|
Founded in 1986
Founding Publisher/Editor:
Lito A. Gajilan
Columnists:
Atty. Michael J. Gurfinkel
Joseph G. Lariosa
Gani P. Tolentino
Ted L. Reyes
Atty. Reuben S. Seguritan
Photographers:
Butch Gata
Sheryl Garcia
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not reflect the opinion of the paper nor that of the publisher
|
|
For the past 20 years, The Filipino Express has provided the Filipino American community the best news, arts and entertainment coverage from around the United States and the Philippines.
|
|
This website includes selected articles from this week's edition of the Filipino Express. Not all the stories published in the printed version appear on this site.
|
|
|
|
To tell us what you think about Filipino Express Online or to comment on the stories published here, E-mail us at Filexpress@aol.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
SOME OF THESE BRITS ARE JUST STUPID
|
|
|
|
WHAT’S so funny? A Filipina in maid garb gyrating in front of a stiff Englishman while two other Englishmen watch on the side shouting orders at the poor Filipina to perform better. Where’s comedy there?
Here’s to the BBC: It ain’t funny blokes! It‘s stupid! To actually see this kind of television in the 21st century, more so, in one of the most developed country on Earth, England, is appalling– revolting, really. It is a joke by racists for racists. It is a comedy sketch written by bigots for the entertainment of fellow bigots. What a shame!
Don’t these BBC people and producers of that show realize that Filipinas abroad suffer from the very treatment that they are using as a punch line? Everyday, most Filipinas who are forced to work as domestic helpers abroad are abused by their foreign employers. They are sexually brutalized and are subjected to the most horrendous human rights abuses– They are beaten up, they do not get paid and so on. It is an actual human tragedy happening right now.
And here comes this BBC show using the same tragedy as a means to get laughs. How stupid is that? It is beyond stupidity– it a SIN! These BBC producers are as stupid as their predecessors who banned The Beatles songs, “A Day in the Life,” “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds,” and “Hey Jude.” These people are utterly stupid and a waste of space in this universe. They should meet their antimatters and just disappear without a trace– not even their corporeal mists.
We global Filipinos demand an apology from the BBC. They should be sensitive enough, being a news agency as well, to the hard plight of overseas workers from 3rd world countries. They should be modern enough to acknowledge that human suffering is not a joke. The Brits who did this are the joke to the human race.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PROVING EMPLOYER’S ABILITY TO PAY
|
|
|
|
Editor’s Note: REUBEN S. SEGURITAN has been practicing law for over 30 years. For further information, you may call him at 212 695 5281 or log on to his website at www.seguritan.com
An employer who seeks to file an employment-based immigrant petition on behalf of an alien worker needs to demonstrate his/her ability to pay the proffered wage of the prospective employee as stated in the underlying labor certification.
When the I-140 immigrant petition for alien worker is filed, it must be accompanied by documentary proof that the employer can pay the wage of the employee. This initial evidence of ability to pay includes the employer’s annual reports, federal tax returns, or audited financial statements.
In case the petitioner employs 100 or more workers, a statement from a financial officer of the organization showing the company’s financial information and ability to pay the wage of its employees may be acceptable.
The ability to pay the employee’s wage must be shown from the time of the established priority date of the petition for alien worker up to the time the beneficiary worker obtains the green card.
The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will make a positive determination of the employer’s ability to pay when the initial evidence shows that the petitioning employer’s net income or net asset is equal to or greater than the proffered wage and when the record contains credible and verifiable evidence that the beneficiary is employed by the petitioner and has been paid the proffered wage.
When the petitioner does not meet the income/assets requirements or does not employ the beneficiary, additional evidence such as profit/loss statements, bank account records, or personnel records may be submitted.
If the initial evidence is missing or incomplete, the USCIS may issue a Request for Further Evidence (RFE) to prove the employer’s ability to pay.
There are occasions when the petitioning employer is unable to provide the above documentation and proof of ability to pay such as when the employee did not earn the prevailing wage, or when the employer’s income tax returns did not reflect any net income. Sometimes, the petitioner’s business is operated as a sole proprietorship and the net income is considered as personal income of the individual petitioning employer’s income tax return.
In such instances, additional documentation may be submitted to show availability of funds to pay the proffered wage. These additional proofs may include: extension of a line of credit to the employer’s business; existence of a reserve fund account; a line by line analysis of the employer’s bank statement showing that it was paying the beneficiary employee’s wage; statement by a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) showing net current assets such as cash, inventories and receivables; profit and loss statement; or a statement outlining depreciation deductions to be added in the actual income of the employer.
Other proofs may include documentation showing that hiring the beneficiary will augment the revenues of the employer; recovery from a temporary business downturn; and business losses due to reinvestment of funds for expansion of the business or purchase of new equipment.
When faced with such complicated scenarios, it is advisable to engage the services of a CPA to assist the lawyer in reviewing the company’s financial records.
If the petition is denied due to insufficiency of proof of ability to pay, the case may be appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office which shall review the case applying the “totality of circumstances” test.
Some petitioners choose to refile a second I-140 petition instead of appealing the denial. However, this must be done while the underlying labor certification is still valid and has not yet expired. Under the current regulations, the I-140 must be filed within six months of the approval of the labor certification.
To prevent difficulties and possible denial, it is important to review the financial documents of the prospective employer/petitioner at the onset, before filing the labor certification, particularly when the company is small and is not currently employing the beneficiary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DE LA HOYA WANTS TO TEACH MANNY A LESSON
|
|
|
|
IF he were not a boxer, Oscar De La Hoya would have been an architect or a draftsman. But because he has a boxing pedigree (his grandfather, Vicente, his father, Joel, and his older brother, Joel, Jr. were boxers), Oscar aspired to become an Olympic gold medalist when he was in the sixth grade, a dream he would realize when he won the boxing gold medal at the 1992 Barcelona Olympics.
But as his professional boxing career-turned promoter took off and picked up steam, he tried to lure a promising Filipino boxer named Manny Pacquiao to join his corner for his Golden Boy Promotions. While Oscar was able to sign Mr. Pacquiao up in his stable, Mr. Pacquiao took a sudden about- face and spurned their contract and signed up with Golden Boy’s rival, Bob Arum’s Top Rank Promotions. This is a traumatic incident in his promoter’s career that the ten-time world champion just cannot forget. When he relented to the taunts of some of Team Pacquiao’s people that Oscar is beatable by Manny, Oscar used Manny’s snub of his contract to reinforce his motivation to fight the best pound-for-pound boxer in the world.
In his upcoming fight with the 31-year-old Manny Pacquiao on Dec. 6, 2008 at the 12-round, 147-pound welterweight bout dubbed as “Dream Match” at MGM Grand in Las Vegas, Nevada, Oscar wants also to be a teacher – to teach Manny a basic lesson in good manners and right conduct – that if you agree with someone, you have to abide by that agreement no matter the cost.
OSCAR HOPES MANNY WILL LEARN HIS LESSON
Mr. De La Hoya believes by beating Mr. Pacquiao, the four-time world champion, Oscar will have the last word -- that Manny will learn from his mistake.
At the press conference at the penthouse of Sears Tower in Chicago, Illinois last Thursday (Oct. 2nd), Messrs. De La Hoya and Pacquiao were seated so near each other yet there never was an instance that they ever looked eye to eye to each other nor talk to each other.
Because Oscar believes that respect is earned and not served in a silver platter, no matter how he tells Mr. Pacquiao of his mistake, Manny will never listen to him – until Oscar can beat Manny. De La Hoya said he is “looking to get his revenge in this fight. This fight is personal for me. When he (Manny) signed that contract with (his) Golden Boy Promotions and the next day, he signed with Top Rank (promotions),” it only meant that Manny did not respect him, he suggested.
“When you look into my eyes, and you give me your word of honor (palabra de honor) and you go back to it,” it is not a sign of respect for him, he said. “This is like a revenge for me. In boxing, you look for a knockout” to send your message. “This is my motivation in this fight,” he explained.
It appears that De La Hoya is going to have allies from about 135 disgruntled Filipino boxing fans in Chicago’s suburbs of Northbrook, Illinois, who were disappointed when they were stood up by Manny at a “meet-and-greet” and concert event dubbed as “A Night With The Champ” Thursday night coinciding with the press conference of Manny and Oscar early in the day.
HOUSTON: "I HAVE A PROBLEM"
In a telephone call from Houston, Texas to his fans at the Radisson Hotel in North- brook, Manny told his fans, “Talagang gusto ko pong magpa-iwan kanina, ako’y walang magawa. Bantay-sarado sa akin si Bob Arum.” (I really wanted to stay behind earlier. But I cannot do anything. I was closely guarded by Mr. Bob Arum (his boxing promoter).”
One of the performers, Mr. Lito Camo, who was to sing with Manny at the concert, joked and told Mr. Pacquiao over the cell phone that was phone-patched to a microphone, “Sabi ng mga kababayan mo sana hindi ka na raw sumakay sa eroplano. Dapat nagbarko ka na lang.” (According to your countrymen, you should not have boarded the plane. You should have just boarded a ship.) It was followed by laughter and Manny hung up the phone without even apologizing.
If Manny had a contract with the concert organizers to appear in the concert, why did he not tell Mr. Arum of his commitment? Why did he let his fans go to the hotel, waste their time, gasoline and money when he knew that he could not make it?
I remember in the Philippines when movie goers were not able to watch the movies they paid for, they would be screaming “posporo (match), posporo (match),” suggesting to burn the movie house. Other moviegoers would destroy the chairs of the movie house in disgust because they felt that they were had.
$20 FOR PHOTO OP WITH MANNY
If he keeps on promising to attend commitments he could not keep, Manny’s fans will no longer show up to support the projects of his Pacland Foundation, Inc. and the Calla Lily Entertainment Production based in New Jersey. It will be the fastest way to alienate his fans.
On the other hand, it was a good thing the concert was put off because Manny will have to show proof that the Pacland Foundation, Inc. is authorized to raise funds in Illinois. If not, then the Pacland Foundation, Inc. will have to pay taxes from the income generated at the concert. As advertised, for $20, a guest can have a “meet-and-greet” photo op with Mr. Pacquiao. For $50, the guest can attend a concert dinner, where Mr. Camo and Jasmine Villegas and supposed to be Manny Pacquiao were to sing.
During his courtesy call earlier at the Philippine Consulate, reporters were pressing Mr. Pacquiao to confirm if he was attending the evening event after Mr. Arum told reporters that his group was leaving at 2:30 p.m. that day for Houston. Mr. Pacquiao could not make a straightforward answer.
The concert promoter identified only as Ms. Malou Alota of Calla Lily Entertainment of New Jersey was also disappointed and was left holding an empty bag because she had to shell out some $6,000 to cover the meal expenses and use of the hotel facilities and refund some of the concert goers. A very embarrassed representative of Mr. Pacquiao at the concert refused to speak to reporters in front of a video camera.
Here’s hoping that Mr. Pacquiao will henceforth redeem himself by keeping his word of honor as suggested to him by Mr. De La Hoya and will learn to say “no” and to apologize for his mistakes to stop him from further embarrassing himself and from further creating trouble for himself and the country he represents. (lariosa_jos@sbcglobal.net)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PRESS Secretary Jesus Dureza lofted a predictable balloon: Malacanang backs legislators who’d muscle into newsrooms to dictate how responses to criticism are aired or published. He referred to House Bill 3306, filed by Representative Monico Puentevella. Senate Bill 2150 clones the House measure. Authors are: Senators Aquilino Pimentel; Francis Escudero and Ramon Revilla,Jr.
These bills stipulate: replies must be published or aired on the same page or program. Equal length or equal time – and for free. Publish within 24 hours, demands Puentevella. Or else? They’d dun recalcitrants with fines. Puentevella wants jail terms too. Etc. Etc.
Bacolod media strafed him unfairly, Puentevella groused. . His hometown reprisal metastasized into nationwide compulsion.. Like Duerza, Pimentel; Escudero and Revilla,Jr. swear these measures “widen press freedom. All ducked the core issue: legislated right of reply fractures the constitution’s ban against “prior restraint . .
“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom,” the Britsh statesman William Pitt warned in 1783. “It the arugment of tyrants. It is creed of slaves.”
Legislated right to reply “operates as a command,” protested the Cebu Citrzens Press Council. “(It resembles) a statute… forbidding the newspaper to publish specified matter. This is prior restraint. If media can not be told what to publish, it can not be told what not to publish.”
Ferdinand Marcos simply padlocked media. .Some journalists, who loudly championed press freedom turned, under Proclamation 1081, into the “New Society’s” harshest censors. Joseph Estrada tried to gag critical media by economic strangulation. Victims included the Inquirer. He failed.
The President musters legal gags, with increasing vehemence, as her term unravels.. These buck a Supreme Court that ruled last February: “Any act that restrains speech is presumed invalid… Deeply ensconced into our fundamental law is the hostility against all prior restraints on speech.” The Court struck down National Telecommunications Commission memos that threatened to suspend or scrub franchises of stations airing the “Garci tapes”: wiretapped tapes of talks between the President and election officials on Mindanao votes.
“Where challenged acts are patent invasions of a constitutionally protected right, we should be swift in striking them down,” Chief Justice Ricardo Puno wrote on behalf of the Court. “A blow too soon struck for freedom is preferred than a blow too late.
The NTC memos “constituted unconstitutional prior restraint on the exercise of freedom of speech and of the press,” the tribunal concluded. It “nullified” them forthwith. “Any attempt to restrict freedom of the press must be met with the most searching of examinations., the decision’s “Precis” stressed. Only clear and present danger ”would be allowed to curtail it…Freedom of expression is…is a preferred right whose breach can lead to greater evils.” Thus, the Court rejected NTC’s excuse: the threats were “mere press statements” No suspensions or cancellation of franchises followed.
`“It is sufficient that the press statements were made in exercise of official duties,” the Court ruled. “Any act done, such as a speech uttered, for an in behalf of government in an official capacity…should be struck down. ( They ) constitute impermissible forms of prior restraints… Given the crucial issues involved, the Court found it “peculiar” that broadcasters, most affected by NTC letter, didn’t even whimper. Nor did they intervene, the Court noted. .
Instead, the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkasters ng Pilipinas “inexplicably”: joined NTC in issuing an “ambivalent joint statement”. It doesn’t complain about restraints on press.freedom. Instead, KBP whitewashed NTC saying: the memorandum did not “constitute. restraint of press freedom” --- totally at variance with the Court’s findings. ‘ “Pettioner ( Francisco Chavez ) was left alone,” the decision notes. “This silence on the sidelines of some media practitioners is too deafening to be the subject of misinterpretation.”
Indeed, “there are no freedoms so dangerous as those which are not exercised,”, the Statesman editor Cushrow Irani once wrote:. The broadcast watchdog here didn’t bark. “Why? Perhaps history may offer some clues.. “Whenever freedom of the press has been permitted, Filipinos have defended it with passion”, notes David Rosenberg in his book: “Marcos and Martial Law.” ( Cornell Unversity 1979 ) “Whenever it has been prohibited, they have complied with government regulation with obsequiouness..”
Constitutional bulwarks are defended by an independent court. But these defenses crumble if citizens prefer comfortable handcuffs. Or journalists are content to be patted on the head as obsequious lapdogs by presidents, then Today editor Teodoro Locsin Jr warned.. In the past, some Filipino journalists spoke up, despite jail or seizure of their papers: Among these were: Joaquin “Chino” Roces, Free Press Teodoro Loscin St, Daily Mirror’s Amando Doronila, Jose Burgos, Jr., Senoras con cojones: ( lady journalists with balls) were there too :: Eugenia Duran Apostol, Lorna Kalaw- Tirol, Letty J. Magsanoc, Melinda de Jesus, among others, bucked the dictatorship.”
Will their counterparts be there these right-of- reply bills kick in? “The battle does not always go to the strong or the race to the swift, “ Columnist Damon Runyon once wrote. “But that’s the way to bet”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
