Saturday, April 1, 2017
Calls asking “Can you hear me now?” | Consumer Information
"x x x.
Calls asking “Can you hear me now?”
March 21, 2017
by Alesha Hernandez
Consumer Education Specialist, FTC
Your phone rings and the caller ID shows a number you don’t know. You answer it anyway and hear, “Can you hear me now?” It’s a pre-recorded robocall – even though it sounds like a real person – and it’s illegal. We’ve heard from hundreds of people who have gotten calls like this.
Here’s what to do if you get a call from someone you don’t recognize asking, “Can you hear me?”:
Don’t respond, just hang up. If you get a call, don't press 1 to speak to a live operator or any other number to be removed from the list. If you respond in any way, it will probably just lead to more robocalls – and they’re likely to be scams.
Contact your phone provider. Ask your phone provider what services they provide to block unwanted calls.
Put your phone number on the Do Not Call registry. Access the registry online or by calling 1-888-382-1222. Callers who don’t respect the Do Not Call rules are more likely to be crooks.
File a complaint with the FTC. Report the experience online or call 1-877-382-4357."
“Ulol pala kayo. Mabuti magkababuyan na tayo dito. Eh ano? Di magbabuyan tayo araw-araw (You jerks. We’d be better off smearing each other here. We can do this every day),” - Duterte, "Father of the Nation".
"x x x.
The Philippine Daily Inquirer took exception to accusations. In a statement, Inquirer executive editor Jose Ma. Nolasco stressed that the paper, ever since its founding in 1985, had always aimed for “accuracy, fairness and balance in its reporting.”
Following is the full statement of the Inquirer on Duterte’s remarks:
The Philippine Daily Inquirer takes exception to President Duterte’s remarks that the newspaper has been unfair in its coverage of him and his administration.
Since its founding in 1985, the Inquirer has upheld the highest standards of excellence in journalism. Even as we’ve courageously pursued the truth in our coverage, we’ve endeavored to get the administration’s side of any controversy.
In fact, the Inquirer Opinion runs ‘’View from the Palace” every week, where Cabinet officials expound on and explain administration policy – and even the personality of the President himself.
The Inquirer’s wide readership and hundreds of awards, prizes and citations from prestigious organizations here and abroad attest to its adherence to accuracy, fairness and balance in its reporting.
JOSE Ma. NOLASCO
Executive Editor
President Rodrigo Duterte delivers his speech during the mass oath taking of appointed government officials and the Philippine Councilors League, Thursday, March 30,2017. INQUIRER PHOTO/JOAN BONDOC
Expletive-laden speeches
In two expletive-laden speeches in Malacañang, Duterte described the owners of the Inquirer and ABS-CBN as “oligarchs” and called them the scourges of society.
He said he understood the adversarial nature of journalism, but he could not accept “slanted” reports.
“Journalism is always antagonistic, but do not put too much slant [in the reports],” Duterte said in his second speech in the Palace during the awarding ceremonies of the Go Negosyo Inspiring Filipina Entrepreneurs. “You smell bad. The Prietos, the Lopezes – you’re full of shit,”
Media organizations, Duterte said, would publish anything they would be paid to publish.
“These rich people, you think they’re so honest, respected members of society. These sons of bitches are all about money. It’s true,” he said.
The first target of his tirade was the Inquirer, complaining about a what he called a “slanted” report published in the newspaper on his comments about the poor being killed in his bloody drug war.
“Look at the Inquirer,” he said in his first speech, during the oath-taking of his new appointees, including local officials. “What I’m saying is, they are the one ones saying I am killing the poor. Yesterday’s Inquirer was really bullshit, son of a bitch. It’s really garbage. Even during the elections.”
He also said he knew the Inquirer was supposed to be antagonistic. But he said it had “never been fair” to him.
He said he was not scaring the Inquirer, but it would meet its “karma” someday.
“Talagang mga walanghiya ang mga putanginang journalista na yan (These son-of-a-bitch journalists have no shame),” he added.
He then went on to include ABS-CBN in his rant.
“I will tell you: They really have no shame, including ABS-CBN,” he said.
He was also apparently angry at the reports by Inquirer and ABS-CBN during the 2016 election campaign about the allegations, coming from Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV, that he had P200 million in an undeclared bank account.
He went on to say that the media could request a statement from the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas about his accounts, and if he had P200 million, he would resign. If his children could also be proven to be involved in corruption, he would gladly step down as well, he added.
‘I will attack, even every day’
“That is the truth, Inquirer: You are bullshit, and also ABS-CBN,” he said. “ You put out garbage. Somebody should tell you now, you sons of bitches, you engaged in too much foolishness. Somebody should say: ‘You son of a bitch.” They might be afraid to say it. I will attack, even every day.”
He said would not hesitate to share his sentiments with the owners of the two media outfits.
“If I see you, the owner, I would go to you and and tell you: ‘You son of a bitch, you are rude’,” he said.
According to him, part of his regret at being president was the presence of members of the media who put out lies.
“If you ask me that I’m very happy to be president? Shit, I’m not,” he said. “I regret it. Because there are members of the press that, son of a bitch, know nothing but lies.”
The 72-year-old Duterte also railed at what he said was speculation that he was sick.
“There is a lot of speculation that I am sick. Why, did your grandfather not die?” he said.
“These sons of bitches are jerks. You Prietos, you Lopezes, did your grandfather live forever?” he went on to ask, addressing the owners of the Inquirer and ABS-CBN, respectively.
“Ulol pala kayo. Mabuti magkababuyan na tayo dito. Eh ano? Di magbabuyan tayo araw-araw (You jerks. We’d be better off smearing each other here. We can do this every day),” he added.
The only advantage of the media owners was that they were rich, he added.
He also said he could engage in tit-for-tat by coming up with his own daily program on PTV, the government TV network, where he would answer their statements against him.
“If you say in your editorial ‘you son of a bitch,’ I will also tell you, ‘you son of a bitch,’ so that we would be even,” he added.
He also threatened to dig into the lives of their children.
“Do not exceed your bounds,” he warned. “I would not go berserk, but I would give you your dues also.”
‘Passé in 30 years’
In attacking the Church, Duterte once more urged his audience to read the book “Altar of Secrets,” a book by investigative journaist Aries Rufo exposing the shenanigans within the church.
“If you tell me you’re still Catholic, I will be impressed with you,” he said. “That religion will become passé in the next 30 years.”
He said the abuses of the men of the cloth would come out. He also criticized priests for collecting money for the Church. There were also priests who were womanizing, he said.
‘It’s Duterte who’s rude’
Meanwhile, the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP) hit back at Duterte for his tirades against the media.
“Your incoherent and foul-mouthed rant against two of the country’s major media outfits – the Philippine Daily Inquirer and ABS-CBN – was not only unwarranted, it was absolutely twisted,” the NUJP said in a statement.
The president was the one who was rude, not the media agencies, NUJP said.
“It was a brazen abuse of your immense power as chief executive of this land and only shows how little, if any, appreciation you have of democracy and governance,”” it said.
“It is a mindset of the petty tyrant who mistakenly believes public office is an entitlement that allows you to flaunt the laws of the land that both grant you power and ensure the checks that prevent you from abusing that power,” it added.
It also said it would be futile to ask Duterte to apologize or to come to his senses.
But the independent media would not stop doing its job just because of his rants.
“But one thing we can assure you of, Sir, your curses and your threats cannot and will not prevent us, the community of independent Filipino journalists, from fulfilling our duty to inform the people as best we can of what is happening to our country, whether you agree with what we report or not,” NUJP said. /atm
x x x."
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook
Bishop warns against authoritarianism | Inquirer News
"x x x.
Philippine Daily Inquirer / 05:55 AM March 31, 2017
A Catholic bishop who was a member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission cautioned the public on Thursday against “gripping authoritarianism” under the Duterte administration.
Novaliches bishop emeritus Teodoro Bacani warned against President Duterte’s intention to postpone the barangay elections anew, and appoint instead of electing officials.
“We are becoming an authoritarian government. Slowly, that is gripping authoritarianism,” Bacani said in an interview over Church-run Radio Veritas.
He was reacting to moves to postpone the 2017 barangay elections anew and allow Duterte to appoint officials of his own choosing in the country’s 42,095 barangays. Mr. Duterte has said majority of barangay leaders elected were involved in illegal drugs.
Surigao del Norte Rep. Robert Ace Barbers earlier this week filed House bill 5359, seeking to defer the said polls to May 2020.
Bacani warned that the situation may soon lead to a full-blown dictatorship, especially with the President’s popularity.
“You will notice the people slowly being pushed towards authoritarianism, and the people will just agree. In the end, the president will turn out to be a dictator,” he said.
Bacani also objected to the plan to simply appoint barangay officials instead of electing them, as this will go against the basics of “elementary democracy.”
“It cannot be done through appointment, it’s not provided for in the law. That is elementary democracy. In the barangay, this is where we first choose our leaders,” he said.
“This is why the law mandates that people will choose, and not the President,” he said.
Poll body prepares
The Commission on Elections has issued its calendar of activities for the electoral exercise, releasing guidelines for the polls despite legislative efforts to stop it.
In its resolution number 10177, the poll body detailed the schedule of activities, such as the designated election and campaign periods and the filing of candidacy papers.
The resolution was dated March 28 and signed by Comelec chairperson Andres Bautista and all six poll commissioners.
If Barbers is successful in his law to stop the polls, it would be the second time that barangay elections are cancelled. President Duterte signed a law last year deferring the 2016 barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan elections to this year.
The body set for Oct. 23 this year the schedule for the barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan elections. It said the election period begins a month earlier, during which several acts are prohibited, including carrying of firearms.
The official campaign period will be from Oct. 13 to 21. All the candidates have until Nov. 22 to submit their Statements of Contributions and Expenditures.
x x x."
Follow us: @inquirerdotnet on Twitter | inquirerdotnet on Facebook
Section 60 of the Local Government Code conferred upon the courts the power to remove elective local officials from office
Read link -
"x x x.
The pivotal issue in this case is whether or not the Sangguniang Bayan may remove Martinez, an elective local official, from office. The pertinent legal provisions and cases decided by this Court firmly establish that the SanggunaingBayan is not empowered to do so.
Section 60 of the Local Government Code conferred upon the courts the power to remove elective local officials from office:
Section 60. Grounds for Disciplinary Actions.An elective local official may be disciplined, suspended, or removed from office on any of the following grounds:
x x x x.
An elective local official may be removed from office on the grounds enumerated above by order of the proper court. (Emphasis provided.)
x x x."
A proposed bill is not subject to judicial review because it is not a law. A proposed bill creates no right and imposes no duty legally enforceable by the Court. A proposed bill, having no legal effect, violates no constitutional right or duty. The Court has no power to declare a proposed bill constitutional or unconstitutional because that would be in the nature of rendering an advisory opinion on a proposed act of Congress. The power of judicial review cannot be exercised in vacuo. - Montesclaros vs Comelec : 152295 : July 9, 2002 : J. Carpio : En Banc
"x x x.
The Courts power of judicial review may be exercised in constitutional cases only if all the following requisites are complied with, namely: (1) the existence of an actual and appropriate case or controversy; (2) a personal and substantial interest of the party raising the constitutional question; (3) the exercise of judicial review is pleaded at the earliest opportunity; and (4) the constitutional question is the lis mota of the case.[21]
In the instant case, there is no actual controversy requiring the exercise of the power of judicial review. While seeking to prevent a postponement of the May 6, 2002 SK elections, petitioners are nevertheless amenable to a resetting of the SK elections to any date not later than July 15, 2002. RA No. 9164 has reset the SK elections to July 15, 2002, a date acceptable to petitioners. With respect to the date of the SK elections, there is therefore no actual controversy requiring judicial intervention.
Petitioners prayer to prevent Congress from enacting into law a proposed bill lowering the membership age in the SK does not present an actual justiciable controversy. A proposed bill is not subject to judicial review because it is not a law. A proposed bill creates no right and imposes no duty legally enforceable by the Court. A proposed bill, having no legal effect, violates no constitutional right or duty. The Court has no power to declare a proposed bill constitutional or unconstitutional because that would be in the nature of rendering an advisory opinion on a proposed act of Congress. The power of judicial review cannot be exercised in vacuo.[22] The second paragraph of Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution states
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, there can be no justiciable controversy involving the constitutionality of a proposed bill. The Court can exercise its power of judicial review only after a law is enacted, not before.
Under the separation of powers, the Court cannot restrain Congress from passing any law, or from setting into motion the legislative mill according to its internal rules. Thus, the following acts of Congress in the exercise of its legislative powers are not subject to judicial restraint: the filing of bills by members of Congress, the approval of bills by each chamber of Congress, the reconciliation by the Bicameral Committee of approved bills, and the eventual approval into law of the reconciled bills by each chamber of Congress. Absent a clear violation of specific constitutional limitations or of constitutional rights of private parties, the Court cannot exercise its power of judicial review over the internal processes or procedures of Congress.[23]
The Court has also no power to dictate to Congress the object or subject of bills that Congress should enact into law. The judicial power to review the constitutionality of laws does not include the power to prescribe to Congress what laws to enact. The Court has no power to compel Congress by mandamus to enact a law allowing petitioners, regardless of their age, to vote and be voted for in the July 15, 2002 SK elections. To do so would destroy the delicate system of checks and balances finely crafted by the Constitution for the three co-equal, coordinate and independent branches of government.
x x x."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)