Anak-Pawis: PH wealth shared by 50 families only

SOKOR: Pinoy cops killed kidnap victim

188 cops face dismissal for drug use

Trillanes, Zubiri exchange barbs over BI bribery

Trillanes charges versus Duterte recycled – Malacanang

ASG cannot be solved by military alone – AFP

DND: Fight versus kidnap groups to keep on

Marcos only speculating on poll fraud – VP Robredo

LP solons to jam death bill

Beep card to counter overcharging in PUVs – legal group


Cabinet ‘triumvirate’ accused of blocking DAR plans

Legazpi City (Jan. 17, 2017) – A party-list representative accused three cabinet members of stalling plans of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) in its efforts to attain a genuine program for the Filipino farmers.



Rep. Ariel Casilao of Anak-Pawis particularly named Sec. Ernesto Pernia of the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), Sec. Benjamin Diokno of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) and Sec. Carlos Dominguez of the Department of Finance (DOF).

Casilao said that the proposal of DAR Sec. Rafael Mariano to impose a moratorium on land conversion, among others, had been allegedly opposed time and again by these three secretaries.

Based on the DAR secretary’s argument, the continuous conversion of agricultural lots into other uses have significantly decreased not only the opportunities of farmers to own land but also agricultural production as well.

Casilao explained it was a positive move on Pres. Duterte’s side to appoint a DAR secretary who understood the issues.

This however, would have little bearing if there are so-called economic managers who think otherwise.

The militant legislator pointed out that seven out of 10 Filipino farmers still do not own the land they are tilling.

At the moment, according to Casilao, genuine land reform advocates are scrambling to have new law passed since RA 6657 or The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 had already outlived its purpose.

The legislator lamented that it was a failure of a law.

So far, several solons have already seen the need to pass a new law to continue the reforms.

They are, pessimistic however if this move would even be considered by the cabinet or the so-called super majority in the House of Representatives. (J. Garalde)



PH files ‘quiet protest’ on Chinese arms in WPS

Solon: China military build-up vs. US not PH

25 hostages still held by ASG – AFP

Death Bill due for debates at Lower House

Umali: Death bill may pass in June

Efficient collection first before new tax imposition – HS Alvarez

EU to fund drug rehab programs in PH

Poverty in PH not resolved yet – DSWD

CA: Class suit vs. Marcoses can continue

Martial Law threat, display of anger – DOJ

Duterte erratic on Martial Law – Lagman

Legazpi City (Jan. 16, 2017) – “We cannot predict the authoritarian tendencies of the president.”


This was the response of opposition lawmaker Edcel Lagman of Albay when asked about the statements of Pres. Rodrigo Duterte about Martial Law.

The congressman said that the president is very inconsistent in his statements.

He pointed out that at first, Duterte announced that he does not need Martial Law.

Later, according to Lagman, the chief executive had a reversal when he said that nobody can stop him if he decided to declare Martial Law.

The Bicolano legislator described the Philippine president as a ‘menacing pendulum’ saying that the war on drugs cannot be a basis to declare military rule.

He emphasized that there is no provision in the Philippine Constitution justifying such declaration on the basis of the campaign against criminality.

With this, Lagman reminded the president that 74% of Filipinos are not in favour of the rebirth of Martial Law.

This is despite, according to him, the safeguards provided for in the 1987 Constitution.

On the other hand, Sec. Salvador Panelo was quick to defend the recent assertions of Pres. Duterte saying that it is the president’s constitutional duty to protect the welfare of the people and preserve the country.

The presidential legal counsel downplayed public apprehension saying that Martial Law was being considered only if the drug problem continues to worsen.

Otherwise, he said that there was nothing to worry about.

Panelo underlined that Duterte is not Marcos and if ever such a declaration is made, there are still conditions in the constitution that would protect the rights of the people.  (J. Garalde)



Free condoms for sexually active students only – DOH

NEDA calls on SC not to be swayed by Pro-Life

Duterte meets with mayors re: drug war

Narco govs next in Duterte sights

Hataman shuns narco cops moved to ARMM

16 PBs in Sorsogon City in narco list – source

Karapatan slams Duterte’s Martial Law threats

Duterte may meet Joma abroad

Italy to host next PH-NDF talks

MMDA, DPWH to sign new MOA on EDSA billboards

OPINION: The Pilferage of Patrimony (2nd of 2 parts) by VS Perdigon

On September 2-6, 2013 a roadshow was conducted in the 3 cities and 15 municipalities to present C2C and PSP to the people of Albay.


On Day 1 of the roadshow PSP was a mere motherhood.

As each day passed it copied C2C until on Day 5 PSP presenters were mouthing almost C2C.

Sec. Petilla assured equal use of funds and facilities but ALECO management used them solely for PSP.

The Secretary also assured non-interference from politicians but the latter usurped a large part of the speaking time.

The most obvious bias for PSP was manifested by Mayors John Dycoco of Libon and Noel Rosal of Legazpi.

They spoke in behalf of PSP presenters.

The referendum on C2C and PSP was held on September 14, 2013 but it was marred with vote-buying, voter hauling, voting center relocation and use of government vehicles in favor of PSP.

C2C advocates were informed by NEA two days prior that if they had complaints about the referendum a filing fee of P750, 000.00 must be paid.

When this matter was raised in subsequent occasions, a diocesan priest, blamed the pro-C2C.

He said, we had known all along that politicians had always bought votes in political exercises and still we engaged them in their own game.

Never mind that the Church has always spoken against vote-buying and never against its victims.

This time, the Diocese, through another priest, declared that if there was evidence, a case should be filed. The evidence was obtained by Fr. Mon Urizza, CSsR of the Redemptorist Church in Gogon, Legazpi City.

It was a video of a sample ballot with attached P20 shown to him by one voter who admitted it was given to him so that he would vote for PSP.

This time, the Diocese did not inquire motu proprio into the allegation of vote-buying.

It did not believe a priest who showed the evidence.

Instead, it obliged the pro-C2C to prove our case in court, as if it was still not seen how even the courts have been co-opted by the pro-PSP.

All these can be explained by the simple fact that the Bishop was the head of the ALECO Interim Board of Directors which NEA, on February 1, 2013 during a board meeting had coerced into choosing PSP.

Between September 14 and October 29, 2013 ALECO IBOD and SMC haggled on the content of the contract.

Six items in the Terms of Reference were revised in favor of SMC.

The worst revision is on the payment of the debt to PEMC.

According to Provision 7.2, ALECO is the one to pay instead of SMC.

ALECO will get the amount from 50% of a positive “net cash flow” every month.

The other 50% will be kept by SMC.

So, Albayanos were already burdened with debt but San Miguel Corporation schemed to profit from the payment of such debt!

To pay for the P4.05 B debt, Albayano consumers must generate P8.1 B.

The debt to PEMC has grown to P6.2 B but the source for the balance of P2.15 B is not specified in the CA and it will be added to P8.1 B for a total amount of P10.25 B!

PSP just increased the burden of Albayanos from P4.05 B in 2013 to P10.25 B in 2016!

That burden will continue to increase every month that there is no positive net cash flow.

The Concession Agreement was neither presented to voters nor ratified by ALECO member-consumers.

The referendum on September 14, 2013 cannot be the ratification because the document was non-existent at the time.

The Concession Agreement came into existence only on October 29, 2013.

A document that has not been written cannot be ratified as a baby who is not yet born cannot be baptized.

APEC of San Miguel Corporation was incorporated the following month, on November 19, 2013.

Today we know that PSP and APEC have no social acceptability.

That is something they cannot pilfer! (December 15, 2016)



news-plugsSolon studying abolition of BOC

DFA: SE Asia power balance stable with new PH foreign policy

DND to protest presence of Chinese research ships near  Malampaya

PH sea claim not abandoned – Sec. Lorenzana

Gabriela denounces commodification of women in beauty pageants

Ms. U pageant started as ploy for swimsuit sales – Gabriela

Rep. Quimbo slams tax increase proposal for beauty products

DOF surprised by proposed excise tax for cosmetics

PH should be ‘middle-income’ country by 2014 – DOF

No drugs, weapons found in latest Marikina jail search