The disturbed national psyche, must by now, created a whole demand for a copy of the latest sex scandal involving showbiz celebrities via the clandestine sale of these pirated VCDs by ‘get-rich-quick’ ambulant or street peddlers. It is not as if there are no other sex videos that proliferated the market involving virtually unknown individuals mostly taken – from and by motel owners – without innocent couples knowing it. In other words, sex scandals have become nothing but a marketplace phenomenon.
Something in this latest sex scandal so-called made it appear more than just a problem of anybody’s privacy. Self-righteous officials even think that the brakes should be applied to this emerging socio-technological malaise that inflicts moral injury to women more than men. Pseudo moral metricians would even allow people to throw stigma upon the male person involved in the sex scandal as to say, heckling is permissible.
As already known by most – by now – the sex scandal involves a certain actress and an actor such that the proliferation of the sex scandal video referred to as the evidence itself or theoretically enough, the mere possession of which is tantamount to – a crime.
A whole range of discussions has gone underway that not few lawyers appear too quick to the draw. There are those who say, the anti-wire tapping law may have been violated. The law on anti-violence against women may likewise been breached. One’s right to privacy must also have been transgressed. The very Code of Professional Conduct among medical practitioners must have been thrown out of the window.
The license of the concerned celebrity doctor may be revoked if that person concerned may not be reprimanded, suspended or even stripped of his profession for immorality. Further, he may be arrested anytime, may be sanctioned with a hold-departure order, may be jailed. It is not the actress alone who was violated but the public itself given the legal definition of such actor’s act as a public crime. In other words, it violated x number of actresses As in realpolitik.
While at this orgy, there seems to be no option left for the man. How indeed can the beleaguered actor get out of the noose? Was it he himself who loaded the sex video in the You Tube with a motive of his own? Was it somebody else who happens to have gotten a copy of it? Either way it goes, does it not affect him now in much the same way as it affect her (the actress)? Wasn’t the whole thing that the external public now calls as sex scandal one of a consensual act of two adult individuals? Wasn’t it just private and never intended for public viewing?
Thus, a host of questions must first be confronted with answers before prejudging the actor. The same is true with actress A. Automatically, their private lives crossed, as if it were, public domain and become some sort of ‘public property’ – which should not be the case. The Fourth Estate is responsible for the toothpaste to be squeezed out of the tube. How the whole controversy develops is supplied in regular dosage by TV, radio, and print outlets. In cyberspace, viewers increase in number at every turn of the minute.
But what exactly is the issue here?
For one, the Philippine Medical Association, through its concerned committee on ethics as much as plans to investigate the scandal with the end in view that the Professional Regulation Commission will impose the appropriate sanction. The members of Senate are poised to conduct a full-dress investigation. By now, a hold-departure order must have already been issued against the actor. The cyber lanes will now be patrolled by the NBI or other enforcement agencies for an apparent crime that slips out of the class category.
Advocacy groups will take up the cudgels for actress A as a classic victim of this injustice. Women advocates in Congress will not take this sitting down. Lawyers will comb the books in search for all possible violations of an incident that is socially permissible in other cultures and which goes as the ordinary staple of the cyber landscape. If other cultures are not as disturbed, why should ours take a very serious exception? Must we then subscribe to secular morality that is insulated from other more universal moralities? If we delete that sex scandal from the screen in particular and yet the lanes are actually flooded with wide-ranging compendium of even worse video clips of the same genre or theme, then where will true morality really bring us?
Certainly, we probably share the suspicion that the reason this sex video was circulated in the internet is borne out of some indicatively ill motive that is not attuned to our community standards in terms of its moral content.
But that is still prejudging the man until and unless he would have been heard to explain what is supposed to be purely private affair not fit for public consumption. Now, everything is eating the wrong food just because everybody went to the party. Why the feast? At this point, we have yet to hear from the Church what it has to say – especially as this happenstance seems to tear at the fabric of our collective moral existence.
Popularity: 2% [?]
Listen, yo! Katrina Halili has already claimed it was not she on the video. She said there are plenty of Katrina Halili look-alike. Therefore, NO CASE! Just like Nicole v Smith.
Why sue for hell’s sake? Hindi ba sila natoto? Ganito ba ka gung-gong ang mga Flips?
The Senate has no case! Katrina said it was not her.
The senate can look into the intent of Dr. Kho for video-taping. But he also claimed, NATURALLY, that it was some friend who upload it to internet!
AU NATURELLE for Flips, it boils down to he said/she said. All Gossips! AU NATURELLE!
Malas talaga ni Hayden Kho. Kung hindi lang exhibitioist at masyadong mahal nya sarili nya OK sana. I mean, he’s not even that famous and women doesn’t seem to be too clingy with him. I read somewhere that the other med student only went out with him for a year. For a year after they’ve had wild sex? Lucky naman nang taong yan. Iba nga eh pinapaguilty habang buhay eh heavy petting lang naman ginawa. Tang inang buhay to. Kung sabagay mabilis lang si Kho at di gaanong malaki.
Condemn, just because I’m so jealous.
Hidden motive
Hayden took video with hidden cam.
He then shared video to best friend.
Hayden had an affair with best friend’s girl.
Hayden’s former best friend informed Vicki of video as revenge.
Hayden’s former best friend apparently won but…
Hayden reconciled with Vicki.
Hayden’s worst enemy uploaded video to the internet. Now…
Hayden’s a national issue.
Renato,
You probably failed to receive updates so far at this point.
Baycas,
Sex scandal is a national past time, reason why tabloids sell like hot potatoes.
I don’t think there is any agency that can otherwise revoke the professional license issued to the man in question since the so-called sex scandal has nothing to do with his profession.
Certainly, the basis for the licensure examinations for physicians or graduates of medicine – when one passes the medical board – is already a permanent right to practice profession.
The Board of Medical Examiners under the Commissioner of Civil Service is the one tasked.
—–
R.A. 2382
Medical Act of 1959
“Section 22. Administrative investigations. In addition to the functions provided for in the preceding sections, the Board of Medical Examiners shall perform the following duties: (1) to administer oath to physicians who qualified in the examination; (2) to study the conditions affecting the practice of medicine in all parts of the Philippines; (3) to exercise the powers conferred upon it by this article with the view of maintaining the ethical and professional standards of the medical profession; (4) to subpoena or subpoena duces tecum witnesses for all purposes required in the discharge of its duties; and (5) to promulgate, with the approval of the Commissioner of Civil Service, such rules and regulations as it may deem necessary for the performance of its duties in harmony with the provisions of this Act and necessary for the proper practice of medicine in the Philippines.
Administrative investigations may be conducted by not less than four members of the Board of Medical Examiners; otherwise the proceedings shall be considered void. The existing rules of evidence shall be observed during all administrative investigations. The Board may disapprove applications for examination or registration, reprimand erring physicians, or suspend or revoke registration certificates, if the respondents are found guilty after due investigations.
Section 24. Grounds for reprimand, suspension or revocation of registration certificate. Any of the following shall be sufficient ground for reprimanding a physician, or for suspending or revoking a certificate of registration as physician:
(1) Conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction of any criminal offense involving moral turpitude;
(2) Immoral or dishonorable conduct;
(3) Insanity…”
—–
insanity on account of the man-in-question’s possible “video voyeurism” (one of the paraphilias).
please read: Video voyeurs derive sexual gratification from videos, usually of women doing natural acts or women involved in sexual activity.
Taking video while having sex is not insanity.
It is actually FUN. If you haven’t done it, you are missing out.
it’s ok for politicians now to accumulate pogi points with this showbiz sex/talks, they need the exposures for the 2010 election.
But, bloggers? tsismis lang, at baka inggit kay Hayden Kho, or jealous, as brianB said.
me? naaah, I’m not inggit, even here in the mountain where I live, there’s no shortage of katrina halili look alike I could indulge in. and more yummy too, heheh.
hay naku, so the drama – the adults were having a roll in the hay – leave them alone –
tsismosos ought to be told – get your own who*es if you are not contented with the cows you currently have :D
http://jcc34.wordpress.com/2009/05/21/katrina-halili-god-and-the-church/
It is just a question, if Kho is in his right mind or not. The fellow
is an Exhibitionist Sexual Pervert.
We are in the Age of Miniature Videos and Cameras. We dont even
know when somebody is recording what we are doing in the most unguarded moments. We badly need Good Privacy Laws. Nobody must
just violate your privacy at any moment, at their own will.
The Closed Circuit TV Camera secretly installed for vouyerism is also an issue here. Somebody is looking at us, at our unguarded
moments for sexual pleasure.
Heeeellooo, anybody out there? Who is responsible in deleting my posts? Americans with American thinking or Filipino who think they are Americans but with Filipino crooked wrinkled thinking?
Heeeelllllo!!!!!!
Renato: I am (again!) making a mental note that you are complaining about your blogpost comments being deleted.
Maybe you are doing three Ha!’s too many, Renato. :roll:
if HK didn’t “broadcast” the video (apparently),
is non-consensual video recording of a consensual sex a crime in our existing laws?
—–
certainly, his act was cruel, reprehensible, and deeply immoral. It’s an egregious violation of (KH’s) privacy.
Isabela Rep. Giorgidi Aggabao could be right when he suggested that a civil suit (against HK possibly) would have better chances of prospering than a criminal case.
do we even have laws that penalize non-consensual recording of consensual sex.
if there is no such law, then, make the logical conclusion.
everyone’s talking about Kat, how about the violation of the Hayden’s privacy – the nonconsensual uploading of his nonconsensual taping of consensual sex?
the person who uploaded the video also needs to be investigated for violation of both parties’ privacy.
immorality? dang – hire the Saudi Muttawa – the jails will be full of congressmen, mayors, governors, councilors – no exception :lol:
parallelism…
quite obvious the web link was ignored.
This idea of non-consensual video recording of a consensual sex really gathers adherents.
But I am afraid, if at least one of partners, set the whole thing up but the other partner was anyway made aware of it at a later time – with no violent reaction to it – then, it must be accepted that the secret, if we must call it that, is vulnerable to being known in public as soon as anything strains the relationship.
Old Media has always done us a disservice in its lousy inability to air both sides of the story – over the same time continuum. Old Media is bull shit. It made us think patronizing to one person at the expense of the other just because, the other side of the coin must have to be hidden first from public view.
Old Media is a curse. And to this, I fully agree with RENATO, remember that name.
A serious work has to be done to identify who the real victims are on this sex video scandal:
1. Is it the girl Katrina?
2. Is it the woman Vicky?
3. Is it the doctor Haden?
Who gain or profited from this whole scandal?
1. Is it the one who uploaded it to the web?
2. Is it any x number of uploaders?
3. Is it those who sell the DVD or VCDs in the market?
A host of other questions can be asked.
For instance, is the role o Gabriela central to the issue in the same way that its role was central, however mistakenly, in the Nicole case?
Is the role of Senator Bong central to the issue as if no one else can take up the cudgels for Katrina from the ‘defenders of the faith’ in Congress? Is there no party list for women?, for those sexually violated?, for those into drugs?
Here’s hoping the lawmakers will continue their keen interest on the case…if they really value the importance of an anti-video voyeurism law and a cyber law to our society; and possibly strengthen the anti-pornography code.
—–
The whole affair might center on a stolen private video disseminated on the internet and distributed in optical disks causing psychological violence on the part of the woman-complainant…
(a) Stolen private video – The man alleges it was a private sex video albeit a non-consensual video recording. It was a consensual sexual encounter done in private and may pass to some as non-obscene in nature. The non-consensual video recording, although widely perceived to be wrong (or an act by one who is sick or a pervert), may not be a crime.
(b) Internet uploading – This borders on “indecent publication of pornographic materials” (as mentioned by the NBI). Is there a law against uploading a non-obscene material? Or if the material is considered pornographic, is there a law against uploading it to the internet? Anti-piracy law maybe? A wise guy commented that the video is actually a copyrighted material – he said, “what better way to copyright a personal video than by starring in it.”
(c) Optical disk creation and distribution – Obviously, this is for profit. This borders on “indecent publication of pornographic materials.” This could be covered by our Revised Penal Code…
Revised Penal Code
Title Six
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS
Chapter Two
OFFENSES AGAINST DECENCY AND GOOD CUSTOMS
“Art. 201. Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions and indecent shows. — The penalty of prision mayor or a fine ranging from six thousand to twelve thousand pesos, or both such imprisonment and fine, shall be imposed upon:
(3) Those who shall sell, give away or exhibit films, prints, engravings, sculpture or literature which are offensive to morals.”
…However, there was no mention of “optical disk.” Besides, proper definition of obscenity and indecency should be in order.
(d) Psychological violence – The man alleges he was also a victim and all he did was record a video, although non-consensual as alleged by the victim. The video was supposed to be a private or personal one. As drawn together from the statements of the man’s lawyer, how could he have caused substantial emotional or psychological distress and public humiliation on the victim when he himself is a victim? Remember the ‘bonsai” and “the not-so-dangerous weapon? It’s possible there is now mental or emotional anguish on the man and he is also at present publicly ridiculed and humiliated. His privacy was also violated when his private property was stolen.
(Now, come to think of it, how will they appreciate the admissibility of evidence if only a copy of the stolen private video can be produced? How will the maker of the video tell if the video that will be produced in court is the original digital recording – the author, date and time stamps in “Properties” possibly? Well, that’s probably the case why the Anti-Fraud and Computer Crimes Division of the NBI is handling the case. The OMB would also come in handy in investigating the copyrighted material.)
The one who mainly caused psychological violence to the victim is the one who made the video public. True? Abangan…
Again, here’s hoping the lawmakers will continue their keen interest on the case.
hmn..
try lng if pwde ba
charush!!
pinalaki nyo lng ung isyu..
dami dami na tao nakisali, kung sinu sino na ung pumapapel,..
madami na nadamay, mental disorder, any order from da court,..
after all la nmang mangyayari eh.. pinalala nyo lng ung situwasyon kahit anung gawin tapos na yung ngyari, nascandal na pareho win or lose
para saan pa un.. ganun p din nman kalalabasan tignan nyo ung kay nicole!!