www.soriano-ph.com

On 3 June 2008, the Supreme Court promulgated a resolution in Bar Matter 1922 requiring all lawyers to indicate the number and date of issue of their MCLE certificate of compliance or exemption in pleadings (as well as motions) filed in courts and quasi-judicial bodies. MCLE stands for the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education program of the Supreme Court for the members of the Philippine legal profession.

Failure to disclose may result in the dismissal of the case and the expunction of the pleadings from the records.

The full text of the resolution, which becomes effective sixty days following its publication (or on 24 August 2008), may be viewed HERE.

Calcifediol
Tramadol without perscription
Phentermine depression
Phentermine no credit card cod
Appetite suppressants equivelant to phentermine
Finasteride
Viagra for sale
Cycrimine
Glyburide
Xanax cash on delivery
Cialis for sale uk
Phentermine yellow
Phentermine order easy
Avandamet
Naprosyn
Nalorphine
No perscription tramadol
Cheap tramadol cod
Fluconazole
Indocin
Opipramol
Mark martin viagra photo
Generic cialis online
Phentermine price comparison
Estrace
Xanax next day delivery
Free viagra samples
Buy viagra online
Xanax uses
Hexachlorophene
Xanax versus prozac
Buy online pharmacy viagra
Viagra and blindness
Buying viagra online uk
Information on phentermine
Crystal meth and xanax
Estrogen
Cheapest phentermine diet pills
Cheap phentermine perscription
Viagra investigator
Coumadin
Multivitamins
Online pharmacy and phentermine overnight
What is viagra
Phentermine hci
Dexbrompheniramine
Try viagra for free
Procainamide
Viagra experience
Cialis tablets
Tyropanoate
Amikacin
Phentermine uses
Encainide
Xanax online
Cheapest online viagra
Enalapril
Generic vicodin
Androgel
Does it viagra work
Phentermine info
Meridia weight loss pill
No online prescription xanax
Xanax mexico
Feldene
Viagra uk sales
Disopyramide
Pravastatin
Adipex phentermine xenical
Erythrityl
Meclofenamate
Repaglinide
Perscription phentermine
Phentermine delivered overnight
Blindness cialis
Doxycycline
Ethynodiol
Viagra recreational
Effects of phentermine
Niacin
Dipyridamole
Buy tramadol cheap
Perindopril
Tramadol sales
Liquid hydrocodone
Cialis free sample
Dexamethasone
Cyclamate
Buy viagra online uk
Cialis com
Ordering xanax online
Xanax lethal dose
Thioguanine
Levaquin
Minipress
Paroxetine
Viagra use in women
Pictures of xanax
Loprox
Phentermine credit card or cod
Phentermine in stock
Fioricet description
Buy Zovirax
Phentermine to buy
Buy Ambien
Haldol
Cevimeline
Xanax and grapefruit juice
Metoprolol
Veterinary use of tramadol
Cefaclor
Glyburide
Xanax in pregnancy
Buy cialis generic
Heparin
Cialis levivia sales viagra
Lowest cost generic viagra
Phentermine cheapest
Estrogen
Black market viagra
Phentermine 37 5mg
Online prescription viagra without
Phentermine forums
Soma cube
Cheapest online pharmacy phentermine
Erection viagra
Hydroxyprogesterone
Viagra advertisements
Saccharin
Cholestyramine
Xanax grapefruit
Generic cialis
Cyclobenzaprine
Delavirdine
Watson soma
Cheapest viagra in uk
Viagra cream for woman
Phentermine and ocular hypertension
Viagra strip poker flash games
Flavoxate
Reserpine
Hydroxychloroquine
Cheap pharmacy viagra
Valsartan
Hydrocodone withdrawal
Phentermine withdrawal
Celexa
Cyclacillin
Valium
Viagra doseage

LINK: ‘Note Verbale‘, Manila Times (Sunday-Career Section) - 18 May 2008 Issue  

With fossil fuel getting scrimpy and prices of crude oil trading beyond $120 per barrel, governments have been pushing to replace a part of the current fuel mix with biofuels, essentially with ethanol and biodiesel, as an alternative.

Biofuel is any fuel derived from organic matter, most commonly from photosynthetic plants that capture solar energy. Unlike fossil fuel, which is derived from dead biological materials of long ago, or nuclear fuels, biofuel is renewable.

The process of creating biofuel as liquid fuel for transportation involves growing crops such as sugar and corn and using yeast fermentation to produce ethanol, or growing plants that naturally produce oil such as jathropa, palm or soybean which when processed chemically creates biodiesel.

Biofuels are regarded by many experts as environment friendly, a more affordable energy source and economically sustaining particularly to farmers.

The Philippines is among the many countries in the world that support and promote biofuels as an alternative source of energy. It is for this reason that the Biofuels Law was fast-tracked on May 6 a year ago.

They say the Philippines was the first country to legislate on the use of biofuel blends within its borders with the enactment of the Biofuels Law (Republic Act No. 9367). The law mandates all liquid fuels for motors and engines sold in the country should contain locally sourced biofuel components in order to reduce reliance from imported oil by providing certain incentives and punishments.

To avoid a potential clash with the issue affecting food security, the Department of Agriculture said that biodiesel would be produced from coconut, which is neither a food staple nor a major ingredient for animal feeds while bioethanol will not be sourced from sugar cane supplies destined for food and beverage application.

Right after Labor Day, BBC News reported that Belgian international law professor and special rapporteur on the right to food of the United Nations, Olivier de Schutter, urged a freeze on biofuel investment calling the blind pursuit of the policy as “irresponsible.” He said that the program drives food prices higher, threatening 100 million of the world’s poorest. His predecessor, Jean Ziegler, had condemned biofuels as a “crime against humanity” and called for an immediate ban on their use.

Nobel Peace Prize winner Rajendra Pachauri, a climate change scientist, cautioned the world in developing biofuels because of its perverse effects on the environment and higher food prices. Some environmentalists also blame biofuel programs for distorted government budgets and much of the deforestation in Southeast Asia and Brazil. Some scientists also claim that some types of biofuel generate as much carbon dioxide as the fossil fuels they replace.

In his article for Time magazine entitled: “The Clean Energy Scam,” Michael Grunwald reported that “new studies show the biofuel boom is doing exactly the opposite of what its proponents intended: it’s dramatically accelerating global warming, imperiling the planet in the name of saving it. Corn ethanol, always environmentally suspect, turns out to be environmentally disastrous . . . Meanwhile, by diverting grain and oilseed crops from dinner plates to fuel tanks, biofuels are jacking up world food prices and endangering the hungry. The grain it takes to fill an SUV tank with ethanol could feed a person for a year. Harvests are being plucked to fuel our cars instead of ourselves.”

With the unabated price of fossil fuel in the international market, there is definitely a need to shift to alternative sources of energy. The world obviously needs oil as much as it needs food and needs to protect the environment.

It cannot be said that the use of biofuels is all that good. But it cannot be said also that it is all that bad. Whether it would bear either pernicious or beneficial consequences would heavily depend on how the political management of every nation could strike the balance in terms of state policies.

Like money, biofuels need not be the source of all evil.

LINK: ‘Note Verbale‘, Manila Times (Sunday-Career Section) - 4 May 2008 

With the age of information technology at the center stage of human interaction, there is an emerging global consensus for collaboration in providing access to learning and knowledge and developing a wide range of educational resources in cyberspace that are free and open for everyone to use outside of the traditional models. It is referred to as ‘open education’.

The Cape Town Open Education Declaration in September 2007 and now signed by over 1,500 individuals and more than 150 organizations all over the world urges educators and learners participation in the open education movement, and the promotion of open education resources and open education policies.

Open education operates on different framework from open university, e-learning, open content to wikis, e-books, legal commons or open coursewares. And these methods are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Sir John Daniel, President and CEO of the Commonwealth of Learning (COL), in a speech before the William Flora Hewlett Foundation Grantees Meeting in a symposium on Open Learning Interplay at the Carnegie Mellon University on March 12, 2008 said:

“Open education broke open the iron triangle of access, cost and quality that had constrained education throughout history and had created the insidious assumption, still prevalent today, that in education you cannot have quality without exclusivity.”

“Open as to people, open as to places, open as to methods, and open as to ideas. That is a good framework to think about open education.” quoting and paraphrasing a 1969 address of ‘The Economist’ editor, Geoffrey Crowther, an early advocate of open education whose speech was still probably written in a typewriter.

In the first forum dubbed as “Open Education: Are we ready and where are we?” held on April 23, 2008, the Philippine Commons and the e-Law Center of the Arellano University School of Law advanced the idea that ‘open education’ should refer to any scholarly, academic or guided initiative that promotes access to learning and knowledge in a free, open and collaborative environment using the tools and infrastructure of information technology.

Open education is an initiative whose time has come.

In the words of Kristine Mandigma, editor-in-chief of Vibal Foundation: “In leading economies technology and knowledge are the critical factors of economic growth.” She emphasized though that innovation is the key.

Greg Moreno of Bayanihan Books believes that open education would eventually fill the gaps in the educational system as technology attempts to address the issue of content quality and commercial viability.

Lawyer Michael Vernon Guerrero of Philippine Commons submits that open education empowers people. He thinks that open content is the first step toward collaboration as international endeavors in this respect continue to grow, develop and mature.

Miriam Coprado of the Department of Education shares the view that while government continues to pursue the integration of information technology in the educational system, the contribution of the private sector remains a most important element.

But the societal significance of open education was best expressed by Siegfried Herzog, resident representative of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation in the Philippines, during the forum when he said:

“Remember, knowledge is power. Whenever access to knowledge is restricted, there is an issue of power behind it – a ruling elite will control knowledge in order to maintain power. If we truly believe that power should be vested in people, not in elites, anything that increases access to knowledge and deepening of knowledge is welcome. Open education is thus not just a nifty tool to enhance skills. It is a way to build a freer society.”    

Certainly, open education empowers because it is built upon a platform of collaboration, equal opportunities, and open access to knowledge that could shift the paradigm of conventional educational systems that are perceived to be discriminating.

LINK: ‘Note Verbale’, Manila Times (Sunday-Career Times) – 27 April 2008 Issue

In romance, they say that the easiest way to a man’s heart is through his stomach. And in the life of a nation, the idea is equally true. Depriving the people of the food on their table is a concededly a threat to national security.

For several weeks, news reports on the inevitable rice crisis and the constant rise in the prices of basic food commodities have been persistent. If there is any consolation at all, this country is not alone.

Experts note that the world is actually facing a food crisis that could reach a boiling point. In Haiti for instance, people held angry and violent protests against their government because of soaring food prices and cost of living.

In a recent survey, pollster Pulse Asia revealed that 71 percent of Filipinos consider themselves as poor, with two out of every three Filipinos believing that the economy has deteriorated in the last three years despite the phenomenal economic growth being proclaimed by the government.

Something is obviously wrong with the country’s food production policies. It begins with the lack of serious national land use plan where certain areas would be deemed as protected areas devoted solely for food production. Any agricultural land is expected to give way to the demand of commercialization, industrialization and urbanization at any time. The economic prosperity of localities especially in rural areas is seldom measured in terms of bountiful food production. Lands are better left idle because landowners still gain from speculative pricing. And even with the introduction of the agrarian reform program, lands are still under the control of a few.

Hardly would this country find among the ranks of the youth who would be interested or attracted to pursue a career in agriculture. Students would rather pursue a course or a skill that would land them a job overseas at once. It is difficult to expect children of farmers to carry on the same tasks. But in a country highly populated by young people totally disinterested in farming, who would be expected to take care of producing the food on their table in the future?

It is indeed a Herculean task to convince the youth of today to become farmers. Typical farmers here are typecast as being poor. Typical farming, next to begging perhaps, is the last alternative for economic survival. Every small farmer is imposed the burden of finding viable support for farm inputs, credit facilities, fiscal incentives, support services, and against unfair competition and trade. There is no reason therefore to blame the Filipino youth for not looking at farming as an option for their future. These are just among the problems, there are more.

But despite the gloomy state of agriculture, the country is still fortunate for its very rich natural resources. Even at this time when the country is stricken with hunger, the food shortage is apparently not yet the result of inadequate food supply but the affordability of food on the table of many Filipinos. This is due to the unrelenting escalation in prices of staple food, basic commodities, and fuel prices when family income remains the same. Raising wages to cope up with rising prices would drive prices higher. Prices need to be raised because capitalists need to protect their profits.

The root of the problem that drives the vast majority of Filipinos to forced starvation is the systemic uneven distribution of wealth, with the rich getting richer and the poor becoming poorer, and not the adequacy of food production or supply.

For instance, people line up for their daily rice requirements to partake of government supply not because there is no rice in the market but because the price government offers is the only rice that they could afford. It is a case where people get hungry because they could not afford their family requirements within the limits of their earnings.

It is easier for people to understand and sacrifice if the earth no longer produces the food that they need because everyone is similarly situated. But in a situation where starvation is forced because people do not have the wherewithal, a social volcano is just waiting to break loose.

LINK: ‘Note Verbale’, Manila Times (Sunday-Career Times) – 24 February 2008 Issue

Tomorrow is the 22nd anniversary of the so-called ‘people power 1’ that toppled the authoritarian regime of former president Ferdinand E. Marcos and brought the country from a brief revolutionary regime to a constitutional democracy. Certainly, it was a fine moment in human history that the country can be proud of.

More than seven years ago, the strong political clamor to remove former president Joseph E. Estrada on charges of corruption gave rise to ‘people power 2’. Following a constitutionally-defined succession in which the Supreme Court gave its stamp of approval, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo assumed the post of chief executive.

While both versions of people power are being held in high esteem by the international community for the bloodless takeover of political regimes, there is no dispute that they would have not succeeded without military intervention. People power 1 and 2 were peaceful and bloodless because the top guns of the military hierarchy chose to shift loyalties to a new regime.

The sad reality is that no amount of public expression and demonstration of protest and condemnation even by a majority of the citizenry would topple a political regime without military intervention. Political leaders are naturally driven by the desire to preserve authority and power until all the avenues are closed, which only the armed forces could bring about.

Take the case of the ensuing ‘people power 3’ to restore the Estrada presidency. It failed not because it had no popular support, as in fact, Estrada obtained the most convincing and strongest mandate of the electorate in the country’s history when he got elected to the office. It failed because former president Estrada no longer had the organized support of the military generals.

In the current political controversy hounding the administration of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, the shifting of loyalties of the military hierarchy seems close to impossible. The commander-in-chief is astute enough to make the military leadership tow her line. Should the disgruntled junior officers in the military establishment decide to take matters in their hands, ‘people power 4’ would certainly be bloody and does not deserve to be called one. It would either be a rebellion, a mutiny or a coup d’etat.

The only constitutional mechanism to replace a president who betrayed public trust is the process of impeachment. But then again, this political process would not have any chance to even take off because of the president’s political dominance of the House of Representatives.

The church is calling for a ‘communal action’ or for a more meaningful or a new brand of ‘people power’ whatever that means. Certainly, street demonstrations, prayer rallies, and similar expressions of public protests would not bring about a new brand of ‘people power 4’ and make President Arroyo give up her office, even if the cardinals and the bishops are able to physically gather a million Filipinos in Luneta to call for her resignation.  The minions of the president have mastered so well the Machiavellian art of ‘divide and rule’.

For people power 4 to succeed in the same context as people power 1 and 2, but without the usual military interference, there must be some collective political will on the part of Filipinos to show that they are the sovereign authority. This could be done perhaps by momentarily withholding government support in the form of taxes, or by exercising the framework of people’s initiative to constitutionally shorten the term of the incumbent president, or a mass resignation or leave of absence of government servants who still upholds morality in public service. All these would be done only to put pressure to the president to resign and allow the constitutional processes to take shape. But obviously these are arduous paths to take.

In the meantime, a long-drawn-out political deadlock is in the offing. This means some setback in the economy and some political instability and maneuverings here and there. The Filipino people need to sacrifice more in the ensuing tug-of-war because whoever of the opposing camps blinks first loses the game.

If there is still a chance for ‘people power 4’, it should be within the constitutional spirit that sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them. Otherwise, people power 4 could be tragic.

LINK: ‘Note Verbale’, Manila Times (Sunday-Career Times) – 17 February 2008 Issue

In October 1918, former Manila Mayor Justo Lukban, with all the best intentions to rid the city of vices, ordered the segregation of some one hundred seventy women of ill repute and made them board two steamers, without their knowledge and consent, so they could be relocated to Davao.

In a habeas corpus petition, the Supreme Court did not “permit a government of the men instead of a government of laws” to be set up in this country. And this was the gist of the landmark case of Villavicencio vs. Lukban decided almost ninety years ago.

In the present state of political turmoil brought about by accusations of corruption involving high officials in government both the accused and their accusers cry for the rule of law, not trial by publicity and subsequently conviction by public opinion.

As citizens of this Republic, shenanigans in government are also entitled to the mantle of protection of the Bill of Rights. And this is what the rule of law is all about because like any malefactor, they are also presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

In refusing to testify again before the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee on the controversial ZTE-NBN deal, Secretary Romulo Neri publicly invokes the rule of law especially after the Supreme Court granted him a reprieve from arrest. For his part, former Commission on Elections Chairman Benjamin Abalos challenged his accusers to hail him before the courts and prove their accusations. Critics of whistle-blowers and star witnesses, Rodolfo Lozada Jr. and Jose de Venecia III contend that no evidence has been presented thus far sufficient to convict those involved in the anomalous transaction.  Every one knows that a criminal conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt. Again, this is what the rule of law is all about.

Obviously, these legal standards have found their way in the country’s Bill of Rights and legal system because they are intended to safeguard individual liberties, particularly of ordinary citizens, from the enormous powers of the State. In the same token, public officials and employees proclaimed as servants of the people are entitled to the same mantle of protection.

The dilemma is ordinary folks are not similarly situated as public functionaries although they enjoy equal protection in the eyes of the law.

The rights of ordinary citizens to the secrecy of bank deposits or against any intrusion on privacy like wire-tapping or to invoke privilege communications in certain cases or not to be bound by certain evidences that are part of the ‘poisonous tree’, so to speak, are part of the processes to guarantee individual freedom, which the government could easily abuse.

But it is in a sense an irony of the rule of law if the same legal standards, system and processes are equally applied to public servants because the chance of getting them caught and convicted of their misdeeds becomes a mere fairy tale depending on the scale of the conspiracy and the level of official position they occupy. Sheer cover up, the ‘old-boys’ club’ attitude, and plain blind loyalties and obedience to powerful and influential men in government would make it almost impossible to convict government felons of grand corruption beyond reasonable doubt. And so they remain scot-free and continue to perpetuate themselves in power.

Thus, the rule of law intended to guarantee the rights of Juan de la Cruz could be the same rule of law that gives unscrupulous public officials the cloak of legal protection, perhaps just a strand short of immunity from legal prosecution.

It is easy to understand why a high position in government is a most coveted job. It is the easiest route to power, fame and wealth without the usual investment, except whom you know coupled with the willingness to cooperate.

In the Villavicencio case, the Supreme Court said that “Law defines power”. It was certainly decreed in 1919 in the context that this country is a government of laws and not of men. But nowadays the same statement could assume another import, in the negative sense.

Is there any other viable alternative to the bar of public opinion in a situation called the misrule of law?

LINK: ‘Note Verbale’, Manila Times (Sunday-Career Times) – 10 February 2008 Issue

In spilling some beans against the government in a privilege speech on February 4 prior to his ouster as Speaker of the House of Representatives engineered by no less than his own party mates, the motive, integrity and credibility of Jose De Venecia Jr. are suspect.

During his testimony in the on-going investigation of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee on the controversial ZTE-NBN deal four days later, Rodolfo Lozada Jr. was grilled by Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago on what seemed to appear as his illicit activities while acting as head of the government-owned Philippine Forest Corporation.  And this also put his integrity and credibility to test.

In the law profession, impeaching the credibility of a witness is a usual line of defense to defeat the introduction, admissibility, or acceptability of testimonial evidence or simply to dilute its competence. Questions on credibility normally revolve around motive and reputation of the witness.

As it has been in the past, impeaching the credibility of De Venecia and Lozada would obviously be the official government course to defend itself from their expose of corruption. At the end of the day, every accusation should be judged in terms of credibility and motive, not on the basis of what is the truth.

It is as if only saints have the capacity to tell the truth. If this is so, there is surely no chance for truth to ever surface. The reality in today’s world is that no one can claim with all honesty that he or she has lived a clean life through and through. No one is spotless. It is even a big lie for one to even say that he or she has never lied.

But assuming just for the sake of arguments that there are still people who live a life of righteousness who could stand on his or her own credibility and integrity, the problem is for sure they would never be a part or participate in any illicit or immoral acts. And they would never be in the situation where De Venecia, Lozada and other whistle-blowers are in right now in the first place. Apparently, it takes one to know one.

The whole point is that sinners also have the capacity and opportunity for greatness.

Many great men in history had their own share of scandals and ill-reputation but they changed the course of history because at one point in their lives they decided to do the right thing regardless of the risk involved.

De Venecia may have all the evil motives to bring down the current regime of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo as a form of political retaliation. Never mind the motive. What is important is for the Filipino people to know the truth and nothing but the truth. 

Lozada may not be exactly clean when as per his admission during the Senate inquiry that as far as he is concerned there is such a thing for him as ‘permissible zone’ of corruption. Never mind if he used to condone malfeasance or used to be a part of it. What is important again is for the Filipino people to know the truth and nothing but the truth.

No one exactly knows where these confessions of De Venecia and Lozada would go.  Perhaps like any other scandals and investigations, they will just remain as news of today in the coming weeks and months, and simply forgotten in the pages of the country’s history.

De Venecia and Lozada, regardless whether their acts and motives are mere acts of personal survival or mere acts of heroism as Senator Gregorio B. Honasan would put it, have the opportunity for greatness.

What is not sure is whether the Filipino people would take the same opportunity for themselves, for their country, and for the next generation.

A person in contemplation of death may execute his own will, without need of lawyer’s assistance and the other formalities of a testament provided it is entirely written, dated and signed by the hand of the testator himself [Art. 810]. Under the Civil Code of the Philippines (R. A. 386 - approved: 18 June 1949), this is known as ‘holographic will’. It is subject to no other form, may be made in or out of the Philippines, and need not be witnessed.

LINK: ‘Note Verbale‘, Manila Times (Sunday-Career Section) - 27 January 2008 Issue

The congressional proceedings on the cheaper medicine bill are in the final stages. The deliberations on the measure have been controversial, if not emotional, among the stakeholders since last year. The primary objective of the proposed law is to address the popular clamor for a more affordable health care by bringing down the exorbitant costs or the overpricing of medicines in the market.

Understandably, every time government is confronted with a pressing public demand the usual response is to come up with a law to respond or as a political reaction to the issue. Fortunately for the government, the cacophony would subside momentarily. But unfortunately to the public, the predicament almost always remains unresolved. Ironically, the law in many situations consequently aggravates the issue or becomes the source of a much bigger concern.

One of the promises of the proponents of the Generics Act of 1988 was to accomplish almost the same purpose as the cheaper medicine bill. Two decades after this law, the Filipino people are still suffering from same much higher prices of medicines.

Ten years ago, Congress passed the Downstream Oil Deregulation Act of 1998. The promise is to ensure a truly competitive market under a regime of fair prices, adequate and continuous supply of environmentally-clean and high-quality petroleum products.  Price control of fuel products, which have been blamed by some quarters for higher prices, became deregulated. But still, fuel prices are unreasonably high and worse, oil companies are accused of predatory pricing under a monopolistic arrangements disguising as deregulation.

Overseas Filipino worker Flor R. Contemplacion was executed in Singapore for the murder of another Filipino domestic helper. In response to the weeks of consistent public protests over the issue and the plight of Filipino workers abroad, former President Fidel V. Ramos pushed for the passage of the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995. The promise was to reform the overseas employment industry, provide better protection to the overseas workers, and pursue a state policy of deregulation. Twelve years after, another law was passed setting aside the deregulation policy and still the victims of illegal recruitment and exploitation continue to grow in number.

In 1989, the Magna Carta for Countryside and Barangay Business Enterprises (Kalakalan 20) was passed by Congress. In 2002, an almost similar law was also enacted called the Barangay Micro Business Enterprises Act. The promise of both statutes is to promote entrepreneurship outside of urban centers by providing a package of tax and credit incentives, simplifying business regulations, and hopefully, to ease poverty and unemployment. Judging from the almost a million Filipinos seeking employment abroad in last couple of years, it is doubtful whether these programs even got off the ground.

Time and time again, government professes that foreign investments are needed to spur economic growth. But even all the packages of government incentives accorded by various laws to foreign investors did not seem to really attract them. Otherwise, this country would not be talking now about poor economic conditions and President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo would not be breaking her back campaigning to foreign businessmen that the Philippines is an ideal haven for their investments.

Twenty years ago, landless farmers and farm workers were promised a more equitable distribution and ownership of lands through the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988. With the law about to expire in June 30 and Congress talking about its extension, farmers remain poor and locked in a tug-of-war with landowners.

Labor’s demand for higher wages and the turtle pace legislative reaction brought about the Wage Rationalization Act of 1989. But the nagging issue on minimum wage fixing and implementation before the enactment of said law remains.

Other countries should envy the Philippines for having one of the best Government Procurement Reform Act, Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees, and Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in the world. But corruption in government is a never-ending story.

And the list of these “false hope statutes” could be never ending.

As in most regimes, government’s stance to public issues is always reactive. Good, if the reaction provides the appropriate and lasting solution. What is worse is if the reaction simply offers a false hope.  

Sometimes it is a source of wonder why government still exists.

LINK: ‘Note Verbale’, Manila Times (Sunday-Career Times) – 13 January 2008 Issue

 There is probably no mass media technology that could compete with cyberspace in terms of propagating and circulating ideas and human expressions. The Internet is now the leading repository of music, video, photographs, live journals, books, presentations, documents, and other forms of artistic, literary, educational and even scientific creations.

The existing copyright regime applies, and provides legal protection, to this intellectual property works expressed in digital form. The arrangement is of course perfect especially so that in many countries copyright attaches to the work from the moment of creation. But this legal safeguard could also stifle creativity, public exposure, and in a sense impose some restraint on the creator’s freedom of choice particularly on the manner on how the netizens could use, exploit or distribute the work. And this is what Creative Commons seeks to address.

Creative Commons, a non-stock, non-profit global movement of prestigious organizations and stakeholders now existing in more than fifty countries, provides free tools that let authors, scientists, artists, and educators easily mark their creative work with the freedoms they want it to carry. They can use CC to change copyright terms from “All Rights Reserved” to “Some Rights Reserved”.

Creative Commons is not anti-copyright. On the contrary, it is based on, and works within the framework of, copyright and recognizes that every intellectual creation in the digital world is entitled to both legal and moral respect.

Certainly, Creative Commons does not deny the commercial use or distribution of works. Come to think of it, it can even open up better avenues for subsequent commercial opportunities.

Pure and simple, what Creative Commons provides the authors, artists, educators, and scientists is the option, to let the world knows exactly how they want their works or creations used, distributed or even exploited, as a legal alternative to the default regime called copyright. In short, Creative Commons is all about freedom, promoting free culture and knowledge sharing.

While copyright principles are almost uniform in every country that recognizes it since the 1886 Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, some of its terms still vary.  Thus, Creative Commons embarked on porting its licenses in each country affiliated with it to make sure that local CC licenses conform to domestic copyright laws.

In the Philippines, this author is the legal and public lead of the project jurisdiction with the Arellano University School of Law, through its e-Law Center, as the lead public institution.

The country has successfully ported its local Creative Commons license last December 15, 2007 and is now available for pinoynetizens to use.

Tomorrow, January 14, the Arellano Law School will hold the official public launching of Creative Commons – Philippines and its ported licenses. The launch will be preceded by open sessions on free and open source software and e-learning. The event will be capped with a CC-PH concert featuring local bands and the Arellano Law Singers, who will perform their original works under a Creative Commons license.

Artists, educators, scientists, authors, bloggers and creators of works who use the Internet as a medium may now avail of the Creative Commons Philippines License Version 3.0 by visiting the website – http://www.creativecommons.org/ or http://www.philippinecommons.org/, and there they can choose their option or freedom.

With Creative Commons, it is perfectly legal to share, remix and share.