Office pogi
Wfh holiday ganda
₱12+30 pamasahe
₱200 baon
₱20 4*5 spanish bread
₱20 2*10 kikyam
Php20 kwekkwek
₱12+30 pamasahe
₱120 chicken shawarma
Punta sm pogi at mama
₱80 grab
Php5000 add memory sa laptop ni pogi.
Thursday, September 25, 2025
Simplehan
Simply na lang,
Wag na yung bar top notcher, ang pangarapin mong ka debate.
Dapat hingin ng DoJ sa nag-aapply bilang state witness na ibalik ang proceeds nung krimen na kanilang ginawa dahil sa oras na sila ay tawagin bilang testigo, hindi na sila pwedeng i require na ibalik ang perang labag man sa batas ay kinuha nila mula sa kaban ng bayan!
Sakaling absent ka nung ituro ito, heto ang sipi ng batas sa wikang Ingles:
The Witness Protection Law expressly states the state witness "cannot be subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for any transaction, matter or thing concerning his compelled testimony."
Section 14 of the Witness Protection Law (RA 6981) expressly provides:
"Compelled Testimony. - Any Witness admitted into the Program pursuant to Sections 3 and 10 of this Act cannot refuse to testify or give evidence or produce books, documents, records or writings necessary for the prosecution of the offense or offenses for which he has been admitted into the Program on the ground of the constitutional right against self-incrimination but he shall enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution and cannot be subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for any transaction, matter or thing concerning his compelled testimony or books, documents, records and writings produced."
Hindi abogado, pero para sa tama at totoo!
Talo man sa botohan, panalo sa katwiran!😀
Ano ang nagtulak sa kanila na gawin lahat ito?
After watching this afternoon's hearing may dalawang statements na nagpalungkot sa akin:
1. 100% of the bidding are rigged
2. Lahat ng project sub-standard
Bilang auditor, napakaraming ulit na naming naging finding ang simulated or rigged bidding or yung kung tawagin nila ay biding-bidingan.
Ano ang resulta pagdating sa korte? Karamihan, dismissed!
Ipapasok ko sa usapan yung nabanggit ni Atty Fortun, yung circumstancial evidence.
Kahit hindi abogado, napag-aralan namin yan.
Una, susubukan naming tingnan ng mga dates
-merong nauna pa yung Notice of Award sa Invitation to Bid.
-o kaya sa minutes of bidding, may mga hindi tugmang dates.
-minsan, merong yung date of bidding ay huli sa date ng acceptance ng contractor nung notice na nanalo sya (Notice of award)
May ilan ding mas masusing pag-reresearch:
May confirm kami sa Securities and Exchange Commission para makuha yung listahan ng mga nag-mamay-ari ng kompanya.
Makikita minsan yung parehas ang Treasurer ng mga bidding companies
Merong magka parehas ang address either ng factory o ng main office
Meron ding bigla kaming dadalaw sa mga offices at display center or showroom nung mga bidders at makikita na parehas ang kanilang oisina
Nakakatawa nga, may isang kompanya na kurtina lang ang nagdala. Sa isang bahagi ng sala ay construction supplies, sa kabila ng kurtina ay medical supplies at sa bandang likuran naman, pag hinawi ang kurtina, ay office supplies
Sayang ang lahat ng hirap...
Siguro naawa ang Diyos, biglang sa isang hearing, pinatunayan ang lahat ng aming pinagsisikapang patunayan sa aming audit reports.
Yun lang, ang hearing. na naganap ay for legislative purposes only. Yung makatulong sa paghahanap ng kailangang batas at hindi kagaya sa korte kung saan determination of guilt ang pinaguusapan.
Punta tayo sa pangalawang punto, yung lahat ay sub-standard.
Nakakatakot, paano kaya kung lumindol? Yung hindi nga lumindol ay gumuguho yung tulay, etc.
Lalo na kung iisipin natin na lahat ng school buildings ay under ng DPWH yung construction.
Bukas may paparating na namang bagyo, at habang naghahanda ang karamihan sa mamamayan, hindi humuhupa ang kaba, ang galit at ang pagtatanong, saan nga ba magtatapos ang lahat ng ito?
P.S.
Hindi ako sumasawsaw lang, hindi nagpapaka-relevant, patuloy akong humahanap kung paano gigisingin ang kamalayan ng bawat mamamayan na hingan ng pananagutan ang mga nagsamantala sa tiwala ng mamamayan.
Pamilyar ang mga lumalabas na pangalan. Ilan sa kanila, paulit ulit na naging sentro ng aming mga audit. Pero nakakalusot at nakakalusot at nananalo pa rin sila sa halalan.
Money talks, sabi nila at hanggang ang pera ang itinuturing na makapangyarihan ng karamihan, patuloy tayong babahain ng katiwalian.
Sana may magtanong kahit na minsan lang...
Ano ang nagtulak sa kanilang gawin ang lahat ng ito?
Wednesday, September 24, 2025
09252025 thu bagyo opong
Php20 pandesal
Office pogi
Ganda wfh
Php12+30 pamasahe
Php60 2x30 mineral water
Petron pakarga ng diesel
Php1000 at php55.45/liter 18liter
Php20 tip pahangin
Bili gamot ni pogi sa puregold bacoor mercury
Php825 Imune pro 1 box
Php2520 90@28.00 Tletal tab 300mg
Php3000 120@25.00 depamax tab 500mg
TTL = 4158.86
Php634.10 grocery
AGT 2025 winner Jessica Sanchez
Php10 2x5 spanish bread
Php5 pan de coco
Php20 2x10 kikyam
Php20 chicken balls
Php245 grab pauwi pogi. Fujitec to home thru coastal
Php60 6x10 isaw
Php20 2x10 dugo
Php45 3x15 tenga
Php20 6/49 lotto
Tuesday, September 23, 2025
Law bent to protect his circle.
[OPINION] The Marcoleta Pattern: Three Decades of Legal Theatrics
Watching Senator Rodante Marcoleta in the Blue Ribbon hearings on flood control, I don’t see a man defending due process.
I see someone who has mastered the use of legal technicalities as a shield for allies.
On September 23, 2025, when he clashed with Ping Lacson about who gets priority in witness protection, it felt like déjà vu.
His point—that Lacson’s preference for engineer Brice Hernandez over the Discaya contractors tainted the committee’s integrity—wasn’t new.
For me, it was just the latest chapter in a decades-long pattern: attack the authority of decision-makers when they don’t align with his interests.
🟥 Early Signs: Legal Warfare in the House
This isn’t something Marcoleta suddenly discovered in the Senate.
The trail goes back to his Alagad party-list days in the House (2004–2013). When he lost to Diogenes Osabel in a COMELEC ruling over who would represent Alagad, he didn’t just appeal.
He went after the commissioners themselves, filing a disbarment case. His complaint accused them of “manifest partiality, evident bad faith, and gross inexcusable negligence.”
The Supreme Court threw it out, reminding him that the proper remedy was judicial appeal, not administrative harassment.
But that episode told me something: Marcoleta’s instinct is to attack the integrity of decision-makers themselves whenever their ruling doesn’t favor him.
It set the tone for everything that followed.
🟥 Weaponizing Witness Protection
Fast-forward to today, and I see the same tactic—just more polished. Marcoleta is pushing hard for the Discaya contractors to enter the witness protection program.
When DOJ Secretary Crispin Remulla said restitution of stolen funds could be a factor in eligibility, Marcoleta threatened him: “you may be disbarred from doing this.”
That’s the same maneuver he used against COMELEC commissioners in 2004. It’s intimidation through legal ethics complaints. And his reading of Republic Act 6981—that restitution isn’t required—works out conveniently for those accused of stealing billions.
That doesn’t sound like a fair reading of the law. It just helps his allies.
🟥 The CHR Budget Massacre (2017)
The clearest example of how Marcoleta uses legal arguments for political ends was the ₱1,000 budget stunt against the Commission on Human Rights.
On paper, it looked like a budget cut. In reality, it was an unconstitutional strike against a constitutional body tasked with monitoring government abuse.
Marcoleta justified it by claiming the CHR wasn’t valid because it was created by Cory Aquino’s executive order during the revolutionary government.
Edcel Lagman corrected him: Aquino had legislative powers at the time. Marcoleta brushed it off and bulldozed ahead.
That confidence, even in a flawed position, is part of his playbook: argue with authority and dare others to stop you.
The vote—119–32 in his favor—showed how powerful this tactic is. He managed to drag the House into endorsing an unconstitutional position simply by dressing it in procedural clothing.
🟥 ABS-CBN Franchise Denial: Legal Theater at Its Peak
If there’s one moment where Marcoleta’s methods came together, it was the ABS-CBN franchise battle.
He became the face of the denial, and his arguments followed the same formula: mix half-truths, distortions, and legal misinterpretations until doubt overwhelms facts.
The 50-year cap: He claimed ABS-CBN had operated beyond the constitutional limit. Law deans corrected him—franchises don’t accumulate across corporate transitions. He kept repeating it anyway.
Foreign ownership through PDRs: He argued PDRs violated the Constitution. The former PSE president clarified that PDRs don’t equal ownership. He ignored it and repeated the claim even years later.
Operational violations: He cited TV Plus boxes and pay-per-view as illegal. The NTC and DOJ had cleared them. He still pushed the claim.
Taxes: Even after BIR and PEZA testified to compliance, Marcoleta dismissed their findings and insisted on “tax evasion.”
That whole campaign, in my eyes, was legal distortion turned into spectacle. He didn’t back down when facts contradicted him.
He doubled down, and it worked—the franchise was killed.
🟥 House Committee Purge (2024)
His removal from five committees in 2024 told me a lot about how he sees himself. Instead of reflecting on whether he had a conflict of interest—especially when defending Sara Duterte’s OVP budget—he called it a “witchhunt.”
He demanded “courtesy” for Duterte, framing budget oversight as harassment. When he was kicked out of the Good Government Committee that was probing OVP funds, he painted himself as a victim.
To me, that victim card is another part of the Marcoleta pattern: when caught in conflict, frame it as persecution.
🟥 Procedural Tricks I’ve Noticed
Marcoleta has a bag of tricks he reuses:
He questions a chairman’s authority (like with Lacson).
He registers “continuing objections” to stall hearings.
He invokes court rules even when Senate rules don’t allow it.
He argues due process selectively—always to favor allies.
When he pushed to dismiss Sara Duterte’s impeachment complaint, he admitted Senate rules didn’t cover motions to dismiss. But he insisted “rules of court” did, and therefore should apply. That’s how he bends procedure to create exits where none exist.
🟥 The INC Factor
One detail that can’t be ignored: his alignment with Iglesia ni Cristo. From shifting to Duterte’s camp in 2016 to defending ABS-CBN’s closure, his political stances match INC’s institutional interests.
Former INC members have said that bloc voting pressures members to toe the line.
That makes his legal posturing look less like principle and more like service to an institution.
🟥 Institutional Damage Over Time
When I look at Marcoleta’s career as a whole, the damage piles up:
-Cutting CHR’s budget crippled human rights oversight.
-Killing ABS-CBN silenced a major media voice.
-Obstructing OVP budget scrutiny weakened checks and balances.
-Flood control hearings now risk being derailed by procedural fights.
He calls it due process. To me, it’s due process weaponized.
🟥 Strategic Evolution
It’s clear to me his methods evolved.
In the early 2000s, it was blunt harassment—filing disbarment cases against commissioners.
By 2017, it became constitutional misrepresentation—like with the CHR. By 2020, it was systematic disinformation—seen in ABS-CBN.
And today, it’s full-blown procedural warfare in the Senate, polished enough to look legitimate but designed to obstruct accountability.
🟥 My Conclusion: Legal Expertise Turned Against Accountability
After three decades, the pattern is impossible for me to ignore. Marcoleta transforms oversight into endless procedural battles. He casts himself as a defender of due process while using legal theater to protect allies.
From COMELEC to CHR to ABS-CBN to Sara Duterte, and now to the Discayas, the moves are the same: attack the process, question authority, invoke higher law, and shield the powerful.
What I see isn’t law serving the people. It’s law bent to protect his circle.
🟥 SOURCES:
1. Philstar – House gives CHR a P1,000 budget
https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2017/09/12/1738419/house-gives-chr-p1000-budget
2. ABS-CBN News – 'You may be disbarred from doing this': Marcoleta, Remulla
https://www.abs-cbn.com/news/nation/2025/9/23/marcoleta-warns-remulla-of-possible-disbarment-in-restitution-row-1057
3. Reddit – Voting for Rodante Marcoleta (INC) is a vote for Eduardo V. Manalo
https://www.reddit.com/r/exIglesiaNiCristo/comments/1jyr4b4/voting_for_rodante_marcoleta_inc_is_a_vote_for/
4. Reddit – Why should Filipinos be concerned that Rodante Marcoleta (INC)...
https://www.reddit.com/r/exIglesiaNiCristo/comments/1jw1jd2/why_should_filipinos_be_concerned_that_rodante/
5. ABS-CBN News – House votes for only P1,000-budget for CHR
https://www.abs-cbn.com/news/09/12/17/house-votes-for-only-p1000-budget-for-chr
6. Inquirer – House gives Commission on Human Rights P1,000 budget for 2018
https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/930106/house-budget-deliberations-chr-p1000-budget-speaker-alvarez
7. Philstar – Who moved to give CHR budget P1,000?
https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2017/09/13/1738719/who-moved-give-chr-budget-p1000
8. Inquirer – House leader accuses ABS-CBN of violating Constitution
https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1281185/house-leader-accuses-abs-cbn-of-violating-franchise-law-constitution
9. Philippine News Agency – ABS-CBN didn't comply with franchise terms, laws
https://www.pna.gov.ph/index.php/articles/1103988
10. Vera Files – Fact check: Marcoleta repeats false claims about ABS-CBN
https://verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-fact-check-marcoleta-repeats-false-claims-about-abs-cbn
11. ABS-CBN News – Marcoleta blasts Sotto for rejecting witness protection
https://www.abs-cbn.com/news/2025/9/15/marcoleta-blasts-sotto-for-rejecting-immunity-for-discayas-1759
12. Philstar – Senators clash over motion to dismiss Sara Duterte's impeach trial
https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2025/08/06/2463578/senators-clash-over-motion-dismiss-sara-dutertes-impeach-trial
13. Inquirer – Marcoleta expelled from 5 House panels
https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1987777/marcoleta-expelled-from-5-house-panels
14. Politiko – Marcoleta links committee membership removal to impeach Sara Duterte plan
https://politiko.com.ph/2024/10/03/marcoleta-links-committee-membership-removal-to-impeach-sara-duterte-plan/headlines/
15. ABS-CBN News – Marcoleta says Discayas need not return money to become state witnesses
https://www.abs-cbn.com/news/nation/2025/9/15/marcoleta-says-discayas-need-not-return-money-to-become-state-witnesses-1137
16. GMA News – Tension sparks between Lacson, Marcoleta over state witnesses plea
https://www.gmanetwork.com/news/topstories/nation/960003/tension-sparks-between-lacson-marcoleta-over-state-witnesses-plea/story/
17. ABS-CBN News – Lacson, Marcoleta clash over 'integrity' of Blue Ribbon probe
https://www.abs-cbn.com/news/nation/2025/9/23/-away-kaagad-tayo-lacson-marcoleta-clash-over-integrity-of-blue-ribbon-probe-0947
18. Supreme Court Decision – Marcoleta's complaint vs. COMELEC commissioners
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/47142
19. Supreme Court Decision – G.R. No. 181377, Marcoleta v. Osabel
https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/49105
20. Wikipedia – Rodante Marcoleta
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodante_Marcoleta
Photo Credit: Rappler
09242025 wed
Php10 pandesal
Office pogi
Ganda wfh
Php12+30 pamasahe
Php90 banana que Leah paid.
Php350 30pcs egg + gata
Php
Php30 pamasahe
Php25 egg pie
Php5 spanish bread
Php189 alfa pogi at ganda
Php279 shopee
The Bus Ride story.
Don't chase success, collect moments, builds memories and love the people besides you. Habang magkakasama pa kayo sa biyahe.
Na enjoy mo ba ang biyahe ng buong puso.
WPP
Marcoleta is RIGHT Remulla is WRONG: Restitution, Witness Protection, and the Limits of Executive Power
By: Anthony Ludalvi Vista
In September 23, 2025, Senator Rodante Marcoleta and Justice Secretary Jesus Crispin Remulla faced off during a Senate hearing on the Witness Protection Program (WPP). The clash was triggered by a real and pressing situation -
A person involved in a corruption scheme was willing to testify against higher officials. He applied for admission to the WPP under Republic Act No. 6981, which guarantees security and benefits for witnesses. The sticking point was money. Because the applicant had received a share of the illegal funds, Remulla insisted that he should first return the stolen money as proof of good faith. Marcoleta objected. He argued that the law does not require restitution and that imposing it without a statute would be unlawful.
This dispute is not just about policy preferences. It strikes at the very core of the rule of law. May the executive impose a financial obligation on a citizen that Congress never required? Or must the law be applied strictly as written?
The Statutory Framework
The Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act (RA 6981) governs the admission of witnesses into the program. Section 10 of the law lays out the requirements for a person who has taken part in a crime but seeks protection as a state witness. Among these are: that the testimony is absolutely necessary; that there is no other direct evidence available; that the testimony can be substantially corroborated; and that the witness is not the most guilty.
Restitution is not mentioned anywhere in the statute. Congress could have written it into the law, but it chose not to. Neither the implementing rules of the DOJ nor the law itself authorize the Secretary of Justice to demand repayment of money as a prerequisite for admission. Under the principle of legality, the executive must apply the statute as enacted, not add new conditions.
Restitution in Criminal Law
Restitution exists in Philippine law, but in a separate context. Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code provides that “every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.” Civil liability covers restitution, reparation, and indemnification. This is not a matter of executive discretion. It is part of the judicial process in a criminal case.
The Supreme Court has consistently treated restitution as a judicial function. In People v. Pantig (G.R. No. 143881, 2004), the Court held that restitution is an incident of civil liability and does not affect the criminal liability of the accused. In People v. Toring (G.R. No. 192601, 2013), the Court reiterated that restitution cannot substitute for criminal responsibility. These rulings confirm that restitution is ordered by courts, not imposed by the executive.
Restitution as a Judicial Function
The demand for restitution presupposes a finding of liability. Only courts, after proper trial and judgment, may order a person to return property or money. This principle is grounded in the 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 1, which provides that no person shall be deprived of property without due process of law.
In Republic v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 213592, 2017), the Supreme Court stressed that even forfeiture of ill-gotten wealth must undergo judicial proceedings. The State cannot seize property without a court ruling. The same principle applies here: restitution cannot be forced by the DOJ as a condition of WPP eligibility.
If the Secretary of Justice demands restitution without a judgment, he effectively adjudicates property rights—a power reserved for the judiciary. This is unconstitutional. It would deprive a person of property without due process, reducing constitutional guarantees to mere words.
The Prematurity of Executive Restitution
Even assuming restitution is desirable, Remulla’s demand is premature. Restitution can only be ordered after a case has been filed, liability determined, and judgment rendered. To ask for restitution in advance of trial is to strip a person of property without any adjudication of guilt. This is equivalent to confiscation.
The analogy is clear: it is as if the executive is selling protection in exchange for property. The DOJ would be saying, “You may enter the program, but only if you first give up your money.” This transforms a statutory program into a transactional bargain not contemplated by law. It undermines the credibility of witness protection and chills potential witnesses who might otherwise come forward.
Strict Construction of Statutory Conditions
The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that statutory requirements for eligibility must be strictly followed. In People v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 107207, 1999), the Court emphasized that the qualifications of a state witness are exclusive and cannot be supplemented by considerations not found in the law. In Macalintal v. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 157013, 2003), the Court made it clear that administrative interpretation cannot add to what the law has not provided.
These rulings underscore that the Secretary of Justice may not invent new prerequisites. If restitution is to be included, Congress must amend the statute. Until then, the DOJ is bound by the law as written.
Why Marcoleta Is Correct
Marcoleta’s position reflects fidelity to the Constitution and to the statute. He is correct that restitution is not an eligibility requirement under RA 6981. He is correct that only courts may impose restitution after due proceedings. And he is correct that to add restitution as a condition would deprive citizens of property without due process. His stance safeguards not only the rights of the witness but also the separation of powers that is the bedrock of constitutional governance.
Why Remulla’s Position Is Dangerous
Remulla’s position threatens constitutional order. It blurs the line between executive discretion and judicial function. It allows the executive to demand property without trial, in violation of due process. And it sets a precedent where executive officers can rewrite statutes according to personal standards of morality.
If this approach is allowed, the WPP ceases to be a program governed by law and becomes a tool of bargaining. It transforms witness protection from a statutory guarantee into an executive trade. That is a dangerous path, incompatible with the rule of law.
Conclusion
The dispute between Marcoleta and Remulla is not about semantics. It is about constitutional boundaries. The law on witness protection is clear: restitution is not a requirement for admission. Restitution is part of civil liability, but it can only be imposed by courts after trial and judgment. For the executive to demand it in advance violates due process and property rights under Article III of the Constitution.
Marcoleta is correct. Remulla’s interpretation, however moral in tone, has no basis in law or jurisprudence. It is premature, unconstitutional, and sets a precedent where executive officials can seize property by fiat. The rule of law demands better. If restitution is to be added as a requirement, Congress must say so, and the courts must adjudicate it. Until then, the Secretary of Justice must apply the law as written.
Monday, September 22, 2025
SC magsalita ka.
The Government Is the Problem.
It’s Time for the Supreme Court to Speak.
By Dr. Anthony “Tony” Leachon
In a nation drowning in debt, disaster, and despair, one truth rises above the noise: the government itself is the root of systemic corruption. This is no longer about isolated wrongdoing. It is a deliberate, institutional betrayal—engineered through the national budget, approved by those in power, and paid for by the suffering of the Filipino people.
The 2025 General Appropriations Bill is not a budget—it is a blueprint for injustice. According to the Ateneo School of Government, the Department of Public Works and Highways, tasked with building and protecting our communities, saw its budget slashed.
Meanwhile, the Office of the President ballooned by 461%, the Senate by 275%, and the Office of the Vice President by 47%. The House of Representatives received ₱17.3 billion. The President, ₱5 billion. The Senate, ₱1 billion.
These are not allocations—they are excesses. And behind them lie the shadows of confidential funds, political favors, and silent plunder.
But the most damning revelation is this: the ₱89.9 billion originally stripped from PhilHealth—amidst a zero subsidy for the nation’s health insurance—was quietly returned by President Marcos just one day before the September 21 rallies commemorating the declaration of Martial Law. A move made under pressure, not principle. A move that exposes the fragility of truth in the face of public outrage.
And yet, we wait. We wait for the Supreme Court to rule on the petition against this mangled budget.
We wait for clarity, for courage, for justice. Former Chief Justice Reynato Puno calls this moment “judicial legislation”—a time when the Court must not only interpret the law, but rescue the Republic from collapse.
This is not just a fiscal issue. It is the biggest corruption scandal in Philippine history. It is a moral reckoning. And it demands more than outrage—it demands action.
The consequences are clear: a nation where health is defunded, infrastructure is neglected, and power is hoarded. A nation where agencies borrow to survive while billions are siphoned into silence. A nation where the budget becomes a weapon—not of service, but of control.
We must not turn a blind eye. We must not remain silent. The wheel of justice must turn—and it must turn now.
This is the moment.
For truth.
For accountability.
For the Filipino people.
READ: Ateneo Report on Budget Distribution
#RelentlessForChange
#ForTheFilipinoFuture
#HealthWithHonor
#KleptopirosisIsReal
Tony Leachon
Padre Pio
St. Padre Pio, remind us of the power of prayer, humility, and trust in God’s will.
May your example inspire us to live with faith, serve with love, and endure life’s trials with hope. Amen. 🙏🏻
Corrupt ang tunay na kalaban.
Alam ko, madalas puro kalokohan at good vibes lang mga pinopost ko nitong mga nakaraan. Ginagawa ko ’yon para kahit paano may konting saya sa gitna ng sobrang daming negativity dito sa Pilipinas.
Pero hindi ko rin kayang magbulag-bulagan. Bilang isang taxpayer, bilang isang ama na may anak na dito rin lumalaki, at bilang isang Pilipino, nakakalungkot at nakakasuka ang mga nakikita natin.
Ilang taon akong nagpapakapagod, tinawag pa nga akong “work lord” noon dahil lahat ng OT at holiday work pinasok ko lalo nung baguhan pa ako sa corporte world para mas makaipon. Ang tatay ko halos buong buhay niya nasa barko imbes na kasama kami para magtrabaho. Kahit may kotse ako, mas pinipili kong magbike papasok dahil sa palpak na transport system at kalye dito sa atin.
Tapos makikita mo na lang, pinangka-Casino at ginagastos lang ng mga nasa posisyon ang buwis na pinaghihirapan natin - ginagawang luho at sariling kasayahan. Nakakagalit. Dapat may managot sa lahat ng ito. At kung sa DPWH pa lang ganito na, paano pa kaya kung iba pang ahensya ang busisiin?
At doon naman sa mga nanggugulong rallyista - wala kayong mapapanalo sa pananakit sa mga pulis. Utos lang ang ginagawa nila. Tandaan: hindi sila ang kalaban. Ang tunay na kalaban nating lahat ay ang mga corrupt na nasa pwesto.
Wag mag alala
Mark Mason says, "You’re not afraid of failing. You’re afraid of being seen failing. Most people aren’t paying attention to what you’re doing, and your loudest critics are probably too scared to try. What are you so worried about?"
#PassionPurposeProductivity
09232025 tue
Php160 10x16 solmux
Leave pogi pahinga daw
Wfh ganda
Php35 pansit palabok
Php35 pansit bihon
Php35 puso ng saging
Php40 1/2 kilo patuka sa ibon feed african mix.
Php237 39rs hotdog cheese stick at takoyaki
Php13 limos
119+59+59
Php20 2x10 kikyam
Php20 kwekkwek
Ttl= php330
Php77 shopee pogi
Typhoon category.
TD - Tropical Depression 56 to 83kph
TS - Tropical Storm 74 to 111kph
STS - Severe Tropical Storm 102 to 184kph
T - Typhoon 120 to 176kph
ST - Super Typhoon
VST - 157 to 222kph VT violent typhoon
CLASSIFICATION OF TROPICAL CYCLONES
Tropical cyclones derive their energy from the latent heat of condensation which made them exist only over the oceans and die out rapidly on land. One of its distinguishing features is its having a central sea-level pressure of 900 mb or lower and surface winds often exceeding 100 knots. They reach their greatest intensity while located over warm tropical waters and they begin to weaken as they move inland. The intensity of tropical cyclones vary, thus , we can classify them based upon their degree of intensity.
The classification of tropical cyclones according to the strength of the associated windsas adopted by PAGASA as of 23 March 2022 are as follows:
TROPICAL DEPRESSION (TD) - a tropical cyclone with maximum sustained winds of up to 62 kilometers per hour (kph) or less than 34 nautical miles per hour (knots) .
TROPICAL STORM (TS) - a tropical cyclone with maximum wind speed of 62 to 88 kph or 34 - 47 knots.
SEVERE TROPICAL STORM (STS) , a tropical cyclone with maximum wind speed of 87 to 117 kph or 48 - 63 knots.
TYPHOON (TY) - a tropical cyclone with maximum wind speed of 118 to 184 kph or 64 - 99 knots.
SUPER TYPHOON (STY) - a tropical cyclone with maximum wind speed exceeding 185 kph or more than 100 knots.
Common sense ideas saves lives.
In the 1840s, a Hungarian physician's simple discovery about handwashing would challenge the medical world and cost him his career and his life.
Working in the Vienna General Hospital in 1847, Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis was troubled by the high number of new mothers dying from something called puerperal fever, or "childbed fever".
He noticed a strange pattern. The death rate was much higher in the clinic where doctors and medical students worked, compared to a second clinic run only by midwives. 🤔
The doctors and students were often coming straight from performing autopsies to delivering babies. Semmelweis believed they were carrying unseen "cadaverous particles" on their hands from the dead to the living.
To test his idea, he made a new rule. All doctors and students had to wash their hands in a chlorinated lime solution before examining patients. The results were astounding.
The death rate in his clinic dropped from over 18% down to just 1%. It was a medical breakthrough that should have been celebrated. 🩺
Instead, the medical community was offended. Doctors felt insulted by the suggestion that their own hands were unclean and causing deaths. They ridiculed Semmelweis and his simple handwashing theory.
He was eventually pushed out of the hospital. Sadly, his public battles with the medical establishment took a toll, and he was committed to an asylum in 1865, where he died just two weeks later.
His commonsense idea was only accepted years after his death, and today he is remembered as a hero who saved countless lives. 🙏 #Handwashing #MedicalHistory #Semmelweis #fblifestyle
Robin Williams
In the early 1990s, during the filming of "Mrs. Doubtfire" (1993), Robin Williams asked the production crew to hire a small group of individuals from a nearby San Francisco homeless shelter. The request came quietly, passed along through his assistant, and never discussed publicly. The crew didn’t initially know why, but one of the assistant directors later revealed that Robin often worked such agreements into his contracts. He wanted jobs given to those struggling on the margins of society. One of the men hired for the catering crew during that shoot later said, “He treated me like I’d been part of the team all along. I served food on set, and he joked with me every day like we were old friends.”
Robin Williams’ connection to the homeless community ran deeper than these work clauses. Throughout his entire career, he asked that every movie he filmed hire at least 10 homeless individuals as part of the crew. By the end of his career, that number had reached approximately 1,520 people helped. This was never a condition he spoke about in interviews or accepted praise for. It was simply written into contracts and fulfilled quietly. Directors and producers only began mentioning it after his passing.
In the late 1980s, after a stand-up show in New York City, he was spotted slipping into a shelter not far from Broadway. A staff member there remembered how he walked in with no entourage, no camera, no announcements. He brought pizza, sat cross-legged on the floor with residents, and just listened. One resident, who had been living on the streets after a factory closure, said that night changed his outlook entirely. “He didn’t ask about our addictions or failures. He asked what made us laugh as kids. Who did that?”
During the production of "Good Will Hunting" (1997) in Boston, he again asked the studio to offer temporary positions to local unhoused individuals. A location assistant recounted that one of the grips on set had recently been living in a shelter, and by the time filming wrapped, he had earned enough to put a deposit on an apartment. “Robin made sure he got to stay on. He even bought him a suit for job interviews afterward,” the assistant said.
Many of Robin’s donations were made under different names. One shelter in Los Angeles discovered years after receiving several large anonymous checks that the funds had come from him. The executive director found out only when a thank-you letter they had mailed was returned marked “no such address,” and a staffer recognized the handwriting on the envelope as Robin’s from a previous autograph. He wanted the focus to stay on the shelters, never on himself.
Whoopi Goldberg once explained, “He didn’t want applause for helping. He wanted action.” Robin believed that kindness shouldn’t require an audience. During a break from filming "Patch Adams" (1998), he visited a shelter in West Virginia and brought with him boxes of clean socks, gloves, and warm coats. When asked by a shelter volunteer what inspired the visit, he replied, “The weather’s turning. And cold doesn’t care if you’re tired.”
Even when he toured for comedy or appeared on talk shows, Robin would often walk neighborhoods in the early mornings before public recognition began. A security guard at a New York shelter once opened the side gate to find him handing out hot coffee and egg sandwiches from a local diner. He left quietly, only nodding when the guard asked why he had come. “Because this is where people are,” he said.
During a press junket for "The Fisher King" (1991), a film in which he portrayed a man living on the streets of Manhattan, Robin spoke briefly about what he had observed while researching the role. “It’s not about feeling sorry. It’s about recognizing someone’s humanity, even when the world refuses to.” He refused to let poverty be invisible, not just onscreen but off-camera too.
Robin Williams used his presence to open doors for others without seeking recognition. He gave his time, voice, and influence where it mattered most, quietly, intentionally, and with genuine care. He knew laughter could be survival, and dignity often started with being seen.
Even in silence, he built bridges where the world had built fences.
Credit to the rightful owner~
Sunday, September 21, 2025
09222025 mon typhoon nando
Office pogi
WFH ganda
Hatid pogi
Php35 toll fee
Php350 jolibee
Php35 toll fee
Php400 baon pogi
Sundo pogi
Php35 toll fee
Php300 jolibee at ihi
Php35 toll fee
6:30 pm home na.
I stood.
Today, I stood in rage at two sacred grounds of people power — Luneta and EDSA — two sites forever etched in our nation’s memory as places where Filipinos rose up against tyranny and abuse. Today, they once again became grounds of indignation against massive corruption.
My presence in both sites was not just symbolic. It was a declaration: we will not forget, we will not be silenced, and we will not allow corruption to drown the future of this nation. Every peso stolen is food taken from the table of the poor, medicine withheld from the sick, education denied to the youth.
I call for accountability — not excuses, not endless investigations that lead nowhere, not photo-ops meant to pacify the people. True accountability. Those who plundered our trust must face the law, without fear or favor.
From Luneta to EDSA, the people’s voice echoes: Tama na. Sobra na. Panagutin ang mga tiwali.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)