Another Pearl Harbor?

By Bobby Goking / September 12, 2006

THE bleak aftermath of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon has made many of us believe that the world would never be the same again. However, the illustrious columnist Neal H. Cruz viewed it otherwise. For him the Sept. 11 bombing of the twin towers is just another Pearl Harbor. He wrote in his column (2/19/03 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer): "The American intelligence knew of the impending Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor and did nothing to stop it so that the Americans would be hopping mad and declare war against the Axis Powers. The Sept. 11, 2002 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon was said to be another Pearl Harbor."

Mr. Cruz was implying that the CIA knew of the Sept. 11 attack and did nothing in order to exploit the American hurts to rouse them to heights of fanatical nationalism and declare war against the "axis of evil"––Iraq, Iran and North Korea––the countries which the US considered its enemies.

The international magazine Newsweek (June 10, 2002) shared Mr. Cruz’s view, but not in the same words as used by him. Newsweek reported that the CIA had earlier tracked two suspected terrorists to an Al-Qaeda summit in Malaysia in January 2000. Their names were Almihdhar and Alhazmi, who later participated in the Sept. 11, 2002 terrorist attack.

Newsweek went on to report that after the CIA identified them as terrorists, Alhazmi and Almihdhar lived openly in the United States for one year and nine months before the Sept. 11 attack, using their real names in obtaining driver’s licenses, Social Security cards, and credit cards, and opening a $3,000-checking account at the Bank of America.

They even bought a dark blue 1988 Toyota Corolla for $3,000 cash and enrolled in flight schools. In the phone book, page 13 of the 2000-20001 Pacific Bell White Pages, it contained a listing for "Alhazmi Nawaf M 6401 Mount Ada Rd. 858-279-5919"––the real name and actual residence of the suspected terrorist.

When Almihdhar’s multiple-entry visa expired, the State Department, issued him a new one in June 2001––even though by then the CIA had linked him to one of the suspected bombers of the USS Cole in October 2000.

One senior FBI official commented that the CIA never shared its information with the FBI sooner until it was too late, revealed Newsweek.

Whether Sept. 11 was another Pearl Harbor is up for the readers to judge for themselves.

City hall's non-remittances

By Bobby Goking / July 13, 2006

SOME 40 city hall employees’ houses are about to be auctioned off for failure of the local government to remit payments for their loans to the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS). Surcharges and interests have accumulated, and the debts of some employees to GSIS reached some P400 thousand each as a result of the non-remittance.

On the contrary, the city hall claimed that these 40 city hall employees directly paid to GSIS, therefore it could not have deducted from their compensations the monthly loan amortizations to GSIS. However, a GSIS executive belied this claim of the city hall and said the latter was into "under remittance’’––not remitting the full amount of contribution or amortization to GSIS.

Before discussing further, we must first distinguish between compulsory (mandated by law) or optional (authorized by the employee) deduction. Because the law mandates that the employee’s share of GSIS contribution must be deducted from the employees’ compensation, this makes the deduction compulsory. However, even if such deduction is not compulsory, when the employee authorizes it, the employer is mandated to deduct from employee’s compensation payments for optional life insurance premiums, pre-need monthly installment, loan amortization and such other amounts due the GSIS, and to remit all collection to GSIS (pages 4-5, Primer on the GSIS Act of 1997).

In other words, although the deduction is optional, once the employee has authorized the city hall to deduct the amount of loan amortization, the local government is mandated to automatically deduct and remit the same to GSIS. And such failure to remit would then subject those responsible to penalties as provided by GSIS Act of 1997 (RA 8291). For every non-remittance of a monthly loan amortization, one count of estafa can be filed.

R.A. 8291 further provides against the erring official-employers the penalties of imprisonment from six months and one day to six years, and a fine of not less than P3,000 but not more than P6,000. In addition he or she shall suffer absolute perpetual disqualification from holding public office and from practicing any profession or calling licensed by the government.

Who should then be held liable for the surcharges and interests for non-remittance of the loan amortization? Section 52 (h) states: "The officers and/or personnel referred to in paragraph (g) of this section shall be liable not only criminally but also civilly to the GSIS or to the employee or member concerned in the form of damages, including surcharges and interests."

Paragraph (g) enumerates those persons liable, namely — The heads of the offices of the national government, its political subdivisions, branches, agencies and instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations and government financial institutions, and the personnel of such offices who are involved in the collection of premium contributions, loan amortization and other accounts due the GSIS..."

Clearly, it is not the city hall employees who should be held liable for the surcharges and interests of the non-remitted amounts, but the city official or personnel, who are found to have participated directly or indirectly in the commission of fraud, collusion, falsification, or misrepresentation in any transaction with the GSIS––such city official or personnel may include the mayor, treasurer, finance officer, cashier, disbursing officer, budget officer or other official found to be liable thereto. (Section 52 a and b of RA 8291.)

Kiko gyud!

By Bobby Goking / July 4, 2006

THE Juvenile Justice Bill (Welfare Act of 2006 or RA 9344) sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Kiko Pangilinan was passed into law, signed by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on April 28, 2006, and formally came into effect on May 22, 2006.

R.A. 9344 provides that youth offenders 15 years and below are exempt from criminal liability. Criminal charges can be filed against those older––aged 15 up to 18 years old––but only if they are found to have committed the offense "with discernment," meaning they were aware that what they were doing was wrong. It also outlines the immediate turn over of youth offenders in violation of the law upon their apprehension to social workers.

Dissent can be heard from the legal circle protesting the new law as absurd. They wanted to ask Senator Kiko Pangilinan: What if the drug and gambling lords, foreign terrorists or syndicates engaging in illegal activities would start recruiting youngsters 15 years old and younger to their side? What if the youngsters would then be trained with criminal skills of the underworld, after which they are fielded by their syndicate masters to run afoul with the law as masiao ushers, shabu couriers, cell phone snatchers, pimps, or armed robbers?

In Quezon City, the police arrested a 15-year-old boy accused of raping a 14-year-old girl. Under Senator Kiko Pangilinan’s sponsored law, the boy cannot be held criminally liable even if he were to admit he raped the girl. What do the good Senator expect the police to tell the parents of the rape victim––charge it to experience? To whom should the parents of the victim go now to get justice for their daughter?

There are many reported cases of cellular phone snatching perpetrated by teenage muggers who in some instances knifed or shot to death their victims; illegal drugs peddled in the streets by youngsters to support their vice as drug users; teenager-students offering themselves as prostitutes or acting out as pimps for others to maintain their high financed lifestyle. Imagine how these youngsters who cannot now be held criminally liable under RA 9344 could be further emboldened to commit such crimes.

Also, under the new law, children below 18 years old cannot be prosecuted for vagrancy, prostitution, mendicancy, and sniffing of rugby. For serious offenses, the offender could be sent to a rehabilitation center for "diversion programs" that will include, among other activities, mediation and conflict resolution, reparation for damages, a written or oral apology and counseling, anger management training, vocational training and community service.

Back to the earlier query on what the police will tell the parents of the rape victim: well, here it is, the police can tell the parents to ask the rapist to write a letter of apology with the words I’M SORRY (Hello Garci-Tapes fashion). That is all the parents could get in the name of Philippine justice.

Like most of the lawyers I have talked to, I certainly deplore the bastardizing of our criminal law with RA 9344. When asked what these lawyers think of RA 9344 sponsored by Senator Kiko Pangilinan, they replied emphatically: Kiko Gyud Kaayo!