Source: http://blipsnetwork.com/tag/out-of-cycle/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 06:02:06+00:00

Document:
You are cordially invited to join us for a chance to embrace your inner loser.
In a testament to wit, candor and irony, meet David & Goliath’s newest brilliantly satirical horde representing what could be this generations’ biggest pop-culture paradox: being a loser has never been more cool. Expect the clever, tart-tongued graphic misfits to spin it into fun and games as they prove once and for all that there’s no better time to be a LITTLE LOSER.
Sure, I did listen to most (not all, unfortunately) of the talks, though my attention drifted from time to time. From the magician-like presentation by Juned Sonido to the wonderful and entertaining videos by Ms. Aileen Apolo and Coy Caballes to Ria Jose‘s funny asides to Mam Noemi Dado‘s presentation on online advocacies, one thought lingered in my mind. And no, I am not telling yah about it. Ok, maybe in another post.
Breaktimes were spent chatting with Dra. Tess Termulo and The Jester-in-Exile (whose cover was blown, no thanks to Juned); then with Manuel L. Quezon III, Dra. Tess, Jester, Eugene, Juned, and Benj.
I was actually looking forward to the Chicken Mafia‘s stunt, and what I thought to be a farce turned out to be true: Philos did come, and wore that chicken costume. And it was a hit! Everyone groped Philos for pictures, and I’m sure Joyfulchicken is envious ha ha ha! Imagine all those girls!
I finally got to fondlehandle a DSLR camera – and got to shoot two pics! – thanks to Dhon Jason. I will get one soon. If the economy improves, of course.
Oh, when Marcelle Fabie hit the stage, he was looking for me to be his “assistant.” It was thoughtful of him; one time, I complained that he did not show me his tricks, and so last Saturday was his chance. Too bad call of nature intervened. All was not lost however; he did show me SEVERAL tricks during the after-party, and he scares me, really (that’s my way of saying he’s awesome).
Seen at iBlog: Ade (isnabero sa personal), AJ (who came with Ernie, of course), Dexter, Fritz (too busy with someone), George, Jane, Marck, Shari.
The iBlog format this year is I think better than last year. What I mean is, the topics were better. There were still complaints, though, from other people, and saw Mam Janette Toral having to explain how the format came to be. I did saw one post that totally pissed me off, but not enough to rant about it. Anyway, for next year’s iBlog, here is my suggestion. This is not original, OK? I saw this format in action at The Varsitarian’s Thomasian Journalism Fellowship (I had attended the inaugural and the next two). Originally, it followed this year’s iBlog format, where all participants stay in one venue, listening to speakers. And since journalism is a wide field, the organizers thought of a variation of the iBlog 2 format: there were plenary sessions, one session in the morning and another one in the afternoon; and then concurrent sessions in between plenaries, grouped by subject, where participants can choose.
And then there’s a complaint about Blogging 101. We can’t please everyone, I know, but that complaint has a point, in the eyes of those who were blogging since Freddie Mercury was still alive. That is why I believe the separate-track-and-plenary format is perfect for iBlog – to tailor the summit for everyone who wants to attend.
As for me, I attend iBlog for the community, to get to know new bloggers. Unfortunately for this year, it did not happen. No thanks to that preoccupation.
I am just not sure if it will really make her clothes clean. Or make her husband look cute.
My hamster Berta gave birth last Holy Thursday. Mom was about to change her cage’s bedding when she saw some critters crawling.
Later, she recognized these to be small hamsters. It was a surprise for all of us, since we did not know she was pregnant. I was alarmed, though, that there were only three, since the average for teddy bear hamsters is seven (Berto and Berta’s batch was ten, though one died).
While the mother tended to be over-productive, we could not help but take a look every time, to see their progress. In their second week, one of them managed to slip in the mother’s milk bowl. Good thing there was only less than half a millimeter of milk. We had to get Berta’s attention, since we couldn’t touch them yet (the mother might get rattled and eat them).
The decision and the dissenting opinions made an exposition on executive privilege, which sounds like a lecture on the topic.
b. The communication must be authored or “solicited and received” by a close advisor of the President or the President himself. The judicial test is that an advisor must be in “operational proximity” with the President.
c. The presidential communications privilege remains a qualified privilege that may be overcome by a showing of adequate need, such that the information sought “likely contains important evidence” and by the unavailability of the information elsewhere by an appropriate investigating authority.
(2) Deliberative process privilege, which encompasses “advisory opinions, recommendations and deliberations comprising part of a process by which governmental decisions and policies are formulated.” This applies to deliberations and decisions made by executive officials, based on common law privilege.
In Re Sealed Case confines the privilege only to White House Staff that has “operational proximity” to direct presidential decision-making. Thus, the privilege is meant to encompass only those functions that form the core of presidential authority, involving what the court characterized as “quintessential and non-delegable Presidential power,” such as commander-in-chief power, appointment and removal power, the power to grant pardons and reprieves, the sole-authority to receive ambassadors and other public officers, the power to negotiate treaties etc.
To be specific, executive privilege applies to documents and/or communications that might reveal military or state secrets, identity of government informers, and information relating to pending investigations; it is also applied in the field of foreign relations. The applicable Philippine judicial decisions are Chavez v. PCGG [360 Phil. 133 (1998)], Chavez v. PEA [ 314 Phil. 150 (1995)], and Senate v. Ermita.
* The communication refers to the President’s power to enter into an executive country with other states, which is a “quintessential and non-delegable” power of the President. This power does not require concurrence of the Congress.
* The communications are directed to a close advisor of the President, which is within the operational proximity of the President.
* There is no compelling need to limit the privilege, and that information is available elsewhere.
Unlike in Nixon, the information here is elicited, not in a criminal proceeding, but in a legislative inquiry. In this regard, Senate v. Ermita stressed that the validity of the claim of executive privilege depends not only on the ground invoked but, also, the procedural setting or the context in which the claim is made. Furthermore, in Nixon, the President did not interpose any claim of need to protect military, diplomatic or sensitive national security secrets. In the present case, Executive Secretary Ermita categorically claims executive privilege on the grounds of presidential communications privilege in relation to her executive and policy decision-making process and diplomatic secrets.
These are in addition to what our body of jurisprudence classifies as confidential and what our Constitution considers as belonging to the larger concept of executive privilege. Clearly, there is a recognized public interest in the confidentiality of certain information. We find the information subject of this case belonging to such kind.
Thus, while Congress is composed of representatives elected by the people, it does not follow, except in a highly qualified sense, that in every exercise of its power of inquiry, the people are exercising their right to information.
The context in which executive privilege is being invoked is that the information sought to be disclosed might impair our diplomatic as well as economic relations with the People’s Republic of China. Given the confidential nature in which these information were conveyed to the President, he cannot provide the Committee any further details of these conversations, without disclosing the very thing the privilege is designed to protect.
At any rate, as held further in Senate v. Ermita, the Congress must not require the executive to state the reasons for the claim with such particularity as to compel disclosure of the information which the privilege is meant to protect. This is a matter of respect to a coordinate and co-equal department.
1. The answers to the three questions refer to a conversation between the President and a close advisor. This satisfies the presidential communication privilege and the operational proximity test.
2. The answers refer to an exercise by the President of powers that is “quintessential and non-delegable,” and does not require concurrence of the Senate.
3. There is no compelling need to limit the privilege and disclose the information.
I believe that it is best that lawyers explain to us what Neri v. Ermita means. However, that doesn’t – and shouldn’t – deter us mere laymen from perusing the said decision, comprehending what the justices wanted to say (and hide, obfuscate, or justify), understanding what the decision meant, and analyzing its impact on our daily lives and on our country.
I will try to summarize the decision in several posts.
a)Whether the President followed up the (NBN) project?
b)Were you dictated to prioritize the ZTE?
c)Whether the President said to go ahead and approve the project after being told about the alleged bribe?
Maintaining the confidentiality of conversations of the President is necessary in the exercise of her executive and policy decision making process. The expectation of a President to the confidentiality of her conversations and correspondences, like the value which we accord deference for the privacy of all citizens, is the necessity for protection of the public interest in candid, objective, and even blunt or harsh opinions in Presidential decision-making. Disclosure of conversations of the President will have a chilling effect on the President, and will hamper her in the effective discharge of her duties and responsibilities, if she is not protected by the confidentiality of her conversations.
Because of his refusal to attend the committee hearings, an arrest order was issued against Neri. He then filed a petition to the Supreme Court to stop the Senate from compelling him to answer the three questions, and to revoke the arrest order.
The Supreme Court today sustained the principle of executive privilege over Congress’ right to information, according to abs-cbnNEWS/Newsbreak sources.
Voting 9 to 6, the SC sustained former Socio-economic Planning Secretary Romulo Neri’s defense that the Senate cannot force him to answer questions covered by executive privilege.
The ruling was penned by SC Associate Justice Teresita de Castro.
This gives the Office of the President the upper hand in its protracted power struggle with the Senate on whether officials of the executive branch should appear in Senate hearings in aid of legislation.
The Senate is presently investigating allegations of irregularity in the $329 million NBN-ZTE contract, and the SC decision could prematurely put an end to the inquiry.
The ruling may also quash efforts by the opposition-dominated Senate to finally pin down President Arroyo to the anomalous deal, after revelations by witnesses that First Gentleman Mike Arroyo and other close allies were dipping their hands into the project.
However, the Supreme Court voted 10 to 5 on whether the Senate’s arrest warrant and procedure on Neri were valid.
This means Neri will have to appear before the Senate but he cannot answer questions covered by executive privilege.
In a 9-6 vote, the Supreme Court on Tuesday granted the petition of Romulo Neri, former socio-economic planning secretary, to hinder the Senate from grilling him on the alleged anomalies in the $329.48-million National Broadband Network project with China’s Zhong Xing Telecommunications Equipment, Corp.
Two well-placed sources from the high court said that nine of the justices that included newly appointed justice Arturo Brion voted in favor of the petition, which sought the invocation of executive privilege in relation to Neri’s communication with President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo on the botched NBN-ZTE deal.
The sources said that Chief Justice Reynato Puno, and associate justices Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Alicia Austria-Martinez, Conchita Carpio-Morales, and Adolfo Azcuna were among those who went against Neri’s petition.
Neri, who filed the suit in his capacity as former director of the National Economic Development Authority, claimed that the three questions posed to him during his first and only Senate appearance last year were privileged communications covered by the principle of executive privilege and which can only be divulged during an executive session.
The three questions are whether the President followed up the NBN-ZTE project with Neri; whether he was told by the President to prioritize the NBN-ZTE project; and whether the President told him to go ahead with the project after learning of the massive bribe offer.
Neri’s invocation of executive privilege on these questions had prompted senators to cite him for contempt. The Senate also issued an arrest warrant against Neri after he refused to attend the inquiry into the NBN-ZTE deal.
At the Palace, Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye said Malacañang “respect(s) the decision of the Supreme Court.
“We hope that, looking forward, the Senate and the Executive can work out mutually acceptable rules on appearances in Senate inquiries in aid of legislation, which will guarantee the rights of resource persons and parties affected by congressional hearings, as stipulated by the Constitution,” he said.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.