Agree or disagree? Ramon Bautista, gideklara nang persona non grata sa konseho sa Davao City.

[tingkagol]

---

looks like this is getting more attention than it deserves.

It depends on the perception of the reader. If you're looking for "bigger", more bombastic news, or the equivalent of Banat news headlines, this will disappoint you. But if you examine the underlying issues within this seemingly dull news report, it becomes more interesting:
1. What are the grounds for persona non grata?
2. Freedom of expression - when to draw the line?
It's definitely worth discussing. The thread title reflects this: "Agree or disagree? Ramon Bautista, gideklara nang persona non grata sa konseho sa Davao City" and for some reason, most people don't even answer the question. Igo ra mupost "wa mani pulos balitaa".

SECTION 8. Other Form of Sexual Harassment.
Other than the definition provided by RA 7877 the following constitute sexual harassment
some of which are covered by the Revised Penal Code under Acts of Lasciviousness:
1. Persistent telling of offensive jokes such as green jokes or other analogous
statements to someone who finds them offensive or humiliating;

Keyword: "Persistent". i.e. the offensive jokes have to be persistent to be considered "sexual harassment". Para nako, dili guilty si Ramon Bautista ani.

[FAQ]

It depends on the perception of the reader. If you're looking for "bigger", more bombastic news, or the equivalent of Banat news headlines, this will disappoint you. But if you examine the underlying issues within this seemingly dull news report, it becomes more interesting:
1. What are the grounds for persona non grata?
2. Freedom of expression - when to draw the line?
It's definitely worth discussing. The thread title reflects this: "Agree or disagree? Ramon Bautista, gideklara nang persona non grata sa konseho sa Davao City" and for some reason, most people don't even answer the question. Igo ra mupost "wa mani pulos balitaa".


Keyword: "Persistent". i.e. the offensive jokes have to be persistent to be considered "sexual harassment". Para nako, dili guilty si Ramon Bautista ani.

Exactly. That's why I doubt its legitimacy of a Philippine city declaring PNG on a Filipino citizen. Kung tinud-on jud ni nga isyuha, it does open jud sa mga topics such as legitimacy of declaring its citizen a PNG and Freedom of Expression. It has never been brought up before, nga uban na PNG na pud sa Davao ug Cebu. Unsa man jud perks for being a Filipino citizen under the country's Nationality or Citizenship law, pwede ba ma restrict ila rights for travelling in any city sa Pinas kung ma PNG sila didto for whatever reason?

[new_harvey]

discretion nanas tagas davao kung unsay hukom nila aning isyuha.
looks like this is getting more attention than it deserves. ugh.

yes. I believe it's getting annoying.

[mahor]

it was only a joke and even if it was a bad one he already said sorry..
people are just making this a big issue

[anti_pinamay]

i would disagree siguro. ni apologize na gud ang tao. unsa pa kaha ug wala sa?

[rastaman81]

Reality bites. *^*

Dali ra maoffend ang taga Davao cguro but it was clearly a joke.

[cliff_drew]

Keyword: "Persistent". i.e. the offensive jokes have to be persistent to be considered "sexual harassment". Para nako, dili guilty si Ramon Bautista ani.

If you happened to saw the video, there was persistence in using the offensive joke "hipon".

Exactly. That's why I doubt its legitimacy of a Philippine city declaring PNG on a Filipino citizen. Kung tinud-on jud ni nga isyuha, it does open jud sa mga topics such as legitimacy of declaring its citizen a PNG and Freedom of Expression. It has never been brought up before, nga uban na PNG na pud sa Davao ug Cebu. Unsa man jud perks for being a Filipino citizen under the country's Nationality or Citizenship law, pwede ba ma restrict ila rights for travelling in any city sa Pinas kung ma PNG sila didto for whatever reason?

I don't defend Davao officials for PNG'ed Ramon. Their decision were shallow even if he did apologized to the people but we have to respect theirs. Likewise, he said it already that he respected the decision. There shouldn't be any perks being a citizen if one violates law. Ika nga "his rights end when Davao City's rights begin". He is not a resident nor he has relatives there but rather he travelled to the City as an invited guest. If the latter already considered him as an "unwelcome person" then he has nothing to with it.

[<SMILE>]

Sakit-sakit pud to nga joke,
kay maorag ang hipon, uyap man tingale gihapon na didto.
Pero it's better to play with the joke, bisan ug ila na lang unta tong giingnan nga daotan ug mata si Ramon,
depende ra man na sa pagdala very serious lang kaayo ilang approach.

[FAQ]

If you happened to saw the video, there was persistence in using the offensive joke "hipon".



I don't defend Davao officials for PNG'ed Ramon. Their decision were shallow even if he did apologized to the people but we have to respect theirs. Likewise, he said it already that he respected the decision. There shouldn't be any perks being a citizen if one violates law. Ika nga "his rights end when Davao City's rights begin". He is not a resident nor he has relatives there but rather he travelled to the City as an invited guest. If the latter already considered him as an "unwelcome person" then he has nothing to with it.

He indeed respect the decision that he has been declared as PNG in Davao. The bigger issue here is that how LEGITIMATE is the PNG in a city resolution. AFAIK, in the Constitution, there's no such thing for a Filipino citizen to be declared as a Persona Non Grata in some parts of his/her country. It doesn't matter of what this Ramon Batista think, what the Davao LGU think, or Davao City think, it's about legal implications for declaring PNG on a Filipino citizen.

FYI ... based on that raw video, he didn't violate any law. He just made a joke that got the VM offended but that still protected under the Freedom of Speech and Expression.

[cliff_drew]

He indeed respect the decision that he has been declared as PNG in Davao. The bigger issue here is that how LEGITIMATE is the PNG in a city resolution. AFAIK, in the Constitution, there's no such thing for a Filipino citizen to be declared as a Persona Non Grata in some parts of his/her country. It doesn't matter of what this Ramon Batista think, what the Davao LGU think, or Davao City think, it's about legal implications for declaring PNG on a Filipino citizen.

There's no legal implication. There's even no civil liability. A PNG will be arrested when sighted and will be deported out of the city. That's it. But it does not mean forever for him because a city resolution can be repealed in time. He must just work out on it.

FYI ... based on that raw video, he didn't violate any law. He just made a joke that got the VM offended but that still protected under the Freedom of Speech and Expression.

Saying he did/didn't violate any law is subjective in public opinions' per se. For me that was an offensive joke but can be forgiven. But that's not how Davaeños think and felt on it. I mean the City Council in particular. But bottomline, we should respect their decision because it is not our laws being implemented, its theirs.