DEFINING MOMENT AGAINST TERROR AND CORRUPTION

GLOBAL NETWORKING

Defining Moment 

for Obama and PNoy

By Rodel Rodis
INQUIRER.netFirst Posted 14:26:00 05/12/2011Filed Under: Graft & Corruption, graft, Acts of terror, Congress, Impeachment

A president's "defining moment" is generally said to be the event which either makes or breaks him and which determines the course of his future. For Pres. Barack Obama, this occurred on May 1, 2011 with the killing of Osama bin Laden. For Pres. Noynoy Aquino (PNoy), his defining moment preceded Obama's by just two days and it came with the resignation of Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez.

The significance of Obama's defining moment, as Charles Larlham describes it, is in the context of the fact that "every President for 20 years has tried to find and neutralize this terrorist leader. After the events of 9/11, President George W. Bush started a war and destroyed a country's government to find him. But it was Obama who was able to run him to the ground and 'take him out.' And now the President is riding the ecstatic reaction of tens of thousands of people in Times Square, Washington D.C. and around the country."

Pres. Obama did what candidate Obama promised to do during his second presidential debate with Sen. John McCain on October 7, 2008: "If we have Osama bin Laden in our sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take him out, then I think that we have to act and we will take him out. We will kill bin Laden.; we will crush Al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority."
Obama delivered on his promise and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani agreed that he deserves full credit for the killing of Osama because he would have received all the blame if the military operation had failed.
Pres. Obama's approval rating has zoomed to its highest point in two years – 60 percent – and more than half of Americans now say he deserves to be re-elected, according to recent polls which show that Obama's standing had improved not just on foreign policy but also on the economy.
Unlike the killing of Osama which was high drama for Obama, the resignation of Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez was a low-key affair that was not even the major news of the day as it was eclipsed by wall-to-wall coverage of the Royal Wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton in London which was viewed by two billion people worldwide.
But the high significance of the Ombudsman's resignation should be viewed in the context of the fact that PNoy's presidential campaign was anchored on his promise to rid the country of corruption ("kung walang corrupt, walang mahirap") by starting with the prosecution of his predecessor, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

When Arroyo went after her predecessor, Joseph "Erap" Estrada, and sought to prosecute him for plunder and corruption, she had the benefit of the support of the Ombudsman who was appointed by Erap's predecessor and of a Supreme Court which was also dominated by justices appointed by Erap's predecessors.

PNoy was handicapped by the fact that the Ombudsman in his watch was an appointee of his predecessor whose chief virtue was her abiding loyalty to the president who appointed her to high office. As long as Merceditas Gutierrez was the Ombudsman, no charges would ever be filed against Arroyo or any of her appointees, she would make sure of that.

PNoy sought to get around the prophylactic protection provided to Arroyo by the Ombudsman by signing an Executive Order creating a Truth Commission that would investigate the corruption of the previous administration. Even though the commission was generally considered toothless, its constitutionality was still challenged before the Philippine Supreme Court, the vast majority of whom were, like Gutierrez, appointees of Arroyo, and it was predictably struck down as unconstitutional.

PNoy's only hope of being rid of Arroyo's Ombudsman was to have her impeached by the House of Representatives and all he needed was 93 votes and surely he could gather that number. But before he could get the House to vote on the impeachment motion, the Ombudsman raised a legal challenge that there can only be one impeachment complaint filed against her in any given year and two were filed.

The House sponsors of the impeachment complaint explained that the two bills would be combined as one, which happens all the time. But the Ombudsman sought and obtained a restraining order from the Supreme Court stopping the House from voting on her impeachment.

The SC justices, perhaps unwilling to remain tainted forever as lapdogs of Arroyo, overturned the restraining order and allowed the House to vote to impeach the Ombudsman.

On March 21, 2011, PNoy easily secured 212 votes in the House of Representatives, more than enough to impeach Ombudsman Gutierrez without even having to send Philippine Navy Seals to accomplish the mission and, despite reports that Arroyo had spent P100 million pesos to defeat the impeachment motion.
The significance of this vote, as presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda explained, is that "by doing so, the House has put an end to the long era of impunity that tarnished our institutions and made a mockery of the bedrock principle of accountability that is the bedrock of our Constitution."
Newspaper reports confirmed that Arroyo personally visited the Ombudsman at her home on the day of the impeachment vote perhaps to assure her that PNoy did not have enough Senate votes to secure her ouster and that was the conventional wisdom.
As only 1/3rd of the House votes was needed for an impeachment to succeed, that first part was a picnic. The next step, the Senate trial, would be infinitely more challenging as PNoy would need 2/3rds of the vote or 16 out of the 23 sitting senators.

Pres. Aquino could likely secure the 16 votes he needed to oust Gutierrez but there would be a heavy price to pay. Each of the senators would want something in return for their vote. Sen. Ping Lacson may want PNoy to get his Department of Justice to drop its criminal prosecution of him for his alleged role in the kidnap-murder of Salvador Dacer and Emmanuel Corbito. Sen. Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos may want PNoy's pledge to allow his father to be buried in the Libingan ng mga Bayani.

It may be recalled that when his ally, Sen. Kiko Pangilinan, sought the Senate presidency last year, Sen. Lito Lapid made it crystal clear that he would support PNoy's candidate only if his son, Mark Lapid, would be retained in his post as General Manager of the Philippine Tourism Authority. As Kiko bowed out of the Senate presidency contest, Sen. Lapid needs another Senate vote to secure the permanent appointment of his son.

When former Pres. Joseph Estrada was facing ouster by the Philippine Senate at his impeachment trial in January of 2001, he appointed the mother of one grateful senator as Ambassador to Mexico and reportedly awarded a P750 million peso dam construction project to the husband of another senator. That's the politics of back scratching that is common in Congress.

If Merci Gutierrez had not tendered her resignation to Pres. Aquino on April 28, 2011, PNoy would have had to scratch the backs of an awful number of senators or, rather, a number of awful senators. In seeking the ouster of Arroyo's Ombudsman in order appoint his own, PNoy would have laid the grounds for the corruption of his own administration.

Because of what PNoy did not have to give up, the resignation of Ombudsman Merci Gutierrez was the defining moment of his presidency.

(Please send comments to Rodel50@aol.com or write to the Law Offices of Rodel Rodis at 2429 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94127 or call 4154.334.7800).

CHILD'S SELF-SACRIFICE

Last update: April 21 2011, 11:56 PM

INQUIRER OPINION - COLUMNS Deliverance Conrado de Quiros Philippine Daily Inquirer April 20, 2011 THE STORY went the rounds of the social media last week. I thought someone would come out and say the story was fiction, a parable invented to suit the times and soothe the soul and became flesh and blood from the retelling. Journalism and age have made me a little wary of things that are too good to be true. But as it turns out, this is one too good to be true that happens to be true. The story was in the form of a letter a Vietnamese immigrant in Japan sent his friend back home. The Vietnamese, Ha Minh Thanh, worked as a cop in Fukushima, the epicenter of the tsunami that hit Japan in the wake of the powerful earthquake. The depth of devastation was a sight to behold, or cringe from. "When I close my eyes," Ha said, "I see dead bodies. When I open my eyes, I also see dead bodies." But amid the desolation, he saw this: "Last night, I was sent to a little grammar school to help a charity organization distribute food to the refugees. It was a long line that snaked this way and that and I saw a little boy around 9 years old. He was wearing a T-shirt and a pair of shorts. "It was getting very cold and the boy was at the very end of the line. I was worried that by the time his turn came there wouldn't be any food left. So I spoke to him. He said he was at school when the earthquake happened. His father worked nearby and was driving to the school. The boy was on the third floor balcony when he saw the tsunami sweep his father's car away. "He said his house is right by the beach and that his mother and little sister probably didn't make it. He turned his head and wiped his tears when I asked about his relatives. "The boy was shivering so I took off my police jacket and put it on him. That's when my bag of food ration fell out. I picked it up and gave it to him. 'When it comes to your turn, they might run out of food. So here's my portion. I already ate. Why don't you eat it?' "The boy took my food and bowed. I thought he would eat it right away, but he didn't. He took the bag of food, went up to where the line ended and put it where all the food was waiting to be distributed. "I was shocked. I asked him why he didn't eat it and instead added it to the food pile. He answered: 'Because I see a lot more people hungrier than I am. If I put it there, then they will distribute the food equally.' "When I heard that I turned away so that people wouldn't see me cry. "A society that can produce a 9-year-old who understands the concept of sacrifice for the greater good must be a great society, a great people." What makes this observation more precious is that a Vietnamese has made it. Vietnam too was a flattened country not too long ago, its forests scorched by napalm and its plains littered by the bodies of the dead. I remember a Vietnamese telling me once that he did not know of any Vietnamese family that hadn't lost a loved one in the War. It is a people that understand the concept of sacrifice for the greater good. It is a great society, it is a great people. For someone who has gone through that to marvel at the grandness of spirit shown by the 9-year-old Japanese boy, it takes the breath away. You realize that what makes countries like Japan and Vietnam tower over us is not the might of their technology or military, it is the strength of their spirit. Some of the comments in my e-mail compared this with the Jan-Jan affair, marveling at the chasm between the way Japanese raised their kids and the way we did. They had a point. You have to wonder what kind of values we are instilling in our kids with Willie Revillame to guide them. A point made all the more urgent by TV 5 flying to his aid: While countries like Japan are telling their kids that anything less than the loftiest heights is not enough, we are telling our kids that anything more than the absolute pits will do. I was already awed when the "Faceless 50" or "Nameless 50" volunteered to stay behind at the nuclear plants, braving levels of radiation five times what was considered safe for workers in the United States, to stave off a nuclear holocaust that would devastate neighboring places. The number of the faceless or nameless swiftly rose to the hundreds. This is behavior we are not likely to see here. And yet the Japanese do it so spontaneously, reflexively, instinctively. You truly have to wonder at the way they were brought up and the way we were. The Japanese—and Vietnamese—are not Christians, yet they show more Christian charity than we do. Certainly, they show a capacity for self-sacrifice more than we do. Forget even that, they show a capacity to see beyond themselves, or a capacity to see others, more than we do. Which is what the Cross is supposed to represent. Our own version of Christianity has only taught us selfishness. The very purpose of living an upright life, or a facsimile thereof—there are always the sacraments to wipe off sin—is to save ourselves, or our souls from the burning fires of hell. On the occasions we are compelled to, we part with land, with money, with children (for the priesthood) to buy a berth in heaven—but never up to the point that it becomes painful or inconvenient. We do not do things for others or sacrifice for others (other than family) simply because it is the right thing to do, because it is the only thing to do. Because, despite our desolation, there are others more desolate. Because, despite our loss, there are others who lost more. Because, despite our hunger, there are others hungrier. A thing to ponder over the next few days. You look at the 9-year-old Japanese boy who gave despite having lost everything, you have to ask yourself who is more likely to rise again, he or us. You have to ask yourself who is likely to be saved, he or us. In this life or the next. ©2011 www.inquirer.net all rights reserved Send your feedback here < Back

HON. CHIEF JUSTICE CORONA PLEASE POLICE YOUR OWN KIND

Straining logic to free big-time crooks 

Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 22:01:00 05/16/2011

Filed Under: Justice & Rights, Graft & Corruption, Government

Most Read

The Inquirer's May 12 and 13 editorials virtually calling the Sandiganbayan's ruling on the Garcia plea-bargain agreement idiotic have no doubt added fillip to the perception of that court as a coddler of corrupt officials who steal big time! While it seems to have no problem sending small-time crooks (e.g., municipal treasurers, clerks, janitors, etc.) to jail, that court strains credulity and logic to absurd extent to find any reason to let big-time crooks (e.g., Cabinet officials, military generals, etc.) off the hook.

Ruminate, and weep for our country's justice system: a municipal treasurer was sentenced by that court to some 25 years in jail for having misspent public funds amounting to less than P50,000. In stark contrast, a retired military general is now free as a bird despite having pocketed bribes amounting to P303 million! Another VIP went scot-free despite being charged with having accepted a bribe to the tune of $2 million! And these are just examples of many other innumerable instances of iniquity.

In the case of retired Maj. Gen. Carlos Garcia, the Sandiganbayan twisted the rules of evidence around to suit its prejudgment or predilection to set him free. It shifted the burden of proof very conveniently. The Inquirer hit the nail on the head: "... everyone else knows it is the military general earning a five-digit salary per month but enjoying hundreds of millions in assets who must do the explaining." Indeed, it was not for the prosecution to explain where and how Garcia acquired such enormous sums of money. In unexplained wealth cases, if the accused refuses to "explain" his filthy lucre by invoking his "right against self-incrimination" or his "right to remain silent," such reticence guarantees jail time—no ifs, ands or buts about it.

But was the court expecting to see some receipts or notes signed by Garcia, and seeing none, it had to rule the way it did because, according to its spokesman, its hands were tied? That struck us as totally disingenuous, for in the final analysis, the court's predilections had long been unmasked when it granted him bail in accordance with the plea bargain agreement which downgraded the charge from plunder (non-bailable) to bribery (bailable)—even before approving that deal. Imagine, if you will, how ridiculous and laughable it would have been if that court disapproved that deal in the wake of its own order allowing the accused to post bail on the earlier agreed-upon lesser offense! 

That interlocutory order, for all legal intents and purposes, had rendered the graver plunder case moot and academic. Everything had by then become a fait accompli. All that talk about the agreement per se still awaiting the court's approval was nothing but tommyrot. The final ruling had become a foregone conclusion.

The unkindest cut of all? The Ombudsman's prosecutors are now gloating ("that ruling has vindicated us"), and celebrating with their former boss, Merceditas Gutierrez, while the people (the aggrieved party) are being left to hang out to dry and twist in the wind! 

STEPHEN L. MONSANTO,

Monsanto Law Office,

Loyola Heights, Quezon City

CORRUPTION IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

Salonga: CA corruption exposé good for reforms By Norman Bordadora Philippine Daily Inquirer First Posted 00:41:00 08/03/2008 Filed Under: Graft & Corruption, Politics, Government FORMER SENATE PRESIDENT JOVITO Salonga on Saturday confirmed the purported corruption in the Court of Appeals and said reforms were urgently needed. “It is true that there is bribery in the appellate court,” the 88-year-old founder of the judiciary watchdog group Bantay Katarungan told the Inquirer. “It should be stopped. The bribery should be exposed. It should be the beginning of legal reforms in our system of justice.” Salonga, mentor to a number of magistrates and a frequent amicus curiae of the Supreme Court, made the remarks in reaction to the exchange of accusations of bribery and corruption between Associate Justice Jose Sabio Jr. and businessman Francis de Borja in connection with the case involving Manila Electric Co. and the Government Service Insurance System. Asked whether Sabio’s claim of a P10-million offer for him to inhibit himself from the case was a positive development, Salonga said: “Yes. Undoubtedly.” He said Sabio’s revelations in connection with the case that was resolved in favor of Meralco were yet another indication of the need to reform the appellate and other courts. Fr. Joaquin Bernas, dean emeritus of the Ateneo de Manila School of Law, told the Inquirer that the allegations exchanged by Sabio and De Borja “will not do the judiciary any good, but the investigation of the Supreme Court will.” The Court of Appeals en banc decided on Thursday to raise to the Supreme Court the “propriety” of certain justices’ actions vis-à-vis the Meralco vs GSIS case. The high court is scheduled to deliberate on the matter on Tuesday. Notorious justices Salonga said that since 2000, Bantay Katarungan had exposed instances of corruption “and underscored the need for reforms in our system of justice.” “We have written to the Judicial and Bar Council and, from time to time, the appointing power, on the need for reforms in specific instances not only in the Court of Appeals but also in the other courts,” he said. Salonga refused to name names, saying he wanted to spare the Inquirer and himself from being sued for libel. But he said the justices concerned were “notorious.” How corruption works in the appellate court and the personalities involved are known to Bantay Katarungan’s lawyer-members, according to Salonga. He said even the law students doing volunteer monitoring for the watchdog group “know who these people are.” A recent victory for Bantay Katarungan was the Supreme Court’s rejection of the appointment of Sandiganbayan Justice Gregory Ong to the tribunal in 2007. ‘Honest man’ It was Bantay Katarungan and Salonga’s other nongovernment organization, Kilosbayan, that questioned Ong’s appointment on account of questions on his citizenship. Bernas, a constitutionalist and also an adviser to the Supreme Court in important cases, begged off from commenting on the purported bribery attempt involving Sabio and De Borja. “I don’t know the facts,” he said on the phone. Bernas did say that while he did not know De Borja, “I consider [Sabio] to be an honest man.” Sabio teaches legal ethics at the Ateneo Law School and has received support from students and other members of the faculty. Cagayan de Oro Rep. Rufus Rodriguez, an opposition lawmaker and a former law school dean, said: “This may be an initial black eye for the Court of Appeals ... but if [Sabio] just remained silent, nothing will happen.” Sabio also hails from Cagayan de Oro, where he once served as a regional trial court judge. He also taught law at the Ateneo de Cagayan-Xavier University, where he gained prominence as a “terror” professor. One of his former students, lawyer Edgardo Uy, told a Cagayan de Oro newspaper that Sabio should be trusted for his disclosures. “I believe he is speaking the truth. I’ve known him since my student days. That’s why I know he is honest,” Uy said. Rodolfo Meñes, president of the Oro Chamber of Commerce and Industry, described Sabio as a “good lawyer.” “I am surprised that he is being dragged into this controversy. I know him only professionally, but I know him as an honest man,” Meñes told the Inquirer. Preventive suspension On Friday, a former Malabon City judge asked the Supreme Court to order the preventive suspension of all appellate court justices involved in the Meralco vs GSIS case. In a “verified complaint-letter affidavit,” Florentino Floro Jr. said these justices should be investigated for gross misconduct, gross ignorance of the law, manifest undue interest and violations of the Codes of Judicial Conduct and of Professional Responsibility, among others. Floro said the high court should once and for all “cleanse the entire Court of Appeals.” “The undersigned, in his conscience, knocks at the doors of this court, because of the shocking events which rocked the very foundations of our entire judicial system: CA justices accusing each other, not in courts, but in the media. This is too much. This is the darkest hour of the CA since its creation,” he said. Floro named as respondents in the case Sabio and Associate Justices Bienvenido Reyes, Apolinario Bruselas, Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal and Vicente Roxas, as well as CA Presiding Justice Conrado Vasquez Jr. He said the high court should appoint one of its retired associate justices as an independent investigator and a special prosecutor to look into the matter. Headline maker Floro himself made headlines when he was ordered dismissed from the judiciary in 2006 by the Supreme Court. The high court declared him mentally unfit after he admitted to having “psychic visions,” having dwarfs as friends and being an “angel of death” who could inflict pain on people, especially those he perceived to be corrupt. Undeterred, Floro filed cases against judiciary officials he claimed to have violated the law. In April 2007, he filed administrative charges against what he called the CA’s “Dirty Dozen,” whom he accused of corruption. He said those found guilty should be dismissed from government service and disbarred. With reports from Jerome Aning in Manila; Ma. Cecilia Rodriguez, Inquirer Mindanao

SAVE THE LOOT JAIL THE LOOTER

Thursday, May 12, 2011

Court seizes Ligot assets

Ex-comptroller Jacinto Ligot

P40M taken by court from ex-comptroller

By John Constantine G. Cordon, Reporter

THE Sandiganbayan has garnished about P40 million in various assets owned by former military comptroller Jacinto Ligot.

According to the two-page Sheriff's Report dated May 6, the anti-graft court has frozen four bank accounts of Ligot in the Armed Forces and Police Savings and Loans Association Inc. (AFPSLAI) worth P7.4 million, five parcels of lots and condominium units.

The report, prepared by Sheriff Romulo Barrozo, showed that the AFPSLAI accounts of Ligot had been seized.

During an interview, Barrozo, however, said that the accounts "may have already been withdrawn."

When he was about to garnish the AFPSLAI accounts, according to the Sandiganbayan sheriff, the savings and loans association handed him a check worth only P2.9 million, which it said corresponded to the four accounts.

"They [AFPSLAI] mistakenly handed me the check when there was no execution yet, only the freezing of the accounts but as shown by the check, the accounts may have been withdrawn already," Barrozo said.

The anti-graft court said that the AFPSLAI accounts amounted to P7.4 million.

Aside from the bank accounts, the Sandiganbayan also garnished the P25-million unit of Edgardo Yambao, Ligot's brother-in-law, at 19A Essensa East Forbes Condominium in Taguig City (Metro Manila).

The anti-graft court attached to its garnishment order Yambao's P1.4-million house on 307 Katipunan Avenue, Loyola Heights in Quezon City.

It also attached Ligot's unit at 201 2/F Pamayanang Diego Silang Project II in Taguig City.

Although the unit, estimated to be worth P507,000, was listed under the name of the Bases Conversion and Development Authority, Barrozo was able to acquire the title for the unit and freeze it.

The sheriff's team also moved to attach Ligot's property in Parkview
Condominium in Makati City (also in Metro Manila) worth P7.8 million.
But the Register of Deeds of Makati City sent Barrozo a notice of denial, saying that the unit was still under the name of Megaworld.

"We are already moving to attach the Parkview Condominium because the Office of the Special Prosecutor already showed that Miguela Ligot-Paragas [Jacinto's sister] has already started to pay (for) the condominium and will already transfer the unit to Paulo Ligot [Jacinto's son]," Barrozo said.

The Sandiganbayan sheriff's also attached two lots—one in Tanay, Rizal province, worth P2 million listed under the name of the former military comptroller and the other in Muntinlupa City (also in Metro Manila) worth P1.2 million owned by husband-and-wife Edgardo and Maria Isabel Yambao.

To date, the Sherriff's Division has frozen P40 million of the pieces of real and personal property out of the P135 million that it had been ordered to seize from Ligot, a former lieutenant general in the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP).

Barrozo said that his group is set to also attach Ligot's pieces of property in Malaybalay City, Bukidnon province, where the former-AFP comptroller served as commander of the Philippine Army's 403rd Infantry Brigade from June 1996 to October 1999.

Ligot also served for a year as comptroller of the Army from April 1995 to May 1996.

He was the chief comptroller of the Armed Forces from November 1999 to March 2001.

--
Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr.

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.