recto’s revenge

23 October 2012

paano naging “intellectual property” ni ralph recto his committee report on the sin tax bill when it is something he came up with as part of his job as ways and means committee chair, and as senator, who is on the payroll of taxpayers?  property yan ng taxpayers, and the senate should be free to use it rather than waste time by starting from scratch.  in the first place he shouldn’t have resigned.  ang pikon, talo.

posted that on facebook and here’s the comment thread.

Karen Berthelsen Cardenas  hmmmm… interesting case study ito. i wouldn’t know about ‘intellectual property rights” but if the report was withdrawn then in essence it does not exist. therefore it cannot be referred to.

Stuart Santiago  hmmmmmm… “withdrawn”… tricky… i suppose this is a first. usually, kung me dissent, pinaplantsa with amendments.

Karen BC  oo nga. haven’t been following the story that closely. pero iniisip ko, kung ako gumawa ng report for a committee, and i was criticized for the report etc etc and i withdrew the report and quit the committee, i would probably say well then that report is no longer presented, is invalid, and therefore don’t use it if you felt that it was borne out of conflict of interest, it must be tainted. following the logic lang di ba?

Karen BC  kung tainted yung report, then its validity is suspect anyway, so throw it out and start again by an untainted committee

Stuart Santiago recto’s revenge

Posted in recto, senate

10 Responses to recto’s revenge

  1. October 23, 2012 at 5:02 pm

    A committee report by one (1)?

    • October 23, 2012 at 5:27 pm

      he’s saying he researched and wrote it all himself

  2. October 24, 2012 at 1:28 am

    who cares? its just a report. any college grad can/should be able to write one. its so easy.

    • October 24, 2012 at 5:30 am

      From Recto?

  3. October 24, 2012 at 4:35 am

    Hindi kasi kinopya ni Vilma este Ralph sa bloggers kaya ineffectual este intellectual property daw niya, hehehe.

    I don’t know what kind of air they breathe at the house of Lolong este congress or the food they eat or are they on drugs thus they become delusional? LOL

  4. October 24, 2012 at 11:40 am

    Intellectual property yun ng Philip Morris/Fortune!

    • October 24, 2012 at 1:49 pm


    • October 24, 2012 at 8:27 pm

      @mb ‘:-)Ground for libel yan!! may proof ka ba?…lol

      • October 26, 2012 at 2:37 am


        The position papers of Philip Morris/Fortune are public record. Show me how they differ from Recto’s report other than they were willing to go with a higher excise tax than Recto recommended.

  5. November 1, 2012 at 9:11 pm

    Manuel B.: Pardon my ignorance, I am just curious if private company reports submitted to the Congress committee are officially entitled to Intellectual property Rights even if their for public usage. Yun lang naman, just not to be legalistic about it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


follow @stuartsantiago on twitter

recent comments

  • © Angela Stuart-Santiago