Thursday, July 30, 2020

Denying Asylum Without a Hearing Violates Due Process

See - https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2020/07/fatma-marouf-denying-asylum-violates-due-process/#


"x x x.

Denying Asylum Without a Hearing Violates Due Process
JULY 17, 2020 09:30:01 AM

By Fatma Marouf 
Professor of Law and Director 
of the Immigrant Rights Clinic at Texas A&M School of Law
www.jurist.org


One of the most devastating parts of the proposed regulations overhauling asylum law issued on June 15 is a new rule allowing immigration judges to deny asylum applications without an evidentiary hearing. The regulation states that the judge can “pretermit” legally insufficient applications, meaning deny them without even giving the asylum seeker a chance to testify. This rule defies the most basic notions of fairness.

Most asylum seekers do not have legal counsel and must navigate complex immigration laws alone. If an asylum seeker does not know how to frame his or her claim in exactly the right way, a judge could reject it as legally inadequate under the new rule.

This concern is especially relevant for asylum claims based on “membership in a particular social group,” which is the most complicated ground for asylum. It is extremely difficult for attorneys, and nearly impossible for a layperson, to understand the convoluted requirements for establishing a “particular social group.” For example, if a group is defined too broadly, it is rejected as not being “particular,” but if it is defined too narrowly, it is rejected for not being “socially distinct.”

Some asylum seekers are lucky enough to have an attorney who can submit a detailed legal brief addressing such complex issues, and fewer still will be able to hire an expert who can opine on a social group. But most will be left to their own devices. It is unreasonable to expect an unrepresented individual, especially one who may not speak English, or may not be literate in any language, or may be a child, to navigate the complexities of the “particular social group” definition alone.

Additionally, whether an asylum application is legally adequate is often inextricably intertwined with an evaluation of the facts. For example, whether a proposed social group is cognizable is a legal question, but underlying it are factual questions about the group. An immigration judge has a statutory duty to help develop the record by asking the applicant questions, which can help draw out the facts needed to establish eligibility for asylum. But if the asylum application is denied without a hearing, important facts may be overlooked.

The new regulation has clearly been in the works for some time, as Attorney General Sessions helped cleared the way for it in 2018 by vacating a 2014 decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals called Matter of E-F-H-L-, which confirmed that immigration judges must provide asylum seekers with “an opportunity to provide oral testimony.”

In an extraordinary move, the Attorney General directed the Board to refer the case to himself several years later, after the respondent had withdrawn his asylum application to proceed with a family-based petition. Even more bizarre was the Attorney General’s decision to do this after the Department of Homeland Security had already agreed to administratively close the case, taking it off the judge’s docket. The Attorney General then asserted that because the asylum application had been withdrawn, the Board’s decision was “effectively mooted.” These legal gymnastics were clearly a pretext to vacate a decision protecting an asylum seeker’s right to testify.

Not only does the new regulation defy common-sense notions of fairness, but it tramples roughshod over another decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals called Matter of Fefe that has existed for over 30 years. That decision recognizes an asylum’s seekers right, “at a minimum,” to “take the stand.” There, the Board found that a full oral examination of the applicant is “an essential aspect of the asylum adjudication process for reasons related to fairness to the parties and to the integrity of the asylum process itself.” The immigration judge had rejected a proposed social group and then denied asylum without a hearing. The Board held that was impermissible.

In justifying the new regulation, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice note that Matter of Fefe relied on regulations that no longer exist. What they neglect to mention, however, is that the current regulations contain language that is materially the same, requiring a decision to be made “after an evidentiary hearing,” as the Board pointed out in Matter of E-F-H-L-.

No doubt, the proposed regulation will be challenged in federal court as violating not only the Immigration and Nationality Act, which guarantees a reasonable opportunity to present evidence, but also constitutional due process, which requires fundamental fairness. Summary judgment must be kept out of immigration court, where life-or-death decisions are already made with minimal protections.


Fatma Marouf is a Professor of Law and Director of the Immigrant Rights Clinic at Texas A&M School of Law.

Suggested citation: Fatma Marouf, Denying Asylum Without a Hearing Violates Due Process, JURIST – Academic Commentary, July 17, 2020, https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2020/07/fatma-marouf-denying-asylum-violates-due-process/.

This article was prepared for publication by Matthew Fischer, JURIST’s Associate Editor. Please direct any questions or comments to him at commentary@jurist.org

x x x."

WHEN PERMIT TO RALLY NOT REQUIRED.


"Section 4. PERMIT when required and when not required - A WRITTEN PERMIT shall be REQUIRED for any person or persons to organize and hold a public assembly in a PUBLIC PLACE. HOWEVER, NO PERMIT shall be required if the public assembly shall be done or made IN A FREEDOM PARK DULY ESTABLISHED BY LAW OR ORDINANCE or IN PRIVATE PROPERTY, in which case only the CONSENT OF THE OWNER or the one entitled to its legal possession is required, or IN THE CAMPUSES OF A GOVERNMENT-OWNED AND OPERATED EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION which shall be subject to the rules and regulations of said educational institution. Political meetings or rallies held during any election campaign period as provided for by law are not covered by this Act."

BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 880

AN ACT ENSURING THE FREE EXERCISE BY THE PEOPLE OF THEIR RIGHT PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE AND PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

THE PUBLIC ASSEMBLY ACT OF 1985 - BP Blg. 880

BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 880

AN ACT ENSURING THE FREE EXERCISE BY THE PEOPLE OF THEIR RIGHT PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE AND PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR OTHER PURPOSES


Section 1. Title - This Act shall be known as "THE PUBLIC ASSEMBLY ACT OF 1985."

Section 2. Declaration of policy - THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS of the people peaceably TO ASSEMBLE AND PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES is ESSENTIAL AND VITAL to the strength and stability of the State. To this end, THE STATE SHALL ENSURE THE FREE EXERCISE of such right without prejudice to the rights of others to life, liberty and equal protection of the law.

Section 3. Definition of terms - For purposes of this Act:

(a) "Public assembly" means any rally, demonstration, march, parade, procession or any other form of mass or concerted action held in a public place for the purpose of presenting a lawful cause; or expressing an opinion to the general public on any particular issue; or protesting or influencing any state of affairs whether political, economic or social; or petitioning the government for redress of grievances.

The processions, rallies, parades, demonstrations, public meetings and assemblages for religious purposes shall be governed by local ordinances: Provided, however, That the declaration of policy as provided in Section 2 of this Act shall be faithfully observed.

The definition herein contained shall not include picketing and other concerted action in strike areas by workers and employees resulting from a labor dispute as defined by the Labor Code, its implementing rules and regulations, and by the Batas Pambansa Bilang 227.

(b) "Public place" shall include any highway, boulevard, avenue, road, street, bridge or other thoroughfare, park, plaza, square, and/or any open space of public ownership where the people are allowed access.

(c) "MAXIMUM TOLERANCE" means the HIGHEST DEGREE OF RESTRAINT THAT THE MILITARY, POLICE AND OTHER PEACE KEEPING AUTHORITIES SHALL OBSERVE during a public assembly or in the dispersal of the same.

(d) "Modification of permit" shall include the change of the place and time of the public assembly, rerouting of the parade or street march, the volume of loud-speakers or sound system and similar changes.

Section 4. PERMIT when required and when not required - A WRITTEN PERMIT shall be REQUIRED for any person or persons to organize and hold a public assembly in a PUBLIC PLACE. HOWEVER, NO PERMIT shall be required if the public assembly shall be done or made IN A FREEDOM PARK DULY ESTABLISHED BY LAW OR ORDINANCE or IN PRIVATE PROPERTY, in which case only the CONSENT OF THE OWNER or the one entitled to its legal possession is required, or IN THE CAMPUSES OF A GOVERNMENT-OWNED AND OPERATED EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION which shall be subject to the rules and regulations of said educational institution. Political meetings or rallies held during any election campaign period as provided for by law are not covered by this Act.

Section 5. APPLICATION requirements - All applications for a permit shall comply with the following guidelines:

(a) The applications shall be IN WRITING and shall include the names of the LEADERS or organizers; the PURPOSE of such public assembly; the DATE, TIME AND DURATION thereof, and PLACE OR STREETS to be used for the intended activity; and the PROBABLE NUMBER OF PERSONS PARTICIPATING, the TRANSPORT and the PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEMS to be used.

(b) The application shall incorporate the DUTY AND RESPONSIBILITY OF APPLICANT UNDER SECTION 8 hereof.

(c) The application shall be filed with the OFFICE OF THE MAYOR of the city or municipality in whose jurisdiction the intended activity is to be held, AT LEAST FIVE (5) WORKING DAYS BEFORE the scheduled public assembly.

(d) Upon receipt of the application, which must be DULY ACKNOWLEDGED IN WRITING, the office of the city or municipal mayor shall cause the same to immediately be POSTED at a conspicuous place in the city or municipal building.

Section 6. ACTION to be taken on the application -

(a) It shall be the DUTY of the mayor or any official acting in his behalf TO ISSUE OR GRANT A PERMIT UNLESS there is CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE that the public assembly will create a CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER to public order, public safety, public convenience, public morals or public health.

(b) The MAYOR or any official acting in his behalf SHALL ACT on the application WITHIN TWO (2) WORKING DAYS from the date the application was FILED, failing which, the permit shall be DEEMED GRANTED. Should for any reason the MAYOR or any official acting in his behalf REFUSE TO ACCEPT THE APPLICATION for a permit, said application shall be POSTED by the applicant on the PREMISES OF THE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR and shall be DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN FILED.

(c) If the MAYOR is of the view that there is IMMINENT AND GRAVE DANGER OF A SUBSTANTIVE EVIL warranting the DENIAL OR MODIFICATION OF THE PERMIT, he shall IMMEDIATELY INFORM THE APPLICANT WHO MUST BE HEARD ON THE MATTER.

(d) The ACTION on the permit shall be IN WRITING and SERVED on the applicant within TWENTY-FOUR HOURS.

(e) If the MAYOR or any official acting in his behalf DENIES THE APPLICATION OR MODIFIES the terms thereof in his permit, the APPLICANT MAY CONTEST THE DECISION in an appropriate COURT OF LAW.

(f) In case suit is brought before the Metropolitan Trial Court, the Municipal Trial Court, the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, the Regional Trial Court, or the Intermediate Appellate Court, its decisions may be APPEALED to the appropriate court within FORTY-EIGHT (48) HOURS after receipt of the same. No appeal bond and record on appeal shall be required. A DECISION GRANTING SUCH PERMITS OR MODIFYING it in terms satisfactory to the applicant shall, be IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY.

(g) ALL CASES FILED IN COURT under this Section shall be DECIDED WITHIN TWENTY-FOUR (24) HOURS from date of filing. Cases filed hereunder shall be immediately endorsed to the EXECUTIVE JUDGE FOR DISPOSITION or, in his absence, to the next in rank.

(h) IN ALL CASES, any decision may be APPEALED TO THE SUPREME COURT.

(i) Telegraphic appeals to be followed by formal appeals are hereby allowed.

Section 7. Use of public thoroughfare - Should the proposed public assembly involve the use, for an appreciable length of time, of any public highway, boulevard, avenue, road or street, the MAYOR or any official acting in his behalf may, to prevent grave public inconvenience, DESIGNATE THE ROUTE thereof which is CONVENIENT TO THE PARTICIPANTS OR REROUTE THE VEHICULAR TRAFFIC to another direction so that there will be no serious or undue interference with the free flow of commerce and trade.

Section 8. RESPONSIBILITY of APPLICANT - It shall be the duty and responsibility of the LEADERS AND ORGANIZERS of a public assembly to take all reasonable measures and steps to the end that the intended public assembly shall be CONDUCTED PEACEFULLY in accordance with the terms of the permit. These shall include but not be limited to the following:

(a) To inform the participants of their responsibility under the permit;

(b) To police the ranks of the demonstrators in order to prevent non-demonstrators from disrupting the lawful activities of the public assembly;

(c) To confer with local government officials concerned and law enforcers to the end that the public assembly may be held peacefully;

(d) To see to it that the public assembly undertaken shall not go beyond the time stated in the permit; and

(e) To take positive steps that demonstrators do not molest any person or do any act unduly interfering with the rights of other persons not participating in the public assembly.

Section 9. NON-INTERFERENCE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES - Law enforcement agencies SHALL NOT INTERFERE with the holding of a public assembly. However, to adequately ensure public safety, a law enforcement contingent under the command of a responsible police officer may be detailed and stationed in a place at least ONE HUNDRED (100) METERS AWAY from the area of activity ready to maintain peace and order at all times.

Section 10. Police assistance when requested - It shall be imperative for law enforcement agencies, when their assistance is requested by the leaders or organizers, to perform their duties ALWAYS MINDFUL THAT THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE PROPER PROTECTION TO THOSE EXERCISING THEIR RIGHTS PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE AND THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IS PRIMORDIAL. Towards this end, law enforcement agencies shall observe the following GUIDELINES:

(a) Members of the law enforcement contingent who deal with the demonstrators shall be in COMPLETE UNIFORM WITH THEIR NAMEPLATES AND UNITS to which they belong DISPLAYED PROMINENTLY on the FRONT AND DORSAL PARTS OF THEIR UNIFORMS and must OBSERVE THE POLICY OF "MAXIMUM TOLERANCE" as herein defined;

(b) The members of the law enforcement contingent SHALL NOT CARRY ANY KIND OF FIREARMS BUT MAY BE EQUIPPED WITH BATON OR RIOT STICKS, SHIELDS, CRASH HELMETS WITH VISOR, GAS MASKS, BOOTS OR ANKLE HIGH SHOES WITH SHIN GUARDS;

(c) TEAR GAS, SMOKE GRENADES, WATER CANNONS, or ANY SIMILAR ANTI-RIOT DEVICE SHALL NOT BE USED UNLESS THE PUBLIC ASSEMBLY IS ATTENDED BY ACTUAL VIOLENCE OR SERIOUS THREATS OF VIOLENCE, OR DELIBERATE DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY.

Section 11. DISPERSAL of public assembly with permit - NO PUBLIC ASSEMBLY WITH A PERMIT SHALL BE DISPERSED. However, when an assembly becomes VIOLENT, the police may disperse such public assembly AS FOLLOWS:

(a) At the first sign of impending violence, the ranking officer of the law enforcement contingent SHALL CALL THE ATTENTION OF THE LEADERS of the public assembly and ASK THE LATTER TO PREVENT ANY POSSIBLE DISTURBANCE;

(b) If actual violence starts to a point where rocks or other harmful objects from the participants are thrown at the police or at the non-participants, or at any property causing damage to such property, the ranking officer of the law enforcement contingent SHALL AUDIBLY WARN THE PARTICIPANTS that if the disturbance persists, the public assembly will be dispersed;

(c) If the violence or disturbances prevailing as stated in the preceding subparagraph should not stop or abate, the ranking officer of the law enforcement contingent SHALL AUDIBLY ISSUE A WARNING TO THE PARTICIPANTS of the public assembly, and AFTER ALLOWING A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME TO LAPSE, shall immediately ORDER IT TO FORTHWITH DISPERSE;

(d) NO ARREST OF ANY LEADERSHIP, ORGANIZER OR PARTICIPANT shall also be made during the public assembly UNLESS HE VIOLATES during the assembly a law, statute, ordinance or any provision of this Act. Such arrest shall be GOVERNED BY ARTICLE 125 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE, as amended:

(e) ISOLATED ACTS OR INCIDENTS OF DISORDER or bresch of the peace during the public assembly SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE A GROUP FOR DISPERSAL.

Section 12. DISPERSAL of public assembly WITHOUT PERMIT - When the public assembly is HELD WITHOUT A PERMIT where a permit is required, the said public assembly MAY BE PEACEFULLY DISPERSED.

Section 13. PROHIBITED ACTS - The following shall constitute VIOLATIONS of this Act:

(a) The holding of any public assembly as defined in this Act by any LEADER OR ORGANIZER WITHOUT having first secured that WRITTEN PERMIT where a permit is required from the office concerned, or the use of such permit for such purposes in any place OTHER THAN THOSE SET OUT IN SAID PERMITS: Provided, however, That NO PERSON CAN BE PUNISHED OR HELD CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR PARTICIPATING IN OR ATTENDING AN OTHERWISE PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY;

(b) ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED DENIAL OR MODIFICATION OF A PERMIT in violation of the provisions of this Act BY THE MAYOR or any other official acting in his behalf.

(c) The UNJUSTIFIED AND ARBITRARY REFUSAL TOWARD ACCEPT OR ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THE APPLICATION for a permit by the MAYOR or any official acting in his behalf;

(d) OBSTRUCTING, IMPEDING, DISRUPTING or otherwise DENYING the EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY;

(e) The UNNECCESSARY FIRING OF FIREARMS by a member of any law enforcement agency or any person TO DISPERSE the public assembly;

(f) Acts in violation of SECTION 10 hereof;

(g) Acts described hereunder if committed WITHIN ONE HUNDRED (100) METERS from the area of activity of the public assembly or on the occasion thereof;

1. the CARRYING OF A DEADLY OR OFFENSIVE WEAPON OR DEVICE such as firearm, pillbox, bomb, and the like;

2. the CARRYING OF A BLADED WEAPON and the like;

3 the MALICIOUS BURNING of any object in the streets or thoroughfares;

4. the CARRYING OF FIREARMS BY MEMBERS OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT UNIT;

5. the INTERFERING WITH OR INTENTIONALLY DISTURBING the holding of a public assembly BY THE USE OF A MOTORCYCLE VEHICLE, ITS HORNS AND LOUDSPEAKERS SOUND SYSTEMS.

Section 14. PENALTIES - Any person found guilty and convicted of any of the prohibited acts defined in the immediately preceding Section shall be punished as follows:

(a) violation of subparagraph (a) shall be punished by imprisonment of ONE MONTH AND ONE DAY TO SIX MONTHS;

(b) violations of subparagraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), and item 4, subparagraph (g) shall be punished by imprisonment of SIX MONTHS AND ONE DAY TO SIX YEARS;

(c) violation of item 1, subparagraph (g) shall be punished by imprisonment of SIX MONTHS AND ONE DAY TO SIX YEARS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO PROSECUTION UNDER PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1866;

(d) violations of item 2, item 3, or item 5 of subparagraph (g) shall be punished by imprisonment of ONE DAY TO THIRTY DAYS.

Section 15. FREEDOM PARKS - EVERY CITY AND MUNICIPALITY in the country shall WITHIN SIX MONTHS AFTER THE REFLECTIVITY of this Act ESTABLISHED OR DESIGNATED AT LEAST ONE SUITABLE "FREEDOM PARK" OR MALL in their respective jurisdictions which, as far as practicable, shall be centrally located within the POBLACION WHERE DEMONSTRATIONS AND MEETINGS MAY BE HELD AT ANY TIME WITHOUT THE NEED OF ANY PRIOR PERMIT.

In the cities and municipalities of METROPOLITAN MANILA, the respective MAYORS shall establish the FREEDOM PARKS within the period of SIX MONTHS FROM THE REFLECTIVITY of this Act.

Section 16. Constitutionality - Should any provision of this Act be declared invalid or unconstitutional, the validity or constitutionality of the other provisions shall not be affected thereby.

Section 17. Repealing clause - All laws, decrees, letters of instructions, resolutions, orders, ordinances or parts thereof which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed, amended, or modified accordingly.

Section 18. Effectivity - This Act shall take effect upon its approval.

Approved, OCTOBER 22, 1985.

FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY.


"In this Decision, the Court goes even one step further in safeguarding liberty by giving local governments a deadline of 30 days within which to designate specific freedom parks as provided under B.P. No. 880. IF, AFTER THAT PERIOD, NO SUCH PARKS ARE SO IDENTIFIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 15 OF THE LAW, ALL PUBLIC PARKS AND PLAZAS OF THE MUNICIPALITY OR CITY CONCERNED SHALL IN EFFECT BE DEEMED FREEDOM PARKS; NO PRIOR PERMITS OF WHATEVER KIND SHALL BE REQUIRED TO HOLD AN ASSEMBLY THEREON. The only requirement will be WRITTEN NOTICES TO THE POLICE AND THE MAYOR'S OFFICE to allow proper coordination and orderly activities."

[G.R. NO. 169838 : April 25, 2006]

BAYAN, KARAPATAN, KILUSANG MAGBUBUKID NG PILIPINAS (KMP), GABRIELA, Fr. Jose Dizon, Renato Constantino, Jr., Froyel Yaneza, and Fahima Tajar, Petitioners, v. EDUARDO ERMITA, in his capacity as Executive Secretary, Manila City Mayor LITO ATIENZA, Chief of the Philippine National Police, Gen. ARTURO M. LOMIBAO, NCRPO Chief Maj. Gen. VIDAL QUEROL, and Western Police District Chief Gen. PEDRO BULAONG, Respondents.

[G.R. NO. 169848 : April 25, 2006]

Jess Del Prado, Wilson Fortaleza, Leody de Guzman, Pedro Pinlac, Carmelita Morante, Rasti Delizo, Paul Bangay, Marie Jo Ocampo, Lilia dela Cruz, Cristeta Ramos, Adelaida Ramos, Mary Grace Gonzales, Michael Torres, Rendo Sabusap, Precious Balute, Roxanne Magboo, Ernie Bautista, Joseph de Jesus, Margarita Escober, Djoannalyn Janier, Magdalena Sellote, Manny Quiazon, Ericson Dizon, Nenita Cruzat, Leonardo De los Reyes, Pedrito Fadrigon, Petitioners, v. EDUARDO ERMITA, in his official capacity as The Executive Secretary and in his personal capacity, ANGELO REYES, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Interior and Local Governments, ARTURO LOMIBAO, in his official capacity as the Chief, Philippine National Police, VIDAL QUEROL, in his official capacity as the Chief, National Capital Regional Police Office (NCRPO), PEDRO BULAONG, in his official capacity as the Chief, Manila Police District (MPD) AND ALL OTHER PUBLIC OFFICERS GARCIA, and AND PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS ACTING UNDER THEIR CONTROL, SUPERVISION AND INSTRUCTIONS, Respondents.

[G.R. NO. 169881 : April 25, 2006]

KILUSANG MAYO UNO, represented by its Chairperson ELMER C. LABOG and Secretary General JOEL MAGLUNSOD, NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR UNIONS-KILUSANG MAYO UNO (NAFLU-KMU), represented by its National President, JOSELITO V. USTAREZ, ANTONIO C. PASCUAL, SALVADOR T. CARRANZA, GILDA SUMILANG, FRANCISCO LASTRELLA, and ROQUE M. TAN, Petitioners, v. THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, PNP DIRECTOR GENRAL ARTURO LOMIBAO, HONORABLE MAYOR LITO ATIENZA, and PNP MPD CHIEF SUPT. PEDRO BULAONG, Respondents.

Source:

https://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2006/apr2006/gr_169838_2006.php

POWERFUL FALSEHOODS. HOW RODRIGO DUTERTE, THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, DEPENDS ON ONLINE TROLLS.

REFRESHER, 2018.

"POWERFUL FALSEHOODS.
HOW RODRIGO DUTERTE, THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES, DEPENDS ON ONLINE TROLLS.


By ALAN C. ROBLES
15/04/2018
www.dandc.eu


RODRIGO DUTERTE, the president of the Philippines rode to power on a WAVE OF DISINFORMATION two years ago. He has NOT DELIVERED ON CAMPAIGN PROMISES, apart from one thing. His PHONEY “WAR ON DRUGS ” has claimed some 12,000 LIVES.

Rodrigo Duterte is the best president in the solar system, according to the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). He is admired by Queen Elizabeth II who says, all world leaders should consult him. Bill Gates, the tech tycoon, is so impressed by how peaceful the Philippines has become under Duterte that he went to Manila to invest $ 20 billion.

EACH OF THESE STATEMENTS IS a CRUDE LIE. They are among a host of similar FABRICATIONS CIRCULATING ON FACEBOOK. All are PRESENTED AS “NEWS STORIES ”, completed with SPURIOUS HEADLINES, FAKE PHOTOS AND QUOTATIONS IN FRACTURED ENGLISH. They often refer to MISLEADINGLY NAMED WEBSITES, such as aljazeera-tv, bbc101.co.uk, dai1lymail or ­dw-tv3.

Tens of thousands of FB users like, promote and SHARE THESE LIES, which then wash up, like toxic detritus, on many Filipinos’ screens. There is nothing accidental or random about this flood. It is DELIBERATELY ENGINEERED, ENGINEERED TARGETED AND MAINTAINED with specific goals. The idea is TO MAKE RODRIGO DUTERTE LOOK GOOD, TRASH HIS CRITICS AND CONFUSE THE PEOPLE.

DISINFORMATION is nothing new in politics. “FAKE NEWS ” is really just PROPAGANDA, something that has been around for centuries. But it is now SUPERCHARGED BY SOCIAL-MEDIA PLATFORMS. Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi minister, could only have dreamed of this kind of instant delivery, around-the-clock availability and individual targeting.

Three things facilitate the rapid proliferation of fake news in the Philippines: mobile devices, Facebook and trolls. Today, most Filipinos have smartphones. Low-budget telecom subscriptions allow them to access the internet at any time, and FACEBOOK IS THE MOST POPULAR PLATFORM. The Philippines currently has 101 million inhabitants, 119 MILLIONS MOBILE PHONE SUBSCRIPTIONS and 47 MILLIONS FACEBOOK ACCOUNTS, as the website www.rappler.com reports.

AN UNKNOWN NUMBER OF the FACEBOOK ACCOUNTS BELONGS TO TROLLS – online personas who are the equivalent of stone throwing HOOLIGANS. In the early days of the internet, trolls were random UNPLEASANT INDIVIDUALS who delighted in SPOILING DISCUSSIONS and PROVOKING ANGER. Today, however, PAID AGENTS lead ORGANIZED ARMIES OF TROLLS. Some use BOGUS ACCOUNTS to spread their vitriol; some use AUTOMATED SOFTWARE PROGRAMMES (“BOTS ”).

Many people believe Donald Trump was the first populist leader with authoritarian leanings to win high office thanks to fake news. BUT SIX MONTHS BEFORE TRUMP WON THE PRESIDENCY ON NOVEMBER 2016, DUTERTE SUCCESSFULLY RODE ON A TIDE OF ONLINE DISINFORMATION TO POWER. He POLARIZED THE ELECTORATE, TAPPING INTO FEELINGS OF FEAR, HATRED AND RESENTMENT.

CYBER ASSAULT

Reconstructing what happened, scholars and journalists have revealed how DUTERTE ’s STRATEGISTS MOBILIZED TROLLS, MANIPULATED PUBLIC OPINION AND USED STOLEN DATA TO TARGET INDIVIDUALS. They also relied on FOREIGN CONSULTANTS. One of them was possibly ALEXANDER NIX, the infamous former head of CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA, the company that has been accused of STEALING THE PERSONAL DATA OF ALMOST 90 MILLION FACEBOOK USERS IN SUPPORT OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.

As Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post reports, NIX VISITED MANILA IN 2015 A THE HEAD OF A a CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA’s PARENT COMPANY, STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION Laboratories (SCL). He told the National Press Club: “The most powerful way to have elections is to have the people themselves campaign for you.” INSTEAD OF RELYING ON SURVEYS, CAMPAIGN STRATEGISTS SHOULD USE DATA TO INFLUENCE PERSONAL BEHAVIOUR. According to Nix, even “FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED ” CANDIDATES who might otherwise never win could use a strategy that would MAXIMISED THEIR “LIKABLE TRAITS ”.

SCL claims to have successfully given advice to scores of candidates around the world. An SCL webpage, which has since been taken down, stated that ONE CLIENT WAS A PHILIPPINE CANDIDATE WHOM IT ADVISED TO PLAY UP THE CHARACTER OF A TOUGH, NO-NONSENSE LEADER WHO IS HARD ON CRIME. DUTERTE was not named, but the DESCRIPTION FITS HIM. The National Press Club’s president, by the way, has since become Duterte’s undersecretary for communications.

In APRIL 2018, Facebook revealed that CAMBRIDGE ANALYTICA STOLE THE PRIVATE DATA OF MORE THAN ONE MILLION FILIPINO FACEBOOK USERS. What exactly SCL and Cambridge Analytica did in the Philippines remains shadowy. That is true of another foreign group, which has been described as “RUMANIAN ”. A campaign manager of another candidate said he was offered an AUTOMATED SYSTEM that used SPECIAL SOFTWARE to MONITOR SOCIAL-MEDIA ACTIVITY, IDENTIFY ISSUES, MOBILIZE SUPPORTERS, SPREAD CONTENT and even GENERATE THOUSANDS OF FAKE ACCOUNTS. Everything would be managed from a high-tech command centre. That particular candidate turned down the offer but others might have accepted it.

FACEBOOK however, is the multinational corporation that quite OPENLY HELPED DUTERTE. The company TRAINED THE STAFFS of any interested candidates on how best to use the social-media platform. DUTERTE'S STRATEGISTS EAGERLY ACCEPTED THE ADVICE. According to Bloomberg.com, the service was delivered by FACEBOOK’s “GLOBAL GOVERNMENTS AND POLITICS TEAM ”. Headed by Katie Harbath, a former strategist of the US Republican party, this team TAUGHT POLITICAL PARTIES TO SET UP CAMPAIGN PAGES, CREATE CONTENT AND LIVESTREAM EVENTS. It may also have SOLD ADVERTISING SPACE.

Harbath said in an interview in 2016: “What we are trying to do is give users access, making them informed.” That is not how things turned out. DUTERTE ’s STRATEGISTS ORGANIZED SUPPORTERS IN REAL-WORLD AND ONLINE GROUPS THAT PLAYED TWO BASIC ROLES: they pumped out a steady stream of FAKE NEWS AND DISINFORMATION ABOUT DUTERTE AND HIS OPPONENTS, and they HARASSED AND INTIMIDATED ANYONE CRITICS, DUMPING THOUSANDS OF FRENZIED COMMENTS ON ANY FACEBOOK POST THAT DARED TO CRITICIZE THEIR CANDIDATES. The trolls did not necessarily want to convince everyone. INTIMIDATION AND CONFUSION SERVED THEIR PURPOSES TOO.

FACEBOOK has proudly declared that 22 MILLION FILIPINO USERS were ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN. Depressingly, this was not a laudable example of broad-based participation in a democratic process. MUCH OF THE ACTIVISM WAS TOXIC AND JUST SPREAD DISINFORMATION.

A recent STUDY by the NEWTON TECH4DEV NETWORK concludes that the DUTERTE CAMPAIGN DID NOT ONLY USE VOLUNTEERS AND FANS. It also relied on PROFESSIONALS FROM ADVERTISING AND PUBLIC RELATIONS. The Newton study adds: “UNDER DUTERTE'S PRESIDENCY, ‘TROLLS ’, OR ‘DUTERTARDS ’ AS HIS FANATIC FOLLOWERS HAVE BEEN DUBBED, ARE SEEN TO HAVE DEBASED POLITICAL DISCOURSE AND SILENCED DISSIDENTS IN THEIR VOCIFEROUS SHARING OF FAKE NEWS AND AMPLIFICATION OF HATE SPEECH.”

Proudly calling themselves “cyberwarriors”, the TROLL HORDES PUSHED THE SAME UNREALISTIC NARRATIVE DURING THE CAMPAIGN. According to it, the COUNTRY’s EXISTENCE WAS THREATENED BY A DRAMATIC DRUG CRISIS, AND ONLY DUTERTE COULD SAVE THE NATION. Neither national nor international statistics provided ANY EVIDENCE for such a drug crisis.

Duterte was 70 years old at that time and known as a FOUL-MOUTHED EX-MAYOR OF DAVAO CITY WITH LINKS TO DEATH SQUADS. But ON FACEBOOK he was PAINTED as a DIAMOND IN THE ROUGH, a REFORMER WHO WOULD FIGHT DRUG SYNDICATES as well as the established ELITES, including business OLIGARCHS, POLITICIANS and the MAINSTREAM MEDIA.

Two years after he won the elections by a PLURALITY of not quite 40 % of the votes, DUTERTE HAS NOT FULFILLED HIS CAMPAIGN PROMISES. His main political initiative is an attempt to RAM THROUGH A NEW CONSTITUTION THAT WOULD PERPETUATE HIS POWER (see my essay in D+C/E+Z e-Paper 2017/02, p. 31). The entrenched ELITES are still very much entrenched. The main beneficiaries of his regime so far seem to have been HIS CRONIES – among them the FAMILY OF THE LATE FERDINAND MARCO'S, a former DICTATOR.

On the other hand, Duterte did promise to fill Manila Bay with the corpses of ten thousands of criminals and drug addicts. Indeed, the so-called WAR ON DRUGS that he launched after taking office in June 2016, “has claimed an estimated 12,000 LIVES OF PRIMARILY POOR URBAN DWELLERS, INCLUDING CHILDREN ”, according to HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH. The KILLERS apparently belong to DEATH SQUADS AND THE POLICE FORCE. Because of the many EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLINGS, President Duterte is now at RISK OF BEING TRIED BY THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT ONE DAY. Nonetheless, his popularity rating remains high, HIS TROLLS CONTINUED TO INFEST FACEBOOK, and the FACEBOOK DISINFORMATION MACHINERY CONTINUES TO CHURN OUT CONTENT.

There has been some pushback. Belatedly, the SENATE HAS HELD A SERIES OF HEARINGS ON FAKE NEWS, BUT NOTHING HAS COME OUT OF IT. WIKIPEDIA'S has published a LIST OF FILIPINO FAKE-NEWS WEBSITES. Mainstream media, which chose to ignore the deluge of disinformation on Facebook, have slowly been reporting on fake news. Last year, VERA FILES, an investigative reporting group in Manila, ANALYSED 16 WEEKS OF FAKE NEWS ACTIVITY and found the CONTENT CLEARLY FAVORED two people: DUTERTE and Ferdinand MARCO'S JR.., son of the late, murderous deposed dictator.

Author:

ALAN C. ROBLES is a FREE-LANCE JOURNALISTS based in MANILA.
twitter.com/hotmanila."

Read -

https://www.dandc.eu/en/article/how-rodrigo-duterte-president-philippines-depends-online-trolls

Duterte's anti-terror law - "The dissenting voices were strong but they remained unheeded. None of the serious concerns that they expressed about this legislative measure seemed to be of any consequence to them. Alas, the political pressure from above seemed to weigh more heavily on our legislators than the voices from below. It only made more evident the blurring of lines between legislative and the executive branches of our government."

See -
https://cbcpnews.net/cbcpnews/a-pastoral-letter-and-a-call-to-prayer/?fbclid=IwAR0hvE7-3xd3xkP5TOgwACDzQAYDTeMABTZIQIglhmKsW1PpUgJOuI5UGIw


"x x x.

A Pastoral Letter and a Call to Prayer
Sow for yourselves justice, reap in mercy. Break up for yourselves a new field, for it is time to seek the Lord, till he comes and rains justice upon you.
Hosea 10:12

Dear Fellow Filipinos,

A few days ago, we received a letter from His Eminence, Charles Cardinal Maung Bo, Archbishop of Yangon, Myanmar and President of the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences. It was an ardent request for prayers for Hongkong, on account of the signing into law of a new National Security Act. He explained in his letter how this new law poses a threat to the basic freedoms and human rights of the people of Hongkong, and how it potentially undermines especially their freedom of expression.

Apparently, the Chinese government assures the people of Hongkong that they have nothing to be afraid of, as long as “they don’t get involved in any activity that threatens national security.” Why does this sound eerily familiar to us Filipinos? Because we are in a similar situation. And so, while we responded with an assurance to His Eminence, Cardinal Bo, that we would join him in praying for the people of Hongkong, we also asked him to pray for the Philippines and explained why we are as seriously in need of prayers as the people of Hongkong. Like them, we are also alarmed about the recent signing into law of the Anti-Terror Act of 2020.

We are still in disbelief about the manner in which the contentious Anti-Terror Bill was fast-tracked and approved in both Houses of Congress while the whole country’s attention was focused on the Covid-19 pandemic. They did not even seem to care that many of the people they represent were against it—lawyers’ associations, the academe, the business sector, labor groups, youth organizations, NGO’s, political movements, faith-based communities, and even the Bangsamoro government.

The dissenting voices were strong but they remained unheeded. None of the serious concerns that they expressed about this legislative measure seemed to be of any consequence to them. Alas, the political pressure from above seemed to weigh more heavily on our legislators than the voices from below. It only made more evident the blurring of lines between legislative and the executive branches of our government.

In particular, the legal experts and constitutionalists in our country are seriously concerned that this newly signed law has many elements that are “oppressive and inconsistent with our Constitution.” They have pointed out convincingly how this new law poses a “serious threat to the fundamental freedoms of all peaceful Filipinos.”

And yet, the people in government and their allies have dismissed these fears as unfounded. The assurance that they give sounds strangely parallel to that which the Chinese government gave to the people of Hongkong: “Activism is not terrorism. You have no reason to be afraid if you are not terrorists.” We know full well that it is one thing to be actually involved in a crime and another thing to be merely suspected or accused of committing a crime.

Have we not heard of people active in social advocacies who are accused of being communists? Have we forgotten the bishops, priests and religious who were included among those falsely charged by the Philippine National Police with crimes of sedition and inciting to sedition? Are we not aware of the thousands of people who have been killed in police operations on the basis of mere suspicion of involvement in criminality and illegal drugs? Have we not followed the news about Senator Leila de Lima who continues to languish in jail, also on the basis of mere allegations? Have we not heard of media personalities being harassed by a multitude of criminal charges? Have we not felt the chilling effect of the closure of the country’s biggest broadcast network, the ABS-CBN, after being denied renewal of its franchise? Is it not evident to us how this pattern of intimidation creates an atmosphere detrimental to the freedom of expression in our country?

In the midst of this bleak political landscape, we draw consolation from the groups of lawyers and ordinary citizens that have filed petitions before the Supreme Court, questioning the constitutionality of the newly signed law. Will the highest level of our Judiciary assert its independence, or will they, too, succumb to political pressure?

The return of “warrantless detentions” through this new law cannot but remind us of the initial moves in 1972 that eventually led to the fall of democracy and the rise of a dictatorial regime that terrorized the country for fourteen years. It all began when an elected president also legalized the “ASSOs” (arrest, search and seizure orders). It was from there that we gradually sank into the mire of authoritarian rule. Knowing how, in just the recent past, the law has been used too many times as a weapon to suppress legitimate dissent and opposition, we cannot but share in the apprehensions expressed by the lawyers and ordinary citizens that filed the petition against the said infamous law before the Supreme Court.

While a semblance of democracy is still in place and our democratic institutions somehow continue to function, we are already like the proverbial frog swimming in a pot of slowly boiling water. We draw encouragement from the belief that in various government agencies we still have many people of good will whose hearts are in the right places, and who remain objective and independent minded. We have nothing but admiration for these public servants in all branches of government who do only as conscience dictates and do not allow themselves to be intimidated or prevented by political pressure from performing their constitutionally mandated duties. We can only wish that there would be more of them. They are an important element to the strengthening of our government institutions, and are an essential key to a stable and functional democratic system.

Allow us then to end this letter by inviting you to pray with us,

“Be with us O Lord our God, as we continue to face the ravages of the Covid-19
pandemic, as well as the recent political developments that have deeply divided
our country. You know how desperately we need to be united in order to fight a
common unseen enemy that has caused a lot of sufferings and uncertainties,
widespread infections, an overwhelmed health care system, loss of jobs, hunger,
immense losses in business, and loss of lives.

We pray for our public servants, our people in government, especially those
among them who remain upright and continue to be motivated by a genuine
sense of duty and love for country. Protect them, Lord, and give them the
courage to stand their ground on the side of truth and justice.

May the crisis brought about by the pandemic bring about conversion and a
change of heart in all of us. May it teach us to rise above personal and political
loyalties and make us redirect all our efforts towards the common good. May we
be guided by your Spirit to respond with mercy and compassion for the poor, the
disadvantaged and the most vulnerable sectors of our society. For we know that
what we do for the least of our brothers and sisters we do for you. AMEN.”
For the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines:

Most Rev. Pablo Virgilio S. David, D.D.
Bishop of Kalookan
Acting President, CBCP
16 July 2020, Feast of Our Lady of Mount Carmel


x x x."
"THE CHURCH FINDS A NEW VOICE."
EDITORIAL
PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER
JULY 26, 2020


"Xxx.

In response, MANILA AUXILIARY BISHOP BRODERICK PABILLO dared the Palace official to file charges against Church leaders, asking: “DON'T WE HAVE A RIGHT TO SPEAK SA MGA KAILANGAN NG PAMAHALAAN? DAHIL BA KAMI AY SIMBAHAN HINDI NA KAMI PUWEDENG MAGSALITA?”

FR. JEROME SECILLANO, CBCP SPOKESPERSON, clarified that “SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE ” IS ACTUALLY DIRECTED AT THE STATE, A PROHIBITION AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT FAVORING ONE CHURCH OVER OTHERS BY ESTABLISHING A STATE RELIGION OR BY ALLOCATING PUBLIC FUNDS TO FAVOR ONE CHURCH.

CHRISTIAN MONSOD, one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, stated that “PRIESTS AND BISHOPS, AS CITIZENS OF THE COUNTRY, HAVE THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH.” Father Secillano added that the principle “DOESN'T ACTUALLY BAR CHURCH LEADERS FROM EXPRESSING THEIR POLITICAL OPINIONS.” Besides, he added, “IF THE CHURCH DOES NOT ANYMORE SPEAK ABOUT ALL THESE MATTERS AND THEREFORE ARE WRONGS BEING COMMITTED LEFT AND RIGHT, THEN WE CEASE TO EXIST AS A CHURCH.”

The CBCP STATEMENT, SIGNED BY BISHOP PABLO VIRGILIO DAVID OF KALOOKAN who is ACTING PRESIDENT of the bishops’ conference, observed that “while a semblance of democracy is still in place and our democratic institutions somehow continue to function, WE ARE ALREADY LIKE THE PROVERBIAL FROG SWIMMING IN A POT OF SLOWLY BOILING WATER.”

The seemingly newfound outspoken ways of the Catholic hierarchy have found a SYMPATHETIC EAR AND SUPPORTIVE VOICE FROM THE LEADERSHIP OF OTHER FAITHS GROUPS, and the show of solidarity is striking. “IT IS THE MORAL DUTY AND PROPHETIC TASK OF EVERY CHRISTIAN, ESPECIALLY CHURCH LEADERS, TO ANNOUNCE AND DENOUNCE THE ILLS OF SOCIETY,” said BISHOP REUEL NORMAN O. MARITZA, GENERAL SECRETARY of the NATIONAL COUNCIL OF CHURCHES IN THE PHILIPPINES, which is composed of “MAINLINE ” PROTESTANT CHURCHES in the country.

The fact that at the helm of the two most prominent Catholic institutions are well-known progressive clerics—Bishops Pabillo and David—should explain the GROWING RESOLVE AND FORTHRIGHTNESS IN THE CHURCH’s VOICE. Both have long been denouncing GOVERNMENT REPRESSION, especially the WAR ON DRUGS that has resulted in the killings of thousands of suspects. Malacañang, in complaining about the CBCP’s supposed breach of the Church-State divide, also conveniently forgets that THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF HAD PUBLICLY DISPARAGED CORE CATHOLIC BELIEFS, INCITED VIOLENCE AGAINST BISHOPS, AND TRAFFICKED IN MALIGN GOSSIP AGAINST CARDINAL LUIS ANTONIO TABLE.

Perhaps it’s just a matter of timing, with PUBLIC ANGER COMING TO A HEAD AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT’s HARSH METHODS AND MISPLACED PRIORITIES in the face of the country’s most serious public HEALTH CRISIS, which has also metamorphosed into the gravest ECONOMIC REVERSAL in decades. In any event, it’s a welcome development that, it is hoped, EMBOLDENS THE FAITHFUL AND ALL CONSCIENTIOUS CITIZENS alike to think, TO REFLECT, and then TO ACT to realize their most fervent dreams for the country."

Barbara Oakley: "Learning How to Learn" | Talks at Google

Steven Pinker: "The Sense of Style" | Talks at Google

Steven Pinker: "The Stuff of Thought" | Talks at Google

Steven Pinker on Good Writing, with Ian McEwan

Linguistics, Style and Writing in the 21st Century - with Steven Pinker

Steven Pinker: Linguistics as a Window to Understanding the Brain

WATCH: Robredo on SONA 2020, Philippines' COVID-19 response