Vice President Binay’s reaction to former Makati City Vice Mayor Mercado’s statement that Binay made money from the overpriced Makati parking building.
“Iyon nga ho ang ikinahihinanakit ko e. Alam naman na nilang maitim na kami e gusto pa nila kaming tustahin (That’s what I’m complaining. They already know that we are dark-skinned and yet they still want to roast us),”
Senator Binay said over DWIZ on Friday when asked about the ongoing investigation being conducted by the Senate on the alleged overpriced Makati City Hall 2.
You miss the point, sweetie. The point is you’re giving all dark-skinned people a bad name. Nadadamay sila sa kalokohan ninyo! Comprende?
The NBI had to release “Gen Palparan” when fingerprint analysis showed that the man they arrested was not Palparan but comedian Palito who died four years ago.
Below is a press statement published in the cbcpforlife website
SC DECISION ACTUALLY FAVORS ANTI-RH
Added by mon on April 10, 2014
Saved under Independent Articles, News Articles
PRESS STATEMENT/OPINION – April 9, 2014
- Miracles indeed still do happen these days. After all the victorious claims made by the Pro-RH Law when Supreme Court (SC) spokesperson Theodore Te announced that the court ruled that the RH Law “is not unconstitutional”, a deeper look into the decision as excerpted by Te revealed that the Anti-RH group was the victor.
Let it be noted that the SC did not say that the law is “constitutional”. It used the double negative term “not unconstitutional” because it said that it is “assumed” that it is constitutional. In other words, its constitutionality is merely assumed by the SC. But the SC was very clear and emphatic in declaring seven (7) significant provisions of the RH law as “unconstitutional” which clearly demonstrate the triumph of the Anti-RH group.
This is so because it is not the “constitutionality” of the RH Law that was in issue at the SC. The substantive issues as defined by the SC in its guidelines before the oral arguments and as enumerated by the Solicitor General were limited to whether or not certain provisions of the law violated the right to life and health; freedom of religion and speech; right to protection against hazardous products; rights of parents in caring for their children; and right of families to participate in family planning.
In resolving these issues, the SC practically said “Yes”, all these rights were violated. On the right to life and health protection against hazardous products, the telling blow against the RH Law is when the SC ruled that the word “abortifacient” does not only include contraceptives that “primarily induce abortion” which means that all contraceptives that have abortion as “secondary effect” will be illegal. Thus, before the Department of Health could even purchase contraceptives for distribution to end-users, it has to prove that they do not induce abortion whether primarily or secondarily. And the Anti-RH group could question any such purchase if it has evidence that such contraceptives have abortion as primary or even secondary effect.
On the issue of freedom of religion and speech, the SC decision said that the law cannot penalize any health care provider who fails or refuses to disseminate information nor any public officer which includes local elective officials who refuse or fail to support the RH program or shall do any act that hinders its full implementation regardless of their religious beliefs. Even medical schools owned by religious groups cannot be forced to provide family planning methods nor medical practitioners be compelled to provide free RH services to be accredited by PhilHealth.
On the rights of parents to care for their children, the SC ruled that the RH Law cannot penalize a health service provider if he requires parental consent from minor in not emergency or serious conditions which is a recognition of the rights of parents to care for their children. The SC also decreed that minor-parents cannot be allowed access to RH methods without written consent from their parents.
In other words, nothing of sort was mentioned as to whether or not the RH Law in its entirety is constitutional which is an admission that its constitutionality is not really the crux of the case. Perhaps what the decision conveys is the recognition of the constitutional right of Congress to enact a law, but that does not automatically guarantee that all its provisions are constitutional until it is so declared by the SC when their constitutionality is questioned.
ATTY. ROMULO B. MACALINTAL
Las Pinas City
In his Manila Standard Today column, Kit Tatad wrote
- Contrary to what the nation and the rest of the world have been led to believe, President Benigno S. Aquino III spent several hours in “closed- door conversations” with Janet Lim Napoles, the suspected mastermind in the alleged P10-billion pork barrel scam involving selected opposition lawmakers, before showcasing to the media her formal “surrender” to “the only person she trusted,” on the evening of August 28, 2013, authoritative sources have revealed.
The revelation is certain to be denied, for obvious reasons, but it comes from highly authoritative sources whose loyalty to Aquino is exceeded only by their loyalty to the truth and who shared the story with extreme pain and sadness. They just could not bear what to them is a “grand deception,” a deliberate and cold-blooded attempt to mislead and deceive the people on Malacanang’s real role and interest in the Napoles case.
To them, it affects the whole fabric of morality in government, and ultimately Aquino’s moral fitness to remain in office.
The Palace responded calling Tatad’s allegation a “tall tale”
- From the Office of the Presidential Spokesperson
The claim of Marcos-era Public Information Minister Senator Francisco S. Tatad that the President spent several hours in “closed-door conversations” with Janet Lim Napoles on Wednesday, August 28, 2013, is pure fiction.
Tatad has asserted the following in public statements on different media:
Napoles arrived at Malacañan Palace at 10:27 a.m. accompanied by Presidential Spokesperson Edwin Lacierda;
She remained in a room for the next six hours, meeting behind closed doors with the President, Secretary of the Interior and Local Government Mar Roxas, and Lacierda; and
Other cabinet members joined the meeting, namely Cabinet Secretary Rene Almendras, Secretary of Budget and Management Florencio Abad, and Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa.
This administration believes in truthful and transparent reportage, which the former Marcos-appointee may not be accustomed to. As such, we are publishing below the President’s official working schedule for that day as sent to the Malacañang Press Corps:
10:00 a.m. – 8th East Asia Conference on Competition Law and Policy
(Venue: Sofitel Philippine Plaza Manila)
1:30 p.m. – 27th Apolinario Mabini Awarding Ceremony
(Venue: Heroes Hall)
3:00 PM – Meeting with ES, DBM, DOF
(Venue: Study Conference Room)
4:00 PM – Meeting with SOTC, et al
(Venue: Study Conference Room)
The storyline pushed by Tatad is an obvious fabrication. The President was at two high-profile events at 10:00 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. with hundreds of attendees. At both events the President also delivered speeches, the videos of which are now collectively embedded on the President’s Day page for August 28, 2013.
Meanwhile, Secretary Abad denies having gone to the Palace at all on that day. He was at his office from 12:15 p.m. until having to leave for a 3:00 p.m. meeting in Quezon City and from 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. was at the DILG to meet with some organizers and attendees of the One Million People March.
This grandiose conspiracy theory peddled by Tatad is symptomatic of the old order that has been swept away. He represents what is wrong with our politics, and over the last decade, the Filipino people have made that abundantly clear by denying his return to public office twice.
Let’s have a televised face-off between Tatad and Lacierda.