Real estate regulations have already been put in place to reduce if not eradicate cases of land scams in the Philippines. Unfortunately, these regulations cannot deter scammers from victimizing individuals who only want to make a wise investment by means of purchasing real estate property. For unsuspecting buyers, being presented with a land title is enough to win their trust. What else could go wrong when buyers already see hard proof that a piece of land has undergone a correct legal process or so they thought.

With the alarming numbers of cases where hapless and unsuspecting victims fall prey to fake land title scams, being keen on land title details is a skill every land buyer should possess. If you have just caught a glimpse of what a land title looks like without taking some time to inspect every detail, you can subject yourself into a confusing situation once you are presented with a land title. However, when you arm yourself with appropriate knowledge on identifying fake from authentic land titles, then there is no reason you cannot be on the right track.

Check The Titles’ Physical Quality

One thing that sets authentic land titles from fake ones is their identifying marks. While fake titles may appear to be an exact replica of its authentic counterpart, there are physical qualities that make authentic land titles distinct. This means that no matter how skilled a scam artist may become in copying land title, they just cannot easily copy or duplicate the authentic land title’s physical quality.

Never mistake fake land titles for authentic ones by checking these following physical qualities:

•    The color of an old title is light yellow, but for new titles or e-Titles, the color should be pale straw.
•    The texture can be compared to a bank check.
•    Faint watermark that reads “LRA” can be seen on the title.
•    Dots and tiny fibers are visible.
•    The fibers shine slightly when under UV light.

There are also key details on the land title that must be present to verify its authenticity. An original certificate of title (OCT) should bear “Judicial Form No. 108-D” at the top. For a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT), it should have “Judicial Form No. 109-D”. A red serial number label and black for the owner’s duplicate must be present. For the last two digits of the page number, which can be found on the upper right hand side of the title, it should correspond to the last two digits of the TCT number. The red or blue border is slightly embossed and not flatly printed.

For e-Titles, the information should be encoded and printed. For both new and old titles, there should be a dark red seal on the lower left hand side that should not blot even when tested with a little amount of water.  The land title should consist of 2 signatures from the Administrator and the Registrar. However, the Registrar’s signature must be present in TCT. Administrative titles should bear one signature from CENRO or PENRO officer and another signature from the registrar.

Overseas Filipino Workers (OFW) who are trying their luck in other countries to seek greener pasture and to make dreams and aspirations of their family a reality always carry a heavy heart, knowing they are thousand miles away from their loved ones. Aside from taking advantage of modern technologies to speak with their loved ones, another way of showing their love is by means of sending Balikbayan boxes. It takes months to fill these boxes and raising tax-exempt value for these Balikbayan boxes is good news. Senator Ralph Recto authored Bill 2913 and before the bill was approved tax-exempt value only applied to boxes with contents more than P10,000.

OFW can also send two boxes at a time, but they must keep in mind that they can only enjoy this privilege up to three times in a calendar year. If an OFW sends two boxes which are not more than P150,000, these boxes are counted as one. Recto also reminds OFW that the boxes should only contain personal and household effects. They should not be intended for sale or barter.

Here is an overview of the bill’s explanatory note:

“Article XIII, Section 3 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution declared that the State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all. In recognition of this policy, Congress has enacted laws that  promote, protect and ensure full protection to Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs). In recognition of the significant contributions of OFWs and other Filipinos residing abroad to the Philippine economy through their foreign exchange remittances, the Government afforded some benefits and privileges to them such as those provided under the Republic Act No. 6768, as amended by Republic Act No. 9174, otherwise known as the "Balikbayan Program." Under the program, the "balikbayans" and their families shall be entitled to tax-exempt maximum purchase in the amount of One Thousand Five Hundred United States dollars (US$ 1,500.00) or its equivalent in Philippine peso and in other foreign currencies at all government-owned and-controlled/operated duty-free shops, and Kabuhayan shopping privilege and additional tax-exempt purchase in the maximum amount of Two Thousand United States dollars (US$ 2,000.00) or its equivalent in Philippine peso and other acceptable foreign currencies, exclusive for the purchase of livelihood tools at all government-owned and controlled/operated duty-free shops.

Section 105 (f) of the Tariff and Customs Code of the Philippines (TCCP), as amended by Executive Order No. 206, includes in the list of conditionally-free importations the personal and household effects of residents of the Philippines returning from abroad which shall neither be in commercial quantities nor intended for barter, sale or hire and that the total dutiable value of which shall not exceed Ten Thousand Pesos (10,000).”

Following the President’s veto of the bill, which proposed a P2000 hike, Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. seeks approval for a P1000 increase for the Social Security System (SSS) pensioners. This proposal can be carried out following the executive action. The passage of the bill will also accompany the proposal using the same powers vested in SSS and GSIS board. The bill that Belmonte was referring to, has already been approved on third and final reading, and just awaiting approval at the Senate.

The amendments of Republic Act No. 1162 or the Social Security Law is outlined in Sec. 12-B of the Presidential Decree No. 1636.

“Sec. 12-B.    Retirement benefits. —

(a) A covered employee who had paid at least one hundred twenty monthly contributions prior to the semester of retirement; and who (1) has reached the age of sixty years and is not receiving monthly compensation of at least three hundred pesos, or (2) has reached the age of sixty-five years, shall be entitled for as long as he lives to the monthly pension: Provided, That his dependents born before his retirement of a marriage subsisting when he was fifty-seven years old shall be entitled to the dependents' pension.

(b)    A covered member who is sixty years old at retirement and who does not qualify for pension benefits under paragraph (a) above, shall be entitled to a lump sum benefit equal to the total contributions paid by him and on his behalf; Provided, That he is separated from employment and is not continuing payment of contributions to the SSS on his own.

(c)    The monthly pension shall be reduced upon the re-employment of a retired employee who is less than sixty-five years old by an amount equivalent to one-half his earnings over three hundred pesos. He shall again be subject to section eighteen and his employer to section nineteen of this Act.

(d)    Upon the death of the retired employee pensioner, his primary beneficiaries shall be entitled to eighty percent of the monthly pension and his dependents to the dependent' pension: Provided, That if he has no primary beneficiaries and he dies within sixty months from the start of his monthly pension, his secondary beneficiaries shall be entitled to a lump sum benefit equivalent to the smaller of (1) twenty times the monthly pension or (2) the difference of sixty times the monthly pension and the total monthly pensions paid by the SSS excluding the dependents' pension."

The increasing number of vehicular accidents in the country is mainly due to the driver’s fault according to Land Transportation Office (LTO) statistics. In fact, about 80 percent of these accidents have been blamed on the driver’s carelessness. Is there any reason for the alarming increase of vehicular accidents? It all goes back to obtaining driver’s license where a series of tests is conducted to ensure that the driver is fit to drive. Unfortunately, “fixers” never cease to prey on people who want to take the shortest route for processing their application. This means, applicants no longer have to undergo the long and tedious process of undergoing medical, drug and driving tests.

Now, if these applicants have horrible eye sights, they will have trouble seeing traffic signs. Bypassing the drug test can also have a serious impact because letting users or pushers drive is already an accident waiting to happen. If an applicant undergoes the usual process for obtaining a license, they will also be required to take a written exam. Fixers already have pre-answered examination forms, which are given to the applicants who agree to the fixers’ terms.

The drivers, who have obtained their license legally, can go to war in full battle gear. They are prepared and well-trained because they know what to do. On the other hand, people who have only obtained their licenses with the help of fixers can be compared to a defenseless soldier. This is unfair to those who choose to wait for hours just to get their license. Imagine waiting in line while others have the ability to bypass these processes.

Aside from fixers, there are other problems that LTO has yet to face. How would you feel if your supposed sticker has not been registered or to put it bluntly, has been non-existent? You paid 50 pesos for the plate sticker in high hopes that your vehicle has been registered then lo and behold, you were duped!

Under the Aquino administration alone, LTO has already pocketed a whopping P410 million pesos from owners who are completely clueless. If you think the Bureau of Customs (BOC) and Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) are doing the corruption indiscreetly, LTO has just broken the record.  LTO owes every vehicle owner an explanation. For just 50pesos, this agency has pocketed 410 million pesos and to say they have ripped everyone off is indeed an understatement. LTO will not refund the money, but they cannot even explain where the money went. The reasons are esoteric and mysterious, or perhaps, like the plate stickers, non-existent.

People belonging to the working class often consider investing in a piece of real estate such as a condominium unit because of its flexible payment schemes that make everyone’s dream of owning a real estate property a reality. As you flip through the pages of the developer’s brochures or magazines, you are left in awe as the units epitomize the kind of modern life you want to live.

The price range of these condo units vary from location to location and while these infrastructures make a great investment, there are condo unit owners who had their own share of not-so-pleasant experiences of buying a condo unit.

What can be worse than condos that do not have parking slots? Some owners have to buy a separate lot that can accommodate their vehicle and this means shelling out vast amounts of money. Developers often overlook this one essential space that makes living in a condo more comfortable and hassle-free. Condo unit owners are not only ranting about the lack of parking slots but lost deposits as well.

Buying a condominium unit can be very tedious as you need to go through all kinds of problems and dealing with the agent is no exception. Finding out about lost deposits can burst one’s bubbles. This is why, buyers make it a point to follow up on the agent or track their purchase. These are just a few issues associated with buying a condo unit let alone living in it.

Republic Act No. 4726 Or The Condominium Act Is One Of The Laws Related To Condominium Ownership:

“Sec. 2. A condominium is an interest in real property consisting of separate interest in a unit in a residential, industrial or commercial building and an undivided interest in common, directly or indirectly, in the land on which it is located and in other common areas of the building. A condominium may include, in addition, a separate interest in other portions of such real property. Title to the common areas, including the land, or the appurtenant interests in such areas, may be held by a corporation specially formed for the purpose (hereinafter known as the "condominium corporation") in which the holders of separate interest shall automatically be members or shareholders, to the exclusion of others, in proportion to the appurtenant interest of their respective units in the common areas.”

Anti-pana law is one of the strangest laws that still exist up to this day. Perhaps, this law came to existence due to the number of “pana” incidents. This is still considered a deadly weapon and can be as dangerous as firearms. Now, there are people who use pana or arrow for livelihood and in this case, all they need to do is to secure a permit from the mayor in his city.

This law was made during the 1960s and this is referred to as the Republic Act No. 3553, or an Act to Prohibit the Possession of Deadly Arrow.

“Section 1. Any person who possesses a deadly arrow or "pana" without permit from a city, municipal, or municipal district mayor, shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of not less than thirty days nor more than six months. The phrase "deadly arrow or 'pana'" as used in this Act means any arrow or dart that when shot from a blow or slingshot can cause injury or death of a person.

Section 2. Any city, municipal or municipal district mayor may issue a permit to any individual to possess a deadly arrow or "pana" if such is to be used to earn a livelihood for such individual.

Section 3. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

Approved: June 21, 1963”

In the previous years, the election period starts in February, but it comes a month earlier this year. This means rules and regulations under Section 3 of the Omnibus Election Code (OEC) commences on January 10, which is 30 days in advance.

From January 10 to June 8, 2016, these following acts are prohibited:

•    Suspension of elective local officials;
•    bearing firearms and other deadly weapons, unless authorized by the Comelec, this is also referred to as the gun ban;
•    organization of reaction forces, strike forces, etc;
•    alteration of territory of a precinct, or the establishment of a new precinct;
•    use of security personnel/bodyguards by candidates, unless authorized by the Comelec;
•    transfer or movement of officers and employees in the civil service.

If one of these prohibitions is violated, it can be a ground for disqualification in case the offender is running for an elective public office.

The prohibited acts can be found under Section 261 of the Omnibus Election Code:

“Sec. 261. Prohibited Acts. - The following shall be guilty of an election offense:

a. Vote-buying and vote-selling.
1.      Any person who gives, offers or promises money or anything of value, gives or promises any office or employment, franchise or grant, public or private, or makes or offers to make an expenditure, directly or indirectly, or cause an expenditure to be made to any person, association, corporation, entity, or community in order to induce anyone or the public in general to vote for or against any candidate or withhold his vote in the election, or to vote for or against any aspirant for the nomination or choice of a candidate in a convention or similar selection process of a political party.

2.     Any person, association, corporation, group or community who solicits or receives, directly or indirectly, any expenditure or promise of any office or employment, public or private, for any of the foregoing considerations.
b.    Conspiracy to bribe voters. - Two or more persons, whether candidates or not, who come to an agreement concerning the commission of any violation of paragraph (a) of this section and decide to commit it.

c.    Wagering upon result of election. - Any person who bets or wagers upon the outcome of, or any contingency connected with an election. Any money or thing of value or deposit of money or thing of value situated anywhere in the Philippines put as such bet or wager shall be forfeited to the government.

 d.   Coercion of subordinates.

1.    Any public officer, or any officer of any public or private corporation or association, or any head, superior, or administrator of any religious organization, or any employer or land-owner who coerces or intimidates or compels, or in any manner influence, directly or indirectly, any of his subordinates or members or parishioners or employees or house helpers, tenants, overseers, farm helpers, tillers, or lease holders to aid, campaign or vote for or against any candidate or any aspirant for the nomination or selection of candidates.

2.    Any public officer or any officer of any commercial, industrial, agricultural, economic or social enterprise or public or private corporation or association, or any head, superior or administrator of any religious organization, or any employer or landowner who dismisses or threatens to dismiss, punishes or threatens to punish be reducing his salary, wage or compensation, or by demotion, transfer, suspension, separation, excommunication, ejectment, or causing him annoyance in the performance of his job or in his membership, any subordinate member or affiliate, parishioner, employee or house helper, tenant, overseer, farm helper, tiller, or lease holder, for disobeying or not complying with any of the acts ordered by the former to aid, campaign or vote for or against any candidate, or any aspirant for the nomination or selection of candidates.

e. Threats, intimidation, terrorism, use of fraudulent device or other forms of coercion. - Any person who, directly or indirectly, threatens, intimidates or actually causes, inflicts or produces any violence, injury, punishment, damage, loss or disadvantage upon any person or persons or that of the immediate members of his family, his honor or property, or uses any fraudulent device or scheme to compel or induce the registration or refraining from registration of any voter, or the participation in a campaign or refraining or desistance from any campaign, or the casting of any vote or omission to vote, or any promise of such registration, campaign, vote, or omission therefrom.

f. Coercion of election officials and employees. - Any person who, directly or indirectly, threatens, intimidates, terrorizes or coerces any election official or employee in the performance of his election functions or duties.”

The detailed list of prohibited acts can be found in the official website of Comelec.

The reported cases of passengers being harassed by rude taxi drivers are increasing and while some passengers choose to keep silent, one passenger posted a video of an enraged cab driver who went ballistic when the passenger refused to give in to the amount he demanded. Joanne Garcia expressed her discontentment and anger by posting the video she took herself. The video that Garcia took went viral but this is just a snippet of the altercation that took place. According to her, the cab driver asked her to pay a fixed rate of P250 but she insisted on using a taxi meter.

Garcia assumed that she and the cab driver have already agreed to use the taxi meter instead of paying a fixed rate. However, upon the passengers’ arrival at POEA, the meter is at P140. She paid P200 and asked for her change. That was when the cab driver started cursing at Garcia and her companion demanding a much higher amount. The part when Catipay curses at Garcia and her companion have been caught in the video.

She also suspects Catipay of taking drugs during that time. The Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) had served summon for the cab driver and the operator, Ariel Gamboa on January 5. They appeared before LTFRB on January 6 and required to explain why the franchise should not be cancelled in spite of the violations they committed to the passenger such as harassment, overcharging of fare, contracting passenger and threatening of passenger. The video only revealed a portion of the altercation and according to Garcia, Catipay threatened to hurt her if she did not leave the cab. Catipay also refused to take a drug test and denied being high on drugs when the incident happened. The matter will be discussed on January 12 to dig deeper into Garcia’s complaint.

Bill of Rights 2152 aims to put a stop on cab drivers who unscrupulously prey on unsuspecting passengers:

“this bill seeks to clearly enumerate and establish the rights of taxi passengers and the responsibilities of taxi drivers and operators. Moreover, it also seeks to support current provisions of the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board in determining the system and proper avenue for passengers to file their complaints with regard to their rights that are violated. “

Drivers and operators who violate any of the provisions Under Section 3 shall be meted a fine and/or a penalty, depending on the degree of offense:

“a. First Offense. - A minimum fine of Five Hundred Pesos (P500,00) but not to exceed Two Thousand pesos (P2,000.00);

b. Second Offense. -  A minimum fine of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) but not to exceed Five Thousand pesos (P5,000.00);

c. Third and Succeeding Offenses. -   A minimum of Three Thousand pesos (P3,000.00) but not to exceed Ten Thousand pesos (10,000.00) and the suspension of the driver's license and/or the Certificate of public Convenience for a period of one (1) week. “

Aside from the worsening traffic condition in Metro Manila, air pollution is another problem that continues to plague city dwellers. In answer to the growing concern on air pollution, a lawmaker proposed House Bill 6298, which will be in conjunction with Section 46 of Republic Act 8749 or better known as the Philippine Clean Air Act of 1999. The current version aims to penalize both operators and drivers of smoke belching vehicles. The proposed amendment shifts its focus to the operators since the drivers are just employees and they do not have access or proper means for vehicle repairs according to Quezon City Rep. Alfredo Vargas lll.

Vargas also emphasizes the role of operators in repairing or replacing parts that can be detrimental to passing the emission standards. The fines range from 2000 to 6000, and an additional one-year suspension of the motor vehicle registration (MVR) once offense has been committed for the third time. In the proposed amendment, the fines will range from 6000 to 10000 and a one-year suspension of MVR. Vargas also cited that one of the biggest factors Metro Manila continues to have poor air quality is the air pollution from the motor vehicles.

Here’s an overview Sec. 46 of the Philippine Clean Air Act:

SEC. 46. Violation of Standards for Motor Vehicles.- No motor vehicle shall be registered with the DOTC unless   it meets the emission standards set by the Department as provided in Sec. 21 hereof.

Any vehicle suspected of violation of emission standards through visual signs, such as, but not limited to   smoke-belching, shall be subjected to an emission test by a duly authorized emission testing center. For this   purpose, the DOTC or its authorized testing center shall establish a roadside inspection system. Should it be   shown that there was no violation of emission standards, the vehicle shall be immediately released. Otherwise, a testing result indicating an exceedance of the emission standards would warrant the continuing custody of   the impounded vehicle unless the appropriate penalties are fully paid, and the license plate is surrendered to the DOTC pending the fulfillment of the undertaking by the owner/operator of the motor vehicle to make the   necessary repairs so as to comply with the standards. A pass shall herein be issued by the DOTC to authorize   the use of the motor vehicle within a specified period that shall not exceed seven (7) days for the sole purpose   of making the necessary repairs on the said vehicle. The owner/operator of the vehicle shall be required to   correct its defects and show proof of compliance to the appropriate pollution control office before the vehicle   can be allowed to be driven on any public or subdivision roads.

In addition, the driver and operator of the apprehended vehicle shall undergo a seminar on pollution control   management conducted by the DOTC and shall also suffer the following penalties:

    a) First Offense - a fine not to exceed Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00);

    b) Second Offense - a fine not less than Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) and not to exceed Four
    Thousand Pesos (P4,000.00); and

    c) Third offense - one (1) year suspension of the Motor Vehicle Registration (MVR) and a fine of not less than   Four Thousand Pesos (P4,000.00) and not more than Six thousand pesos (P6,000.00).

Any violation of the provisions of Sec. 21 paragraph (d) with regard to national inspection and maintenance   program, including technicians and facility compliance shall penalized with a fine of not less than Thirty   Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) or cancellation of license of both the technician and the center, or both, as   determined by the DTI.

All law enforcement officials and deputized agents accredited to conduct vehicle emissions testing and   apprehensions shall undergo a mandatory training on emission standards and regulations. For this purpose,   the Department, together with the DOTC, DTI, DOST, Philippine National Police (PNP) and other concerned   agencies and private entities shall design a training program.

Since divorce is not yet legalized in the Philippines, annulment is the only option for couples who want to go separate ways. However, annulment is a long, tedious and expensive process. This is why there are couples who choose to stay married even when they are no longer living under one roof. However, some anomalies have recently surfaced revealing bogus court decisions. The Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) considered this issue a cause for alarm.

The PSA is responsible for changing the status of the petitioner once a court decision has been made. Once the civil registry files have been updated, an annotated marriage certificate will be issued and the details of the proceedings can be found on the right-hand side of the document. The annotated marriage certificate is used for processing various documents including a fiancée visa or a passport.

Among 100 documents that have been verified, only five of them are considered correct. Aurelia Alido, a registration officer of PSA court urges the courts to ensure that all decisions are authentic. It should bear the civil case number and registered in court dockets. The judge should be the one to issue the decision according to Alido. If the annotated marriage certificate does not have the judge’s signature, it only means that the case does not exist. When applying for a fiancée visa, the embassies also verify the applications with the PSA and the process involves checking the civil registry documents’ transaction code.

There are also cases when marriage certificates are being pulled out from civil registry files as though marriage never happened. Fixers continue to prey on potential victims who want to end an unsuccessful marriage. Since everything has gone digital, the files have already been stored in a database and deleting or pulling out marriage certificates is not going to nullify marriages.

People who are found guilty of faking court documents violate Article 171 and 172  of the Revised Penal Code:

Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastical minister. – The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed P5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a document by committing any of the following acts:

4.  Making untruthful statements in narration of facts;

Art. 172. Falsification by private individual and use of falsified documents. – The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than P5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon:

1.      Any private individual who shall commit any of the falsifications enumerated in the next preceding article in any public or official document or letter of exchange or any other kind of commercial document; and

2.      Any person who, to the damage of a third party, or with the intent to cause such damage, shall in any private document commit any of the acts of falsification enumerated in the next preceding article.

Have you already come across one law that allows a person to file charges to annoying people? This law, aside from being tongue-in-cheek, is rather ambiguous as it lacks specific definition. Unlike other laws that prohibit a person to do this and that, unjust vexation seems to send mixed signals that only bring confusion to people. It is considered a catch-all provision, because it has no specific meaning that will clearly provide laymen a deeper and better understanding of the law.

For instance, if you find your neighbour annoying and what he/she does violates this law, he will be “punished by arresto menor or a fine ranging from 5 pesos to 200 pesos, or both.” There are various cases in which this ambiguous law has been applied, but its lack of specific definition will make one wonder whether they are already crossing the lines or not. For instance, a person can be convicted of unjust vexation for simply interrupting or disturbing a ceremony of a religious character.

This law can be found in Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code:

" Art. 287. Light coercions. — Any person who, by means of violence, shall seize anything belonging to his debtor for the purpose of applying the same to the payment of the debt, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period and a fine equivalent to the value of the thing, but in no case less than 75 pesos.

Any other coercions or unjust vexations shall be punished by arresto menor or a fine ranging from 5 pesos to 200 pesos, or both."

A raid was conducted on December 21, 2015 on New Bilibid Prison’s maximum security compound. This is already the ninth raid conducted at the Bilibid Prison, but the premise never fails to provide more surprises. While being incarcerated can be very depressing as prisoners are deprived of the freedom that only the outside world offers, discovering two swimming pools and a hidden lounge within New Bilibid Prison’s premise will make you think otherwise. However, the luxurious lifestyle and lavish spending are only experienced by prisoners who have vast amounts of cash.

The raid is a blunt reminder that something needs to be done and while these prisoners continue to enjoy unlimited supply of contraband, people just cannot help but wonder where justice really went or if such really existed. Who wouldn’t be surprised to discover huge quantities of illegal drugs, firearms electronic gadgets, air conditioners, flat-screen TV and other facilities that can provide convenience? The kind of lifestyle that some of these prisoners continue to enjoy is tantamount to staying in a luxurious hotel and other types of accommodation.  How can these be possible when the persons who were appointed to impose discipline are not doing their job? High-profile inmates continue to enjoy luxurious lifestyles while the rest turn green with envy.

The Bureau of Corrections also confiscated hamsters and aquarium fish. According to Rainier Cruz, director of Bureau of Corrections, the BuCor employees are the ones who file requests for the appliances and this is the reason why some of the televisions, freezers and refrigerators bore BuCor equipment stickers.  The New Bilibid Prison violates a vast range of laws including Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

The definition of this Act can be found in Section 3.

(a) Administer. – Any act of introducing any dangerous drug into the body of any person, with or without his/her knowledge, by injection, inhalation, ingestion or other means, or of committing any act of indispensable assistance to a person in administering a dangerous drug to himself/herself unless administered by a duly licensed practitioner for purposes of medication.

(b) Board. - Refers to the Dangerous Drugs Board under Section 77, Article IX of this Act.

(c) Centers. - Any of the treatment and rehabilitation centers for drug dependents referred to in Section 34, Article VIII of this Act.

(d) Chemical Diversion. – The sale, distribution, supply or transport of legitimately imported, in-transit, manufactured or procured controlled precursors and essential chemicals, in diluted, mixtures or in concentrated form, to any person or entity engaged in the manufacture of any dangerous drug, and shall include packaging, repackaging, labeling, relabeling or concealment of such transaction through fraud, destruction of documents, fraudulent use of permits, misdeclaration, use of front companies or mail fraud.

(e) Clandestine Laboratory. – Any facility used for the illegal manufacture of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical.

(f) Confirmatory Test. – An analytical test using a device, tool or equipment with a different chemical or physical principle that is more specific which will validate and confirm the result of the screening test.

(g) Controlled Delivery. – The investigative technique of allowing an unlawful or suspect consignment of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical, equipment or paraphernalia, or property believed to be derived directly or indirectly from any offense, to pass into, through or out of the country under the supervision of an authorized officer, with a view to gathering evidence to identify any person involved in any dangerous drugs related offense, or to facilitate prosecution of that offense.

(h) Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. – Include those listed in Tables I and II of the 1988 UN Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances as enumerated in the attached annex, which is an integral part of this Act.

(i) Cultivate or Culture. – Any act of knowingly planting, growing, raising, or permitting the planting, growing or raising of any plant which is the source of a dangerous drug.

(j) Dangerous Drugs. – Include those listed in the Schedules annexed to the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, as amended by the 1972 Protocol, and in the Schedules annexed to the 1971 Single Convention on Psychotropic Substances as enumerated in the attached annex which is an integral part of this Act.

(k) Deliver. – Any act of knowingly passing a dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise, and by any means, with or without consideration.

(l) Den, Dive or Resort. – A place where any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical is administered, delivered, stored for illegal purposes, distributed, sold or used in any form.

(m) Dispense. – Any act of giving away, selling or distributing medicine or any dangerous drug with or without the use of prescription.

(n) Drug Dependence. – As based on the World Health Organization definition, it is a cluster of physiological, behavioral and cognitive phenomena of variable intensity, in which the use of psychoactive drug takes on a high priority thereby involving, among others, a strong desire or a sense of compulsion to take the substance and the difficulties in controlling substance-taking behavior in terms of its onset, termination, or levels of use.

(o) Drug Syndicate. – Any organized group of two (2) or more persons forming or joining together with the intention of committing any offense prescribed under this Act.

(p) Employee of Den, Dive or Resort. – The caretaker, helper, watchman, lookout, and other persons working in the den, dive or resort, employed by the maintainer, owner and/or operator where any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical is administered, delivered, distributed, sold or used, with or without compensation, in connection with the operation thereof.

(q) Financier. – Any person who pays for, raises or supplies money for, or underwrites any of the illegal activities prescribed under this Act.

(r) Illegal Trafficking. – The illegal cultivation, culture, delivery, administration, dispensation, manufacture, sale, trading, transportation, distribution, importation, exportation and possession of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical.

(s) Instrument. – Any thing that is used in or intended to be used in any manner in the commission of illegal drug trafficking or related offenses.

(t) Laboratory Equipment. – The paraphernalia, apparatus, materials or appliances when used, intended for use or designed for use in the manufacture of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical, such as reaction vessel, preparative/purifying equipment, fermentors, separatory funnel, flask, heating mantle, gas generator, or their substitute.

(u) Manufacture. – The production, preparation, compounding or processing of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical, either directly or indirectly or by extraction from substances of natural origin, or independently by means of chemical synthesis or by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis, and shall include any packaging or repackaging of such substances, design or configuration of its form, or labeling or relabeling of its container; except that such terms do not include the preparation, compounding, packaging or labeling of a drug or other substances by a duly authorized practitioner as an incident to his/her administration or dispensation of such drug or substance in the course of his/her professional practice including research, teaching and chemical analysis of dangerous drugs or such substances that are not intended for sale or for any other purpose.

It has been a yearly tradition for most Pinoys to celebrate New Year using firecrackers and other pyrotechnic devices. The celebration is not enough without the presence of firecrackers. Unfortunately, there are people who do not know their limitations in spite of repetitive reminders on televisions and radios on the responsible use of firecrackers. While firecrackers are only dangerous if in the wrong hands, there are still people who prefer prohibited firecrackers over safer ones, unperturbed to the fact that they could hurt another person due to their irresponsible use.

The Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7183 or An Act Regulating the Sale, Manufacture, Distribution and Use of Firecrackers and Other Pyrotechnic Devices outlines the types of firecrackers and other pyrotechnic devices that are prohibited:

Sec. 2. Types of Firecrackers and Pyrotechnic Devices Allowed in this Act. — The following common types of firecrackers and pyrotechnic devices may be manufactured, sold, distributed and used:

 A. Firecrackers:

(1) Baby rocket — A firecracker with a stick so constructed that lighting of the wick will propel the whole thing to lift a few meters before  exploding. The firecracker is about 1 ½ inches in length by 3/8 inch in diameter while the stick is about a foot in length; 

(2) Bawang — A firecracker larger than a triangulo with 1/3 teaspoon of powder packed in cardboard tied around with abaca strings and wrapped in shape of garlic;

(3) Small triangulo — A firecracker shaped like a triangle with powder content less than the bawang and usually wrapped in brown paper measuring ¾ inch length in its longest side;

(4) Pulling of strings — A firecracker consisting of a small tube about an inch in length and less than ¼ of an inch in diameter with strings on each end. Pulling both strings will cause the firecracker to explode;

(5) Paper caps — Minute amount of black powder spread in either small strips of paper on a small sheet used for children's toy guns;

(6) El diablo — Firecrackers tubular in shape about 1 ¼ inches in length and less than ¼ inch in diameter with a wick; also known as labintador;

(7) Watusi — Usually reddish in color about 1 ½ inches in length and 1/10 inch in width usually ignited by friction to produce a dancing movement and a crackling sound;

(8) Judah's belt — A string of firecrackers consisting of either diablos or small triangulos that can number up to a hundred or thereabout and culminating in large firecracker usually a bawang;

(9) Sky rocket (kwitis) — A large version of a baby rocket designed to be propelled to a height of forty (40) to fifty (50) feet before exploding;

(10) Other types equivalent to the foregoing in explosive content.

B. Pyrotechnic Devices:

(1) Sparklers — Pyrotechnic devices usually made of black powder on a piece of wire or inside a paper tube designed to light up and glow after igniting;
    
(2) Luces — Any of several kinds of sparklers;

(3) Fountain — A kind of sparkler conical in shape which is lighted on the ground and designed to provide various rising colors and intermittent lights upon being ignited;

(4) Jumbo regular and special — A kind of sparkler similar to a "fountain" but bigger in size;

(5) Mabuhay — Sparklers bunched into a bundle of a dozen pieces;

(6) Roman candle — A sparkler similar to a "fountain" but shaped like a big candle;

(7) Trompillo — A pyrotechnic device usually fastened at the center and designed to spin first clockwise and then counter-clockwise and provides various colored lights upon being ignited;

(8) Airwolf — A kind of sky rocket shaped like an airplane with a propeller to rise about forty (40) or fifty (50) feet and provide various kinds of light while aloft;

(9) Whistle device — Any of the various kinds of firecrackers or pyrotechnic designed to either simply emit a whistle-like sound or explode afterwards upon being ignited;

(10) Butterfly — Butterfly-shaped pyrotechnic device designed to lift above ground while providing light;

(11) All kinds of pyrotechnic devices (pailaw); and

(12) Other types equivalent to the foregoing devices.

Comelec has implemented “No Bio, No Boto” policy in order to ensure that each and every voter has completed a verification process in line with the Comelec’s efforts to reduce if not totally eradicate flying voters and other issues involved in voter registration. The Supreme Court junks petition vs No Bio, No Boto policy filed by leftist group leaders on November 25. Due to the petition, the court was prompted to issue a temporary restraining order, deterring Comelec from implementing the policy. The reason for junking the petition is that the policy is based on a law. The poll body also took time needed for preparation for the 2016 elections into great consideration.

The biometrics required by Comelec is based on Republic Act 10367:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:
Section 1. Declaration of Policy. – It is the policy of the State to establish a clean, complete, permanent and updated list of voters through the adoption of biometric technology.

Section 2. Definition of Terms. – As used in this Act:

(a) Commission refers to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC).

(b) Biometrics refers to the quantitative analysis that provides a positive identification of an individual such as voice, photograph, fingerprint, signature, iris and/or such other identifiable features.

(c) Data Capture Machine (DCM) is the device which captures the biometrics of an individual.

(d) Validation is the process of taking the biometrics of registered voters whose biometrics have not yet been captured.

(e) Deactivation refers to the removal of the registration record of the registered voter from the corresponding precinct book of voters for failure to comply with the validation process as required by this Act.

(f) Reactivation refers to the reinstatement of a deactivated voter.

Section 3. Who Shall Submit for Validation. – Registered voters whose biometrics have not been captured shall submit themselves for validation.

Section 4. Who Shall Conduct the Validation. – The City or Municipal Election Officer shall conduct the validation.

Section 5. Commencement of Validation. – The Commission shall conduct validation beginning July 1, 2013, consistent with the continuing registration under Republic Act No. 8189.

Section 6. Publication and Notice Requirement. – The Commission shall cause the publication of the commencement of the validation in two (2) newspapers of general circulation. The City or Municipal Election Officer shall serve individual written notices by registered mail with return card to the voters concerned at their latest address in the voter’s registration record and post the list of the voters concerned in the city or municipal bulletin board and in the local COMELEC office.

Section 7. Deactivation. – Voters who fail to submit for validation on or before the last day of filing of application for registration for purposes of the May 2016 elections shall be deactivated pursuant to this Act.

Section 8. Reactivation. – Those deactivated under the preceding section may apply for reactivation after the May 2016 elections following the procedure provided in Section 28 of Republic Act No. 8189.

Section 9. Database Security. – The database generated by biometric registration shall be secured by the Commission and shall not be used, under any circumstance, for any purpose other than for electoral exercises.

Section 10. Mandatory Biometrics Registration. – The Commission shall implement a mandatory biometrics registration system for new voters.

Section 11. Prohibited Acts. – The following shall be election offenses punishable under Sections 263 and 264 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 881, as amended, otherwise known as the "Omnibus Election Code":

(a) Any person who shall prohibit, impede, obstruct or prevent a registered voter or a new voter from submitting his or her biometrics for capture through the use of force, intimidation or monetary consideration; and

(b) Any public official or person who, under the guise of implementing this Act, shall unjustifiably and without due process, cause the deactivation or reactivation of any registered voter.

The oft-quoted statement, “start the year with a bang” should not be taken literally since COMELEC gun ban is almost in effect. As 2016 presidential election draws near, you can almost sense crimes lurking around the corner and some of which are politically motivated.  During the election period, which starts from January 10, 2016 to June 8, 2016, carrying or transporting firearms and deadly weapons are prohibited.

James Jimenez, COMELEC Spokesman also welcomes application for gun ban exemption. Those who are eligible for exemption can simply visit www.comelec.gov.ph to file their applications.

The rules and regulations can also be found in Resolution No. 10015:

“SECTION 1. Prohibited Acts. - During the Election Period:

No person shall bear, carry or transport Firearms or Deadly Weapons outside his residence or place of business, and in all public places, including any building, street, park, and in private vehicles or public conveyances, even if he is licensed or authorized to possess or to carry the same, unless authorized by the Commission, through the CBFSP, in accordance with the provisions of this Resolution;

No person shall employ, avail himself or engage the services of security personnel or bodyguards, whether or not such security personnel or bodyguards are regular members or officers of the Philippine National Police (PNP), the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), other law enforcement agency of the government or from a private security service provider, unless authorized by the Commission, through the CBFSP, in accordance with the provisions of this Resolution;
No person or entity shall transport and deliver Firearms and/or its parts, Ammunition and/or its components, and Explosives and/or its components, unless authorized by the Commission, through the CBFSP, in accordance with the provisions of this Resolution.”

Section 261. Prohibited Acts. - The following shall be guilty of an election offense:

(q) Carrying firearms outside residence or place of business. - Any person who, although possessing a permit to carry firearm/s, carries any firearm/s outside his residence or place of business during the election period, unless authorized in writing by the Commission: Provided, That a motor vehicle, water or air craft shall not be considered a residence or place of business or extension hereof.

This prohibition shall not apply to cashiers and disbursing officers while in the performance of their duties or to persons who by nature of their official duties, profession, business or occupation habitually carry large sums of money or valuables."
The complete details of Resolution No. 10015 can be found on COMELEC’s official website.

When the temporary restraining order (TRO) was served to Uber and GrabCar for new applications, the commuting public was left with a few transportation options. While this is the season for giving and sharing, there are corrupt and abusive taxi drivers who choose to seize the opportunity and commuters who only want to reach their destination in the most convenient way are not spared from falling prey to these taxi drivers’ schemes.
 
These taxi drivers collect fares in excess of the actual amount charged to the passengers. They have lots of lame excuses to deter passengers from getting the exact change. While it is the passenger’s prerogative to give a tip, a taxi driver cannot just prey on these unsuspecting passengers to collect more than the amount due to them.

In response to the perennial complaints from passengers against these unconscionable practices, TaxiKick has been created. The site accepts complaints from passengers who have been scammed by taxi drivers. Once complaints are lodged, the site will forward them to the LTFRB, which takes action on each complaint. The LTFRB will contact complainants to get more information.

The passengers also have the option to follow up on any report they file by sending an email to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or text/call the LTFRB at 459-2129 or 0921-448-7777.

Proposed acts HB 4016, 2346, 2669, 5107 and 3503 are intended to address growing concerns on taxi drivers’ abusive treatment to passengers.

Here is an overview of one of the house bills being pushed:

“Jurisprudence reveals that a contract of transport of passengers is quite different from any other contractual relationship since it is imbued with public interest. Moreover, it is a policy of the State to protect the interest of passengers, promote their general welfare and establish the strictest standards of conduct for the transportation industry.

Several laws and ordinances have been enacted to safeguard the safety of the commuting public. Traffic enforcers have been deployed in strategic locations to ensure the efficient flow of various forms of public transportation and more importantly, the safety of our commuters.

In relation to this, it is the right of every person to choose whatever means of public transportation he/she prefers. Most of our commuters would choose to take the bus, jeepney, tricycle but for convenience sake, they have also opted to take our railway system (LRT and MRT) to avoid the horrendous traffic in most of our major thoroughfares. Still some for the sake of expediency, have chosen to take the taxi because it saves on time and gets them to their place of disembarkation much faster.

However, passengers are most often than not victims of abusive taxi drivers. Rampant abusive practices by these taxi drivers include the collection of fare in excess of what is due to them. In the event a passenger asks for his/her exact change, the common answer is that they do not have enough coins or this was their first trip.”

The extra-judicial killings are one of the reasons why human rights violations in the country continue to increase. Perpetrators continue to roam the streets as killings go unpunished.  Although the Philippines does not have a large-scale armed conflict, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) considers the Philippines as one of the countries with the worst offenders. Until now, the perpetrators have not paid for the crime they committed. Based on 2015 Global Impunity Index, the Philippines has the highest impunity rates. Human rights groups and advocates also put the blame on the present administration for the lack of urgency in addressing this concern.

Extrajudicial killings have been so rampant that it becomes an ordinary yet sickening scenario. Some of the killings are said to be politically motivated, but one thing is for sure, the victims’ cries for justice continue to fall on deaf ears. A perfect example of sluggish justice system in the country is the trial of the retired Army Maj. Gen. Jovito Palparan. 

He currently faces kidnapping and illegal detention charges. The two missing farmers and University of the Philippines students Sherlyn Cadapan and Karen Empeno were suspected to be members of the New People’s Army, a communist group. General Palparan’s trial is still ongoing and the two students are still missing. There are still other cases of extrajudicial killings, in which justice has not been served. The family members of the victims of Maguindanao massacre and Lumad killings continue to seek elusive justice. These human rights violations continue to bring fear since they day the country has been placed under Martial Law courtesy of Marcos regime. 

Human rights violation is defined in Section 3 of the Republic Act No, 10368:

“(b) Human rights violation refers to any act or omission committed during the period from September 21, 1972 to February 25, 1986 by persons acting in an official capacity and/or agents of the State, but shall not be limited to the following:

(1) Any search, arrest and/or detention without a valid search warrant or warrant of arrest issued by a civilian court of law, including any warrantless arrest or detention carried out pursuant to the declaration of Martial Law by former President Ferdinand E. Marcos as well as any arrest., detention or deprivation of liberty carried out during the covered period on the basis of an “Arrest, Search and Seizure Order (ASSO)”, a “Presidential Commitment Order {PCO)” or a “Preventive Detention Action (PDA)” and such other similar executive issuances as defined by decrees of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, or in any manner that the arrest, detention or deprivation, of liberty was effected;

(2) The infliction by a person acting in an official capacity and/or an agent of the State of physical injury, torture, killing, or violation of other human rights, of any person exercising civil or political rights, including but not limited to the freedom of speech, assembly or organization; and/or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, even if such violation took place during or in the course of what the authorities at the time deemed an illegal assembly or demonstration: Provided, That torture in any form or under any circumstance shall be considered a human rights violation;

(3) Any enforced or involuntary disappearance caused upon a person who was arrested, detained or abducted against one’s will or otherwise deprived of one’s liberty, as defined in Republic Act No. 10350 {{1}}, otherwise known as the “Anti-Enforced or Involuntary Disappearance Act of 2012”

(4) Any force or intimidation causing the involuntary exile of a person from the Philippines;

(5) Any act of force, intimidation or deceit causing unjust or illegal takeover of a business, confiscation of property, detention of owner/s and or their families, deprivation of livelihood of a person by agents of the State, including those caused by Ferdinand E. Marcos, his spouse Imelda R. Marcos, their immediate relatives by consanguinity or affinity, as well as those persons considered as among their close relatives, associates, cronies and subordinates under Executive Order No. 1, issued on February 28, 1986 by then President Corazon C. Aquino in the exercise of her legislative powers under the Freedom Constitution;

(6) Any act or series of acts causing, committing and/or conducting the following:

(i) Kidnapping or otherwise exploiting children of persons suspected of committing acts against the Marcos regime;

(ii) Committing sexual offenses against human rights victims who are detained and/or in the course of conducting military and/or police operations; and

(iii) Other violations and/or abuses similar or analogous to the above, including those recognized by international law.”

Are Filipinos completely aware of on-line laws and etiquette when using various social networking sites including Facebook? When cybercrime law was implemented in the Philippines, it earned the ire of netizens as it is said to deny freedom of speech.  The law is defined in the Republic Act No. 10175. Without a doubt, Facebook has been a substitute to the old-fashioned journal where you can simply write your thoughts away. In this era of mouse potatoes, you no longer keep a secret in your journal. You share your views, opinions, angst, pains or any challenges that life throws at you on Facebook. 

Yes, Facebook is your very own version of cyber counselling and it does not take long enough to earn sympathy from your “friends”.  While Facebook users consider this social networking site a great relief to stress, it can breach confidentiality once you hit post or share. It does not guarantee secrecy when you know for a fact that there is already an intrusion to your privacy. The million dollar question is: Are we completely aware of what we post on Facebook?

The thesis “The Unintelligent Facebook Users” authored by a Filipino-American graduate school student from Harvard University, Genevieve Molina shows Pinoy Facebook users’ carelessness when it comes to posting status updates, sharing videos and uploading photos. According to Molina’s research, there are 6,020,958 horrific images shared around the world on Facebook on a daily basis and 951,311 are shared by Pinoy users. 

An irresponsible and unintelligent use of Facebook and other social networking sites gets users into serious trouble. Sharing or uploading offensive photos is still part of the cybercrime law umbrella. Although it is an unusual crime, the damage can still be considered irreparable especially when photos become viral. Nela Llamas is just another perfect example that you really need to think twice when uploading videos or photos on your Facebook wall. This 19-year old Nursing Junior at Manila Doctor’s College faces criminal liability because of posting a photo of the late Pete Rogas, who was killed due to a vehicular accident at C5. The incident happened two months ago. 

The family of the victim is still seeking justice for their son and sharing the offensive photo does more harm than good. This is another reminder to Facebook users who are fond of posting offensive photos for the belief that it will alleviate the family members’ emotional pain but it only takes a turn for the worse. Llamas’ case is still on progress and can serve as another warning for Facebook users to be more careful when sharing or posting photos. 

It is going to be bad news for the commuting public as the Quezon City Regional Trial Court (RTC) orders two government agencies DOTC and LTFRB to stop accepting applications or approving applications from motor vehicles, which are considered public utility vehicles under the Transport Network Vehicle Services scheme. Uber and GrabCar are two of the companies that are greatly affected when the temporary restraining order (TRO) was issued. 

When Uber and GrabCar operated, taxi operators and drivers are affected due to the decrease in their income. The 20-day TRO intends to stop accepting, processing and approving applications of those who want to establish partnership with GrabCar and Uber. 

Transport advocate groups are not happy with the fact that Uber and GrabCar are allowed to operate without franchises. The group wishes to protect the rights of public utility vehicles with franchises. Taxi drivers also cry foul as dissatisfied and ripped off customers have suddenly preferred Uber, Grab and other ride sharing or app-based services.

These services are a huge help in terms of meeting transport demands and with the issuance of TRO, the efficiency in transportation becomes a difficult thing to achieve. The TRO does not apply to on-going operations of Uber and GrabCar. Its sole purpose is to stop various government offices from accepting applications while TRO is still being served. 

The replete definition and purpose of Temporary Restraining Order can be found in administrative Circular No. 20-95:

“[1] Where an application for Temporary Restraining Order [TRO] or writ of preliminary injunction is included in a complaint or any initiatory pleading filed with the trial court, such complaint or initiatory pleading shall be raffled only after notice to the adverse party and in the presence of such party or counsel. 

[2] The application for a TRO shall be acted upon only after all parties are heard in a summary haering conducted within twenty-four [24] hours after the records are transmitted to the branch selected by raffle. The records shall be transmitted immediately after raffle. 

[3]  If the matter is of extreme urgency, such that unless a TRO is issued, grave injustice and irreparable injury will arise, the Executive Judge shall issue the TRO efective only for seventy-two [72] hours from issuance but shall immediately summon the parties for conference and immediately raffle the case in their presence. Thereafter, before the expiry of the seventy-two [72] hours, the Presiding Judge to whom the case is assigned shall conduct a summary hearing to determine whether the TRO can be extended for another period until a hearing in the pending application for preliminary injunction can be conducted. In no case shall the total period of the TRO exceed twenty [20] days, including the original seventy-two [72] hours, for the TRO issued by the Executive Judge.

[4] With the exception of the provisions which necessarily involve multiple-sala stations, these rules shall apply to single-sala stations especially with regard to immediate notice to all parties of all applications for TRO.”

In a country where Catholics made up the majority of the population, the priests and other religious leaders often become a moral compass and the proverbial principle: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil is tailored to what the priests project.  However, a moral compass can still spin wildly and be out of control. While Padre Damaso is deemed a figment of Jose Rizal’s imagination, any news of sexual abuse involving priests will sure remind you of this fictional character’s omnipresence.  

A few weeks ago, sexual abuse cases involving priests have surfaced and they were made more interesting when 2016 presidential aspirant Rodrigo Duterte claimed he was also sexually abused. The sexual abuse cases are a ticking time bomb waiting to explode. Aside from Duterte, a former student breaks his silence after 30 years and he said he was sexually abused from 1984 to 1987. Without a doubt, the alleged victim dropped a bombshell. 

The country embraces religious diversity as it is also home to various religious sectors, but Roman Catholics are the most vocal when it comes to issues they consider to be a violation of their so-called moral standards. They are against RH bill, abortion and god-knows-what-else. Unfortunately, discovering Jesuits involved in sexual abuse scandal is indeed a living mockery and avid followers just keep a stiff upper lip while the issue is still being investigated. While this case does not put you into situation where you will be damned if you do and you will still be damned if you don't, the society has the right to know the truth. In the past, cases of sexual abuse have never been put on record, but there are already reported cases in 2002 according to Wikipedia. The Society of Jesus in the Philippines has yet to conduct an investigation on the abuses. 

If proven guilty, the Jesuits involved in sexual abuse scandal commit a violation of Republic Act 7610 or better known as the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act. 

“Sec. 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. - Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.

The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the following:

(a) Those who engage in or promote, facilitate or induce child prostitution which include, but are not limited to, the following:

(1) Acting as a procurer of a child prostitute;

(2) Inducing a person to be a client of a child prostitute by means of written or oral advertisements or other similar means;

(3) Taking advantage of influence or relationship to procure a child as prostitute;

(4) Threatening or using violence towards a child to engage him as a prostitute; or

(5) Giving monetary consideration goods or other pecuniary benefit to a child with intent to engage such child in prostitution.

(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse of lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when the victims is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period; and

(c) Those who derive profit or advantage therefrom, whether as manager or owner of the establishment where the prostitution takes place, or of the sauna, disco, bar, resort, place of entertainment or establishment serving as a cover or which engages in prostitution in addition to the activity for which the license has been issued to said establishment.”