Tags
There was a great conversation yesterday after what happened to Dr. Clinton’s blog. Here are some of my thoughts:
- On Hacking. It is hard to prove that Dr. Clinton’s blog was hacked. It is much harder to prove that it was Teddy Casino who hacked the blog. I would not know though if Dr. Clinton accused Casino of hacking the blog, or at the very least responsible for taking down the doctor’s blog. We need evidence for this, but unfortunately, this is a mere distraction from the main issue
- On conversation with Teddy. Teddy promised to write a blog post regarding this (Read here). I welcome this effort of Casino to explain itself, but I am still disappointed.
- On Teddy’s blog. I was so disappointed. The representative did not answer the question we posed. Again, the question was “Is it legal for candidates to advertise on SME products?”. Has Casino answered it? No. He, again, resorted to generalities.
- On the Casino Anti-Epal bill. In his blog Casino tells us about the subject of the bill. He says, “ I am proposing to prohibit the naming of streets, classrooms, gymnasiums, parks, other public places, and government projects or programs after an incumbent government official or their relatives.” I’ll deal with this below
***
No wonder why the bill did not push through. There is no sense of making a law that will prohibit what is already prohibited. I direct you to this provision of the Local Government Code:
Section 13. Naming of Local Government Units and Public Places, Streets and Structures.
xxx
(d) None of the foregoing local government units, institutions, places, or buildings shall be named after a living person…
Of course it will be impossible to name streets, classrooms, gymnasiums, parks, other public places after an incumbent official; unless, of course, the incumbent official is dead (which is funny no?). On naming them after a relative of an incumbent official, the relative must be dead first before the thing be named after. Now, should the relative be dead, then it is a matter of delicadeza, an ethical issue that is.
This is very much the same with epal. It is an ethical issue, @raggster says. I simply cannot buy Casino’s blogpost merely because it is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Well, he may or may not be an epal but it is for the public taste to determine that. Can he complain? I don’t think he is in the position to; after all, he is applying for a public office.
Did Dr. Clinton accuse Teddy and his team. Oo naman. Pyesta nga eh at may nagsabi bang ipokrito si Teddy. Sa previous blog entry mo nga may tanong ka pa kung masisisi mo ba si Dr. Clinton? Tapos tatawagin pang syonga si Teddy? Naman.
If that’s indeed the reason why Teddy’s bill did not push through, whats the explanation for Miriam’s version? LGU code pa din? I think the main reason why it did not push through is because most of the lawmakers are against it or simply do not care. And now Teddy is being crticized for being epal? Come on.
If local govt code is enough, bakit may Vilma Santos Type bulding at Ralph Recto Type Building sa mga public schools sa Batangas? Ilang taon na yan nandyan, hindi ba sila epal kasi LP? Sus.
May political message ang parehong version na pinalalabnaw at ginagamit na dahilan para atakehin si Teddy at sa esensya ang pulitika ng pagbabago na itinutulak nya. It’s either one is againts his platform or supports it. If one supports Teddy’s cause, hindi isyu ang buko pie at tarps. Kasi kung tarps lang ang pag uusapan, di hamak na mas madaming epal tarps ang LP at UNA. Halimbawa na lang, sinabihan ba ni Dr. Clinton na epal si Risa Hontiveros dahil sa mga tarps nya? Kasing init ba ng batikos nya kay Teddy? Sa huli, usapin ito ng linyang pulitikal o interest ng uri.
Kung hahadlangan natin si Teddy para makapasok sa Senado, para na rin itong pagsuporta sa mga trapo. Yan naman ay opinyon ko lang.
So ayaw nyo sa buko pie? Eh di magtyaga tayo sa pichapie ni Lito Lapid.
“If local govt code is enough, bakit may Vilma Santos Type bulding at Ralph Recto Type Building sa mga public schools sa Batangas? ” Simple, walang nagfifile ng administrative cases. But now that you have brought it up….
“May political message ang parehong version na pinalalabnaw at ginagamit na dahilan para atakehin si Teddy at sa esensya ang pulitika ng pagbabago na itinutulak nya.” No, he’s doing it for himself.
” It’s either one is againts his platform or supports it.” False dichotomy
” If one supports Teddy’s cause, hindi isyu ang buko pie at tarps” So you want us to follow Teddy blindly?! WHAT?!
“na lang, sinabihan ba ni Dr. Clinton na epal si Risa Hontiveros dahil sa mga tarps nya? ” Ay teh girl, we always call Risa’s attention to her being epal. Check our feeds.
“Kung hahadlangan natin si Teddy para makapasok sa Senado, para na rin itong pagsuporta sa mga trapo” Non sequitur
“May political message ang parehong version na pinalalabnaw at ginagamit na dahilan para atakehin si Teddy at sa esensya ang pulitika ng pagbabago na itinutulak nya. It’s either one is againts his platform or supports it.”
Since most of everything else has been responded to, I’ll just pick on this one in particular.
The sentence quoted above is chock-full of contradictions and paradoxes. Observe:
1. Apol insist that we should focus on the “political message” of the Anti-Epal bill and stick to its narrow definition, rather than consider the citizen-formulated definition. Yet shouldn’t a progressive legislator who seeks to include as much citizen input into his laws as possible *precisely* consider how citizens have formulated the term “epal” and at least attempt to address it, rather than dismiss it?
My interpretation of that is that Casino simply wants to remove the undue advantage other lawmakers have in illegally using public funds for self-promotion – a practice which has been virtually prohibited by COA in a recent circular disallowing such promotional materials as “unnecessary expenses.” But insofar as the practice of self-promotion itself goes, Casino sees no problem with it, and will in fact embrace it wholeheartedly, even as citizens clearly show disdain for it.
2. Apol equates criticism to attack. Isn’t this the tired trapo line? Wouldn’t a progressive politician know how to accept criticism and transform it into a plan of action?
3. Apol equates an attack on Casino as an attack that is “essentially” against Casino’s so-branded “politics of change.” By implication, he is saying that Casino’s “politics of change” is really personality-based, not platform-based; otherwise we should be able to separate the man and his acts as a candidate from the politics he espouses. Yet, isn’t personality-based politics antithetical to a progressive, “politics of change” platform?
4. Apol then plays the “If you’re not with us then you’re against us” line. Which is funny, as it is a direct rip-off of the Tuwid na Daan campaign for three years running. Which is ironic, because Casino is stlying himself to be the alternative to the administration. So why copy the style? Why play the same game?
All these point to a single fact: Teddy Casino is no different from any other candidate out there. His message might be a bit different, his network might be a bit different, but when you peel back the layers of myths and legends, what we’re left with is just another politician using the same old tricks and making the same old claims. What we’re left with is just another trapo in the making.
Uhm… Pili lang ang sinagot mo. Ok lang. Naiintindihan ko.
Ah, pangsariling interest pala ni Teddy yung anti epal bill nya? Mukhang siguradong sigurado ka. Ok.
Nga pala, check out Howie Severino’s report about recto type building few years ago and you my just get a clue.
Peace. Salamat sa espasyo.
“Uhm… Pili lang ang sinagot mo” Hindi pa point by point ang ginawa ko?
“Ah, pangsariling interest pala ni Teddy yung anti epal bill nya? Mukhang siguradong sigurado ka.” Did not say that. DO not put words on my mouth.
“Nga pala, check out Howie Severino’s report about recto type building few years ago and you my just get a clue.” I will. But nonetheless, that issue do not resolve Teddy’s failure to answer the question directly.
I thought I was already clear about product endorsements – they are not illegal, therefore they are legal.
As to my bill, the LGC notwithstanding, there is still a need to legislate against the practice of naming public places & projects after incumbents or their relatives dead AND alive. The fact that it is a common practice shows tha existing law does not have enough teeth. Thus the provisions on stiff penalties that we put. Also, my bill disallows even the use of dead people’s names as long as they are related to the incumbent.
Hi Rep Casiño,
Although you have stated that product endorsements are not illegal, we were also expecting for the legal basis of such.
Also, I do agree with you that there is still a need to legislate measures against “epal” practices and that the existing law has no enough teeth. I just pointed out a particular point on your bill regarding naming of places after living people. LGC covers it, I would like to think like that so the problem must be on the implementation and there is no need to redundantly define it. Stiffer penalties, I also agree with that. The point that I was trying to make is that it MAY not have passed legislative scrutiny because your colleagues MIGHT have seen it’s similarities to LGC. There maybe other reasons, but nevertheless, I think the next anti-epal bill should be really effective to cover the epals as may be perceived by the public. Furthermore, COA has Circular 2013-004 issued last January 30, 2013, I think that is in the right direction.
Going back to our first concern, may you enlighten us of the basis of your opinion on product endorsements.