The Pacific state of Hawai’i’s House of Representatives has joined the state’s Senate in calling for a ceasefire in Israel’s war on Gaza, becoming the first state to pass such a resolution, reports Hawaii News Now.

In March, the Senate passed a ceasefire resolution with a 24–1 vote, and now the House has passed it on a 48–3 vote last Friday.

However, although the lawmakers are the first to pass a ceasefire resolution, reports have quoted the state legislature’s Public Access Room as saying it “does not have the force and effect of law”.

Nor does it need a signature from the governor.

According to the resolution, the lawmakers are pushing for President Joe Biden’s administration to call for an immediate and permanent ceasefire.

The Hawai’i lawmakers are also demanding that the administration “facilitate the de-escalation of hostilities to end the current violence, promptly send and facilitate the entry of humanitarian assistance into Gaza, including fuel, food, water, and medical supplies, and begin negotiations for lasting peace.”

President Biden has previously called for a ceasefire in Gaza, but there did not appear to be a contingency plan should negotiations seeking a ceasefire fail, according to The Washington Post.

Since Israel’s war on Gaza began on October 7, more than 34,000 people have been killed in the Gaza Strip by strikes from Israel, and 77,143 have been wounded.

US overthrew Hawai’ian kingdom
Tensions in the region go to at least the Nakba in 1948 when an estimated 750,000 Palestinians were expelled from their land and illegal Israeli settlements began.

Given Hawai’i’s history of American businessmen overthrowing the indigenous Hawai’ian kingdom with the support of US military forces in 1893, pro-Palestinian advocates have pointed out that Hawai’i has a key connection to the conflict in Gaza.

Fatima Abed, founder of Rise for Palestine, is both Palestinian and Puerto Rican, and has a family member who is based in Gaza.

She told The Huffington Post: “People in Hawai’i, especially Native Hawai’ians, are determined on this issue because it’s very jarring to know that our tax dollars are going to fund the genocide of another colonised people while, here at home, our government budgets aren’t covering the basic needs of the people.”

Abed said that the island of Lahaina and its people had not been sufficiently cared for after the wildfires last August.

“Native Hawai’ians across the state have been underserved for decades. The people of Hawai’i see that money being sent overseas to hurt people instead of helping here, and it makes no sense.

“From the river to the sea, all of our people will be free.”

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A law professor in Noumea says New Caledonia is now faced with a period of high uncertainty — be it political, economic or institutional.

Mathias Chauchat said referendum voters were made to believe that with yesterday’s no vote, the provisions of the 1998 Noumea Accord had become void.

The Noumea Accord lapsed with yesterday’s third referendum on full sovereignty.

However, Chauchat told Caledonia TV even after three no votes, the structures created by the Noumea Accord remained in place because their irreversibility was enshrined in the French constitution.

He said the no campaign was selling its supporters a dream of being able to change them like an organic law as it was possible in all other French overseas departments and territories.

But Chauchat said that to change accord provisions, there first needed to be a 60 percent majority in both the National Assembly and the Senate to alter the constitution, which in the current political situation was difficult.

He said the provisions cover the entire political construct, including the make-up of the electoral roll, of the assemblies and the collegial government as well as the economic re-balancing within the territory.

Chauchat said the French government may claim that the end of the Accord makes it obsolete, but he said this would end up in France’s Constitutional Court, where the pro-independence parties would continue their fight for respect of the accord.

As a result, he said, New Caledonia was now faced with instability, particularly over plans to open the electoral roll to more recent arrivals from France, who under the Noumea Accord cannot vote in provincial elections.

Referendum result confirmed
The French supervisor of New Caledonia’s third and last independence referendum said the high level of abstention had had no impact on the “sincerity of the vote”.

Presenting the official result, Francis Lamy said the rules don’t make voting mandatory and there was no minimum participation required.

Turnout was 43.9 percent, down from almost 86 percent last year, following a boycott by the pro-independence camp.

A total of 96.5 percent voted against independence.

Lamy also said there had been no significant irregularity and polling was calm.

His assessment was based on reports from more than 250 magistrates and officials deployed to polling stations territory-wide.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

After three decades of frustratingly slow progress but with a measure of quiet optimism over the decolonisation process unfolding under the Noumea Accord, Kanaky New Caledonia is again poised on the edge of a precipice.

Two out of three pledged referendums from 2018 produced higher than expected – and growing — votes for independence. But then the delta variant of the global covid-19 pandemic hit New Caledonia with a vengeance.

Like much of the rest of the Pacific, New Caledonia with a population of 270,000 was largely spared during the first wave of covid infections. However, in September a delta outbreak infected 12,343 people with 280 deaths – almost 70 percent of them indigenous Kanaks.

With the majority of the Kanak population in traditional mourning – declared for 12 months by the customary Senate, the pro-independence Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front (FLNKS) and its allies pleaded for the referendum due this Sunday, December 12, to be deferred until next year after the French presidential elections.

In fact, there is no reason for France to be in such a rush to hold this last referendum on Kanak independence in the middle of a state of emergency and a pandemic. It is not due until October 2022.

It is clear that the Paris authorities have changed tack and want to stack the cards heavily in favour of a negative vote to maintain the French status quo.

When the delay pleas fell on deaf political ears and appeals failed in the courts, the pro-independence coalition opted instead to not contest the referendum and refuse to recognise its legitimacy.

Vote threatens to be farce
This Sunday’s vote threatens to be a farce following such a one-sided campaign. It could trigger violence as happened with a similar farcical and discredited independence referendum in 1987, which led to the infamous Ouvea cave hostage-taking and massacre the following year as retold in the devastating Mathieu Kassovitz feature film Rebellion [l’Ordre at la morale] — banned in New Caledonia for many years.

On 13 September 1987, a sham vote on New Caledonian independence was held. It was boycotted by the FLNKS when France refused to allow independent United Nations observers. Unsurprisingly, only 1.7 percent of participants voted for independence. Only 59 percent of registered voters took part.

After the bloody ending of the Ouvea cave crisis, the 1988 Matignon/Oudinot Accord signed by Kanak leader Jean-Marie Tjibaou and anti-independence leader Jacques Lafleur, paved the way for possible decolonisation with a staggered process of increasing local government powers.

A decade later, the 1998 Noumea Accord set in place a two-decade pathway to increased local powers – although Paris retained control of military and foreign policy, immigration, police and currency — and the referendums.

In the first referendum on 4 November 2018, 43.33 percent voted for independence with 81 percent of the eligible voters taking part (recent arrivals had no right to vote in the referendum).

In the second referendum on 4 October 2020, the vote for independence rose to 46.7 percent with the turnout higher too at almost 86 percent. Only 10,000 votes separated the yes and no votes.

Expectations back then were that the “yes” vote would grow again by the third referendum with the demographics and a growing progressive vote, but by how much was uncertain.

Arrogant and insensitive
However, now with the post-covid tensions, the goodwill and rebuilding of trust for Paris that had been happening over many years could end in ashes again thanks to an arrogant and insensitive abandoning of the “decolonisation” mission by Emmanuel Macron’s administration in what is seen as a cynical ploy by a president positioning himself as a “law and order” leader ahead of the April elections.

Another pro-independence party, Palika, said Macron’s failure to listen to the pleas for a delay was a “declaration of war” against the Kanaks and progressive citizens.

The empty Noumea hoardings – apart from blue “La Voix du Non” posters, politically “lifeless” Place des Cocotiers, accusations of racism against indigenous Kanaks in campaign animations, and the 2000 riot police and military reinforcements have set a heavy tone.

And the damage to France’s standing in the region is already considerable.

Many academics writing about the implications of the “non” vote this Sunday are warning that persisting with this referendum in such unfavourable conditions could seriously rebound on France at a time when it is trying to project its “Indo-Pacific” relevance as a counterweight to China’s influence in the region.

China is already the largest buyer of New Caledonia’s metal exports, mainly nickel.

The recent controversial loss of a lucrative submarine deal with Australia has also undermined French influence.

Risks return to violence
Writing in The Guardian, Rowena Dickins Morrison, Adrian Muckle and Benoît Trépied warned that the “dangerous shift” on the New Caledonia referendum “risks a return to violence”.

“The dangerous political game being played by Macron in relation to New Caledonia recalls decisions made by French leaders in the 1980s which disregarded pro-independence opposition, instrumentalised New Caledonia’s future in the national political arena, and resulted in some of the bloodiest exchanges of that time,” they wrote.

Dr Muckle, who heads the history programme at Victoria University and is editor of The Journal of Pacific History, is chairing a roundtable webinar today entitled “Whither New Caledonia after the 2018-21 independence referendums?”

The theme of the webinar asks: “Has the search for a consensus solution to the antagonisms that have plagued New Caledonia finally ended? Is [the final] referendum likely to draw a line under the conflicts of the past or to reopen old wounds.”

One of the webinar panellists, Denise Fisher, criticised in The Conversation the lack of “scrupulously observed impartiality” by France for this third referendum compared to the two previous votes.

“In the first two campaigns, France scrupulously observed impartiality and invited international observers. For this final vote, it has been less neutral,” she argued.

“For starters, the discussions on preparing for the final vote did not include all major independence party leaders. The paper required by French law explaining the consequences of the referendum to voters favoured the no side this time, to the point where loyalists used it as a campaign brochure.”

‘Delay’ say Pacific civil society groups
A coalition of Pacific civil society organisations and movement leaders is among the latest groups to call on the French government to postpone the third referendum, which they described as “hastily announced”.

While French Minister for Overseas Territories Sebastien Lecornu had told French journalists this vote would definitely go ahead as soon as possible to “serve the common good”, critics see him as pandering to the “non” vote.

The Union Calédoniènne, Union Nationale pour l’independence Party (UNI), FLNKS and other pro-independence groups in the New Caledonia Congress had already written to Lecornu expressing their grave concerns and requesting a postponement because of the pandemic.

“We argue that the decision by France to go ahead with the referendum on December 12 ignores the impact that the current health crisis has on the ability of Kanaks to participate in the referendum and exercise their basic human right to self-determination,” said the Pacific coalition.

“We understand the Noumea Accord provides a timeframe that could accommodate holding the last referendum at any time up to November 2022.

“Therefore, we see no need to hastily set the final referendum for 12 December 2021, in the middle of a worldwide pandemic that is currently ravaging Kanaky/New Caledonia, and disproportionately impacting [on] the Kanak population.”

The coalition also called on the Chair of the Pacific Islands Forum, Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama to “disengage” the PIF observer delegation led by Ratu Inoke Kubuabola. Forum engagement in referendum vote as observers, said the coalition, “ignores the concerns of the Kanak people”.

‘Act as mediators’
The coalition argued that the delegation should “act as mediators to bring about a more just and peaceful resolution to the question and timing of a referendum”.

Signatories to the statement include the Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era, Fiji Council of Social Services, Melanesian Indigenous Land Defence Alliance, Pacific Conference of Churches, Pacific Network on Globalisation, Peace Movement Aotearoa, Pasifika and Youngsolwara Pacific.

The Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) secretariat has called on member states to not recognise New Caledonia’s independence referendum this weekend.

Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu, which along with the FLNKS are full MSG members, have been informed by the secretariat of its concerns.

In a media release, the MSG’s Director-General, George Hoa’au, said the situation in New Caledonia was “not conducive for a free and fair referendum”.

Ongoing customary mourning over covid-19 related deaths in New Caledonia meant that Melanesian communities were unable to campaign for the vote.

Hopes now on United Nations
“Major hopes are now being pinned on a Kanak delegation of territorial Congress President Roch Wamytan, Mickaël Forrest and Charles Wéa who travelled to New York this week to lobby the United Nations for support.

One again, France has demonstrated a lack of cultural and political understanding and respect that erodes the basis of the Noumea Accord – recognition of Kanak identity and kastom.

Expressing her disappointment to me, Northern provincial councillor and former journalist Magalie Tingal Lémé says: What happens in Kanaky is what France always does here. The Macron government didn’t respect us. They still don’t understand us as Kanak people.”

Dr David Robie covered “Les Événements” in New Caledonia in the 1980s and penned the book Blood on their Banner about the turmoil. He also covered the 2018 independence referendum.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The tech juggernaut Facebook’s shock decision to block all news feeds from Australian media outlets this week in response to a proposed new Media Bargaining law, that will force social media giants to pay for news content that is posted on their platforms, has created fury among Australians.

But it is also turning attention to the impact of Facebook – and Google – on Australian journalism.

Facebook banned Australian users from accessing news in their feeds on the morning of Thursday, February 18, as the government pursues laws that would force it to pay publishers for journalism that appears in people’s feeds.

The legislation was introduced to Parliament in Canberra in December 2020. The House of Representatives passed it earlier this week.

The bill that has wide political support in Australia is now under review by a Senate committee before it is presented for a vote in the upper house.

In a lengthy statement issued by Facebook on February 18, the company revealed that it would bar Australian news sites from sharing content on the platform.

Within moments of the announcement being made public, Australian news organisations, media commentators, interest groups and local consumers of Facebook that runs into millions, began voicing their fury.

‘Go directly to source’
National broadcaster ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) immediately posted a notice on their news pages on the website calling on Australians to “go directly to the source” by downloading from their own news application.

Facebook’s head of policy for Asia-Pacific, Simon Milner was unrepentant during an interview on the ABC network, arguing that they disagree with the broad definition of news in the new legislation.

“One of the criticisms we had about the law that was passed by the House of Representatives [on February 16] is that the definition of news is incredibly broad and vague,” he said

Facebook has said earlier that the proposed laws fundamentally misunderstood the relationship between their platform and publishers who used it to share news content.

In fact, Facebook has been arguing for a long time that they are a publisher that provides a free platform for news organisations.

But many media organisations and scholars argue that they are bleeding out revenue from the Australian media running advertising on these pages, which otherwise used to go to the media companies and their platforms such as newspapers and TV stations.

A first of its kind, the success or otherwise of the Australian legislation is closely watched by other countries, especially in Europe.

US government pressure
Interestingly, according to an ABC report on January 18, the US government had tried to pressure the Australian government to drop the proposed legislation.

According to the ABC, a document with the letterhead of the Executive Office of the President has said: “The US government is concerned that an attempt, through legislation, to regulate the competitive positions of specific players … to the clear detriment of two US firms may result in harmful outcomes.”

The Australian government, however, sees the new legislation as designed to ensure these media companies are fairly remunerated for the use of their content on search engines and social media platforms.

Google has begun signing deals with publishers in response, but Facebook has chosen to follow through on its threat and remove news for Australian users.

In an interview on ABC Radio on February 18, Glen Dyer of popular Crikey! media that uses Facebook extensively to reach their audiences described Facebook’s behaviour as “resembling China’s (Community Party)”.

He argued that in the past year China has been imposing trade restrictions literally overnight on spurious grounds inconveniencing Australians at the behest of China’s leader, and Mark Zuckerberg is also behaving in a similar high-handed way.

“It [Facebook] has a management structure that is controlled by a small group headed by Mark Zuckerberg,” he noted.

Boycott Facebook
“Australian advertisers should boycott Facebook”.

However, Dyer added that they would not have the guts because “most of these Australian companies are controlled offshore and the local executives would not risk their bonuses”.

Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, speaking on ABC TV’s flagship current affairs programme 7.30 Report on February 18, argued strongly for an across the board tax on advertising revenue designed in such a way that both local and foreign companies operating in Australia cannot avoid it.

“The real question is that the revenue model for media has moved into other platforms like Facebook and Google. There is less revenue support for journalism and that has been a worry for some time,” said Turnbull, who was a merchant banker before moving into politics.

“Government will be better off imposing a tax on advertising revenue across the board …. take that revenue from Facebook and Google and make the money available to support public interest journalism,” he recommended.

Turnbull believes that government has lost the plot because they are saying to companies like Facebook and Google, “you have to pay money to those [media companies] who put contents on your site [even though] you are not stealing it or breaching copyrights, you have to pay”.

Thus, he appealed to Australians to go directly to Australia media news platforms and applications – like that offered by the ABC – without using Facebook.

Digital threat to democracy
Chris Cooper, executive director of Reset Australia, a global initiative working to counter the digital threat to democracy has also condemned Facebook’s action.

“Facebook is telling Australians that rather than participate meaningfully in regulatory efforts, it would prefer to operate a platform in which real news has been abandoned or de-prioritised, leaving misinformation to fill the void,” he argued.

Reset Australia had made a submission to the government during the legislation’s drafting stage arguing that the true impact of the legislation should be changes to the news, media and journalism landscape in Australia, that should ensure promoting greater diversity and pluralism within the Australian media landscape.

Cooper argues that Facebook does not care about Australian society nor the functioning of democracy.

“Regulation is an inconvenient impost on their immediate profits – and the hostility of their response overwhelmingly confirms regulation is needed,” he says.

Australian Treasurer Josh Frydenberg blasted Facebook’s decision to block access to pages like 1800Respect, the WA Department of Fire and Emergency Services and the Bureau of Meteorology.

Speaking on ABC he said that this was done at a time that a bushfire emergency in Western Australia depended on this information, and also when Australia is about to roll out the covid-19 vaccines where people needed access to reliable information.

Frydenberg noted that this heavy-handed action will damage its reputation.

“Their decision to block Australians’ access to government sites — be they about support through the pandemic, mental health, emergency services, the Bureau of Meteorology — was completely unrelated to the media code, which is yet to pass through the Senate,” he said.

“What today’s events do confirm for all Australians, is the immense market power of these digital giants.”

Kalinga Seneviratne is a media analyst and author. This article was first published on IDN-InDepth News and is republished with the permission of the author.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

OPINION: SunStar editorial in Cebu

So it goes. Nineteen senators in the Philippines Senate have approved on the third and final reading of Senate Bill (SB) 1083 this week, effectively giving more teeth to the Human Security Act of 2007, which was a watered down version of the 1996 Anti-Terror Act of Senator Juan Ponce Enrile.

SB 1083 is the Philippines’ response of commitment to international efforts in the fight against terror.

Authored by Senator Panfilo Lacson, the bill intends to fortify the legal backbone in the fight against terror, equip law enforcers with necessary tools to carry out operations, and safeguard the rights of those accused of the crime.

READ MORE: Senate approves anti-terrorism bill on final reading

SB 1083 defines terrorism as a crime “committed by any person who within or outside the Philippines, regardless of the stage of execution; engages in acts intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to any person, or endangers a person’s life; engages in acts intended to cause extensive damage or destruction to a government or public facility, public place or private property: engages in acts intended to cause extensive interference with, damage or destruction to critical infrastructure; develops, manufactures, possesses, acquires, transports, supplies or uses weapons, explosives or of biological, nuclear, radiological or chemical weapons; and release of dangerous substances, or causing fire, floods or explosions.”

The law allows the police or military to conduct a 60-day surveillance on suspected terrorists, although this can be lengthened to another non-extendable period of 30 days with judicial authority.

A suspected person can be detained without a warrant of arrest for 14 days, or 10 more days if authorities deem it necessary. This happens to be one of the provisions that angered Senator Francis Pangilinan, who voted with Senator Risa Hontiveros against the bill.

“The prolonged detention is an impingement of rights and liberty. Why 14 days? If security officials and law enforcers are doing their job, why will it take them long to file a case?” Pangilinan said.

‘Produce or invent evidence later?’
“Or, is the practice of arrest and detain now, produce or invent evidence later still prevalent, as it was when opposition leader Jovy Salonga was arrested, detained, and charged in 1981? The current law is not perfect, and, we, in Congress, should be working continuously to make it work for the people.”

Lacson, on the other hand, assures that the bill provides sufficient safeguard to ensure the basic human rights of the accused. The Commission on Human Rights (CHR) shall immediately be notified in case of detention of a suspected terrorist.

The measure also mandates the CHR to give highest priority to investigate and prosecute violations of civil and political rights of persons and to prosecute officials or law enforcers who violate the basic rights of the suspects or detained persons.

The catch, however, is that SB 1083 removed the provision of payment of P500,000 (NZ$15,500) damages for each day of detention of persons acquitted of terrorism charges.

Events, however, render the SB 1083 at once timely and yet ill-timed. Timely while extremist terror is breathing down the neck of countries, but ill-timed most especially while we have a government that, while publicly claiming openness, seems at heart intolerant to dissent, indulging itself in a spree of red-tagging, arresting students, academics, social workers, priests and activists.

SB 1083 also comes at a time when government holds the most expensive intelligence work there is as far as budget goes, at a whopping P4.9 billion (NZ$154 million). With that much arm, we now have a highly omnipresent Big Brother practically watching over its citizens’ shoulders at any given time of the day.

This tilts the balance of power entirely and, if the wrong hands take the rein, might easily endanger our democracy.

SunStar is an independent community newspaper and online portal based in Cebu, Philippines. This editorial was published on 27 February 2020.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By Felipe F. Salvosa II in Manila

Philippines Senate Minority Leader Franklin Drilon has dismissed comments by Senator Christopher Lawrence “Bong” Go that “politics” is behind the filing of a proposed concurrent resolution calling on regulators to temporarily allow television giant ABS-CBN to operate as Congress deliberates on its franchise application.

The Senate has the prerogative to pass a concurrent resolution expressing its “sense” on the matter, which does not have the force of law, unlike a joint resolution that needs to be passed by both the Senate and House of Representatives and signed by the president, Drilon told reporters on Wednesday.

“Being a neophyte senator, he (Go) may not be aware of our tradition and our rules. Precisely, a concurrent resolution does not go through the president because it has no force and effect of a law. It is just a sense of the Senate. There is no politics here,” Drilon said.

READ MORE: ‘Speak truth to power’ – Varsitarian reports

“We are not depriving the President of the right to veto or approve,” he added.

Drilon’s earlier proposed joint resolution seeks to extend ABS-CBN’s franchise until the end of 2022, prompting an accusation from Go that opposition senators did not want President Rodrigo Duterte to have a hand on the issue. Duterte steps down on June 30, 2022.

Go, on Monday’s Senate inquiry into the ABS-CBN franchise, gave an idea as to why the Duterte-controlled House of Representatives was stalling on the TV network’s licence renewal.

He said Duterte was displeased over ABS-CBN’s supposed refusal to air his 2016 campaign ad that was a response to an attack ad financed by an arch-critic, then senator Antonio Trillanes IV.

ABS-CBN on Monday said Commission on Election restrictions in the final stretch of the 2016 campaign prevented the Duterte ad from being aired, and that it returned the payment, but Duterte refused to accept it.

Go countered that it took a year for ABS-CBN to address the Duterte campaign’s grievance. “Remember, in an election campaign, especially in a presidential campaign, there is no tomorrow. Every second matters,” he said.

Guevarra vs Puno
Drilon, along with Senator Grace Poe, also dismissed comments by retired chief justice Reynato Puno that ABS-CBN cannot operate when its 25-year franchise expires, based on a 2003 court ruling.

The franchise expires on May 4, 2020, reckoned from the date of effectivity of 15 days after publication, which is April 19, 1995, according to the Department of Justice.

Drilon said Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra’s opinion – that ABS-CBN could be allowed to operate on a provisional authority from the National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) given Congress’ lack of time to pass a new franchise – should be binding throughout the Executive Branch.

“Guevarra said that on grounds of equity, the ABS-CBN can continue. Again, this is an opinion expressed by no less than the secretary of justice, whose opinion is binding on the entire executive branch, so this must be extended due respect.”

Guevarra gave his opinion on the franchise issue during Monday’s Senate inquiry called by Poe.

Drilon said he was in favor of doing what was “necessary in order to allow an objective debate on the renewal of the franchise, without the threat of ABS-CBN being closed.”

In fact, even without the concurrent resolution, a provisional authority would still be valid, he said.

‘Man of wisdom’
“That is the view of Secretary Guevarra; that is the view of Speaker Cayetano; and that is the view of Senator Poe as chairman of the committee on public services,” Drilon said.

Poe said that while Puno is a “man of integrity and wisdom,” a lot had happened since the 2003 ruling that he penned.

“And in fact, hundreds of franchises go through both houses of Congress and because of that, the cure of Congress, because sometimes they don’t have enough time to deliberate on it, is to direct the NTC to grant the provisional license,” Poe told ABS-CBN’s Karen Davila.

Poe also said that even without any resolution from Congress, ABS-CBN should continue operating, “even just by precedents of the acts of Congress in recent years.”

Several companies have been given provisional licenses, she pointed out, citing PT&T, Globe, Smart, GMA Network, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines and Marine Broadcasting.

Felipe F. Salvosa is coordinator of the journalism programme at the University of Santo Tomas in the Philippines and a contributor to Asia Pacific Report.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By Rambo Talabong in Manila

The top lawyer of the Philippine Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) who was a controversial witness in Senate hearings on the Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) controversy has been shot dead.

According to the police report, lawyer Fredric Santos was gunned down yesterday afternoon by two unidentified suspects in front of his daughter’s school in Muntinlupa City, as he was about to pick her up.

Santos suffered gunshot wounds to the head and was declared dead on the spot by the Muntinlupa City rescue team, police said.

READ MORE: Timeline – The GCTA law and the controversy it has stirred

Santos was the legal division chief of the BuCor who was suspended by the Office of the Ombudsman and once detained by the Senate in September 2019 over controversies in the GCTA law’s implementation.

Santos’ office is not included in the process of screening for GCTA grants. But he was grilled by the Senate blue ribbon committee on his role in providing legal opinion on whether the BuCor chief needs the Justice Secretary’s approval to release inmates sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

At the Senate, Santos said he had told then-BuCor chief Nicanor Faeldon of the rule requiring the justice secretary’s approval for releases.

But when Faeldon denied this, Santos backtracked and said he could not recall whether it was just relayed to a staff member.

Rambo Talabong is a Rappler journalist. This report was written with a file by Lian Buan.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By Pauline Macaraeg in Manila

Another “fake news” row has broken in the Philippines in the wake of the mid-term elections this week with Vice-President Leni Robredo rejecting false reports that she had promised to resign if no member of the opposition Otso Directso bloc wins a Senate seat.

The claim originated from a website that is known for spreading misleading information.

Robredo is regarded as a critic of President Rodrigo Duterte.

READ MORE: Robredo: No matter the election results, Otso Diretso’s fight continues

Claim: Vice-President Leni Robredo made a promise to step down from her position if no member of the Otso Diretso slate won a Senate seat.

The claim has been circulating on Facebook, with one post featuring an image of Robredo, along with the text: “Remember her promise. If no one among 8 diretso will win the election she will step down as vice president. Do you think she will fulfill her promise?”

Various groups and pages on the social network, particularly those expressing support for President Rodrigo Duterte and his allies, have called on Robredo to fulfill the “promise” and resign.

One of the most shared posts can be found in “Atty Glenn Chong Supporters Group”. It had 3,000 shares, 892 reactions, and 330 comments as of writing.

The claim seems to have originated from an article published by The Adobo Chronicles on May 7, 2019. Since then, the story has been shared by 44 Facebook groups and pages and had drawn 6,945 total interactions from 1,546,053 combined followers, according to CrowdTangle.

The facts: The Vice-President had already denied the claim in a tweet on May 15.

She attached a screenshot of a version of the claim and captioned it on her official Twitter account: “Not true. Let’s continue fighting disinformation. Report peddlers of fake news.”

Though Adobo Chronicles’ article was dated May 7, the claim began circulating on Facebook the day after the 2019 midterm elections, May 14.

Robredo actively endorsed members of the Otso Diretso slate during the campaign period. She expressed support for the team both on social media and on the ground up until the elections results started to come out.

But while the opposition slate managed to get some wins in Bicol, Robredo’s home region, not a single member was able to enter the top 12 lineup on the national level.

As of writing, 96.3 percent of total votes have already been transmitted.

Adobo Chronicles claims to be a satirical website, but it has been known to spread misleading information.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

By Rambo Talabong in Manila

Outspoken critic Senator Antonio Trillanes IV has become the second opposition senator to be arrested under the Duterte presidency.

A team led by Makati police chief Senior Superintendent Rogelio Simon confirmed that the police served the arrest warrant on Trillanes yesterday for the charge of rebellion, hours after the document was released by Makati Regional Trial Court Branch 150 Executive Judge Elmo Alameda.

Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Jose Balajadia told reporters that the police followed protocol. He said the National Capital Region Police Office director Chief Superintendent Guillermo Eleazar served the warrant on Trillanes.

READ MORE: Why the Senate backed Trillanes but not De Lima vs Duterte – by Camille Elemia

Eleazar said in an interview on ANC that Trillanes voluntarily went with the arresting team. The senator had earlier said he would not resist arrest providing police presented a the proper warrant.

Trillanes was brought to the Makati City Central Police Station for charging procedures.

He was then taken to Makati RTC Branch 150 to post the bail of P200,000 (NZ$5600). He was accompanied by fellow opposition senators Kiko Pangilinan, Paolo Benigno Aquino IV, and Risa Hontiveros; as well as his Magdalo party colleagues.

-Partners-

The judge signed Trillanes’ release order before 5 pm.

Rebellion charge revived
The rebellion charge against Trillanes was revived after President Rodrigo Duterte issued Proclamation No. 572, revoking an amnesty granted to the senator in connection to the 2003 Oakwood mutiny and the 2007 Manila Peninsula siege.

Trillanes had questioned then Police Chief Ronald Del Rosa about extrajudicial killings in Duterte’s bloody, protracted war on drugs, and had also organised the testimony of former members of an alleged death squad that operated under the president while he was mayor of the city of Davao in the country’s south, reports CNN Philippines.

Another opposition senator, Leila de Lima, also a fierce critic of Duterte, has been detained in Camp Crame since February 2017, for drug charges.

Rambo Talabong is a journalist with the independent news website Rappler. Asia Pacific Report publishes under a Creative Commons licence.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz