is appealing the decision.
The commission censured a Westchester Family Court judge who attempted to influence other judges and court workers on behalf of friends in two divorce and custody cases, and who testified in a manner she conceded was inaccurate. It also censured a Brooklyn Criminal Court judge for coming off the bench in unprovoked anger and grabbing and screaming at a defense lawyer. Finally, it censured a Manhattan Civil Court judge for presiding over a personal injury case involving a litigant who was also a lawyer with whom she continued to socialize, and to whom she awarded a fiduciary appointment worth about $80,000 in fees, while the case was pending.
Reasonable people may differ with these decisions. As the prosecutor of judicial misconduct cases in New York, I myself am sometimes at odds with the commission. Yet while some criticized the removal as severe, and others derided the censures as lenient, most tended to miss the context and nuance of the deliberations. The subtleties of an individual disciplinary decision tend to get short shrift in the news. Were the press and public able to follow along as these cases unfolded, the disciplinary process would not seem so sudden and mysterious, and citizens would be better informed along the way. For example, the case against the Brooklyn Surrogate's Court judge lasted 22 months, and the record was over 13,000 pages long. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to capture the complexities of such a proceeding in a single article that reported the final result.
New York's chief judge, Judith Kaye, proposed legislation in 2003, which the commission endorsed, to open up the disciplinary process at the point when a judge is formally charged with misconduct. Unfortunately, the Legislature did not act. Perhaps the commission's recent decisions might spur the Senate and Assembly to revisit the issue. The more citizens know about what goes on at the commission, the more likely they will appreciate that no case is as cut and dried as a critic may suggest. The press and public could follow the arguments as they develop, rather than try to digest them all at once when the decisions are rendered.
Moreover, an open proceeding would shed important light on the rare instance in which a formal charge against a judge is dismissed without any disciplinary action. It would provide the public with the means to assess that a dismissal was deserved and the system was honest.
In short, a public process would transform judicial discipline from a secretive game to one in which the commission's judgments were open to scrutiny and improvement as we went along, while there was time enough to make a difference. Public confidence in the judiciary, and in the disciplinary system that holds them accountable, requires nothing less.
Robert H. Tembeckjian is administrator of and counsel to the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct.

ASK HELP FROM VP-JEJOMAR BINAY

April 28, 2011

Hon. Jejomar Binay

Office of the Vice President

Republic of the Philippines
7th Floor, PNB Financial Center

President Diosdado Macapagal Boulevard

Pasay City 1300, Philippines

SUBJECT : NEED HELP TO PROSECUTE R. A. No. 3019 OFFENDERS


Dear Sir:


Maligayang bati po sa inyong lahat !


Mangyari pong ilahad ko muna ang ilang bahagi ng Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act bilang panimula.

Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)
xxxa) "Government" includes the national government, the local governments, the government-owned and government-controlled corporations, and all other instrumentalities or agencies of the Republic of the Philippines and their branches.
(b) "Public officer" includes elective and appointive officials and employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the classified or unclassified or exempt service receiving compensation, even nominal, from the government as defined in the preceding subparagraph.xxx
xxxSection 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

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

xxxSection 11. Prescription of offenses. — All offenses punishable under this Act shall prescribe in ten years.xxx
xxx Section 15. Separability clause. If any provision of this Act or the application of such provision to any person or circumstances is declared invalid, the remainder of the Act or the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected by such declaration.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 sa kanilang pagtupad ng tungkulin nang kanilang sangayunan at gawing tumpak 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. Ngunit ito ay ginalaw ng kumpanya at ipinambayad sa akin bilang separation pay.Ito po maliwanag na pandaraya ngunit hindi nakita ng nagbubulagbulagang kawani ng mga pingdaanang hukuman, dahil sa wilful ignorance and gross inexcusable negligence ng mga kawaning nabanggit ay naipagkait sa akin ang katarungan at nakuha ng kumpanya ang labis na kapakinabangan. Tinanggal na nila ako sa trabaho, at kinurakot pa nila ang alin man sa aking retirement benefits o separation pay.

Dagdag pa rito, ang pagsangayon nila at di pagtutol sa paglabag ng kumpanya sa Job Security provision ng aming CBA na nagsasaad ng ganito, xxxThe union recognizes the right of the company to contract out work. However, no employee shall suffer loss of employment due to contracted out work. xxx Noong tanggalin po ako sa trabaho ay maraming trabaho namin ang ipinakokontrata ng kumpanya, itong provision na ito ng aming CBA ay hindi man lang isinalang alang ng ating mga lingkod bayan na humawak ng asuntong ito. Marami pa pong iba. Malaki po ang pakinabang ng kumpanya sa gross wilful and unlawful fraud and inexcusable negligence at pagbubulagbulagan 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 at katiwalian sa ating bayan. Kung sakaling sila ay maisakdal at maparusahan sa butihing tulong ninyo, ito ay magsilbing halimbawa sa ating sambayanang Pilipino na ang kabuktutan at katiwalian ay walang puwang sa ating pamahalaan lalong higit sa ating bayan.
Kasalukuyan po akong nakikitira sa tahanan ng aking kapatid sa sumusunod na address:
12901 Francine Ter.
Poway, CA 92064
USA
Nasa baba po nito ang case number at title ng kaso na hinatulan ng clerk of court:
GR-183273 (Antonio L. Buensuceso vs. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation/Rico Bersamin)
Ako po ay malugod na maghintay sa inyong tugon o mga mungkahi sa kung anong mga hakbang ang aking gagawin.

Marami pong salamat.
Lubos na gumagalang,
Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr.

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.

FUEL FROM SALT WATER

SHARED BY THE CLAYTONS AND FRIENDS

JUDGE FLORO'S SATIRE ON VIDEO