The Four-eyed Journal » Law & legislation

Full text of the consolidated Reproductive Health Bill in 15th Congress

jhay — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 10:16:27 +0000

Finally, a copy of the consolidated Reproductive Health Bill as filed in the 15th Congress of the Philippines.

It was originally published over at Likhaan Center for Women’s Health‘s website – an NGO working for the passage of the Reproductive Health Bill into law. I share it here in PDF format for ease of use and as a reference for all.

Full Text of the Consolidated Reproductive Health Bill Philippines 15th Congress

Hopefully, this would help facilitate a focused, vigorous national debate.

Legalize Divorce in the Philippines – Support HB 1799 - Those in irreparable marriages deserve a way out

jhay — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 00:00:05 +0000

It’s time to move forward into the modern era and away from medieval times. It’s time to give women more protection, empowerment and a better chance of having a happier and more fulfilling married life.

This could be achieved by legalizing divorce in the Philippines, which along with the Vatican City, is the only remaining country in the world where divorce is not provided for by law.

Let us not fool ourselves and turn a blind eye to the sad fact that many marriages in the Philippines are not successful and in most cases, the wives in this damaged marriages are still prisoners living in suffering, pain and sometimes in fear of their own lives.

Though Philippine society frowns upon broken marriages and husband and wives going their own separate ways, keeping them trapped in wedlock is not the solution. There must be a fair, authoritative and just mechanism in dealing with damaged marriages.

Such a mechanism is in the form of divorce that HB 1799 provides for. In the proposed bill’s explanatory note:

Not all circumstances and situations that cause the total breakdown of a marriage could be defined in this proposed measure. Thus, the bill also provides that divorce may be granted when the spouses suffer from irreconcilable differences that have caused the irreparable breakdown of the marriage. Spouses living in a state of irreparable marital conflict or discord should be given the opportunity to present their marital contrarieties in court and have those differences adjudged as constituting a substantial ground to put an end to the marriage

Keeping the couple together locked in their irreparable marriage, would not only mean more suffering for them but for their children as well.

If a marriage is in the rocks, the married couple or one of them could file for a petition for divorce which then gives them the opportunity to explain in court why they seek divorce. It gives the husband and especially the wife, equal opportunity to be heard and to speak without fear of retaliation from either side. Because in Philippine families, the wife is silenced by either her husband or her in-laws because marriage problems are tackled at home. And in that home, the wife is usually left with no one on her side. And even if the wife has raised valid concerns or reasons in support of her decision to leave her husband, it is overruled or ignored by the in-laws or elders whose advice often becomes the ruling on the matter. So the wife is left to sacrifice her dignity, her rights and freedoms, even her welfare as she remains trapped in an unhappy and broken marriage.

The abusive or erring husband goes on scot-free to repeat his misdeeds causing more suffering to the woman he swore to cherish and to hold, in sickness and in health, till death do they part.

So let’s give women the dignity, protection and empowerment they so deserve. Let us affirm that they too have an equal say about their marriage. If it can no longer be repaired, differences can no longer be reconciled, it is time to end the marriage.

Keeping the couple together locked in their irreparable marriage, would not only mean more suffering for them but for their children as well. The one roof that used to protect and shelter them would now become a prison of misery, suffering and harm both physically and psychologically.

With divorce, the aggrieved spouse now has a remedy to be free from the irreparable marriage. Be able to pursue a path of his or her choosing which will allow for healing and growth. Financial independence would be regained which will also offer the opportunity to focus earnings in raising or providing support for their children.

Divorce offers the opportunity to start a new life, be it by remarrying or remaining divorced. The rest of the world has given this opportunity to their citizens, let us join them in offering the same right, remedy and opportunity to our fellow Filipinos especially our women.

Dissecting the Anti-Camcording Law

jhay — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 00:50:12 +0000

The Inquirer reports that last week, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed into law the Anti-Camcording Act of 2009, which has intensified the government’s anti-piracy efforts in the country.

Under the Anti-Camcording Law, any person who is caught using or attempting to use an audiovisual recording device to transmit or make a copy of any part of a performance in an exhibition facility of any cinematographic film or other audiovisual work will be fined from P50,000 to P750, 000 face imprisonment of a minimum six months and one day to six years and one day.

While it is just right that making camcording illegal and handing out a stiff penalty for its commission, I find troubling the other provisions of the said law. Allow me to illustrate.

First, consider its definition of what is an “audiovisual recording device”

a digital or analog photographic or video camera, or any other technology or device capable of enabling the recoding or transmission of a cinematographic film or other audiovisual work, or any part thereof, regardless of whether audiovisual recording is the sole or primarily purpose of the device.

By this definition, mobile phones with built-in cameras, which are so common nowadays, are included in the purview of the law. Being able to send and receive messages including MMS which contains video or audio clips it falls squarely as a device capable of recording and transmission of a audiovisual work.

Now, using an audiovisual recording device to record or at least attempting to do so is not the only act being punished by the new Anti-Camcording law. It now includes possession of such device inside the exhibition facility of such cinematographic film, like a movie house, a possible offense under the law.

Does this mean that any device capable of making audiovisual recordings, including the now ubiquitous camera-phones, will be banned inside cinemas even if owners don’t have the intention of pirating the movie they’re going to see?

Apparently so, as Section 7 of the law requires the posting of notices or signages warning against the bringing of audiovisual recording devices in movie houses or wherever movies are being shown. Not only that, it also reserves for the management/operator of the movie house the authority to take into preventive and temporary custody such audiovisual recording device/s, meaning our mobile phones, until the film/movie theater patron, that’s us moviegoers, leave the movie house.

Now that movie theaters can temporarily hold on to customers’ camera phones, I have the following questions:

How sure are we that our camera phones and point-and-shoots, would be safe while in the preventive custody of the movie house management?
In the unfortunate event that our devices do get damaged or stolen while in the management’s preventive custody, would we be able to hold them liable for the loss or damage?

To these main questions, I can’t help come up with follow-ups;

Would movie houses charge for more because now they have to set up an audiovisual recording device counter and hire additional staff to handle it?

If ever the movie theater management is indeed liable for lost or damaged devices while in their temporary custody, would this mean more charges for us patrons because now they have to get insured in case they really do have to replace or repair a damaged gadget?

It seems that the new Anti-Camcording Law has indeed made things tougher for movie pirates, but on the other hand, it has opened a can of worms with regards to property and privacy issues.

But this is not all of it. I also have concerns regarding the additional powers and authorities given to law enforcement agencies by this law. But that is for another post for another time.

1987 Constitution of The Republic of the Philippines

jhay — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 22:58:58 +0000

Though there are a lot of sources for the full text of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines on the web most of it are in html or web page format, some with embedded html tags that ruins the layout of the text whenever it is copied from the web and pasted into your word processor. Others have font styles that would eat-up a lot of your printer ink and require some tweaking before it becomes printer-friendly.

If you like to save time, paper and printer ink or toner, here’s a the full text of the 1987 Constitution in a printer-friendly style and easily downloadable PDF or Word document format:

1987 Philippine Constitution

Just download using the links above and we all must thank the PCIJ for this easily-accessible and printable copy of our country’s Constitution.

Press Release: The Dangers of the CyberCrime Act

jhay — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 01:36:18 +0000

It really amazes me how some of our legislators come up with ideas for new laws especially when the bills they propose are riddled with ambiguities, sometimes devoid of reason and out of touch with reality. Another such proposed bill is HOUSE BILL NO. 6794 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2009.

Fortunately, some of our lawmakers take time to really study proposed legislation and weigh it against the objective interests of the public including our civil and political rights. Let me share a press release from KABATAAN party-list about their stand on the proposed CyberCrime Act.

——-

Bill will not resolve hacking of gov’t websites

Kabataan Party-list Rep. Mong Palatino today called on the House of Representatives to re-evaluate and stop the passing of the HB 6974 CyberCrime Prevention Act of 2009 which is up for third reading when session resumes.

Palatino said that his opposition to the proposed bill is for similar reasons that he is against the Right of Reply Bill. “The bill may be used to stifle freedom of expression, speech and the press and may violate the people’s right to privacy. The definition of ‘cybercrime’ in the bill is vague and its scope overly-broad that it may criminalize ordinary electronic activities of any Tom, Dick or Harry who uses the Internet, a mobile phone or any electronic device,” he said.

He cited, for instance, Section 4 of the bill prohibiting the “recording, distribution and exhibition of recorded ‘private acts’ and ‘other obscene and indecent acts’ are NOT limited to sexual acts alone and thus not sufficiently defined. “How will this affect the right of citizens to freedom of speech and expression especially with regard to issues of public concern? Will the scrupulous acts of public officials be considered “private acts”? How will this affect media exposes and investigative reportage on corrupt practices in the government?”

On the threat to right to privacy, Palatino pointed to Section 9 of the bill which empowers the government to monitor activities and access private accounts of persons suspected of committing “cybercrimes,” even activities and files that are not related to said punishable acts.

“For example, for the government to pin-point an activity which is criminal in nature according to the Act, it has to monitor all other activities of an individual at a given time, and worse may expose the activities of other individuals using the same computer system or server at the same time. For the government to access a malicious file in an individual’s hard drive, it has to confiscate and search through the entire storage device, thus exposing all other personal files and correspondence to government access and intrusion, even those unrelated to the ‘cybercrime’. This is dangerous because it gives the government an excuse to justify illegal fishing expeditions against ordinary citizens and allows the wanton violation of the strict requirements in criminal procedure.”

Palatino said that he will ask the House leadership to return the bill to second reading to thresh out all vague and controversial provisions. “We should also consult netizens, the online media and other stakeholders before we pass any bill that directly affects them.”

The young solon also said that HB 6974 will not resolve the problem of government websites being hacked. “What the government should do is to strengthen its IT network, improve the IT infrastructure and foster the development of IT in the country in order to empower institutions and individuals against malicious technological infringements. Compromising the rights of citizens in the use of IT is not a resolution.”

————

Besides addressing its own IT problems first, the government should look into the predatory practices of telecommunication firms and their ISP subsidiaries so that consumers woes could finally be addressed. More on this in the coming days.