Law on Scandal Video.. Why karon ra gi lihok?

[pael85]

---

hapit naman hud ang election.. pa papel kaayo ang mga politiko

[giddyboy]

ako mo tuo ko nga ang 40 videos for his personal viewing. I know a 2 guys who has more than a hundred *** videos, scandals, all that stuff. pero of course dili sya ang starring sa vids but still..

ako bay di gyud ko mutuo nga personal viewing ra ang 40 vids. ayaw ko ingna he won't show it to his friends. and what he could gain from that? op kors, EGO and excessive narcissism. besides, if he really didn't want to show it to anybody, why keep it in a laptop and bring it outside his home, and even to Belo's office huh? why risk it in the first place? wala man sab cguro gikawat ang vids sa ilahang balay di ba?

but i think he didn't expect those vids to be spread sa internet.

good questions. but i like to say that if gi tuyo nya na gi spread/upload or makit-an, what would he gain from it? Unless he is planning a career suicide or something.. But he is stupid to be careless.

well, even if dili tinuyoan, still i think he is indirectly responsible and liable due to his carelessness.

[xeoxander01]

sikat nmn nga showbiz personality ang involved.. mao daghan kaug politiko nga ni papel.. aron ingnon concern kunohay bah... aron ingnon nga naay nabuhat... sipra na kau ang mga moves... hehehehe..

[giddyboy]

Of course who are we to interpret it but I know for sure being the non lawyer yourself also would share the same sentiments of interpretation regarding sa RA posted since these interpretations bai were not interpreted in favor of KHO nor for the sake of arguments to counter what you posted but mere interpretations out of COMMONSENSE from the context of the definition and nature and itdoesnt need a lawyer to understand it also . Again ....nobody cares for MIRIAMS statements since for one ... she is a politician and second , she is a female that will have conflicts of interest .

well, i think she said those statements as a lawyer. and i think any lawyer can agree to that. just because she is also a politician and a female means imu na discredit iyang statement. that's ad hominem. not a good argument.

To cut it short .... do you agree with my statements regarding sa RA's na gihapak kang KHO ?

ok, for the sake of argument then. let's dissect each RA:

(1) Republic Act 9262 (the Violence Against Women and Children Act). Under Section 3, treating a woman or a child as a *** object… or forcing a woman the woman or a child to do indecent acts and or make films thereof.

i think this is the main violation charged against Kho sa DOJ. there is an entry there "treating a woman as a *** object and make films thereof". common sense 101. GUILTY AS CHARGED.

(2) Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code(or Act No. 3815): immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions, and indecent shows are subject to penalty of prison mayor or a fine ranging from six thousand to twelve thousand pesos, or both such imprisonment and fine.

I think this more applies to the uploader or those who sold the DVDs or played it to the public. but there is a word "immoral doctrines" that could apply to Kho.

even if we say the film is for private consumption, the fact that it was not done w/ consent. and Katrina's complaint made the immoral doctrine open to the public.

section 1, #1. "Those who shall publicly expound or proclaim doctrines openly contrary to public morals."

(3) Republic Act 9208 (“Anti-Trafficking Person Act of 2003")AN ACT TO INSTITUTE POLICIES TO ELIMINATE TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS ESPECIALLY WOMEN AND CHILDREN, ESTABLISHING THE NECESSARY INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS FOR THE PROTECTION AND SUPPORT OF TRAFFICKED PERSONS, PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR ITS VIOLATIONS, AND FOR OTHER.

Trafficking in Persons - refers to the recruitment, transportation, transfer or harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victim's consent or knowledge, within or across national borders by means of threat or use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person for the purpose of exploitation which includes at a minimum, the exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs.

Sexual Exploitation - refers to participation by a person in prostitution or the production of pornographic materials as a result of being subjected to a threat, deception, coercion, abduction, force, abuse of authority, debt bondage, fraud or through abuse of a victim's vulnerability.

I think this RA also more applies to the uploader or those who sold the DVDs or played it to the public. but take note sa akong gipang bold fonts.

(4) Section 24 of Republic Act 2382(THE MEDICAL ACT OF 1959). he could either be reprimanded, suspended, or have his certificate revoked if he would be found guilty of displaying immoral or dishonorable conduct.

and no need to explain this particular RA further.

to add, the excuse that he is on drugs doing those things is a such a very lame excuse, legally.

but then again, im no lawyer...

[chiz]

hapit naman hud ang election.. pa papel kaayo ang mga politiko

one possible reason gyud..hehehe

[randzg]

@giddyboy - you have some points there. so what is the highest punishment for this in our current law?

[giddyboy]

@giddyboy - you have some points there. so what is the highest punishment for this in our current law?

depende on what u r asking. the highest physical or psychological punishment or the highest monetary penalty?

under Republic Act 9262, if found guilty, i think the physical punishment will be "prision mayor". that's a min of 6 to a max of 12 yrs of jail time. and we are only talking of just one violation here. (kung wala ka ga helmet ug sapatos, ga sleeveless, nya wala pa gyuy sidemirror imong motor, ang violation pa atong gihisgutan is ang helmet pa...hehe)

In addition to imprisonment, the perpetrator shall (a) pay a fine in the amount of not less than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) but not more than three hundred thousand pesos (300,000.00); (b) undergo mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment and shall report compliance to the court. again, we are only talking of one violation here.

wala panay labot sa moral and exemplary damages nga pangayoon ni Katrina that could run in millions of pesos...

as for psychological punishment, i think declaring him persona non grata would suffice.

[mazkot]

depende on what u r asking. the highest physical or psychological punishment or the highest monetary penalty?

under Republic Act 9262, if found guilty, i think the physical punishment will be "prision mayor". that's a min of 6 to a max of 12 yrs of jail time. and we are only talking of just one violation here. (kung wala ka ga helmet ug sapatos, ga sleeveless, nya wala pa gyuy sidemirror imong motor, ang violation pa atong gihisgutan is ang helmet pa...hehe)

In addition to imprisonment, the perpetrator shall (a) pay a fine in the amount of not less than One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) but not more than three hundred thousand pesos (300,000.00); (b) undergo mandatory psychological counseling or psychiatric treatment and shall report compliance to the court. again, we are only talking of one violation here.

wala panay labot sa moral and exemplary damages nga pangayoon ni Katrina that could run in millions of pesos...

as for psychological punishment, i think declaring him persona non grata would suffice.

After being convicted ma dugay nasad ni na kaso k mag appeal nasad ang side ni kho kung asa sya i-detain. They would usually favor na ibunatng sa Pscyh ward si kho. Which would give him a better treatment compared to be jailed for it since they will be using the the psychologically imbalance route.

then they will ask that the time served while the case was being heard be part of the total service time.. haay this brings back the ecloe trail. ug k erap and other big time cases...

[baby_grace]

There is an existing law already regarding the exhibition of lewd designs and conduct. The Revised Penal Code punishes the said act even if done in private. There is also a special law protecting the rights of women and children. What we do not have is a law penalizing the distributor of the optical media containing the recording of the sexual acts. Therefore, conducting a senate hearing about the Hayden Kho scandal is plainly stupid. Oh well, only three senators were present in today's hearing, the dumb three of the Senate: Madrigal, Estrada and Revilla. The hearing is a waste of Senate resources which would have been more useful in debating important legislation for the general welfare and the common good.

[_polaris]

There is an existing law already regarding the exhibition of lewd designs and conduct. The Revised Penal Code punishes the said act even if done in private. There is also a special law protecting the rights of women and children. What we do not have is a law penalizing the distributor of the optical media containing the recording of the sexual acts. Therefore, conducting a senate hearing about the Hayden Kho scandal is plainly stupid. Oh well, only three senators were present in today's hearing, the dumb three of the Senate: Madrigal, Estrada and Revilla. The hearing is a waste of Senate resources which would have been more useful in debating important legislation for the general welfare and the common good.

I don't think this is just an ordinary issues to be resolved, I'm not merely referring to the issue between katrina and kho...there are many out there who do recording sexual acts, the very disadvantage of todays digital world. The fact that anybody can create/produce this things without exerting much effort is really disturbing and it affects our lives. It should be regulated.