Here’s Senator Robin Padilla:

“Para sa akin nagiging biktima si Pastor kasi nilabanan nya yong NPA. Nasaan ang utang na loob natin sa serbisyo ng taong ito. Hindi deserve sa mata ko na ang isang taong sa tingin ko ay bayani sa pakikipaglaban nya sa komnista, na kasama ako, eh, ganitong klase papayagan ko na maiskandalo. Teka muna.” (“For me, Pastor becomes a victim because he fought the NPA. Where is our debt of gratitude to this man’s service? It is not worthy in my eyes that a person who I think is a hero in his fight against the communists, with me, eh, this kind of thing I will allow to be scandalized. Wait first.”)

It is embarrassing to listen to a senator of the republic talking in disjointed sentences, and in his mother tongue of Filipino at that. In any case, what the 54-year-old senator is trying to say is that 73-year-old Quiboloy is a victim because he fought the New People’s Army (NPA). The NPA is the military wing of the Communist Party of the Philippines.

We haven’t really gotten over the scandal perpetuated by another cult leader, Jey Rence Quilario, also known as “Senior Agila”, the leader of the Socorro Bayanihan Services Inc. (SBSI). After a lengthy Senate probe, the National Bureau of Investigation on November 7, 2023, arrested Quilario and 12 other SBSI members on suspicion of sexually abusing children and leading a cult. The cult is accused of sexually enslaving children in a remote area in Surigao del Norte.

Quiboloy, founder of the Philippines-based Restorationist church called the Kingdom of Jesus Christ (KOJC) and self-appointed Son of God, couldn’t care less about the communist rebels. Even if he did fight them, there is no correlation between his alleged victimization and his political belief. Padilla is also trying to convey the idea that the billionaire-preacher is a hero, like the senator himself (as he interjects), and that people should not drag his name in the scandal. 

Wanted in the US

Well, the issue is no mere scandalous gossip. There are two grave accusations against Quiboloy: alleged rape of minors and exploitation of his so-called “spiritual workers” by subjecting them to street begging in the Philippines and abroad, particularly in the US and Canada, to support his lavish lifestyle (such as, owning a private jet and helicopters, a fleet of luxury vehicles, and a mansion fit for a Middle Eastern emir).

Must Read

Inside Apollo Quiboloy’s lavish world: Mansions, rich-and-famous lifestyle in North America

For these reasons the Senate Committee on Women, Children, Family Relations, and Gender Equality, chaired by Senator Risa Hontiveros, has invited the preacher to explain his side and, when he failed to appear on the appointed date, cited him for contempt and issued a warrant of arrest against him. Quiboloy is reportedly asking the Senate for conditions before he appears in the probe which Hontiveros has shut down.

But the Senate investigation could become moot and academic. A district court judge in California, Terry Hatter Jr., recently unsealed at the request of the US Attorney in that State the arrest warrants against Quiboloy and his co-accused.

Quiboloy is facing charges in the US for conspiracy to engage in sex trafficking of children by force, fraud, coercion, and bulk cash smuggling. He is in the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) Most Wanted list.

According to legal observers, the unsealing of the arrest order is the first step leading to the extradition of the accused from the Philippines to the US.

Unlike the International Criminal Court, whose jurisdiction in the Philippines is being questioned by former President Rodrigo Duterte, et al, the extradition treaty between the US and the Philippines is straightforward and not subject to interpretation.

The Philippines is duty-bound to extradite Quiboloy, as it did in the case of then-congressman Mark Jimenez, whose charges were not as serious as Quiboloy’s. The latter was picked up by agents of the FBI and brought to the US to stand trial for a lesser offense of campaign contribution violation and serve his sentence there.

Quiboloy is facing capital offenses that could land him in jail for a long, long time.

It is not only Padilla who is trying to shield Quiboloy from the Senate investigation. He is joined by a like-minded senator, Cynthia Villar, who is also clueless about government procedures and bereft of the concept of fairness and justice. Most people watching the Senate proceedings find the female senator’s pronouncements and behavior unacceptable.

Explaining her signature in the proposed resolution recalling the arrest warrant, the Villar matriarch states:

“Kaibigan ko si Pastor Quiboloy. Malapit sya sa aking pamilya, at natataka ako dyan sa kaso na yan, kaya medyo hindi ano naniniwala sa kaso na yan. Kilala ko sya personally at nakakahiya naman na ako, eh, ipapahuli ko sya. Dyos ko.” [“I know Pastor Quibooloy. He is close to my family, which is why I am surprised about that case, and I don’t believe it. I know him personally, and it would be shameful if I ordered his arrest. My God.”]

Ah, so for Villar, the reason is personal. Quiboloy is a family friend and it would be a shame to send a “good friend” to jail. Never mind that he may have victims – they could all go to hell. It is the same sentiment Padilla expresses, who says the pastor lent a helicopter for his use during the senatorial campaign.

Two other senators are trying to foil Senator Hontiveros’s efforts: Senators Christopher Lawrence Go and Imee Marcos. Padilla also identified Senator Joseph Victor Ejercito as a Quiboloy ally, but the latter has been reported to have withdrawn his signature later in the same day he signed the petition.

These Quiboloy supporters in the Senate are not guilty of hypocrisy, as some people might think, but cynicism of the most brazen kind. A hypocrite, repulsive as he may be, is at least paying homage to virtue, which is why he is offering an imitation to that very virtue as an alternative.

The cynic, on the other hand, does not hide his admiration for the evildoer and his contempt for the victims. What is important to him is the profit made and the advantage gained in the transaction.

False prophets

There are many passages in the Bible about false prophets, but this one from the New Testament, 2 Peter 2:1-3 is my favorite: “But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.”

Throughout history, societies have been captivated by charismatic leaders who claim to possess divine insights or extraordinary powers. They wield significant influence over their followers, shaping beliefs, modifying behaviors, and sometimes affecting entire civilizations. Cloaked in charm and deception, they exploit the vulnerabilities of the human psyche for personal gain, leading their adherents astray. They are idolized over genuine spiritual leaders who do not have may not have their persuasive rhetoric and magnetic personality which these cult figures skillfully employ to create an illusion of authenticity, drawing  into their fold individuals seeking guidance or solace.

False prophet much like snake-oil salesmen, frequently peddle messages that appeal to the desires and fears of their audience. Whether promising wealth, salvation, or security, they exploit human vulnerabilities to manipulate emotions and foster dependency. By offering simplistic solutions to complex problems, they prey on the uncertainties and anxieties of their followers, promising deliverance in exchange for allegiance.

Blind belief

The consequences of cults ending in tragedies extend far beyond the immediate loss of life. These events shatter families, communities, and societies, leaving scars that endure for generations. They also provoke scrutiny and introspection regarding the regulation of religious and ideological groups, prompting questions about the balance between freedom of belief and the protection of vulnerable individuals.

It is a stark reminder of the dangers posed by unchecked fanaticism and the importance of vigilance in safeguarding against manipulation and coercion. By addressing the underlying factors that contribute to the rise of cults and implementing measures to protect vulnerable individuals, societies can strive to prevent such tragic outcomes in the future.

Several cult leaders in the United States have led their followers to tragic outcomes. Some of the most infamous ones include:

• Jim Jones: He was the leader of the Peoples Temple, a cult that ended in tragedy with the mass suicide of over 900 of its members in Jonestown, Guyana, in 1978. This event, known as the Jonestown Massacre, is one of the largest mass suicides in history.
• David Koresh: Leader of the Branch Davidians, an offshoot of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Koresh led his followers in a standoff with federal agents at the Mount Carmel Center near Waco, Texas, in 1993. The confrontation ended in a deadly fire that killed Koresh and approximately 75 of his followers, including many children.
• Marshall Applewhite: Co-founder of the Heaven’s Gate cult, Applewhite convinced 39 of his followers to commit suicide in 1997 in order to reach what they believed was an extraterrestrial spacecraft following the Comet Hale-Bopp.
• Charles Manson: Although not a traditional cult leader, Manson led a group known as the Manson Family. He convinced his followers to commit a series of nine murders in the late 1960s, including the infamous Tate-LaBianca murders in 1969. Manson’s ability to manipulate his followers into committing acts of violence earned him notoriety.

These are just a few examples, but there have been several other cult leaders throughout history who have led their followers to tragic ends through manipulation, coercion, and extremism.

In a world fraught with uncertainty and complexity, the allure of false prophets persists as a perennial threat to the unsuspecting and vulnerable. By preying upon human frailties and exploiting the noble pursuit of spiritual truth, these charlatans sow discord and despair, leading their followers astray.

It behooves us, therefore, to remain vigilant and discerning, lest we fall prey to the seductive wiles of false prophets and forfeit our autonomy and integrity in the process. Only through critical thinking, moral courage, and a steadfast commitment to truth can we safeguard ourselves and our communities from the pernicious influence of deception and delusion. Hontiveros, therefore, should be lauded for her valiant efforts in exorcising us from this evil possession. – Rappler.com

NMP board chairperson Andoni Aboitiz’s statement has turned the issue bizarre. He urged restraint in describing the objects as “stolen property.” But museum work is a work of honesty, performed no less by a trust of government such as the National Museum. Aboitiz does not know a thing about how important it is to establish provenance for every object the museum acquires.

Upon entering its catalogues of accession, an object that reaches the museum, whether by loan or by donation, is immediately recorded. The reason for that is conservation – future researchers and scholars will have a full grasp of the object’s complete history and origin. Where did the objects come from? They certainly did not come from the donors Edwin and Aileen Bautista. To negate the history of the object is dishonesty.

It is even more bizarre when that statement comes from Aboitiz. In 2016, the Ramon Aboitiz Foundation published The Pueblo of Bolhoon by Paul Gerschwiler. In 2009, Gerschwiler had also published “Boljoon: A Cultural Sketch” (publisher, The Foundry). In 2015, Aboitiz Foundation had also published Gerschwiler’s Argao: In Search of a Usable Past. Gerschwiler is a Swiss citizen who has called Argao, Cebu home. Gerschwiler’s Boljoon book published by Aboitiz Foundation provides a description of the same pulpit panels in the Boljoon Church.

The deed of donation states that the panels came from the “Church of the Roman Catholic Parish of Patrocinio de Maria Santisima in Boljoon, Cebu.” Aboitiz himself signed as a witness. Rappler’s Max Limpag obtained a redacted copy of the deed.

Must Read

Donation docs specify Boljoon panels stay with National Museum

Does the NMP even orient its private sector board members of its museum collection policy? Every museum worth its salt should have one. What does it say about donated stolen objects?

Rule of thumb

Among the functions of the NMP board is this responsibility that now rests with Aboitiz as chairperson: “To consider and appropriately dispose of appeals regarding administrative decisions of the Head of Agency, where appropriate in line with pertinent laws and issuances.”

As a non-negotiable rule of thumb, any museum must not accept donations of stolen objects. The Bautistas did not steal it. Right. But where did the objects come from before they reached their hands? The answer is already found in the deed of donation that the Bautistas and the NMP signed. Barns’ statement that “the donors acquired it through legitimate means” obfuscates provenance. A museum director general should not say that. It is unethical on his part. He is expected to abide by international museum ethics standards. In this case, it is NOT unclear where the objects came from.

What about the Bautistas? Collectors cannot claim ignorance. Even if they had acquired the objects legitimately (say from a legally operating antiques dealer), the objects did not originate from that dealer. To say that they were donating them to the NMP as a “gift to the nation” is a smokescreen of the objects’ provenance. It might even make them liable for the same law that now stares the NMP in the face: Presidential Decree No. 1612. They signed on the deed that states the objects came from the Boljoon Church.

The Bautistas should have acted like the tipster in the return, by way of an Ikea bag, of Van Gogh’s “Parsonage Garden at Nuenen in Spring” to a Dutch museum. The tipsters offered the painting back in return for anonymity and no trouble. Then the NMP should have returned the objects to the Boljoon Church.

Every time NMP says the objects should stay with them, as the deed of donation specifies, is like protecting the object’s burglar each day it remains in the hands of the NMP. This should be the museum’s unequivocal policy: anybody possessing the Boljoon panels outside the Boljoon Church risks criminal guilt of the anti-fencing law.

Return them

NMP director general Jeremy Barns’ “dynamic ownership” is garbage. There is no such thing. What was stolen is stolen. Period.

Section 2 (a) of the Anti-Fencing Law of 1979 states that “Fencing is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value which he knows, or should be known to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.”

The issue on the Boljoon Church panels has become complicated because NMP refuses to be ethical. But there is no other ethical choice: the objects must be returned to the Archdiocese of Cebu who is its rightful owner.

Is NMP willing to face the complexity of being charged in court for fencing? – Rappler.com

• 110,000 new automated counting machines
• 104,345 ballot boxes
• 2,200 consolidation and canvassing system (CCS) laptops and printers
• Ballot paper for 73.8 million voters
• Ballot printing and ballot verification services

This means that Miru, the lone bidder and eventual winner, replaces Smartmatic as Comelec’s automated election system provider. Smartmatic had been Comelec’s provider in the 2010, 2013, 2016, 2019, and 2022 polls, and generation of Filipinos by now have associated its machines with automated elections.

For us working in the field of elections, the award signals a bold walk in a different direction, a new and admittedly unknown path. As with all Comelec leadership positions, legacies are often tied with the success of the elections they lead. In the context of automated elections, success is connected to the voting machines and system that are being used. 

Despite the obvious PR campaign to sully Smartmatic’s reputation after the 2022 elections, I think it is but fair that we put on record that that its machines had performed exceptionally well. I think all of us who has handled election contests and court-sanctioned recounts before Comelec can attest that no complaint against it has ever survived court scrutiny, and none of its count has ever been proven wrong. In other words, Smartmatic set a high standard for how automated elections should be done. This will be the standard by which Miru’s technology and success will be gauged.

I understand the concern of some sectors that using Smartmatic for five consecutive elections is tantamount to a monopoly. But this is unfair to Comelec, given that each election contract had been won in an open, competitive, and even court-litigated public bidding. So I think what should cause us concern now is whether Comelec’s move to award Miru with the poll contract, after disqualifying Smartmatic, is a step towards the right direction. Or will it be a classic case of Comelec jumping out of the frying pan and into the roaring fire?

Let’s first talk about the elephant in the room. While integrity issues have been thrown at Smartmatic, it only takes a simple Google search to show that Miru has been plagued with even more controversies and election scandals in its engagements as well. There is also the fact that Miru has never handled anything as big and as complicated as the Philippine elections.

On this account, Comelec will need to carefully oversee and secure the electoral exercise to make sure none of those past failures by Miru would happen here (and I have a full trust that they will). This is, after all, the downside of every open and competitive public bidding – you really cannot choose who your bidders will be and who will win.

ALSO ON RAPPLER

• FAST FACTS: Miru Systems, the lone bidder for the costliest 2025 election contract
• How Korean firm Miru became front-runner in search for 2025 PH election provider
• TIMELINE: Miru’s road to becoming PH’s voting machine provider in 2025

The second critical point to consider is the pending suit by Smartmatic before the Supreme Court, assailing its disqualification from the 2025 public bidding. While the Supreme Court has not issued a temporary restraining order or status quo ante, the fact that the petition is pending and unresolved means there is the possibility of Smartmatic re-entering the scene. That re-entry remains to be a moving part in Comelec’s preparation for the 2025 polls.

Should Smartmatic win its case, the Comelec will be compelled to reopen the process and allow Smartmatic to re-enter the bid. This is why it is of utmost importance for the Supreme Court to decide the case as soon as possible – whether it is to sustain Smartmatic’s disqualification or not. This will be but fair to all parties, especially to Comelec, given that 2025 is fast approaching.

In the worst case scenario where Comelec loses the case and will be forced to restart its bidding process, the practical question is whether it still has time to restart the bidding anew? By now, we have 15 months to go before the 2025 elections, and historically that is still a lot of time to redo the bidding process. For the 2010 polls, Comelec did the preparations in 10 months; for the 2016 polls, it did so in seven months. So time should not be a problem, at least at this point and in the months to follow.

Also, should Smartmatic re-enter the scene, I personally would like to see it battle it out with Miru – not only with the price, but in terms of experience and technological capabilities. An open competition like this always favors the people, making sure that they reap the best technological deal at the best price. 

Alternatively, should Smartmatic lose its case, then at least the Comelec can move forward with its preparations for the 2025 elections, with no more worries about undoing the preliminary work it has already done.

But regardless of how the case is resolved, I pray that the Supreme Court decides for the ultimate benefit of the country. – Rappler.com

Emil Marañon III is an election lawyer specializing in automated election litigation and consulting. Marañon served in Comelec as chief of staff of the late chairman Sixto Brillantes Jr. He graduated from the SOAS, University of London, where he studied Human Rights, Conflict, and Justice as a Chevening scholar. He is a partner at Trojillo Ansaldo and Marañon (TAM) Law Offices.

One thing we agree on is that political differences should not be a reason to avoid discussions. The trick is, we try to figure out what we can agree on.

In my most recent training session, we agreed that Apollo Quiboloy should be arrested and brought to trial for the crimes of which he is accused. These crimes have been highlighted by the Senate committee investigation led by Senator Risa Hontiveros. Sexual abuse, child abuse, human trafficking, labor exploitation have been testified to by eight witnesses who are credible.

Senator Hontiveros’ investigation is by no means the only process that has brought about credible evidence of heinous crimes committed by the “appointed son of God”. The Department of Justice has ordered the filing of charges  for child abuse and qualified human trafficking. If convicted, the man who says he decides whether I will roll past the pearly gates, will himself enter the gates of Bilibid. 

Similarly, a US court has unsealed a warrant of arrest for Quiboloy, making him desired not only in heaven but also in court in the US. Truly a most wanted man.

Must Read

[EDITORIAL] Kalaban mo ang mga senador na protektor ni Quiboloy

Our man Robin-NOT

The other thing my fitness coach and I agree on is that Senator Robin Padilla has defiled himself before the temple of Apollo in a farce that would have Aristophanes turning in his grave. (Look it up Robin. Or have your staff google it for you.)

“Respectfully” objecting to Senator Hontiveros’ move to cite Quiboloy in contempt without giving a reason is a bit like saying “gonna comb my mustache in a public hearing in the Senate with all due respect”. Some things are just inexplicable. Not miraculous, inexplicable.

Later, St. Robin the obtunded, gave his reason for objecting by saying he felt that the self-proclaimed “owner of the universe” is a victim.

In any case, the move to dishonor the Senate and sacrifice its powers to cite in contempt and then arrest those who defy the legitimate use of its authority, shows us that Robin is willing to sacrifice the integrity of the institution he is supposed to serve for the benefit of a new religious movement and its leader. Sounds cultish, oh, sorry, saintly to me. 

Also Padilla doesn’t seem to have read the Constitution. He explains further that his objection is based on the Constitutional provision on the separation between church and state. I guess he interprets this to mean that any son of a man can call himself “messiah” and no longer be subject to our criminal laws.

He has seemingly sworn an oath of friendship to Quiboloy that he considers higher than the oath he swore to the Republic when he became a member of the Senate.

Gang of Four

Guilty of similar “saintly” behavior are Senators Cynthia Villar, Imee Marcos and Bong Go who have also opposed the move to cite Quibble boy in contempt.

Senator Cynthia Villar says that she opposes the move because she is friends with the pastor and he has been good to her family. This reminds me of the observation of some that the Villar style of governance starts with the first principle, “what is good for my family is good for the nation.”

If I were to choose a Marcos for canonization, I would choose Imee. She says amusing things, went to extremes to get a UP degree and once even hinted she understood the concept of an apology for her father’s misdeeds. But it is good that UP did not give her a law degree. Her reason for coming to the aid of the “self-appointed savior” like a latter-day Veronica, is that she is unsure that the Senate was investigating in aid of legislation. So let me summarize and interpret for her, the opinion of Jaye Bekema, who does have a law degree.

First, we need laws that define consent and sexual abuse in the context of religious settings where patriarchal norms, the surrender of will and unquestioning allegiance to the leader (a common sign of cults) is the norm. Second, we need to improve laws to protect workers rights because working in a volunteer labor arrangement still means that one should be fully protected from abuse. Lastly we need to look at the guarantee of religious freedom as this relates to anti-trafficking laws (Robin, hello! Finished with the mustache yet?).

But alas, in this instance, Senators Villar and Marcos prove yet again that being a woman and occasionally spouting pro-woman words don’t necessarily make you a woman’s advocate. Did these two not bother to hear the heart-rending testimonies of child abuse and sexual abuse? Do they not yet understand the decades-old call not to invalidate women when they speak of abuse? And before these two or their defenders say that there have been false accusations in past, may I remind them of the nature of the evidence presented?

Please do not gaslight us by saying that your unprincipled partisanship is actually impartiality.

Must Read

PRIMER: Investigations, cases against Apollo Quiboloy

As for Senator Go, he doesn’t seem to have a reason. Or at least I could not find a news report for his reasons. He has nothing to say. As it has been in the past, so it is now, so it will be forever and ever – he has nothing to say. He seems not to question the way. His is to obey.

The only question I ask is, “who is he obeying exactly?” My fitness coach and I ask also, why do they obey? What is their agenda? Are helicopter rides and free air time enough of a reason to behave as if one is a citizen of the Kingdom? Please say that a senator’s vote cannot have become so cheap. But then again, what am I saying? That there is a price? A higher price for joining the Kingdom of Jesus Christ? Heaven forbid!

Smite me

I suppose I have booked myself an appointment with the “appointed” for my lack of faith in his cosmic power and heavenly righteousness. Let me raise the stakes.

So what happens next? I assume he cannot come in person to smite me because there is scuttlebutt that the transcendent and omnipotent  has gone into hiding. Likely,  I will be hit by a lightning bolt when I step outside. I will put in my will, instructions for my sons whom I have anointed (with baby oil when they were little) but not appointed, to inform Rappler of my demise.

But I am actually less afraid of Quiboloy’s superpowers than I am of the abuse of decency by the Senate’s gang of four. Afraid for the Senate, afraid for our women, afraid for our country. – Rappler.com

Sylvia Estrada Claudio is a medical doctor who also holds a PhD in psychology. She is Professor Emerita of the University of the Philippines-Diliman.

But the question remains: Is the ongoing Quiboloy investigation by Senator Hontiveros a valid exercise of the powers of the Senate? We tackle the issues one by one.

Is this an investigation in aid of legislation?

According to the Supreme Court, the Senate’s investigative powers are limited to investigations in aid of legislation. Consequently, any inquiries conducted by the Senate must have a demonstrable legislative angle. The hearings surfaced several areas where legislative reform might be warranted. Some examples, already laid down by Senator Hontiveros in her opening remarks at the March 5, 2024 hearing, are below:

The first is the issue of sexual abuse within secretive religious organizations and how consent is mediated in the context of a hierarchical and faith-based dynamic. Is there meaningful legal consent when the victim “agreed” but did so under the belief that she was making a religious sacrifice? What amendments in our law need to be made to consider the effects of isolation, dependence, and physical and psychological control within charismatic religious organizations on a woman’s sexual agency and capacity to give consent?

The second is the inability of our labor laws to sufficiently address “voluntary” labor arrangements where there is no clear employer-employee relationship but there are clear violations of labor and occupational safety and health standards. What legal regime governs these arrangements? Proof of the lack of clarity here is the inability of both DOLE and SSS to categorize alias Rene, the SMNI “worker” who received no salaries and no benefits during his entire tenure.

The third is the interaction of our anti-trafficking laws with the constitutional principle of religious freedom. Is there abuse of power and position, or exploitation of vulnerability (elements of the crime of trafficking in persons), or is it the exercise of a religion of its doctrines and tenets? What amendments are necessary to ensure maximum protections to victims of predatory religious practices, while not stifling the free expression of religion?

Is Apollo Quiboloy’s right to due process violated by compelling his appearance in the Senate?

The Supreme Court actually already disposed of this question in the case of Reghis Romero et al. v. Jinggoy Estrada and the Senate Committee on Labor (2009), which is based on similar facts. In the case mentioned, the petitioner Reghis Romero sought to be excused from the Senate inquiry of the committee on labor because 1) there is a case already pending in court; 2) because his right against self-incrimination would be violated; and 3) the investigation was meant to investigate Romero’s liability for plunder and was not an investigation in aid of legislation.

The petition was dismissed and the Supreme Court upheld the Senate.

On the right against self-incrimination, the Supreme Court held that the right may be invoked only by the petitioner “only when the incriminating question is being asked, since they have no way of knowing in advance the nature or effect of the questions to be asked of them.” Therefore, the subpoenaed party has to actually be present during the investigation. The risk of self-incrimination only presents itself when the question is verbalized and heard by the party.

It must be noted that even in the very recent case of Linconn Ong v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, the petitioner actually attended the hearing and testified before the committee. This is also the case in the ruling of the Supreme Court in Neri v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee.  There is no jurisprudence whatsoever to support the invocation of the right against self-incrimination as a way to excuse oneself altogether from attending the hearing.

The Supreme Court could not be more clear in the Romero case that “the unremitting obligation of every citizen is to respond to subpoenae, to respect the dignity of the Congress and its Committees, and to testify fully with respect to matters within the realm of proper investigation.”

The Department of Justice has filed charges against Apollo Quiboloy and his top officials. What effect does this have on the Senate hearing?

Absolutely nothing. It is well-settled that the filing or pendency of any prosecution or administrative action should not stop or abate any inquiry to carry out a legislative purpose. A Senate investigation and court proceedings have very different purposes. A Senate investigation does not determine innocence or guilt – rather, it seeks to identify gaps in the law and develop the necessary tools to address these gaps.

Both, however, are sovereign functions, supported by the Constitution, and one cannot be more important than the other. As held in the case of Standard Chartered Bank (Philippine Branch) v. Senate Committee on Banks, Financial Institutions and Currencies, “the exercise of sovereign legislative authority, of which the power of legislative inquiry is an essential component, cannot be made subordinate to a criminal or administrative investigation.”

Does the investigation on sexual abuses and human trafficking violate the separation of Church and State?

No, the separation of Church and State does not give blanket immunity to religious leaders to commit criminal acts. To quote Thomas Jefferson on religious freedom, “the declaration that religious faith shall be unpunished does not give immunity to criminal acts dictated by religious error.” Sex trafficking and child abuse are egregious crimes, and blanket immunity to religious leaders will only allow unspeakable acts to persist and cause victims to suffer in silence and self-blame.

In like manner, religious leaders are also not exempt from attendance to Senate investigations in aid of legislation. It may be recalled that the six bishops implicated in the so-called “Pajero bishop scam” and accused of receiving Pajero vehicles from the former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo faced the Senate blue ribbon investigation. They are citizens like any other citizen, and held to the same penal laws as other Filipinos.

What are the implications of withdrawing the contempt citation and arrest order against Pastor Quiboloy?

A decision to withdraw the contempt citation and arrest order weakens the Senate’s mandate to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation. Allowing this under the pretext of violation of due process and the right to self-incrimination will allow high government officials and powerful individuals to avoid facing Senate hearings. It will reduce the legislature’s power to subpoena and cite witnesses in contempt and diminish one of the most historically-proven strategies to hold power to account.

As the Senate has come together as one to defend the institution from the sham people’s initiative aimed at diminishing the role of the Senate in amending and revising the Charter, so too must it come together to resist this other threat to the Senate’s constitutionally-protected mandate. – Rappler.com

Attorney Jaye Bekema is the Chief Legislative Officer of Senator Risa Hontiveros. She also teaches Congress and the Law at Silliman University.

When I read that Senator Migz Zubiri signed the subpoena against preacher Quiboloy (PQ) I was relieved, thinking: “Dapat lang (As it should be). No man, no matter what connections he has, can do things with impunity.“

However, PQ has ignored this subpoena and failed to appear at the hearings of the Philippine Senate committee on women, children, family relations, and gender equality to address alleged human rights abuses by PQ, his Kingdom of Jesus Christ (KOJC) and its media arm, Sonshine Media Network International (SMNI).

Thus, when I read about Senator Padilla signing an objection letter that seeks to reverse a Senate panel’s decision to hold preacher PQ in contempt for failure to comply, I said to myself: “Talaga nga naman (Really now), one bad apple can really infect the whole barrel. Happily, in the Senate’s case, it is not the whole barrel, but just four of them: the original “bad apple“ Padilla, and the three he infected: Christopher Lawrence Go, Cynthia Villar, and Imee Marcos.

The reason Senator Marcos gave was, “Kinakailangan muna na alamin natin muna ang dapat alamin kasi puros kuwentuhan lang.” (First, we need to find out what needs to be known because it’s all just talk for now.)

My answer: Well, DUH…That is precisely why we want PQ to attend the hearings: so he can give his side, so it will no longer be “just talk.”

She said she would rather leave the Quiboloy case in the hands of the courts. However, the Senate hearing is a broad investigation of the human rights abuses by PQ, KOJC, and SMNI, whereas a court hearing against PQ is limited to whether the prosecution can prove he committed the crimes of which he stands accused…and who knows when that will take place, much less reach its conclusion?

Unlike when Senator Padilla first objected to the Senate’s holding PQ in contempt, he has now given his reasons, and I quote: “Dito sa nakikita ko, pagka nagpatuloy sa ganitong proseso parang sinasaklawan na natin, magkakaroon ba tayo ng panukala na sasagasaan natin ang religion? Papunta na ito. Wala na kay pastor, napupunta na doon sa buong organization. Sa buong religion nila.”

(From what I see here, if we continue with this process, it seems like we’re encroaching. Are we going to propose something that will encroach on religion? It’s heading that way. It’s no longer just about the pastor; it’s going to the whole organization. To their entire religion.)

Padilla also cautioned against the Senate’s actions against a religious group, saying senators run the risk of going against the constitutional provision about the separation of Church and State.

First, a clarification: Pastor Quiboloy is not being questioned because he is a preacher. He is being questioned because he is accused of committing criminal acts. If we follow Padilla’s reason to its reductio ad absurdum, is he suggesting that if a priest or, indeed, a preacher like PQ, commits an act of murder, he not be examined/questioned/tried simply because he is religious? Does the public, which needs protection, not deserve to have this alleged murderer attend hearings regarding his alleged crimes?

Why are the four senators opposed to the ruling? Might PQ have a hold on them? Some possibilities are:

1. Fear. If the Senate runs after PQ, who might say which other powerful person they might run after next? And if the Senate can prove PQ committed crimes, or show there is enough reason for the courts to try him, does that mean that this might snowball into more attention given to other cases where crimes have been committed also or foster more acceptance/a feeling of normalcy for powers that be to be held accountable?

2. Gratitude? Senator Padilla himself said, “Ang helicopter pinahiram niya sa akin, ang mga ganoong klaseng pabor.” (He lent me a helicopter, that kind of favor).

Really, Senator Padilla? Just because this helicopter-lender gives you a ride, he can get you to make political decisions that make a mockery of justice?

Utang na loob (Debt of gratitude) is bandied about as a positive Filipino characteristic, an attribute we should be proud of. But what if it interferes with justice? What if it means people who have been wrongly done by (raped, trafficked, etc. – Q’s alleged victims) are denied a full investigation into what took place?

Take “Rene” and “David.”  Rene alleged that he was sexually abused by male staff with the preacher’s approval; David alleged he was tortured by having chili “put in his eyes and on his genitals.”

How can an elected representative of the Filipino people really look at Rene and David in the eye and deny them possible justice simply because the accused gave him a more comfortable ride during his campaign?

Is that really all it takes nowadays? – Rappler.com

The grilling happened in Australia, his latest destination in a profligate footlessness that has taken him taken him to 15 countries on 21 trips in as many months during his presidency, itself only on its second year. A journalist from the Australian Broadcasting Company, Sarah Ferguson, dealt with him in a way that ought to put to shame the timid if not altogether willfully negligent Philippine press. After cutting Marcos off when he tried to laugh away the question – a “serious” one, Ferguson had to tell him – she asked again if he and his family intended at all to return the money. But, with precisely no such intention, what could he say, or do, other than lie and dissemble. 

Having gone unanswered all this time, the 10-billion-dollar question surely bears repeating, again and again. And with another Marcos as president, it serves as a most timely commentary of the sort of nation his family has held in thrall. 

The truth about the Marcos plunder, in any case, has been established judicially: to date, half of it has been recovered on court orders, while the other half remains the subject of proceedings. In fact, as recently as 2018, the dictator’s widow, Imelda, was sentenced to up to 11 years for graft, although, going 90, she was spared jail and allowed to strut and fret her final hour upon the stage – that hour has lasted four years now, although lately she has needed to go around in a wheelchair. 

Her son was himself found guilty of tax evasion and assessed P203 billion, including fines. But now president, he has become even more emboldened to refuse to pay. 

Meantime, the Marcoses have stuck with a fraudulent narrative, the one that Ferdinand Jr. tried precisely to peddle in Australia and got himself in trouble for – and not only with the journalist Ferguson. A senator, Janet Rice, called him out on his regime’s human-rights failings. That cost her censure and momentary banishment from the parliament, where Junior was a guest speaker, but she too has sent waves across the sea with her only righteous protest. Rappler spoke with her and has posted an account of the interview. 

For his part, the journalist Ed Lingao reinforces Ferguson decisively. He writes:

“It is quite ironic that [Marcos] complains of propaganda” as the culprit in making him and his family look bad, when it is precisely “the deluge of false narratives and myth-remaking” of their own making that has been “largely instrumental” in their rehabilitation and return to power. Lingao proceeds to enumerate the facts:

“1. [T]he asset declaration of Ferdinand Marcos Sr. in December 1964 [the eve of his assumption to the presidency] was just 165,000 pesos” – he could not, therefore, by any decent means, have become so wealthy as he is claimed by his own family after his term.

“2. [The] combined legal earnings of [Ferdinand and Imelda] from 1965 to 1985 amounted to 2.3-million pesos. Yet, their income tax filings declared a total income of P16-million pesos.

“3. [The] family laid claim to…$300-million Swiss bank accounts, among many other monies. In their court filings, the family never bothered to try to explain the source of these accounts, except to claim them as theirs.

“4. Despite all these facts, Imelda at one point was one of the richest  people in Congress, with declared assets of almost a billion pesos. At one point, too, [Ferdinand Jr.’s] declared assets were P300-400 million.

“5. In one interview with us, Imee Marcos [senator now] tried to explain it all away by claiming that her father had been one of the highest-paid lawyers after the war, that he was a brilliant lawyer sought by multinational companies.

“…But I replied that the Supreme Court’s 2003 ruling found that her father had never declared any significant income or paid any significant tax as a lawyer, [revealed] after a thorough search of all [internal revenue] records. In fact, the court noted that her father did not even seem to have a physical law office to begin with. And, of course, the clincher was the father’s asset declaration…of only 165,000 pesos. Confronted with these findings, Imee said that she [could] not talk about these cases because some of them were still pending in court. To which we replied that this particular case was decided with finality way back in 2003.”

With the truth provoked to turn in its grave again from under a mound of Marcos lies, thanks to the Australian incident, the Marcoses must all be twisting and turning now in their seats, as Ferdinand Jr. all too visibly did under questioning by Ferguson. They simply cannot risk the stink of an exhumation, and their perpetuation in power is about the only thing that can prevent that.

As happens, already afoot is a plot to take care of that – a plot to tinker with the constitution and come up with something not much unlike that Ferdinand Sr. himself rammed down the nation’s throat in 1972 as a legal prop for his dictatorship. – Rappler.com

VIP tickets, airfare, and accommodations to watch three shows, cost a Filipino Swiftie $6,000, which approximated the country’s average annual household income. ASEAN fans had no choice but to go to Singapore; Swift would not perform anywhere else in the region. Thai Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin disclosed at a meeting last month that Singapore had paid for the exclusive right to stage Swift’s Southeast Asia concerts, an arrangement that invited critical comments from official sources. 

The most acerbic attack, surprisingly, came from Representative Joey Salceda, who normally addresses more substantive economic and political issues. Some aspects of the event would justify criticism. Banking on increased tourism traffic, Singapore hotels raised room rates by 30%. Even budget airlines operating in the region could charge almost double the cheapest flights available to bargain-hunters weeks ahead and beyond the Swift playdates. 

But can or should government prevent enterprises from charging the costs fans are willing to bear to indulge their pleasures? Salceda, an advocate of economic freedom and free markets, would probably not condone such an intervention. Still, one must sympathize with those who needed to travel to Singapore, not for a concert but for family medical emergencies, and were subjected to inflated rates. Salceda did not take up such issues. He asked the DFA to register the country’s official opposition to Singapore dealmaking becauseit violated the “principle of consensus-based relations and solidarity on which the ASEAN was founded.” 

Also somewhat surprising, Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong publicly addressed this criticism. Perhaps, he had no choice except to respond to a direct question on the issue at a press conference in Melbourne with Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. The money for the exclusive right to the concerts came from the Singapore Tourism Board (STB), which had received a S$300 million top-up in the 2024 budget to reinforce its post-pandemic plan to boost tourism. Lee also pointed out that the STB had been supporting international leisure events through grants since 1998. He also claimed regional benefits from Singapore projects because the tourists who go to Singapore for entertainment also tended to visit other ASEAN destinations.

Law of the jungle

The response did not pacify Salceda, who doubled down instead, taking Lee’s words as expressing the “law of the jungle,” where “the weak must do what it can, but the strong can do what it wants.” But there is no evidence that Swift acted under duress. The exclusivity granted to Singapore appears to have been negotiated between two independent parties for mutual benefit. Conceivably, Swift might have made more money doing concerts in other countries, but at the cost of additional time and effort. Would the transaction have played differently if Swift had been presented as selling at a premium all of her available playdates during her tour, rather than Singapore seeming to  “bribe” her to boycott other ASEAN sites? Would Swift have been accused of breaching some ethical principle?

Swift had no obligation and no commitment to perform in any country. Artists familiar with the logistics and technical requirements for Swift’s concerts, doubted, first, whether other countries in the region had venues with the stage dimensions, seating capacity, and audiovisual, electronic technology that could support her programs. But, also whether these countries had efficient airports, airline connections and hotels to accommodate fans coming from elsewhere in the region. Did Salceda really believe that the government had a chance to bring Taylor Swift to Manila?  

Thailand, with its massive tourism and entertainment infrastructure, could possibly have competed with Singapore in offering a venue for Swift concerts. Which was, perhaps, why Srettha Thavisin felt regret and chagrin that Singapore had beaten Bangkok to the punch. Coming on the heels of Lee’s response in Melbourne, the Thai Prime Minister’s office released a statement to clarify that Srettha’s comments last month on the deal with Swift should not be construed as expressing criticism or jealousy directed at Singapore; he raised the topic “to admire and compliment Singapore.” And to advise countries wishing to promote tourism to study Singapore’s strategy. “The deal is a ‘normal business practice’ and there is ‘no reason why Singapore should be ashamed of its actions.’”  

Rather than confront Singapore with a DFA demand to explain its exclusivity arrangements with Swift, Salceda should, perhaps, explore how to encourage and enable Philippine tourism authorities to exercise Singaporean-style initiatives. Salceda’s caustic criticism of Singapore’s departure from principled consensus-based relations and regional solidarity was also badly timed, unfortunately coming at a time of increasing tension with the People’s Republic of China.  

Salceda rightly expresses concerns about the danger of allowing the law of the jungle to prevail in the region.  But his alarm and anger appear more appropriately focused, not on contractual arrangements over Taylor Swift concerts in Singapore, but on the PRC’s persistent, aggressive actions against the Philippines in its own Exclusive Economic Zone. – Rappler.com 

In February, inflation climbed again to 3.4%, and it’s because of food prices, particularly rice.

Rice inflated by almost 24% from last year. That’s the highest rice inflation in 15 years according to government statisticians.

Figure 1 below captures the singularly large role of rice among all other food categories. Meat and fish inflation are both declining. Vegetables are actually becoming cheaper. It’s only rice that’s causing trouble these days.

Figure 1.

Quite obviously, the intense dry spell caused by El Niño is driving down rice production. Reports indicate that farmers all over the country are adapting by planting alternative crops, shifting the cropping calendar, and installing water pumps.

Lower production tends to stoke prices. Figure 2 shows that well-milled rice is now averaging at P55.93 per kilo, while special rice is at P64.4 per kilo. But much more disturbing is the even steeper rise of farmgate prices of palay.

Applying the rule of thumb that retail rice prices are about twice the farmgate prices of palay, we’re in for even higher retail prices in coming months.

Figure 2.

This is significant since rice occupies a huge part of Filipinos’ food budget. This makes rice a political commodity in the Philippines.

How did Marcos prepare?

Of course there are also global factors behind the rising rice prices.

Data from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) shows that overall rice prices have risen globally. Their latest average rice price index is 13% up from January 2023, and is also at its highest since August 2008 when another rice price shock hit the world.

But we should also examine what the administration of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has done to prepare for El Niño. Let’s look at the timeline.

As early as March 2023, the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA) already warned that “El Niño will likely develop in Jul-Aug-Sept (JAS) 2023 season and may persist until 2024.”

In April 2023, Marcos, as concurrent agriculture secretary, already supposedly tasked agencies to prepare for El Niño.

In May 2023, Defense Secretary Carlito Galvez Jr. reported to the President that a task force, rather weirdly led by the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG), has been formed to “implement measures to mitigate the impact of El Niño on the country’s economy, natural resources, environment, climate change, disaster response, and peace and order.”

But this initiative kind of stalled.

Fast-forward to December 2023, Marcos claimed that he already created under his office a “Task Force El Niño.” Later that month, however, the new defense secretary, Gilbert Teodoro, admitted that Marcos has yet to sign an executive order formalizing the task force.

Alas, it was only on January 19, 2024 that Marcos finally signed Executive Order 53 “Reactivating and Reconstituting the Task Force El Niño.” This is almost a year since PAGASA first raised its El Niño alert.

Marcos could have signed an executive order formalizing the El Niño task force as early as March or April 2023. But no. He sat on it.

It’s not as if he had to reinvent the wheel. The executive order he signed literally just “reactivated” the old El Niño task force that was set up by former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo back in 2001.

That Arroyo El Niño task force was sensibly led by the agriculture secretary. But rather weirdly, the Marcos task force is to be led by the defense secretary. Why? Are they planning to bring El Niño to war and shoot it down? This kind of reminds me of the way former president Duterte militarized the response to COVID-19.

What is this belated Marcos task force tasked to do?

First, it will be revising and updating the Strategic El Niño National Action Plan, which “shall serve as the comprehensive disaster preparedness and rehabilitation plan for the El Niño phenomenon.”

Second, it must implement solutions and programs for water security, food security, energy security, health, and safety.

Third, it must coordinate with all agencies concerned with the completion of ongoing water infrastructure projects no later than end-April 2024.

Fourth, it must conduct a “massive information campaign” about El Niño.

Fifth, it must submit a monthly report to the President about the implementation of El Niño programs and policies.

Sixth, it must create an “El Niño Online Platform” serving as a “centralized repository for a wide range of data, research, and information concerning El Niño, such as interactive maps and visualizations, as well as well-informed, data-driven plans and programs related to El Niño.”

How on earth can they do all that when El Niño is already on our doorsteps? Such delayed preparation is not unlike securing the roof or evacuating your family just when a Yolanda-type typhoon has already arrived.

Poor planning begets casualties. And I’m afraid the Marcos administration’s procrastination will make this El Niño season a particularly devastating one.

Already, El Niño is estimated to have cost the Philippines’ agricultural sector more than P1 billion. Expect that number to grow in earnest in the coming months. – Rappler.com

JC Punongbayan, PhD is an assistant professor at the UP School of Economics and the author of False Nostalgia: The Marcos “Golden Age” Myths and How to Debunk Them. JC’s views are independent of his affiliations. Follow him on Twitter (@jcpunongbayan) and Usapang Econ Podcast.

Just over the weekend, I had an engaging chat on stock investing and investor protection in the US with a balikbayan uncle of my wife. Her uncle and wife are now retirees with dual citizenship, to obviously spend here their hard-earned pension kitty, which grew comparatively larger than the retirement portfolio of their co-employees because of their preference for investing in stocks, nurtured by the better environment on investor protection in the US.  

As pointed out by them, despite the scandals on stock manipulation and insider-trading, the US capital market has remained robust and the biggest due to the firm and serious attitude of the regulators on investor protection.  Violators and perpetrators of irregular trading activities are assiduously pursued and made to face justice.

We had a grand time recalling the stories of the big heroes and villains in the turbulent times of the eighties and nineties that almost destroyed Wall Street. These were the legendary arbitrageur Ivan Bosky, junk bond king Michael Milken, and star investment banker Martin Siegel, to mention a few. 

Bosky was charged – and pleaded guilty – to insider trading and fined US$100 million. He served three years in prison and became an informant.

Must Read

[ANALYSIS] A soft and range-bound stock market that has not lost its luster

Michael Milken was known for developing the high-yield bond market, which earned him the nickname “Junk Bond King.” He was indicted for securities fraud and served 22 months in prison at the same time penalized a huge fine of $600 million. He was granted a full pardon on February 18, 2020 by then-president Donald Trump.

Star investment banker, Martin Siegel, was convicted along with Ivan Boesky and Michael Milken, for insider trading.

What about Abra Mining?

Abra Mining was “incorporated on September 28, 1964 to engage in the exploration, development, exploitation, processing, manufacture, extraction, milling and sale of cement and metal concentrate, marble, building materials and other minerals such as copper, gold, silver, iron and lead.” 

Purportedly, the company’s business lines consist of the commercial utilization of limestone, lime, shale, silica, sand, gold, silver, copper, zinc, magnetite iron sand and other mineral deposits existing within the contract area. The company has four approved mining claims covered by duly approved Mineral Production Sharing Agreements with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, namely, Bucay Baticang Limestone and Alluvial Gold Magnetite Project, Capcapo Gold Copper Project, Patok Gold Silver Copper Project, and The Sanvig Alluvial Gold and Magnetite Iron Sand Deposits.  It is also purportedly “engaged in the processing and manufacture of non-metals for industrial and commercial purposes at wholesale only.”

In early January 2020, Abra Mining named a new president and chairman. In the company’s disclosure on January 7, 2020 to the PSE, it said that its board in a meeting held a meeting the week before, on January 4, and had elected 59-year-old James G. Beloy as the new president and chairman of the board. He replaced his 83-year-old father, Jeremias B. Beloy. The young Beloy is a registered mining engineer, who holds a Mining Engineering degree from the University of the Philippines.

Prior to his election as chair and president, James Beloy was executive vice president and member of the board of directors of the company since 1994.  He was also president of Jabel Corporation, and an associate realtor and consultant of Melie G. Beloy Realty.

Other officers elected or elevated to higher positions in the company based on the disclosure were Joel G. Beloy, who was elected as a director to replace the position vacated by the older Mr. Beloy.  Joel Beloy was also appointed executive vice-president and chairman of the compensation committee.

As far as I could remember, Abra Mining is a dormant company that the news did not create any ripple in the market. The share price of Abra Mining ended flat that Monday on January 7, 2020 at P0.0014 each.

Irregularity in AR shares

Failing to create any stir a year before being “with no revenue and zero analyst coverage,” as described in the news, Abra Mining suddenly became the superstar of the whole Philippine stock market exactly a year after. 

As reported, Abra Mining “accounted for almost 80% of the Philippine market’s average daily transaction volume through February 3, 2021. . . it’s year-to-date gain peaked at 279% on January 19, 2021 when it closed at 1.1 centavos, the highest since December 2007 and above its 1 centavo par value.”  

The surge in Abra Mining was fueled by speculation that a new investor will come in to develop its gold mines.  

All these times, too, Abra Mining claimed that “it wasn’t aware of any information nor could it speculate as to the reason for the stock’s unusual price movements,” in response to perfunctory inquiries made by the Philippine Stock Exchange (PSE). 

Abra Mining shares closed at P0.0046 a piece on March 3, 2021 before trading was suspended the following day, which left many retail investors hanging with empty bags.  

Trading was suspended by the PSE on account of serious violations on its listing and disclosure rules and also of the Revised Corporation Code.  The gravest of which, according to PSE President Ramon Monzon, was “the lodgment and trading of Abra Mining shares which are not yet issued and recorded in the books of the Company and for which no subscription payments were received by the Company.”

The shares lodged with the Philippine Depository & Trust Corp. (PDTC) exceeded the number of the company’s listed shares. Only securities approved for listing should be lodged with the PDTC for trading.

Likewise, the number of shares lodged with PDTC exceeded the number of issued and outstanding shares as reflected from Abra Mining’s audited financial statements.  This meant that the shares that are not yet recorded in the books of the company have been lodged with PDTC and are being traded, in contravention of the provisions of the Revised Corporation Code.

According to culled figures, Abra Mining abetted the trading of 250 billion shares though it only had 99 billion listed shares.

The latest SEC Form 17-A report available in the PSE website about the company is that of December 31, 2021.  The company was reported to have no commercial operations, wherein it also basically remained a family-held corporation.  

The list in the SEC report were, as follows: James G. Beloy, Charman & President; Joel G. Beloy, Director and EVP, Compliance Officer, Corporate Information Officer and Data Privacy Officer; Premy Ann G. Beloy, Director and Asst. Treasurer, Compliance Officer and Corporate Information Officer; Amelia G. Beloy, VP – Administration, Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Secretary; Armando L. Javilinar, VP – Operations. External Auditor, Valdes Abad & Company, CPAs; Transfer Agent, Asian Transfer & Registry Corporation.

The way it looks, it’s plain and simple that regulators need not look further or dig deeper as to who to talk to about the fiasco. The inaction is all the more flabbergasting. No wonder poor retail investors who were left with the empty bags are now seeking legislative investigation.  

The chair of the House ways and means committee, Albay 2nd District Representative Congressman Joey Sarte Salceda, who is also a champion of promoting the development of the capital market, may be called to the rescue. – Rappler.com

The article has been prepared for general circulation for the reading public and must not be construed as an offer, or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell any securities or financial instruments whether referred to herein or otherwise.  Moreover, the public should be aware that the writer or any investing parties mentioned in the column may have a conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of their reported or mentioned investment activity. You may reach the writer at densomera@yahoo.com.