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

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

---

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.

That is your FREE INTERPRETATION bai . DOnt you think also that Senator Revilla viewed it also as a fellow in the showbiz industry ? Its nothing but politically motivated ... but then again , here in the forums ... I share the sentiments of a lot of forumers if not the majority that it is nothing but of FREE RIDE to PUBLICITY .

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.

It could not be defined as TREATING since both are CONSENTUAL , it could be the other wya around too that KATRINA treated Dr. Kho as her *** BOY TOY . AGree ?

(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.

I can agree with that indirectly though but lets not assumed also that Dr. Kho made the video's for PUBLIC CONSUMPTION . What was revealed and dissected , it was aired , uploaded , leaked etc by a person or persons other than Dr. Kho . That RA should be directed to the VENDORS , anyone caught UPLOADING it or DISPLAYING it for PUBLIC CONSUMPTION since it is qualified as PORNOGRAPHIC MATERIAL .

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.

Bai ... dont forget that the IMMORAL DOCTRINE you are talking about was made open to public prior to KATRINA's complaints . Unsay basehan diay no Katrina mo complaint kung walay na consumed ang public to include most of us here in the forums ? It is IMMORAL for her because NAULAWAN siya but if wala siya ma leaked , do you think basing in her actions in the video can be defined as IMMORAL DOCTRINE / ACTS for KATRINA ?

(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.

EXPLOITATION was highlighted , but then it will never apply to KATRINA since basin form the video , she was in the state of AGREEMENT to perfrom SEXUAL ACTS inside the room that was filmed secretly . EXPPLOITATION refers to 2 characters , the USER and the USED . Both Kho and Halili dont fit to that description at all . They can call names all day at the hearing but by definition and nature of the issue , its not .

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.

That is referring to the PORN INDUSTRY bai .... that is too technical but yes it can be used against BOTH of them and not only to KHO since KATRINA also participated for the fact that she wasnt EXPLOITED . Again , the DECEPTION issue would fall back on KATRINA since by law she cant be charge of ADULTERY kay di man kasal si Kho and Belo but by legality and her claimed to IMMORALITY .... delimits it to her and no one else . That video was filmed while wala pa nag buwag si Kho and Belo ... nahug na gi luto ra nuon siya sa kaugalingon na mantika .

(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.

I agree to that . He is no saint at all but by any other RA that points to of SEXUAL ORIENTATION doesnt qualify KHO as GUILTY as CHARGE . Again dili man ta mga abogado diri ut just by looking at the pointers and definition . Why do you think they are passing new LAWS bai ? SO they can nail KHO straight without relying from the existing RA's since its not gonna be effective because it doesnt apply at all .

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...

Well .... just like RAPE ... to prove oneself of being a victim takes a lot and one has to go to MEDICO LEGAL . Back to the issue , if DRUGS are involved and according to KHO was ECSTACY ... both of them should be TESTED . She denied using DRUGS ... again thats a ground for perjury right since she took oath ? Mas makaingon pa ko na adik na si Halili but then I wasnt judging her of her looks but by her actions . Siya ang pinaka wild sa 3 bai .

================================================== ============================

actually the PERSONA NON GRATA declaration is not a violation under our laws. it simply is a community action against undesirable people or groups to imply that these violators are not welcome to visit their town, city or country. it doesn't mean Kho can't go to Bohol. actually he still can but he should be ready for frowning faces and things like that. i saw SNN last night and it was thus explained in detail that it is a psychological punishment, but never a human rights violation. mura2x rana cya ug boycott ba.

and by the way, in case u didn't know, Palawan also declared Kho as persona non grata. Katrina and her family hails from Palawan.

Then if thats the case then I will take back what I said except mga taga BOHOL and PALAWAN kay OVER ra gihapon sila . If its something of the same natre as CANDY PANGILINAN on what she said about IGOROT's , that would be considerable and understandable since it is directed to a group of people .

Maybe ... maybe lang wherever town KATRINA HALILI hailed from , maybe mas naa pa silay right mo delcare ana to show their SYMPATHY to their fellow kababayan . Since tanan tao makasala man jud , cge lang ta ani ug PERSONA NON GRATA hehehehe .... kaso di man ilado so wala na lang .

[madrid]

^_^ hapit nman gud ang voting of new politics... mao ni lihok sila para aron ingnon bah dako kaau sila na amot sa pilipinas hahahhahah.. klaru kaayo correct me if im wrong ^_^

[Luskan]

Senators especially Bong Revilla and Jinggoy Estrada are trying to grab the attention of the public.
What really annoys me is that they are bias towards Katrina Halili just because she is a woman and they think she is abused (which is not).
Katrina Halili should take aim on the person who spreads the video. She is getting more stupid the more I hear her play the blame game card on Kho.

[hunt99]

am actually ha di ko ganahan ni HAYDEN pero mao gihapon di ko ganahan katrina pareho lang na sila duha di man gyud na maayo ng *** sa wala pa ma minyo kanang mga senador sos hapit naman election tssk

[SPRINGFIELD_XD_40]

All we can do is follow the progress of the investgation theu news reports since daghan na factors ni gawas like drugs , blackmail, organized / drug syndicate , etc .

[eax]

Senate Inquiry another WASTE of time and money.

[wng]

u just said it. there's a similarity as both are crimes against women. ang akong pasabot sa rape case is that when the victim complains of rape and there is physical evidence like lacerated ehem. we all know naman that a lacerated ehem cannot always mean gi rape. but weight is given to the testimony of the victim. now, for the defendant to disprove that it was not rape and the act was with consent, the burden of proof lies w/ the accused to provide solid evidence.

mao2x rana sa kang Kho nga Kat complained of him getting a video w/o her consent. Kat doesn't have to provide proof that she didn't know she was taped coz her testimony already gives bearing to her accusation. and again, the burden of proof lies w/ the accused to prove otherwise.

My question to you is dili unsay imong pasabot kung dili naa ba gyud law nga mao ni gisuwat. First, if naa ba gyud gisuwat nga burden of proof is with the defendant. And second, if that any *** video taping will be treated the same way: burden of proof is with the defendant.

whether Kho was the one who spread the virus este video to the public or not, is still under investigation. that's why it was stated in news articles that if proven, he could be held liable too for the spreading of video.

like Miriam said, what does one do w/ 40 compilations of videos? what is the purpose of getting 40 video collections? if that is only for Hayden Kho's viewing and for him alone, murag dili kaayo ko motuo ana.

Mao bitaw under investigation because we still don't know who really spread it to the public. However, most likely dili si Dr. Kho as far as what is known to the public. Ayaw lang na sagol-sagola ang gisulti ni Miriam sa imong own opinion nga di ka motuo that 40 videos are for his personal collection. For one, Miriam may know the law better but she claims she hasn't seen any of the videos or does she even know those involved that well? Kay ako, motuo ko nga personal collection na niya. As there is purportedly a video of Kho and Belo doing it, for personal consumption gyud siguro to oi... Who the heck wants to show himself doing it with his sugar mommy? Who among his friends would like to watch that?

and even if we say Kho did not spread it to the public but another person, can't we say indirectly that he is not liable and responsible to his carelessness and recklessness of not keeping the video safe from public view in the first place? what if gituyo ni Kho nga makit-an sa iyang friends? or if wala gituyo, why put it on a laptop and leave it out in the open?

Di na lang ta maglalis, kay mao ra gyud na gihapon. Naa man gyud siya'y responsibility, wala man sad ko moingon nga totally wala. Bisan si Hayden mismo, wa man sad siya mosulti nga wala gyud siya'y sala. But in the eyes of law, what crime can he be charged with? Mao ra man na. You, or rather Sen. Santiago, already mentioned like three laws which MAY be applicable. But mao bitaw naay trial so it can be determined.

sa sulti pa ni Miriam, that is "aggravating" circumstance. again, the burden of proof lies w/ the accused that the video cam is not his and he was not the one who took the video. the burden of proof lies w/ the accused that he has no inch of liability or responsibility whatsoever to the spread of the video.

I would appreciate it if you can provide the link that Sen. Santiago said this.

there is no legislative issue anymore to tackle w/ rape cases (well except lng tingali if they will bring back the death penalty) unlike the cases similar to this Kho issue..and i already cited an article for that. didn't u even read that a new law is being passed for that matter? in fact, this downright disproves ur statement that the senate need not be involved and not their function to listen to such.

My statement, like the others, is that the SENATE DOES NOT NEED TO HAVE A HEARING SPECIALLY FOR THIS CASE. If they already have a bill, they just go over it and enact it. That's it. But that can no longer be used against Kho as retroactive laws are unconstitutional. It's a waste of taxpayers money. There are more important national issues. This is not a national issue. There is but ONE victim (although slightly more if they step forward) there at the hearing! The Senate should be inquiring what happened to the Legacy Group and other important matters. Thousands of people lost their liftetime savings there... and here they are listening to something that sounds like a love triangle. Why don't they bring this to court and try this there rather than the Senate. This media circus is becoming like a mob trial. It is also a mistrial for Dr. Kho.

Gosh, if Sen. Santiago can utter like three laws that may be applicable here, that means there are EXISTING laws. Abilidad na na sa lawyers kung unsa-on nila ug accuse or defend. Bisan gani ang ga bikini sa beach puwede man gani kasohan, kana na bang naay *** video.

please note that it is not only the senate who is summoning all involved. it is also the DOJ/NBI. the OMB also summoned Kho to give his side. PDEA too is summoning Kho and Halili for a drug test.

sa senate inquiry, it was suggested that the inquiry for all involved be held on closed doors...para walay grandstanding ug media tingali...

Nag grand standing naman ug media sa Senate. Di gyud mapungan because if closed doors, mawagtang unya ilang free publicity. I don't want to argue with you regarding the small details or on legalese. As far as I am concerned, Dr. Kho and others went to the Senate today because they were requested to go there, not because they want to. And what a complete waste of taxpayers' money!

[vulture08]

^_^ hapit nman gud ang voting of new politics... mao ni lihok sila para aron ingnon bah dako kaau sila na amot sa pilipinas hahahhahah.. klaru kaayo correct me if im wrong ^_^

yAH. i AGREE 2 u nagpahumot lng na cla sa PUBLIC para mosikat ilang mga names....

[UYOGZ]

w0w... ka.maayo gyud sa TS uie...

bitaw nohh?? ngano karon ra nila gi.lihok??

nya, ang uban kay mo.ingon pag paspasan daw para mahimo na nga balaod...


tsk.. tsk.. tsk.. ka paet gyud sa PILIPENS uie... maayo lang pampagwapo ug pa.gwapa...

[randzg]

Mao bitaw under investigation because we still don't know who really spread it to the public. However, most likely dili si Dr. Kho as far as what is known to the public. Ayaw lang na sagol-sagola ang gisulti ni Miriam sa imong own opinion nga di ka motuo that 40 videos are for his personal collection. For one, Miriam may know the law better but she claims she hasn't seen any of the videos or does she even know those involved that well? Kay ako, motuo ko nga personal collection na niya. As there is purportedly a video of Kho and Belo doing it, for personal consumption gyud siguro to oi... Who the heck wants to show himself doing it with his sugar mommy? Who among his friends would like to watch that?


My statement, like the others, is that the SENATE DOES NOT NEED TO HAVE A HEARING SPECIALLY FOR THIS CASE. If they already have a bill, they just go over it and enact it. That's it. But that can no longer be used against Kho as retroactive laws are unconstitutional. It's a waste of taxpayers money. There are more important national issues. This is not a national issue. There is but ONE victim (although slightly more if they step forward) there at the hearing! The Senate should be inquiring what happened to the Legacy Group and other important matters. Thousands of people lost their liftetime savings there... and here they are listening to something that sounds like a love triangle. Why don't they bring this to court and try this there rather than the Senate. This media circus is becoming like a mob trial. It is also a mistrial for Dr. Kho.

Nag grand standing naman ug media sa Senate. Di gyud mapungan because if closed doors, mawagtang unya ilang free publicity. I don't want to argue with you regarding the small details or on legalese. As far as I am concerned, Dr. Kho and others went to the Senate today because they were requested to go there, not because they want to. And what a complete waste of taxpayers' money!

I agree with this. I couldnt help it but think that they are doing this just for publicity.