“LANY: soft world tour” concert scheduled for Nov. 14, 2026, at the Crocodile Park Concert Grounds in Davao has been canceled due to “safety concerns and production issues,” Live Nation Philippines announced on Wednesday, Oct. 28.

Akala ko ba safe sa Davao?

ang mga narrative ng mga trolls ngayon sa comment section bawat sa post na to "Hindi daw mataas ang ticket sales" akala ko ba mayaman ang lahat ng tao sa Davao according sa mga DDS?

ang bilis talaga nila magpaikot ng narrative pag dating sa syudad nila kapag may inconvenience or something against sa pinapakita nilang status quo about sa Duterteland and Davao City.

They are advertising the prices before VAT. As far as I know unlike in other countries, it’s illegal to show prices before tax even if you add “+VAT” anywhere on the graphics.

I was shocked when the total amount of our receipt was higher than we originally intended (one of my companions paid for it and we were immediately assisted to our table). We already had a budget in mind and I personally didn’t notice the small +VAT sign since I know this is illegal. The monitor is also playing a video and this slide appears for just a few seconds and you won’t really have enough time to notice the “+VAT” part unless you specifically look for it.

This is also the first time I’ve eaten in Cabalen since 2013/2014. All their food items are of “meh” quality. Totally not worth it. Even the fried kangkong which I used to love tasted nothing like before, the “Authentic Kapampangan” sisig did not taste anything like the real sisig.

I honestly felt bad for the group of foreigners who chose to dine at this place earlier.

Hi everyone, I’m looking for general legal perspective on an incident that happened today at a school.
Earlier today (between 9:20 and 10:00 AM), school administration officials (specifically an assistant principal) ordered a group of Grade 9 students in the junior high department to remove their pants/trousers down to their underwear(ALL MALE STUDENTS). The stated reason for this strip search was that someone allegedly saw a student smoking a vape on campus.
From my understanding, no formal law enforcement was involved at the exact moment of the strip search, but school staff conducted/enforced it directly on campus premises.
My questions are:

1. Do school administrators have the legal authority to force students to strip down to their underwear for suspected contraband like a vape?
2. Does this cross the line into unlawful search/seizure, psychological abuse, or a violation of minor protection laws?
3. What are the proper legal steps or channels for parents/guardians to file a formal complaint against the school administration for this?
4. Any insights or guidance on relevant child protection or education laws would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

The NPC(National Privacy Commission) asked Bir to explain the seal badge revealing the name of the content creator/online seller. Baka daw ang defense ng Bir is "to protect the consumer" by revealing the name of the content creator/online seller so the complainant/consumer knows who to file their complaint against.

Napa lol lang ako sa nabasa kong article I could not fathom the absurdity of this to be honest. Is there really no other way to know the personality behind the service or business if a consumer wants to file a complaint? Really? No other solution than to risk the safety of the content creator/online seller because we cannot think of any other way to solve this problem other than to publish their names for the world to see?

I mean come on. It's almost unbelievable that no one can think of a solution. I'm not even an expert but if consumer protection via the seal badge is now part of the Bir's mandate, then hear me out:

The seal badge being posted is already proof that the content creator/online seller has been captured. The bir has their details. If no one on earth knows where or how to find the name of the content creator/online seller then how about inform the public to reach out to Bir if they want to file a complaint against a content creator/online seller by sending a screenshot of the seal badge.

Once bir receives a formal complaint from a consumer, it is important to note that protecting the content creator or online seller's privacy and safety is a critical consideration hence the formal complaint must be verified first by the bir(hindi naman po basta basta nalang ilalapastangan natin ang privacy, safety, and human rights ng ating mga taxpayer tao rin po sila tulad ng complainant). Just imagine if the complaint is not verified, parang nagpapa uto ang bir kung kani kanino based on tsismis at based on an unverified or unvetted complaint eh i violate ang safety, privacy, and human rights ng isang tao by giving away their private information to a perfect stranger?

Proper due process generally dictates that the party being complained against(the content creator/online seller) should be notified of the allegations and given an opportunity to respond before any of their personal details or the identity are disclosed to the complainant.

Only after receiving the response from the content creator/online seller, shall the Bir decide if it will give the personal information of the content creator/online seller to the complainant. If the Bir decides to provide the name and address of the content creator/online seller to the complainant, then the Bir must also give the full name and address of the complainant to the content creator/online seller to ensure that both sides have access to details for legal purposes. The accused has a right to know their accuser.

Implementing this process upholds due process, protects privacy, and guarantees fairness for both parties involved in the complaint.

SOURCE:

https://momentumresearch.ph/

Thoughts: very interesting indeed that both are statistically tie even though Baste is not on the limelight for a long time aside from a being a witness at the impeachment trial.

Also added a multi-candidate scenario: VP still leads at 44.3 pct, Leni at 19.4 pct, and Raffy at 11.1 pct.

So this begs the question:

1. Is the "Duterte Magic" real?

2. If Yes, is it less of "Sara" and more of the "Duterte" surname, i.e., any of the siblings can carry the torch

3. Can "Leni Magic" be transferred e.g., to Risa (if Leni decides not to run)

4. When will Leni and/or Risa decide?

Abangan

The Return of Joc-Joc Bolante

The fertilizer fund controversy broke out in 2004, when Sen. Panfilo Lacson accused then-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo of using fertilizer funds to buy votes. The money came from the Department of Agriculture's Ginintuang Masaganang Ani program, and was allegedly misused through collusion between legislators and private suppliers and foundations. Sources put the amount at either P728 million or P723 million. Jocelyn "Joc-Joc" Bolante, then an agriculture undersecretary, was named as the alleged architect of the anomalous distribution of the funds.

In 2005, Bolante disappeared in the middle of the Senate investigation. On July 7, 2006, he was arrested in the United States when he tried to enter on an expired trader's visa. He then spent about two years fighting to stay there. A federal court in Wisconsin rejected his bail petition and later dismissed his habeas corpus petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Sen. Mar Roxas had earlier asked the US to deport him to Manila rather than Hong Kong, the port of origin.

In October 2008, US authorities reportedly ordered his deportation. Upon arrival in the Philippines, he was arrested at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport, then rushed to St. Luke's Medical Center after suffering chest pains. The Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, chaired by Sen. Richard Gordon, issued a contempt order on December 3, 2008. It released him from Senate custody on December 11, after he assured Gordon he would attend the next hearing on December 17. He also appeared before the House agriculture committee, where he admitted distributing the funds without the permission of then-Budget Secretary Emilia Boncodin.

The legal case moved slowly. In 2011, the Ombudsman pushed ahead with a plunder case before the Sandiganbayan against Bolante, former Agriculture Secretary Luis "Cito" Lorenzo and others, alleging that Bolante and supplier Jaime Paule had met and planned the scheme. In 2014, the Sandiganbayan found no probable cause to hold Lorenzo and Bolante for trial, but did not dismiss the case and asked the prosecution for more evidence. That same year, the Ombudsman dismissed the graft complaint against Arroyo for lack of evidence.

In 2016, the court allowed the Ombudsman to amend its charge sheet and to drop one accused, Jose Barredo Jr., so he could serve as a state witness. The amended case alleged that Bolante and seven co-accused accumulated P265.64 million in ill-gotten wealth. On November 28, 2016, the Sandiganbayan dismissed the plunder case. It described Bolante as the "central key player" in the scam, but said no material participation other than the release of the funds could be attributed to him. It also ruled that Barredo had not shown that Bolante pocketed P50 million or more, the threshold for plunder.

The Ombudsman asked the court to reconsider, and the Sandiganbayan affirmed its decision in 2017. On March 27, 2017, the Ombudsman filed a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court. Bolante was never issued a warrant of arrest in the case.

“The educated differ from the uneducated as much as the living differ from the dead.”― Aristotle

Happy Wednesday!!