NASA and the BIBLE

Thought this was pretty amazing and interesting!

For all the scientists out there, and for all the students who have a hard time convincing these people regarding the truth of the Bible, here's something that shows God's awesome creation, and that He is still in control.

Did you know that the space program is busy proving that what has been called 'myth' in the Bible is true?

Mr. Harold Hill, President of the Curtis Engine Company in Baltimore, Maryland, and a consultant in the space program, relates the following development.
'I think one of the most amazing things that God has done for us today happened recently to our astronauts and space scientists at Green Belt, Maryland ...

They were checking out where the positions of the sun, moon, and planets would be 100 years and 1,000 years from now. We have to know this so we won't send up a satellite and have it bump into something later on in its orbits.

We have to lay out the orbits in terms of the life of the satellite and where the planets will be so the whole thing will not bog down.

They ran the computer measurement back and forth over the centuries, and it came to a halt. The computer stopped and put up a red signal, which meant that there was something wrong with either the information fed into it or with the results as compared to the standards.


They called in the service department to check it out, and they said, 'What's wrong?' Well, they found there is a day missing in space in elapsed time.

They scratched their heads and tore their hair out. There was no answer.

Finally a Christian man on the team said, 'You know, one time I was in Sunday School, and they talked about the sun standing still.' While they didn't believe him, they didn't have an answer either, so they said, 'Show us, '

He got a Bible and went to the book of Joshua where they found a pretty ridiculous statement for any one with 'common sense.'

There they found the Lord saying to Joshua,


'Fear them not, I have delivered them into thy hand; there shall not a man of them stand before Thee.'

Joshua was concerned because he was surrounded by the enemy! And if darkness fell, they would overpower them. So Joshua asked the Lord to make the sun stand still! That's right.... 'The sun stood still and the moon stayed and lasted not to go down about a whole day!'
(Joshua 10:12-13)

The astronauts and scientists said, there is the missing day! They checked the computers going back into the time it was written and found it was close but not close enough. The elapsed time that was missing back in Joshua's day was
23 hours and 20 minutes.. Not a whole day.


They read the Bible, and there it was about [approximately] a day. These little words in the Bible are important, but they were still in trouble because if you cannot account for 40 minutes, you'll still be in trouble 1000 years from now.

Forty minutes had to be found because it can be multiplied many times over in orbits. As the Christian employee thought about it, he remembered somewhere in the Bible where it said the sun went BACKWARDS.

The scientists told him he was out of his mind, but they got out the Book and read these words in 2 Kings that told of the following story: Hezekiah, on his death bed, was visited by the prophet Isaiah who told him that he was not going to die. Hezekiah asked for a sign as proof. Isaiah said 'Do you want the sun to go ahead 10 degrees?'

Hezekiah said, 'It is nothing for the sun to go ahead 10 degrees, but let the shadow return backward 10 degrees.' Isaiah spoke to the Lord, and the Lord brought the shadow ten degrees BACKWARD! Ten degrees is exactly 40 minutes!'

Twenty-three hours and 20 minutes in Joshua, plus 40 minutes in Second Kings make the missing day in the universe! Isn't it amazing?

References: Joshua 10:8, 12-13 and 2 Kings 20:9-11.
Courtesy of Tes and Al Clayton and friends.

DR. HUONG DEFENCE, QUO VADIS TABANGAO ?

 

Dr Huong defence

against Royal Dutch

Shell defamation action

Jan 11th, 2011

by John Donovan.

No comments yet

It will soon be apparent to our readers from the extracts below, why Shell settled the Dr Huong litigation out of court. A very considerable pile of extremely smelly internal dirty laundry that Shell definitely did not want aired in open court, even in Malaysia.

By John Donovan
Dr John Huong, a former Shell geologist of almost 30 years standing was the FIRST SHELL employee to blow the whistle on the Shell reserves fraud (and other important issues relating to the misdeeds of Royal Dutch Shell management). He was not prepared to tolerate  the lives of Shell employees being recklessly put at risk.
As a result Shell was determined to silence him at all costs. Hence the unprecedented spectacle of EIGHT Royal Dutch Shell companies collectively bringing a defamation action against one former employee – an unemployed Malaysian who had no prospect whatsoever of finding alternative employment in his profession while the litigation cloud hung over the heads of himself and his family for several years.
Dr Huong made the mistake of believing in Shell's STATEMENT OF GENERAL BUSINESS PRINCIPLES and in particular the pledges of "honesty, integrity, respect for people" in all of Shell's dealings. He was also impressed by Shell's philosophy in the claimed new ways of working, including the promotion of trust, openness, teamwork, professionalism and pride in what Shell does.  He did not realise until more recent years that all of the pledges and claims were purely hype and spin meant for use in global PR campaigns such as "Profits and Principles" i.e. for the consumption of gullible consumers and stakeholders.
Dr Huong filed a Defence containing a staggering array of allegations, facts and evidence directed against Royal Dutch Shell Group. It represented a devastating indictment of Shell by a conscience driven former Shell insider. If filed today, much more evidence could be included about Shell misdeeds, including its involvement in murder, torture, corruption, spying inside the Nigerian government and even spying on Shell's own employees in association with a specialist unit partly funded and staffed by the FBI.
It will soon be apparent to our readers from the extracts below, why Shell settled the Dr Huong litigation out of court. A very considerable pile of extremely smelly internal dirty laundry that Shell definitely did not want aired in open court, even in Malaysia.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA IN KUALA LUMPUR
(CIVIL DIVISION) SUIT NO.S2-23-41 OF 2004
BETWEEN
SARAWAK SHELL BHD. (71978-W)
SHELL MALAYSIA TRADING SENDIRIAN BERHAD (6078-M)
SHELL REFINING COMPANY (FEDERATION OF MALAYA) BHD. (3926-U)
SHELL TIMUR SDN. BHD. ( 113304-H)
SHELL EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION MALAYSIA B.V. (993963-V)
SHELL OIL AND GAS (MALAYSIA) LLC (993830-X)
SHELL SABAH SELATAN SDN. BHD. (228504-T)
SABAH SHELL PETROLEUM COMPANY LTD. (993229-W)
In the event that the Alleged Defamatory Statements, in their natural and ordinary meaning, mean or are capable of conveying the meanings pleaded in paragraph 19 of the Statement of Claim and are found to refer to the Plaintiffs and/or the Shell Group, the Defendant avers that the Alleged Defamatory Statements are true in substance and fact.
23.1  Particulars the Defendant repeats the particulars pleaded in paragraph P6 above;
23.2  on 9.1.2004, the Shell Group disclosed to the public that in the period from 1997 to 2003,the Shell Group had deliberately and falsely made misleading statements by over declaring the quantities and/or values of their petroleum reserves. The Shell Group subsequently made 5 announcements on the devaluation of their petroleum reserves. The first announcement alone devalued the said petroleum reserves by at least 20%. As a result of the false and misleading declarations, the Shell Group was fined by the Securities & Exchange Commission in the United States of America and the Financial Services Authority in the United Kingdom (hereinafter referred to as "the Reserves Scandal");
23.3  as a result of the Reserves Scandal, shares of the Shell Group being publicly traded dropped in value substantially, thus causing their shareholders to suffer very considerable losses;
23.4  shareholders of Royal Dutch Petroleum, a company within the Shell Group, in the United Kingdom are threatening legal action in regards to tax penalties arising from the unification of Shell Transport and Trading Company plc and Royal Dutch Shell, both companies within the Shell Group. This said unification was due to the restructuring of the Shell Group following the Reserves Scandal;
23.5 the Shell Group is faced with a continuing criminal investigation by the justice Department, United States of America into the actions of former and current members of the senior executives o f the Shell Group;
23.6  the Shell Group is faced with a public inquiry after the deaths of two workers in an accident on the Brent Bravo offshore platform in the United Kingdom, for which the Shell Group has already admitted liability and paid a record high fine;
23.7 the Shell Group has agreed to a proposal to pay a USD90 million settlement in respect of a class action lawsuit in relation to the Reserves Scandal, which was brought against the Shell Group by its own employees who were prejudiced by the materially false and misleading statements of the of the Shell Group on the reported proven oil and natural gas reserves;
23.8  on 31.8.2005, the Shell Group had announced a USD9.2 million dollar settlement of a shareholder derivative class action lawsuit in the United States of America, in relation to the Reserves Scandal. The lead plaintiffs therein are the Unite National Retirement Fund and the Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund. The action is against named individual defendants including current directors of the unified new company, Royal Dutch Shell plc – including its CEO Jeroen van der Veer, Executive Director Malcolm Brinded and Maarten van den Berg. The plaintiffs allege that the said persons acted in breach of their fiduciary duties owed to companies in the Shell Group, abused their control over the said companies, aided and abetted breaches by others, and/or committed gross mismanagement and/or constructive fraud;
23.9 the Shell Group is facing another class action in the United States of America in relation to securities fraud, which has been granted leave to proceed by a Federal Judge, who has made a finding that the She11 Group and certain named directors including Jerocn van der Veer have a case to answer for alleged securities fraud in relation to the Reserves Scandal. The lead plaintiffs are the Pennsylvania State Employee Retirement System and the Pennsylvania Public School Employees Retirement System;
23.10 the Shell Group is also facing another class action lawsuit in the United States of America for alien tort, where 14 individual plaintiffs therein are suing the Shell Group for violations of customary international law in relation the She11 Group's petroleum producing operations in Ogoniland, Nigeria. The plaintiffs allege that the Shell Group engaged in militarised commerce in a conspiracy with the former Military Government of Nigeria and that the Shell Group knowingly instigated, planned, facilitated, and participated in unprovoked attacks by the Nigerian military against the unarmed residents of Ogoniland, resulting in extrajudicial murder, crimes against humanity, torture, rape, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, arbitrary arrest and detention, forced exile and the deliberate destruction of private property. The Shell Group had admitted after the leaking of an internal report that the corporate behaviour of the Shell Group in Nigeria fed a vicious cycle of violence and corruption;
23.11  the Shell Group is also facing a class action in the United States of America by 26 plaintiffs, mostly Dutch pension funds, in relation to the Reserves Scandal, where the plaintiffs therein are suing in respect of losses suffered as a result of the purchase of shares in the Shell Group at artificially inflated prices and the subsequent drop in value of their investments when it was discovered that the Shell Group had deliberately and falsely over declared the quantities and/or values of their petroleum reserves;
23.12  legal proceedings have been commenced against the Shell Group and its senior executives in the District Court for the District of New Jersey, the United States of America for remedies under the Security Exchange Act of 1934 in relation to the Reserves Scandal, where the plaintiffs complain that the She11 Group had violated federal securities law by issuing material misrepresentations on the quantities and/or values of their petroleum reserves and that the Shell Group had violated accounting rules and guidelines relating to the declaration of oil and gas reserves, resulting in a material over declaration of oil and gas reserves and causing its shareholders to suffer loss when the Reserves Scandal occurred and the value of publicly traded shares of the Shell Group fell;
23.13 the Shell Group is also facing various other lcgal proceedings in the United States of America in relation to the Reserves Scandal;
23.14  AE Donovan, JA Donovan and/or Don Marketing Limited had commenced court proceedings against the Shell Group companies operating in the United Kingdom by in respect of breaches of confidence and/or breaches of contract in respect of 4 marketing proposals forwarded by Don Marketing Limited to the Shell Group companies operating in the United Kingdom, which the Shell Group companies operating in the United Kingdom had made use of without the consent or knowledge of Don Marketing Limited. The Shell Group companies operating in the United Kingdom eventually settled the said 4 court proceedings brought by AE Donovan, JA Donovan and Don Marketing Limited by making payments of substantial sums in respect of the claims and costs;
23.15  in or around 1 994, AE Donovan, JA Donovan and Don Marketing Limited has commenced court proceedings against the Shell Group companies operating in the United Kingdom by in respect of the breach of the terns of a mediation agreement by the Shell Group companies operating in the United Kingdom. The Shell Group companies operating in the United Kingdom settled this court proceedings by making payments of substantia1 sums in respect of the claim and costs;
23.16   in or around 1994, AE Donovan had also sued the Shell: Group companies operating in the United Kingdom for libel, which suit was also settled by the Shell Group companies operating in the United Kingdom by making payments of substantial sums in respect of the claim and costs;
23.17 JA Donovan had also sued the Shell Group companies operating in the United Kingdom for libel, which suit was also settled by the Shell Group companies operating in the United Kingdom by making payments of substantial sums in respect of the claim and costs;
23.18 the Shell Group companies operating in the United Kingdom had admitted to hiring a private security firm which engaged in undercover activities against AE Donovan, JA Donovan and Don Marketing during the course of the litigation between the parties;
23.19 the Shell Group companies operating in the United Kingdom had admitted to hiring a private security firms which engaged in undercover activities against environmental groups active in the United Kingdom and in other countries;
23.20 the Shell Group had been fined a substantial sum by the United Nations when it was found that an oil tanker chartered by the Shell Group had violated the international trade embargo against Iraq by transporting petroleum which had originated from Iraq;
23.21 a prosecution that was brought by the Department of Justice of the United States of America against the Shell Group in respect of the Shell Group having repeatedly and deliberately under declared the value of natuml gas extracted in the Gulf of Mexico to avoid the payment of royalties, was settled by the She11 Group by making a substantial payment;
23.22 the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights of Santa Monica of California, the United States of America has accused the Shell Group o f deliberately taking action to reduce its production of petroleum fuel products during periods of high demand so as to cause a shortage of fuel in California;
23.23  while the Shell:Group have at various times publicised that they operate and manage their businesses subject to their Statement of General Business Principles, the Shell Group has also subsequently denied that the said Statement of General Business Principles were intended to be enforceable against the Shell Group;
23.24 the Shell Group had settled class actions in British Columbia and Ontario, Canada in respect of damage suffered by vehicles which had used petrol sold by the Shell Group which contained an additive that caused the said damage;
23.25 the Shell Group faced a claim in Florida, the United States of America in respect of damage suffered by vehicles which had used petrel sold by the Shell Group which contained sulphur that caused the said damage;
23.26  in or about December 2002 in Nicaragua, the Shell Group was ordered by a court to pay substantial compensation to banana plantation workers who had suffered permanent and serious injury and/or disease and/or death as a result of being exposed to a pesticide which was sold by the Shell Group in Nicaragua subsequent to the banning of the said pesticide in the United States of America in 1979, with full knowledge that the said pesticide would cause permanent and serious injury and/or disease and/or death to persons exposed to it;
23.27  at various times, the Shell Group had caused and/or allowed petroleum producing and/or storage and/or transporting and/or processing and/or refining facilities,which are owned by the Shell Group and/or partly owned by the Shell Group, to cause wide spread pollution, resulting in damage to the environment and/or illness and disease to the local populations and/or destruction of property, in the following places:
23.27.1 Norco, Louisiana in the United States of America;
23.27.2 Port Arthur and Texas Deer Park, Texas in the United States of America
23.27.3 Rukpokwu and various petroleum production facilities in Nigeria;

23.27.4 Vila Carioca, San Paulo in Brazil;
23.27.5 Curacao;
23.27.6 Durban in South Africa;
23.28  at various times, the Shell Group, by their activities in petroleum-producing and/or storage and/or transporting and/or processing and/or refining facilities, which arc owned by the Shell Group and/or partly owned by the Shell Group, continued to put the local population at risk of damage to the environment and/or illness and disease and/or destruction of property, in the following places:
23.28.I    Pandacan, Manila in the Philippines;
23.28.2    Sakhalin IsIand in Russia.
In the alternative, the Defendant avers that the Alleged Defamatory Statements constitute fair comment on matters of public interest, namely that the Shell Group has been involved in numerous scandals and/or controversies and/or prosecutions worldwide, including the Reserves Scandal.
Particulars
24. 1  the Defendant repeats the particulars pleaded in paragraph 16 above;
24.2 the Defendant repeats the particulars pleaded in paragraph 23 above.
25. Paragraph 21 of the Statement of Claim is denied. The Defendant avers that by reason of the facts and matters pleaded in paragraphs 9 to 24 above, the Alleged Defamatory Statements have not caused any further damage and/or injury to the reputations of the Plaintiffs and/or the Shell Group.
26. Paragraph 22 of the Statement of Claim is denied. The Defendant avers that:
26.1    AE Donovan and JA Donovan had sole control over the contents of the said Website and had thc right to decide on the contributions that were to be posted on the said Website and also to edit any contribution received before posting the same on the said Website;
26.2    the Defendant did not publish the alleged posting on 16.6.2004 on the said Website or any other Internet website;
26.3    the alleged posting on 16.6.2004 was published by AE Donovan and/or JA Donovan on the said Website;
26.4    the alleged posting on 16.6.2004 was the result of AE Donovan an#or JA Donovan having edited and added their own comments to the correspondences between the Defendant and AE Donovan and/or JA Donovan, before posting the same onto the said Website;
26.5    the Defendant had absolutely no control over the contents of the alleged posting on 16.6.2004 on the said Website.
27.  Paragraph 23 of the Statement of Claim is denied. The Defendant avers that by reason of the facts and matters pleaded in paragraphs 9 to 24 above, the Alleged Defamatory Statements have not caused any further damage and/or injury to the reputations of the Plaintiffs and/or the Shell Group and have not Further caused the Plaintiffs and/or the Shell Group to be brought into any further public scandal, contempt nor odium.
28. Paragraph 24 of the Statement of Claim is denied. The Defendant repeats paragraph 26 and 27 above.
29. Paragraphs 25 to 29 of the Statement of Claim are denied. The Defendant avers that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to the remedies claimed therein.
30.  Save as hereinbefore expressly admitted, the Defendant denies each and every allegation of fact contained in the Statement of Claim as if the same were specifically set forth seriatim herein and specifically traversed.
Dated this 25th day of January 2006.
The above is a scanned copy, so there may be mistakes. The original can be viewed via this link.
COMPLETE DEFENCE DOCUMENT INCLUDING ABOVE INFORMATION

Posted in: Alfred Donovan, Environment, Human Rights, Jeroen van der Veer, John Donovan, Litigation, Malcolm Brinded, Nigeria, Oil, Outspoken Articles, Private, Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Russia, Sakhalin II, Shell, Shell Blog, Shell Spying.
Tagged: Alfred Donovan · Corruption · Dr John Huong · John Donovan · Litigation · Malaysia · Nigeria · Oil · Russia

SHELL SHAMBLING IN SHAME

Extraordinary

letter from

Shell

whistleblower

Dr John Huong

Jan 5th, 2011

by John Donovan.

Because my stand on
this matter in consonant
with Shell Group Business
Principles, its governance
and with Malaysian national
interests in mind, I made
my concerns known internally
at Shell. Shell made me feel
that I had sinned for having
a moral compass and a conscience.

My name is Dr John Huong. Until May 2003 I was a Shell geologist for almost 30 years – a management level employee of Shell Malaysia. I specialised in many areas of earth sciences including Micropalaeontology, Petrology, Sedimentology, Field Geology, Bio-Sequence Stratigraphy, Operation Geology, Exploration Geology, Reservoir Geology and Production Geology. I am also conversant with Petrophysics, Petroleum Engineering (i.e. Well Engineering, Reservoir Engineering) and Petroleum Economics. In the company, I belonged to the Malaysian Senior Staff Council (MSSC) and was once its Vice President.
My work involved being a contributor/producer for Shell Field Development Plans and scouting for Shell block biddings. I was for example in the early 1990′s involved in a Shell study of oil and gas basins at the Ural-Volga, Caspian and Siberia in the former Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) at the invitation of the Russian Oil & Gas Ministry and the Eisenhower Foundation of USA. I have studied Business Administration, specialising in Human Resource Management. I am also a graduate from the Chartered Institute of Marketing, UK. After work, I do community work for the needy.
I started out my career with Shell being immensely proud of the company I worked for and represented. I was very impressed by the famous advertising slogans: "You can be sure of Shell"; "We Care, We Share" and more recently, "Triple Bottom Line" and "Profits AND Principles". My pride in being a Shell geologist was reinforced by Shell management's stated commitment to core principles of integrity, transparency, honesty and professionalism, as expressed in Shell's Statement of General Business Principles (SGBP). I felt that I was part of an outstanding multinational company of the very highest reputation which is in consonant with my own personal belief and value system.
My respect for Shell regretfully evaporated away over more recent years because of events that I have witnessed. I eventually came to the sad realisation that the companies' actions were totally at variance with its carefully contrived public image. It is in fact a ruthless unprincipled multinational, as demonstrated by countless examples, most vividly by its record of oppressive exploitative policies in Nigeria. Shell, in collaboration with the military government, allegedly put men of good repute to torture, hanging; where women, children were raped and their homes razed to the ground. Shell must answer all these questions clearly to resolve that part of a horrible history.
If only Shell senior management had abided by and enforced the values and strictures enshrined in the SGBP I would still be a loyal dedicated Shell geologist today. Furthermore Shell's reputation would not have been destroyed by the disgraceful conduct of its most senior management, some of whom at the time of writing this letter are still at the pinnacle of the Royal Dutch Shell Group. How can lies, dishonesty and cover-up be reconciled with the above core principles of the SGBP? Has there ever been a better example of blatant hypocrisy?
It is proper before going any further to declare my personal grievances against Shell senior management. I was dismissed after almost 30 years of loyal dedicated service. The allegations against me were "absent from work without leave, permission or reasonable excuse" and "failure to attend weekly meetings without permission, leave or reasonable excuses". The charges against me were made out of malice and were unfounded, unproven and invented without any formal investigation. The whole process was undermined by improper actions in breach of natural justice.
As Shell senior executives are aware, normal disciplinary procedures were not followed by a management accredited with an ISO certification for excellence in Human Resource (HR) Management. I received no reprimands, nor written or oral warnings. Even worse, threats were made by HR personnel against my assistant, whom I had appointed as permitted by the Domestic Inquiry (DI) Process which preceded my unwarranted dismissal. The truth is that Shell senior management was bent on getting rid of me because I had expressed reservations about Shell misdeeds and wrongdoings. I have a conscience and felt compelled to speak out for the benefits of a civilized society. I have no doubt that a fairly conducted independent investigation would clear my name once and for all.
Obviously the issue of my dismissal is not of world shaking significance but it is of great importance to me because it reflects on my personal integrity which I value very highly. I have been shamed and humiliated. If I had been genuinely guilty of the allegations that would be bad enough; it makes my situation almost unbearable knowing that my dismissal was based on unfounded allegations combined with falsified evidence and the deliberate intimidation of my assistant for the domestic inquiry.
I did write recently to Malcolm Brinded who is a Group MD of the Royal Dutch Shell Group and Chief Executive Officer of Shell Exploration and Production seeking his intervention. Suffice it to say that although I had worked for Shell for almost 30 years in a senior position, Mr Brinded did not even have the courtesy to acknowledge my communication. That alone speaks volumes about him.
I therefore feel a deep sense of betrayal and injustice caused by the treatment I have received from Shell management. I am a victim of what others have accurately described as a corporate culture of cover-up at Shell. If I had not brought sensitive matters to the attention of Shell senior management, I would almost certainly still be a Shell geologist.
For example, in 1997, I was assigned to the multi-billion dollar Kinabalu offshore platform project as the only Production Geologist. A faulty design rendered the Production Platform unsafe and potentially subject to sinking. I was threatened by the Kinabalu Project Manager because I raised these important work issues during a Project Team Meeting which was minuted. Shell did not want such sensitive information placed on the record. Information about this vitally important life threatening issue was not passed on to PETRONAS at the time. PETRONAS is Malaysia's national petroleum corporation. Wholly-owned by the Malaysian Government, the corporation is vested with the stewardship for the entire oil and gas resources in Malaysia and is entrusted with the responsibility for safety and other matters relating to Kinabalu Field development and other such projects. Shell deliberately withheld the information from PETRONAS. In time to come I will present other misdeeds of Shell for withholding information from PETRONAS or the Malaysian Government and its people who live in a lovely country where my family and I are also proud to reside.
Because my stand on this matter in consonant with Shell Group Business Principles, its governance and with Malaysian national interests in mind, I made my concerns known internally at Shell. Shell made me feel that I had sinned for having a moral compass and a conscience. I was transferred out of the Kinabalu Project without any proper reasons being given and made redundant in exile to work on a paper platform that was left in mothballed state for many years, known as the Ketam Field – "Ketam" in local language mean "Crab"!
I raised my grievances at being transferred out of the project against my will to the Ketam Field and the matter reached Managing Director/Chairman level. An Internal Investigation was subsequently conducted and blame apportioned to many individuals, including the General Manager. However I was not restored to my geology job. Shell management was apparently intent at all costs on covering up the flaws I had exposed in the Kinabalu Project and wanted to keep me out of the picture and further involvement. On reflection I believe that the most important concerns to Shell management was stopping important information from being disclosed to its Malaysian partner, PETRONAS (information PETRONAS was entitled to receive) and hiding the truth about hydrocarbon reserves from Shell shareholders.
What happened naturally caused me a great deal of personal stress but I was concerned that a catastrophe might take place and I did not want to have any deaths on my conscience, nor put my country Malaysia at risk due any potential oil/gas spills since the coastline of Brunei was very near to the Kinabalu field. No job is worth that risk.
From 1997 until 2003, I was not only stressed out but also unfairly treated by my supervisors by moving me around the company. I believe this happened as a direct result of my raising the safety, reserves and other technical concerns and issues about the Kinabalu project. It seems totally wrong to me now as I had not blown the whistle on Shell with PETRONAS but only made my concerns known internally at Shell.
In mid 2002, I was working under Mr. Hee Len Hi, the General Manager for Shell Malaysia Technology Management/Technical Services. My assignment at that time was to track a Facility Verification Report pertaining to helicopter services. I was informed by Operation Installation Managers of certain unprofessional work which had taken place in relation to the serviceability and safety of the helicopter fleet. However I discovered to my horror that passengers were still told to board one such helicopter and thus ended up, without their knowledge, as being TEST CREWS together with the pilots. I brought this alarming situation to the attention of Mr Hee Len Hi. It was not something he wished to know because the logistic unit was also under his responsibilities. His made his displeasure at my internal whistleblower action obvious. Once again my conscience and wish to work within Shell's stated ethical code had got me into serious trouble.
I have since wondered whether serious accidents which have occurred in Shell's North Sea operations involving helicopters and oil platforms happened because someone remained silent about the same type of cover-up and wrongdoing which I had felt compelled to expose within Shell.
It was Mr Hee Len Hi who subsequently orchestrated the above mentioned trumped up Domestic Inquiry together with Mr. Rosli Lompoh involving flawed evidence and intimidation of my assistant whom I recruited for the domestic inquiry. Furthermore, I wish to know who gave Len Hee and Rosli the instructions to treat me badly and I believe that will be clearer after my pending Industrial High Court case against Shell for wrongful dismissal. I also have important information directly relating to the Shell oil and gas reserves scandal. It will be added to this document shortly.
Dr John Huong

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Motion for Reconsideration October 30, 2008

Imagine – John Lennon Song Lyrics

Motion for RECONSIDERATION 

(with links to documentary proofs)

THE CLERK OF COURT DECIDES WITH FINALITY

Illegal dismissal case merits decided by the Clerk of Court Hon. ENRIQUETA VIDAL multi skilling of a kind and remarkably IT'S MORE FUN IN THE PHILIPPINES

Decision with FINALITY   ( one page ) by the Clerk of Court

                        please click on the image to enlarge


THE CLERK OF COURT DECISION dated 30 July 2008

Imagine – John Lennon Song Lyrics

Dear Sen. Chiz

Maligayang bati po sa inyo!!!

Narito po sa ibaba ang akin pong bukas na liham para kay Hon. Chief Justice at mga

Kagalang-galang na mga Huwes ng Korte Suprema ng Pilipinas na humihiling na muling 
pag-aralan ang aking asunto laban sa Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation.

Para sa inyo pong kaalaman napadalahan din po kayo ng sipi ng petisyong ito sa 

pamamagitan ng registered mail.

Heto po ang sulat :


MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

October 30, 2008

Hon. Reynato Puno
Chief Justice
Supreme Court of the Philippines
Manila


Mahal na Kagalanggalang na Chief Justice:

Maligayang bati po sa inyo.

Ako po si Antonio L. Buensuceso, petitioner sa kaso Blg. GR-183273 (Antonio L. Buensuceso vs. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation/Rico Bersamin) na sa kasalukuyang naninirahan sa 324 W. Casurina Pl. Beverly Hills, Florida, U.S. A. , naghahanapbuhay bilang janitor sa isang "nursing home" malapit lang po sa nabanggit na address.

Mangyari pong lumiham ako upang manikluhod at magpakumbabang makiusap po sa inyo na bigyang daan ang muling pag-aaral sa aking petisyon. Ang muling pag-aaral po sa petisyong ito ay ipinagkait ng First Division ng Supreme Court sa dahilang hindi po napadalhan ng kopya ang Court of Appeals at ang iba pang adverse parties at kawalan di umano ng mga patunay sa mga kamalian ng Court of Appeals. Ganoon din po, di umano ay wala po akong naipakitang sapat na dahilan na para ang mga decision ng Labor Arbiter, NLRC at ng Court of Appeals ay baligtarin.

Una po, Mahal na Chief Justice, nakasama ko po rito sa Amerika ang aking butihing maybahay at ang naiwan po sa Pilipinas ay ang tatlo ko pong anak at ang kanilang 90 anyos na lola na hindi nakatayo o nakakaupo sanhi po ng injury sa balakang. Sa dami po ng kanilang intindihin sa pang-araw araw na pagharap sa hamon ng buhay, paghahalihaliling pag aalaga sa kanilang lolang nasa banig ng karamdaman, sampu sa kalituhan at pagharap sa kaso ko laban sa Shell, na sila na lang tatlong magkakapatid ang nagtutulong -tulong sa dahilan pong wala na pong abugado ang may nais pang mag-ukol ng panahon dahil sa Shell daw po ang kalaban na kahit pa talo sa argumento ay mananalo pa rin sa kaso dahil sa malawak nitong impluensya at kapangyarihan. Dahil po dito sila pong magkakapatid ay kumikilos na walang lubos na patnubay ng isang abugado. Kaya po, Mahal na Chief Justice nag susumamo po ako sampu ng aking mag-anak ng inyong paglingap at pang-unawa. Sana po maunawaan ninyo kami at ganoon din po ang aming mga Kagalanggalang na Hukom ng First Division ng Supreme Court.

Kagalang-galang na Chief Justice, Your Honors, mangyari pong ilahad ko ang mga malalaking pagkakamali ng mga pinagdaanang hukuman :

1. Ang kaso di umano ay di sakop ng jurisdiction ng Labor Arbiter kundi sakop ng jurisdiction ng voluntary arbitrator.

Ito po Mahal na Chief Justice ay maling pananaw sa kasong ito. Ito po ay sa dahilang kung sa paraang voluntary arbitration diringgin ang kasong ito, ay hindi na ito maisusulong sa dahilang kailangan rito ang pagkilos ng unyon para ito maisakatuparan na sa pagkakataong ito ay hindi kumilos o gumawa ng hakbangin para gawin ang bagay na ito. Ang unyon ay hindi kumilos kahit munti o nagbigay ng kahit anong pag-alalay sa akin. Kung dito po sa voluntary arbitration dadaanin ang pagdinig sa kasong ito, ay wala na po akong makakamtang katarungan.

1.1 Bukod dito Mahal na Chief Justice, hindi na po mapapasubalian o maitatanggi ng Kgg. Labor Arbiter na wala ito sa kanyang jurisdiction sa dahilang dumaan na ito sa preliminary hearings hanggang inatasan kami ng Kgg. Labor Arbiter na magsumite ng kanya-kanya naming position papers at ibat-iba pang magkakaugnay na dokumento na nangangahulugan lamang na tinatanggap ng kagalang galang na Labor Arbiter na ang kasong ito ay sakop ng kanyang jurisdiction.

1.2 Sa dagdag pang paliwanag Mahal na Chief Justice mangyaring ilahad ko po rito ang isang bahagi ng desisyon ng Second Division ng Supreme Court, petsa October 24, 2000, GR No. 138938 may titulong :CELESTINO VIVIERO, petioner vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HAMMONIA MARINE SERVICES and HANSEATIC SHIPPING LTD. respondents ;

xxxUnder their CBA both union and respondent companies are responsible for selecting an impartial arbitrator or for convening an arbitration commmittee, yet it is apparent that neither made a move toward this end. Consequently, petitioner should not be deprived of his legitimate recourse because of the refusal of both union and respondent companies to follow the grievance procedure.

Wherefore, the decision of the Court of Appeals is SET ASIDE and the case is remanded to the labor arbiter to dispose of the case with dispatch until terminated considering the undue delay already incurred.

SO ORDERED.

Mendoza, Quisumbing, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., concur. XXX

Ito po ay malinaw na katulad ng katayuan sa inihaing kaso laban sa Shell na nararapat lamang bigyan ng parehong pagpapahalaga at consideration.

2. Ang pagsang-ayon ng mga nakabababang hukuman na ang RETIREMENT PAY na ipinagkaloob sa akin ay SEPARATION PAY na sinasabi ng batas ay isa rin pong kamalian na dapat ituwid.

2.1 Kami po sa Shell ay mayroong RETIREMENT PROGRAM na dito ay naglalaan ang kumpanya ng tumbas na halaga sa bawat taon ng paglilingkod at ito ay ibinibigay sa panahong ang isang kawani ay magreretiro na. Ito po ay kusang loob na ibinibigay ng kumpanya walang hinihinging kapalit (nakasulat po roon sa mga papeles ang mga salitang ex-gratia, salitang Latin po na ang ibig sabihin ay walang hihinging kapalait at gratuity, (bukal sa loob na pagbibigay). Ito ay bilang handog para sa mahabang panahong paglilingkod ng isang kawani. Idinadagdag po nila rito ang halaga ng hindi pa nagagamit na bakasyon, mid-year bonus at Christmas bonus. Eto pongretirement package na ito ang tanging ibinigay sa akin at sa kanilang panlilinlang tinawag rin nila itong SEPARATION PAY na itinatadhana ng batas."

Kung ito pongRETIREMENT PAY na ibinigay nila sa akin ay ipipilit nilang SEPARATION PAY na itinadhana ng batas ito ay tahasang pag-amin ng kumpanya sa kanyang intensyon na ako ay linlangin. Ako bilang kawani na may mahabang panahon ng paglilingkod ay may karapatangtumanggap ng retirement pay base sa retirement program ng kumpanya at ako bilang kawani na aalisin sa trabaho ay may karapatan sa SEPARATION PAY base sa sinasabi ng batas.

Sa dahilang ang pagbabayad ng SEPARATION Pay ay isa sa mga requirement upang maging legal ginawa nilang pagtatanggal sa akin sa trabaho ngunit itong pagbabayad na ito ay hindi nila tinupad o nagawa man sa paraang pandaraya, kaya po ito ay illegal. Sa madaling salita, illegal ang pagkakatanggal sa akin.

2.1 Sa patuloy pong usapin tungkol sa RETIREMENT PAY" na tinawag nilang SEPARATION PAY ; na ang halagang ito ay tinanggap ko at nilagdaan ko na ang " RELEASE DOCUMENT " pabor sa kumpanya, na nagsasaad na wala nang pananagutan pa ang kumpanya sa anumang paghahabol pa sa hinaharap ay isang pagkakamaling binigyan ng halaga ng nakaraang hukuman na hindi isina-alang-alang ang mga sumusunod:

2.11 Na, ang naturang RELEASE DOCUMENT ng RETIREMENT PAY na tinawag nilang "SEPARATION PAY" ay nangangailangan ng panunumpa sa harap ng isang notario publico, sa Ingles po ay VERIFICATION, na nagsasaad na iyong lagda ko roon ay sanhi ng aking lubos at maluwag sa loob na pagtanggap sa kabayarang at mga consideration na nakasaad doon. Sa madaling salita ang dokumento pong ito ay hindi verified. Ang RELEASE DOCUMENT pong ito aywalang petsa; Pansinin po natin ang petsa ng tseke na kanilang ibinigay sa akin kaugnay ng retirement pay, FEBRUARY 17, 2003.

2.12 Na, ang naturang RELEASE DOCUMENT ay nangangahulugan po na walang bisa dahil po noong ilang buwan matapos ang pagbabayad ng kumpanya sa akin ng RETIREMENT pay, ay binayaran naman nila sa akin ang PERFORMANCE BONUS, muli ay pinalagda ako sa pangalawang RELEASE DOCUMENT may petsang _OCTOBER 23, 2003. Samakatuwid, merong pangalawang RELEASE DOCUMENT na ginawa ang kumpanya . Muli, hindi rin po ito verified. Nangangahulugan po lamang na ang unang "release document" na kung saan nakapaloob ang aking retirement pay ay nagpapakita ng lubos na pag-amin ng kumpanya, na hindi tunay na "release document" ang mga papeles na iyon, sa kadahilanang kung ito ay tunay na release document at pinahahalagahan ng kumpanya ay hindi na sana ako binayaran pa ng PERFORMANCE BONUS makalipas ang ilang buwan, ngunit, ako ay muling binayaran at ang mga dokumentong ito ngayon ay naging mistulang mga resibo lamang ng mga pinagbayaran nila sa akin at walang saysay O INTENSYON NG MAGKABILANG PANIG NA GAWING bilang RELEASE DOCUMENT.

2.13 Ang "estoppel" po, ay tinatangagap ng ating hukuman na hindi hadlang sa anumang lihitimo at makatarungang paghahabol laban sa kumpanya na nararapat na isalang-alang at bigyan ng pagpahalaga sa usaping ito.

3. Kagalanggalang na Chief Justice, ang CBA o Collective Bargaining Agreement ay isang kasunduan sa pagitan ng mga kawani at kumpanya na dapat tuparin at igalang ng magkabilang panig upang makamtam ang kapayaan sa pagawaan. Dito po sa CBA namin ay mayroon pong

JOB SECURITY PROVISION : "TASREA (union) recognizes the right of the Company to contract out work, however , NO EMPLOYEE SHALL SUFFER LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT ON ACCOUNT OF THE CONTRACTED WORK."

Isasalin ko po sa wika natin : "TASREA(unyon) ay kumikilala sa karapatan ng kumpanya na mangontrata ng trabaho, kaya nga lamang ay, walang kawani na magdurusa sa pagkawala ng trabaho dahilan sa pinakontratang trabaho."

3.1 Kagalang galang na Chief Justice, noong panahong tanggalin ako sa trabaho ay maraming trabaho namin ang ipinakokontrata, sa Jetty operation at maintenance; Kung susundin at igagalang lang ng Shell ang nakasaad sa JOB SECURITY PROVISION ng aming CBA , bawasin lang ang isa maaring di na nila ako tanggalin. Ngunit ang pagbabawas po ng kontractor na gumagawa ng trabaho namin ay hindi ginawa ng Shell. Kaya po ito ay tahasang paglabag sa diwa ng JOB SECURITY PROVISION ng aming CBA.

3.2 Bukod po rito Kagalanggalang na Chief Justice, noong panahong tanggalin ako ay tumangap ang Shell ng mga bagong operator na magpapatakbo ng "Bitumen Plant" na tinawag naman nilang "Bitumen Import Facility". Bawasin lang ang isa sa mga tatangaping bagong operator na iyon ay maaari na akong hindi tanggalin. Ito po hindi rin nila ginawa.

4. Ang PAGDADAGDAG ng Kagalanggalang na Labor Arbiter ng MALING IMPORMASYON upang palabasin na ang petition para sa Salary Rate Adjustment base sa long years of service ay maalis sa kanyang jurisdiction. Ang pandaraya pong ito ay HINDI NAKITA ng nabubulagang nakaraang hukuman.

4.1 Ganito po yun. Upang maialis ng Kgg. na Labor Arbiter sa kanyang jurisdiction ang aking petisyon for salary rate adjustment ay kanyang sinulat sa kanyang desisyon, na natanggap na ng LMC (Labor and Management Council) acting as Grievance Committee ang aking petition noong April 05, 2002, at ang pangyayaring ito ay nasa minutes na ng LMC meeting noong April 05, 2002.

Magkaganoon dapat lamang ay sa Grievance Committee, di-umano, ko dapat i-follow up ang issue o paghahabol, at hindi sa kanya (Kgg. Labor Arbiter ) ang giit niya.

Ito ay malisyoso at maling impormasyon na dapat ituwid sa dahilang noong isulat ko ang petition ay noong July 15, 2002, at tinanggap naman ni Mr. Veneracion noong July 16, 2002 matagal nang natapos ang April 05, 2002 LMC meeting. Huli po, RED HANDED ang Kgg. na Labor Arbiter,nararapat po sanang na-reprimand man lang, kung hindi man ma-"disBAR" o maalisan ng karapatang maging abugado. Marami po itong ipapahamak kung manatili sa tungkulin. Ngunit ano po ang ginawa ng Court of Appeals ? Tinangkilik po ang kanyang pagsisinungaling " hook, sinker and line". Ito po ay nararapat lamang na pagbuhusan ng pansin at ang kanilang mga pagkakamali ay maituwid sa pangalan ng katarungan at patas na pagdinig.

5. Maling paggamit ng Kagalanggalang na Labor Arbiter RESIGN at RETIRE.

Sa sinulat na desisyon ng Kgg. Labor Arbiter. Sinulat po niya na kung ako ay magreRETIRE ay magkakautang pa ako sa kumpanya, na ang pinagbasehan niya ay ang mga datus ay mula sa kolum ng RESIGNATION. Ang tumpak pong dapat sinulat niya ay kung ako ay magreRESIGN ay magkakautang pa ako sa kumpanya. Ngunit ako po ay di nagresign kundi nagretire sa kagustuhan ng kumpanya kaya hindi po ako magkakautang at sa halip ay tatangapin ko ang halagang tulad ng naibigay na sa akin. Ito rin po ay nararapat na muling tingnan at pag-aralan.

6. Lantarang pagpabor ng Kgg. na Labor Arbiter sa usaping pabor sa Shell. Mapapansin po ninyo na sa desisyon ng Kgg. Labor Arbiter ay lubusan ang kanyang pagpapaliwanag sa Grievance Procedure ng aming CBA; kanya po itong in-interpret o ipinaliwanag ng buong-buo.

Samantalang ang JOB SECURITY PROVISION ng aming CBA : " TASREA(the union) recognizes the right of the company to contract out work, provided, no employee shall suffer loss of employment on account of contracted work." , ay di man lamang niya inunawa. Kung paniniwalaan po natin ang kanyang sinasabi na wala sa kanyang jurisdiction ang mga kaso ukol sa interpretasyon o implimentasyon ng CBA, bakit po ba niya na-interpret ang Grievance Procedureat di po niya ma-interpret ang Job Security Provision, ganong parte rin naman ng iisang CBA.

Bukod dito, alam niyang "moot and academic " at "mockery of justice" balikan pang muli na gawin daanin sa Grievance Procedure kaso ko laban sa Shell dahil sa napakatagal na ng panahong nakalipas at ang unyon na hindi kumilos noon ay anong dahilan pa para kumilos ngayon. Itong manifestation na ipinakita ng Kgg. Labor Arbiter ay tahasang pagkampi sa Shell na dapat ituwid .

7. Ang OIL DEREGULATION LAW na sinasabi ng Shell na nagbibigay sa kumpanya ng financial o economic difficulties kaya nagsarado ng lumang planta at nagbawas ng kawani ay isang kasinungalingan. Bagkus, ang batas na naturan ay malaking tulong sa kanilang mga taga industriya ng langis. Nakikita po natin na sa bawat pagtaas ng kanilang gastusin gaya ng pagtaas ng presyo ng krudo sa world market ay kaagad na nakapagtataas sila ng presyo ng kanilang produktong petrolyo. Binigyan po sila ng kalayaang magtakda ng presyo para sa mabawi ang anumang pagkalugi na nararanasan nila. Sa ibang salita ay itong batas na ito ay protection nila laban sa anumang pagkalugi at di kailanman magiging pasanin ng industriya ng langis. Ito po ay nararapat ituwid sa pagtanaw muli sa kasong ito.

8. Ang DEMOLITION ng LUMANG PLANTA, ang mga larawan na kuha sa aktibidad na ito, pati na ang mga dokumento na nagpapakita kung sinong foreign contractor gumawa nito at ang halagang ginugol rito ng SHELL para maisakatuparan ang DEMOLITION ay pawang ipinakita ng SHELL bilang patunay ng pagsasara ng lumang planta at pagdemolish dito. Ngunit sa halip na makatulong ito sa kaso nila, bagkus higit itong nagdiin sa kanila, sa dahilang labis pa itong karagdagang patunay ng pagsisinungaling ng SHELL na ang financial o economic difficulties ang dahilan ng pagsasara ng lumang planta at pagbabawas ng kawani. Pansinin po ninyo anghalagang ginastos sa DEMOLITION, Php129,950,000.00. Ganyan po ba ang paraan ng pag-gastos ng isang kumpanyang may financial o economic difficulties ang gumastos ng Php129,950,000.00para sa isang demolition lang, na hindi naman kailangan noong panahong iyon. Ang CALTEX po, na halimbawa rin po nila na nagsara ng lumang planta, ngunit ang DEMOLITION ay HINDI nila naging OPTION. Ang katotohanang pong ito ay hindi binigyang halaga ng mga dinaanang hukuman na nararapat lamang pagtuunan ng pansin.

9. Nalisan din po, Mahal na Chief Justice, Your Honors, sa kanilang lubusang pag-aaral na kung bakit ba sa dinami-dami ng mga option na maaaring gawin para hindi ako tanggalin sa trabaho aylumalabas talagang ipinagpilitan ang pagtanggal sa akin. Hindi po nabigyan pagkakataon namasusing pag-aaral ang mga issues na aking ipinaglalaban at ang maaring kaugnayan nito sapagtanggal sa akin.

9.1 Yun pong usapin sa PERFECT ATTENDANCE AWARD SCHEME na tinawag ko pong PERFECT ATTENDANCE AWARD SCAM isa pong nakabalatkayong extortion racket ng SHELL na ang biktima ay ang kaawa-awang kawani na binigyan ng AWARD mismo. Sa simula po ng bawat taon, kaming mga kawani ay sinasabihan ng mga boss namin na magperfect attendance. Ibig sabihin po ay vacation leave lang ang aming gagamitin kung kailangan namin ng leave. Huwag ang sick leave kahit na kami ay may sakit , at huwag din ang emergency o personal leave kahit pa dinala mo ang anak mo sa hospital. Kung ang empleado ay sumunod sa tagubilin siya ay bibigyan ng PERFECT ATTENDANCE AWARD (isang bondpaper) at isang G.E. flat iron (PLANTSA) at isang pamBOBOlang pangako na promotion sa trabaho. Kung hindi naman sinunod ng kawani ang tagubilin, ang kawani ay kakausapin, pagsasabihan at tatakutin na ibibitin ang promotion o ililipat sa ibang job assignment na mahihirapan ang kawani. Walang magawa ang mga kawani kundi sumunod na mag-perfect attendance kahit labag sa loob.

Baka po nais ninyong malaman kung gaano kalaki ang nakukuhang kotong ng SHELL sa scam na ito ?Natalakay ko na po ito sa mga dokumento na nai-submit ko sa mga nakaraang hukuman sa wikang Ingles po lamang, ngayon po sa wika po natin.

Kaming mga kawani po ay mayroong personal/emergency leave na 5 araw at 15 araw na sick leave. Nakuha po namin yun sa aming CBA. Eto po ang rule nila : HINDI po naming maaring gamitin ang mga naturang leaves upang maging perfect attendance awardee.

Ang bawat awardee ay hindi gumamit ng 5 araw na personal/emergency leave at 15 araw na sick leave. Ang mga leaves na ito ay ipo-forfeit ng SHELL. Opo, pino-forfeit po ng SHELL. Ibig sabihin po, ay 20 araw na trabaho ang kinokotong sa kanya ng SHELL.

Sa dahilan pong hindi siya lumiban sa trabaho hindi po nangailangan ng kanyang kahalili na sana ay babayaran ng SHELL ng 20 araw at karagdagan pong 10 araw para sa overtime. Sa madaling salita, ang bawat awardee ay nagbibigay sa SHELL ng may halagang 50 araw na kapakinabangan. Bakit naman po tinumbasan lang ng isang papel, isang plantsa at pamBOBOla ? Kung hindi po sinunod bakit kailangan pang ang kawani ay kausapin, pagsabihan at takuting hindi ipo-promote o dili kaya ay ililipat sa ibang mas mahirap na job assignment ? Ang hiling ko po at ng iba pa naming mga kawani, ay commensurate award, at least mga 20 araw rin lang po. Ngunit naging manhid po ang SHELL sa aming hiling at nananatili ang extortion racket na ito hanggang ngayon.

Ang katinuan po ng sistemang ito ang mahaba ko nang panahong ipinaglalaban hanggang sa taong 2000, nasabi ko sa kanila at sa aking mga kasama sa SHELL na hindi ko puputulin ang aking buhok para lagi ng maala-ala ng lahat na may mga kawaning patuloy na nagnanais ng katinuan sa PERFECT ATTENDANCE SCHEME. Bago pa po lubusang humaba ang buhok ko, Year 2003, sinibak na po ako.

9.2 Ang aking pong INQUIRY sa nawawalang minutes of CBA negotiations meetings na kung saan pinag-usapan ang paksang pang - economic o pasuweldo ay hindi rin po nabigyang halaga at lubusang pag-aararal ng mga pinagdaanang hukuman.

Na, kung ito po ay nabigyan daan na busisiin, matutunghayan po nila, na itong natapos na CBA ay punong-puno ng hinihinalang anomalya at controversiya, dahil sa bukod sa itinago nila ang minutes tungkol dito ay, inalisan pa nila nang dalawang NON-OFFICER union member na tumatayong bantay o witness sa negotiation. Ang TRANSPARENCY sa gaganaping negotiation ay alam naming mga kasapi sa unyon na KAILANGAN kaya po ninais naming makapag-formulate ngGROUND RULES for the CONDUCT OF NEGOTIATIONS silang mga opisyales ng unyon at management panel. Kasama po rito ang requirement ng MINUTES at dalawang NON-OFFICER union member bilang witness . Ang GROUND RULES pong ito ay hiniling naming mga kasapi sa unyon, naisulat at napagkasunduan at sinunod ng buong husay noong pag-usapan ay non-economic benefits, ngunit noong pag-usapan ang pasueldo, ay nabalutan ito ng hinihinalang kabuktutan at misteryo. Ang kaganapang ito ay nagbunsod ng matinding pagdududa sa kadalisayan, kalinisan ng ginanap na negotiation. Lalo pa nga po, noong makalipas ang isa O dalawang linggo na matapos ang CBA ay pinagkalooban ng SHELL ng isang marangyang piging ang mga opisyal ng unyon sa isang kilalang Hotel sa Makati. Ganoon din po, makalipas ang isa O dalawang buwan, ang dalawa pong mataas na lider ng unyon ay pumunta sa SINGAPORE at sa THAILAND na company sponsored trip, sinabi po nilang seminar o training. Marami pong lalo ang naghihinala sa mga misteryong nakapaloob dito at sila ay nagsimulang magsiyasat at magtanong-tanong at ang pormal na INQUIRY ay sinimulan ko. Dapat sana ay natuklasan ang dahilan kung bakit na kung kailan na mayroong INQUIRY o pagsisiyasat sa maaring pandaraya o kabuktutan naganap sa nakatapos na CBA negotiations, kung kailan naman ako tinanggal sa trabaho. Hindi kaya nais lamang ng kumpanya na matigil na itong pagsisiyasat sa dahilang baka matuklasan ang kanilang mga pagkakasala at natakot sa kanilang pananagutan kapag ang mga iyon ay napatunayan.

At upang mahinto ang INQUIRY ay naisip nilang tangalin ako. Sinibak nga nila ako.

9.3 Lubos rin po, ang aming pagtataka nang ang mga suliraning pang-unyon ay kinaligtaan nang harapin ng mga lider ng unyon, tulad ng suliranin ng ilang kawani na pinagkaitang pagkalooban ng PRB(performance related bonus) at ang napapabalitang tanggalan sa trabaho.

Wala silang ginawa para tulungan ang mga kawawang kasapi upang ipagtanggol ang mga karapatan ng mga ito.

9.4 Manapay, magkahalong pagtataka at pagdududa ang nabubuo sa aming mga damdamin nang may isang kasapi na naglakas loob na simulan o gawin ang mga hakbang upang ang mga suliraning iyon ay lutasin, ay siya pa nila itong ginipit, sinikil at pinabayaan, pinagkaitan ng kanyang karapatan sa "due process", (his petition for maximum salary rate adjustment was deliberately ignored, no hearing about his petition was ever conducted inspite of his persistent follow-ups) at nang ang kawaning ito ay tanggalin, ang mga lider na iyon ay hindi kumilos upang ang karapatang iyon at ang "job security of tenure" ng pobreng kasapi ay ipagtanggol.

9.5 Bago po maganap ang KONTOBERSYAL CBA NEGOTIATION MEETING tungkol sa pasueldo ay nakikita namin ang lubos na katapatan sa tungkulin ang mga sinasabing punong opisyales ng unyon. Ngunit, nang muli silang humarap sa amin matapos ang pagpupulong na naganap sa kung saang yungib ng kadiliman, ay ang mga kasapi na ngayon ang mistulang kanilang kalaban. Hindi po naming mapaniwalaan na kayang tanggapin ng kanilang mga konsyensa na gamitin nila ang kanilang kapangyarihan sa pansarili nilang kapakinabanagan, tulad ng pagkakaloob sa kanilang mga sarili ng taas sa sueldong 10% ng kanilang mas malalaking basic pay, habang may mga kasaping maliit na nga ang basic pay, ay nabigyan lang ng 3% . Ang panglalamang o panggugulang na ito ay labis ang naging pasakit sa mga kasaping nasa mas mabababang posisyon na lubhang naapi sa pagkakataong iyon. Dahil roon ako ay gumawa ng isang tula, alay ko sa mga kaawa-awang inapi ng mga pinunong inaakala nila na mangangalaga ng kanilang karapatan. Heto po ang tula:

KATIPUNAN SA BAGONG PANAHON
1
Naalaala mo pa ga, si Andres Bonifacio ?

Pilipino taga Tondo, sa Katipunan siya ang Supremo

Matatawa ka kung isang tulad nito

Ang wikain niya sa mga tao:


2
May tig-isang cedula tayo

Ang akin pupunitin ko

Punitin rin ninyo ang sa inyo

Sa labanang sasabanahin natin

Kontra sa mga Kastilang mapang-alipin

Eh, maagaw natin ang kaldero ng kanin,

Tandaan ninyo ang aking bilin:

Sa inyo ang bahaw, sa akin ang bagong saing.

Sigawan ang mga katipunero, mabuhay ang Supremo!

Sa palakat na usbaw at sirang ulo.


3
Eh, paano naman Supremo ang pang-ulam

Siempre pag may kanin dapat may pang-ulam

Halimbawa po ay isda, tulad ng galunggong

Ang sagot niya ay "Tinatanong pa ba iyan ?

Natural akin ang katawan, sa inyo ang ulo, buntot at tiyan."

Sigawan ang mga katipunero, mabuhay ang Supremo!

Sa tonong sinto-sinto at mukhang naloko.



4
Bakit naman po galunggong, cheap naman po noon.

May Kastila ga namang kumakain ng galunggong?

Siempre wala kundi makolesterol na litson.

Ani ng Supremo, "Aba, eh, madali iyan".

Sabay ang kayat ang laway.

"Sa akin ang kalamnan at sipsipin ninyo,

Ang mga buto-buto at ang pantuhog na kawayan."

Sigawan ang mga katipunero, mabuhay ang Supremo!

Sa tunog na uto, at parang nagoyo.

Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr.

21September2001.

10. Ang pagpapahalaga sa mga naging pagtrato sa akin sa mga panahong 2002, bago ako tanggalin ay hindi rin nabigyang pag-aaral at pag-unawa, na sana ay natuklasan nila na ang pagtanggal sa akin ay bunga ng isang matinding galit na personal.

10.1 Nabulagan po ang mga hukom ng mas nakakababang hukuman nang hindi nila napagtanto na ang itinatagong matinding galit ay ipinadama ng kumpanya sa akin noon hindi nila recognize o kinong-gratualate man lamang ang aking anak o ako noong mag-top 1 ang aking anak noon sa APRIL 2002 ELECTRONICS and COMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERING BOARD EXAM, sa kabila ng katotohanang ang batang ito, si Mosses Buensuceso, ay mula high school at hanggang sa college ay scholar ng SHELL. Ito ay sakabila ng katotohanan na nagbunyi ang mga kawani ng refinery, nagsalo-salo sa kung ilang galong ice cream ang bawat department hanggang sa ADMINISTRATION noong araw na iyon .

10.2 Dagdag pa rito ay ang pagwi- withdrawal of payment ng PERFORMANCE RELATED BONUS kay Ritchie Coronel , isang resignee, noong malaman na ako ay tiyuhin nito, at ako ang tatanggap ng bonus na iyon para sa kanya.

10.3 Hindi rin napag-ukulan ng pansin ang ginawang tahasang pagbabale-wala ng kumpanya sa aking karapatan sa due process. Naglapit po ako ng petisyon para sa salary adjustment base sa long years of service tulad ng tinanggap ng kapwa ko ka-level sa position na kawani, na nabigyan sila ng maximum rate of increase, 10% , base sa kanilang 16 years of service, na hindi base sa kanilang mas nakabababang position. Nararapat lamang na ako ay bigyan din ng ganoong consideration sa dahilang kung sila ay may 16 years of service, ako ay mas lalong higit na mahabang panahon ng serbisyo na 24 years. Hiniling ko po sa petisyon ko kay Mr. Bing Veneracion, process manager, na bigyan rin ako ng gayong pagtrato at nangako po siyang tatalakayin iyon sa LMC meeting. Ngunit, hindi po nila iyon ginawa, hindi na iyon pinagusapan, kahit sa patuloy kong pakikiusap at follow-up. Sa Ingles po ang aking "right to due process was deliberately denied". Personal pong galit ang malinaw na dahilan ng ganitong pagtrato sa akin.

10.4 Nagkulang rin ng mainam na pagsusuri ang nakakababang hukuman na, galit rin ang nagbunsod sa kumpanya para hiyain ako sa harap ng aking mga kapwa kawani, mga kaibigan at pamilya noong ituring ng kumpanya na ako ay poorest work performer, sa pamamagitan ng kanyang mga supervisor na nagsagawa ng "rating" na alam nilang sa isang kawani, katulad ko, na may mataas na pagpapahalaga sa aking karangalan, dignidad at integredad ay labis - labis na nasasaktan sa ginawang pagpataw sa aking pagkatao bilang poorest work performer. Ngunit, hindi lang nila ako sinabihang poorest work performer, at ipinangalandakan pa nila ang kanilang panglalait sa akin noong ang bagay na ito ay kanilang isulat at isapubliko at ipinaalam sa lahat, at gawin pa nilang katibayan ng dahilan upang ako ay tanggalin. Sobra-sobra ang naging dulot nitong sakit at pagdurusa sa akin. Hindi lang nila ako inalisan ng trabaho, winasak ang karangalan ko, at tinanggalan pa nila ako ng maayos na pagkakataong makatagpo muli ng ibang trabaho gamit ang 24 na taon kong karanasan sa industriya. Ano pa po ba kaya ang magbubunsod sa isang kumpanya ang gawin ang mga bagay na iyon sa akin, kundi isang hayag na galit na personal?

10.5 Dagdag pa dito, ang aking bunsong anak, si Miriam Buensuceso, ay isang SHELL high school scholar, ay may natitira pang isang taong scholarship, matapos akong alisin sa aking trabaho. Ngunit, itong natitira pang isang taong scholarship na tulong sa tuition fees at monthly allowance ay ipinagkait na rin sa akin. Ang company policy ukol dito ay hindi na malilingid sa aking kaalaman sa kung ilang taon ring ipinagkatiwala sa akin, ni Ka Butch Bautista, isang mas naunang nagretirong kawani, kapwa ko taga-Bauan, na may dalawang anak na parehong iskolar, ang pagtanggap ng kanilang tuiton at buwanang allowance, na dalawa o tatlong taon kong ginampanan para sa kanila. Ngunit, ang ganoong parehong pagtingin at pagtrato ay ipinagkait sa akin. Hindi ko po agad ito naisama sa aking "complaint" sa dahilan pong ako ay umaasa na iyon ay maari pang ipakiusap, ngunit, sa kasamaang palad hindi na po ako napagbigyan.

10.6 Ang mamahalin pong orasang pagkamay na ibinibigay bilang regalo sa mga nagreretirong mga kawani na may mahabang panahon ng paglilingkod ay hindi rin po ibinigay at tuluyan na pong ipinagkait sa akin. Hindi po ba ang mga bagay na ito at ang mga nauna nang nabanggit ay labis-labis na katibayan ng matinding galit na personal sa akin, na nararapat na bigyang pahalaga at masusing pag-aaral ? Na kung lubusang pinag-aralan ay lilitaw na "ill-motives" ng kumpanya ang dahilan kung bakit nila ako tatanggalin at hindi dahil ng kabulaanang REDUNDANCY, na sinasabi ng kumpanya ?

11. Dapat pong unawain ng lahat, Kagalanggalang na Chief Justice, na ang sinasabing katwiran ng kumpanya na ang tinatawag na "management prerogatives" ay may hangganan. Ang karapatan pong ito ay nagwawakas kapag ito ay lumalampas, o di lubusang sumunod sa itinatagubilin ng batas o dili kaya aylumalabag sa sinasaad sa sama-samang kasunduan sa pag-gawa o collective bargaining agreement (CBA).

11.1 Ang kumpanya bagamat nakasunod sa requirement ng notice sa DOLE at pagsulat sa akin na nagsaad ng pagtangal sa akin ay hindi po natin kakikitaan ng katapatan at katotohanan sa sinasabi nilang kadahilanan ng pagtanggal sa akin. Maalaala po natin na sinabi nila na "financial difficulties" na sanhi ng OIL DEREGULATION LAW ang dahilan kung bakit sila magsasara ng planta at magbabawas ng kawani. Tulad po ng naipaliwanag na, ang batas pong ito ay hindi kailanman naging pasanin ng mga taga-industriya ng langis, sa kabaligtaran ang batas na ito ay nagsisilbing kalasag o protection laban sa anumang pagkalugi sa kanilang pagnenegosyo.

11.2 Ang kumpanya, totoo mang nagsarado ng isang lumang planta, PROCESS-2, ay nagbukas naman ng bago na aking tinawag na BITUMEN PLANT, na tinawag naman nilang BITUMEN IMPORT FACILITY.Katotohanan pong nagsara sila ng planta, nagbawas ng kawani at katotohanan rin pong nagbukas ng bagong planta at nag- emplyeo ng mga bagong kawani.

Sa ganitong mga kaganapan papaanong masasabi nila na ako ay magiging kalabisan sa dami ng kailangan nila ? Malinaw pong natunghayan natin salat po sa katotohanan at wastong katuwiran ang REDUNDANCY PROGRAM ng kumpanya.

11.3 Ang kumpanya, sa pagnanais na patunayan ang pagsasara ng planta, ay isinalarawan pa niya angDEMOLITION nito, sinaad kung sinong contractor ang gagawa nito at kung gaanong kalaking halaga ang ginugol dito. Pero sa halip itong makatulong sa kanila ay lalong higit itong naging katibayan ng kanilang kasinungalingan. Dahil dito sa mga dokumentong ito na ang SHELL mismo ang nagpakita sa usaping ito, ay natambad ang katibayan na hindi totoong dumaranas ang SHELL ng financial difficulties. Maniniwala po ba kayong may financial difficulties ang isang kumpanya na gumastos ng Php129,950,000.00 para sa isang demolition lang? Ang CALTEX po, na ginamit rin ng kumpanya na halimbawa na nagsara rin nga ng lumang planta, ngunit, ang DEMOLITION ay hindi nila naging option. Napapansin po natin na ang mga sandatang inilalabas nila ay siya rin mismong mga sandatatang pumapatay sa kanila. Habang nais nilang ikubli ang kanilang kabulaanan ay lalo namang lumilitaw ang katotohanan.

11.4 Sa pagawaan upang matamo ang lubusang kapayapaan, Kagalanggalang na Chief Justice, ay itinakda ng batas ang pagkakaroon ng kasunduan ang mga kawani at ang mga namamahala ng pagawaan. Ang kasunduang ito na tinawag na COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT o CBA , na nararapat lamang sundin at isapuso ng magkabilang panig at sinuman ang may gawing paglabag sa itinatadhana rito ay may pananagutan sa batas. Mangyari pong bigyan ko ng diin ang JOB SECURITY PROVISION ng aming CBA: " TASREA (the union) recognizes the right of the company to contract out work, however, no employee shall suffer loss of employment on account of the contracted out work. " Tinatangap ng unyon na mangontrata ng trabaho ang kumpanya, kaya nga lamang ay, walang kawani ang magdurusa sa pagkawala ng trabaho dahil sa ipinakontratang trabaho. Yan po ang saktong salin mula sa Ingles tungo sa wika natin. Ibig sabihin po ba niyan ay hayaan naming tanggalin kami sa trabaho habang itong trabaho namang ito ay ipinakokontrata ng SHELL ? Wala po silang pananagutan kung ang provision na iyon ay hindi nila igalang ? Para ano pa po, na tinawag itong JOB SECURITY PROVISION kung hindi nito mapangalagaan ang aming security of tenure. Bakit pinagkasunduan at isinulat pa kundi rin lang bibigyan pahalaga? Papaano pong makapagsasabi ang SHELL ng REDUNDANCY habang ang mg trabahong ginagawa namin ay kanilang ipinakokontrata? Yan po isang malinaw na paglabag sa aming kasunduan at ang REDUNDANCY ay isang malaking kabulaanan.

11.5 Gaya po, pambungad na pananalita sa bilang 11, ang "management prerogatives" ay may hangganan. Hindi po maaring gamitin ang "management prerogatives" kung ito ay magdudulot ng ibayong pinsala, kahihiyan at pagkawasak ng dignidad ng isang kawani. Ang ginawang "rating" ng kumpanya sa aking pagtupad ng tungkulin at ang pangangalandakan at pagsasapubliko ng naturang rating, at ang pagkakait sa aking bigyang daan ang isang hearing para sa aking petisyon para sa salary rate adjustment, bagaman ito ay mga "management prerogatives" ngunit hindi naman sumunod sa itinatadhana ng "1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION, Art. II : Declaration of Principles and State Policies, Section 11" na nagsabi ng ganito : "The state values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights." Ibig sabihin nito ay pinahahalagahan ng estado ang dignidad ng bawat tao ang pangangalagaan nito ang lubusang pag-galang sa karapatang pantao. Ang intentional na hindi pagdinig sa petisyon for salary adjustment at ginawang "performance rating" ng mga supervisor na sunod sunuran lang nais mangyari ng namamahala ay lubhang nagpakita ng walang pakundangang pag-gamit ng "management prerogatives" ay nagbunga ng pagyurak sa aking karapatang pantao ; pagsira sa aking pagkatao, dignidad at kawalan ng pagkakataong makatagpo muli ng trabaho gamit ang parehong karanasan sa industriya ng langis. Nararapat lamang na ito ay bigyan ng katarungan at patawan ng tumpak na kaparusahan o penalty ang panig na may kagagawan nito.

Karagdagan pa rito ay ang katotohanang bukod sa sunod sunurang supervisor ang gagawa ng "rating" ay alam ng SHELL na hindi ako makakakilos upang depensahan ang aking sarili dahil sa naipabatid ko na sa kanila na iligal ang redundancy program ng kumpanya at ang pag-gawa ng rating ay bunga ng isang iligal na kadahilanan, na magiging bunga noon ay isang bagay na iligal din. Alam nilang hindi ako makakakontra o maka-ayon sa pag-gawa ng rating. Dahil sa alam nila na di-lingid sa akin na iyon ay isang patibong, na ang aking pakikilahok ay " would ligitimize the redundancy program". Sinamantala nila ang pagkakataon; nilait na nila ako ng walang kalaban-laban. Inuulit ko po, ang paggawa nila ng rating, bukod sa intensyong hiyain ako, ay may kaakibat na patibong na kung sakaling magkamali akong depensahan ang aking sarili ay magiging sanhi iyon ng aking lubusang partisipasyon sa paggawa ng rating at mangangahulugan nang pagtanggap ko sa legalidad ng redundancy program na sa totoo lang ay iligal na sa simula pa lamang. Tiniis ko na lang po, Kagalangalang na Chief Justice, Your Honors, ang kahihiyan kaysa sa ako ay mapaglalangan.

11.6 Atin pong suriin, Kagalanggalang na Chief Justice, Your Honors, noong ako ang piliing tanggalin sa trabaho na, ang dahilan ay poorest work performer ako, at ibinigay nila sa akin ang aking RETIREMENT PAY. Makalipas ang may ilang buwan ay binigyan naman nila ako ng PERFORMANCE RELATED BONUS. Ang bonus pong ito ay ibinigay dahil sa maganda po ang aking job performance. Papaano pong kung totoo ang job performance rating na ginawa ng mga supervisor na poorest work performer ako, ay bakit pa binigyan ako ng PERFORMANCE RELATED BONUS ganong marami ang nagrereklamo na hindi nabigyan nito? Inconsistent, hindi po ba?

Lumilitaw po ang katotohanang ginawa ang rating na may intensyon na idiin lang, na ako ang nararapat alisin. Dahil dito ay lubos akong naniniwala sa ipinagtapat sa akin ng ilang supervisor na malalapit sa akin, na buong kahihiyan humingi ng paumanhin sa akin na wala silang magawa kundi sundin kung ano ang utos ni boss, na ako ang dapat maalis. Sila ay pawang tulad ni Pontio Pilato na naghugas ng kanilang mga kamay, wala silang kasalanan sa naging bunga ng pag-gawa ng rating na iyon. Hindi po ako nagalit o naghinanakit sa kanila, inunawa ko po ang katayuan nila. Magkaganoon man mga kaibigan pa rin ang turing ko sa kanila.

12. Sa panahon po ngayong nagugumon ang ating bayan sa umaalingasaw na kabulukan sa mga sistema ng lipunan at pamahalaan, tigmak sa mga kaganapang nalalampungan ng dambuhalang korupsyon at kabuktutan, na noong bandang nakaraan ay hindi ko lubos na paniwalaan na tunay na nagaganap sa ating bayan, hanggang sa unti-unting pag-usad ng panahon, pagkatapos sa aking mapait na karanasan na dinanas ko sa mga pinuno ng kumpanya at ng aming unyon noong panahong iyon at maging sa mga pinagdaanang hukuman ng asuntong ito ay napagtanto ko na ang dambuhalang nabanggit ko ay mukhangkumikilos upang lapain ako; kumikilos habang ang natitirang huling pintig ng aking pag-asa ay tuluyan nang maglaho at ang huling pako para sa kabaong na pinag-silidan ng katotohanan at katarungan na matagal ko nang inasam-asam at ipinaglaban ay nakaambang itusok na. Opo, Kagalang-galang na Chief Justice, Your Honors, nakaambang itutusok na. Kagalang-galang na Chief Justice, mga Huwes na bumubuo sa Bantayog ng Katarungan ng ating dakilang bayang Pilipinas, na pinagbuwisan ng pawis, luha at dugo ng mga taong nagpakabayaning tumayo at nahandusay sa ngalan ng katarungan, sa kapakanan ng ating bayan, ang pagpapakumbaba pong paki-usap ko : Pagpaumanhinan na po ninyo ang aking munting pagkukulang at sa halip ay malasin ninyo, una, ang pagsusumikap ng aming buong mag-anak na ipaglaban ang aking karapatan sa abot ng aming makakayanan, sa kabila ng mga balakid at ikalawa, ang mga katotohanang naging sanhi ng petisyong ito. Minamahal kong Chief Justice, ngayong pagkakataong ito ay bumubukal sa ngilid ng aking mga mata ang butil butil na luha na habang pumapatak sa aking dibdib tapat ng aking puso ay nasambit ko ang dalangin sa Diyos na Makapangyarihan na sana ang mga luhang ito ay magsilbing panghugas sa mga limatik na nalikha ng dambuhalang korupsyon at kabuktutan. Naway ang mga luhang ito ay maging pandilig at magbigay buhay muli sa ilang mga halaman sa Hardin ng Katarungan na tinuyot, sinalanta ng tampalasang dambuhalang korupsyon at kabuktutan.

Minamahal na Chief Justice at Kagalanggalang na mga Hukum, muli po ang aking paala-ala, ang kabaong na nais nilang lagyan ng huling pako at ilagak sa kailaliman ng lupa ay naglalaman ng HINDI PATAY kundi BUHAY na mga KATOTOHANAN. Mga KATOTOHANAN na nagpupumilit sumigaw ng katarungan na sa kasalukuyan ay nabusalan ng mga taong marunong bumasa at nakaririnig, ngunit hindi nakakaunawa at nagbibingibingihan; mga dalubhasa, ngunit nagmamaang-maangan.

Ang samo ko po, iligtas po natin ang KATOTOHANAN.

Kagalagalang na Chief Justice at Kapitapitagang mga Huwes ng First Division ng Supreme Court, sana po naman ay pagbigyan ninyo ang aking mga hinaing. Sana po ay muli pong mapag-aralan ang asuntong ito na busog sa katotohanan at merito.

Bilang pangwakas, Mahal na Chief Justice, Your Honors, mangyari pong ibahagi ko sa inyo ang ilang aral mula sa po sa Holy Bible, JOHN 8:31 to 32 :

31 To the Jews who had believed Him, Jesus said, " If you hold on to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

Tunay po, ang katotohanan, TRUTH, ang magpapalaya sa atin, wala pong pagdududa tayo roon, NGUNIT , kung ang KATOTOHANAN ang siyang may busal at nakagapos, paano pa kaya tayong mapapalaya nito? Kung siya po ang siyang bilanggo, sino pa pong magpapalaya sa atin? Ang samo ko po ay, tanggalin po natin ang kanyang gapos at siya palayain. Iligtas po natin ang KATOTOHANAN, para po sa akin, sa aming mag-anak, sa mga kawawang kawani ng SHELL, sa mga manggagawa, sa INANG BAYAN NATING PILIPINAS at higit sa lahat, alang-alang sa DIYOS NA PINAKAMAKAPANGYARIHAN SA LAHAT.

Marami pong salamat.

Lubos na gumagalang,

ANTONIO L. BUENSUCESO JR.
Petitioner


mga pinagkalooban ng sipi:

1. Hon. Reynato Puno
CHIEF JUSTICE
SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES
MANILA

2. Hons. Justices of the FIRST DIVISION
SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES
MANILA (8 COPIES)

3.
COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA

4. NLRC

5. Atty. Raul Quiros
156 Valero St.
Makati City

6. Angara etc. Law firm

7. Hon. Francis 'Chiz' Escudero
SENATOR
SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES

8. PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER
Editorial Board

9. MIKE ENRIQUEZ
IMBESTIGADOR
GMA NEWS

10. HENRY OMAGA DIAZ
XXX
ABS-CBN News

11. Commission on Human Rights

12. Integrated Bar of the Philippines

13. DEAN
UP COLLEGE OF LAW

14. PRESIDENT
Trade Union Congress of the Philippines

15. PRESIDENT
Kilusang Mayo Uno


16. Other News Organizations and
Other Cause Oriented Groups