Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Agoo Basilica

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Agoo Basilica

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in the phils and no permission from ARCHITECT IGNACIO PALMA BAUTISTA or his copyright successor. A 1978 building that replaces the earthquake-stricken 19th century architecture as said in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilica_Minore_of_Our_Lady_of_Charity copyright is not equate to ownership of the church and no indication of architect Bautista working in government agencies such as DPWH and et cetera. Notice also the saintly figures and icons, paintings, decorations and artistic insignia embedded on the church floors

Mrcl lxmna (talk) 10:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This group https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Agoo_Basilica_2020_(Statues_of_the_Saints,_Plaza_de_la_Virgen,_Plaza_de_San_Juan_Pablo_II_and_Sebastiano_Baggio_Belltower) also shows sculptures in the form of statues. In particular, some show the statue of the 21st century saint Pope John Paul 2nd and no way its out of copyright. Mrcl lxmna (talk)

File:Fvf9324 34.JPG doesn't appear to have any statues or sculptures. It only shows the exterior view of the west end, campanile and bell gable. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Basilica Minore of Our Lady of Charity by its long history (as evidenced by Historical markers, has no architect or sculptor and no Copyright exists
like all Philippine churches: Category:Bayanihan built the church by evolution having been destroyed by fire and earthquakes: the past or recent Restoration and Retrofitting by tons of people including designs by architects or engineers and politicians do not create ipso jure Copyright or moral rights unto anyone due to the Evolving Category:Bayanihan and the Titutar Owner of the Church, accessories including any moral rights of : are by Canon and International Law, per Category:Bayanihan are absolutely transferred to the Titular Bishop or Archbishop
Extended content
Discussion, argument and reasons to Keep the photos
  •  Keep Because the photos are unimportant or at the very least, DE MINIS so to speak, in Philippine Law and Jurisprudence; and the photos are part of Tourist attractions or Heritage of the Local or National Government and the Tourism Office of the Philippines, including the Museum of Political Arts etc. granted me express permissions to take Tourist and interesting points-to-point angular photos, for the pictures uploaded are for their political advantages in the coming election, being hosted for free in a great encyclopedia; hence DE MINIS in Commons and Philippine Copyright - Intellectual property Law; No copyright exists in them, and
  • In support of my stance, opposition to the deletion and inputs, I am respectfully submitting to the editors and Commons administrators my legal treatise on the matter as I copy paste and discuss Strong Evidence against the Smart One - Nominator of Mass Deletion Requests, to wit:

FOP matter update: Rejoinder

FOP matter update: Rejoinder
Rejoinder II
the case of Yuraily Lic is 100x different in the Philippine Mass Deletions: Reason: our 2012 Cybercrime and Stalking Law is absolutely different from theirs, if any: I have no objection to Deletions by any editor or administrator regarding FOP cases in Philippines, but, but and but - the Mass Deletions Requests placed on my talk page since September by a single new editor falls squarely with the 4 corners of Cybercrime
* (My midnight thoughts out of no FOP in the Philippines frustration) It seems you are a "disciple" or follower of Yuraily Lic! I can notice your DR's nearly similar to their's, and Yuraily had an issue similar to yours at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 79#Yuraily Lic, mass tagging and nominating copyrighted buildings and artworks for no FOP reasons with little or no evidences (other than links to Commons pages). Just my thoughts only. BTW, you seem to have some luck today, as the latest (as of today) copyright-related webinars in our country — the October 30, 2020 FB Live webinar of the Office for Alternative Dispute Resolution (OADR) (in which important people from IPOPHL were among its principal guests) — has no mention of FoP, de minimis or whatsoever. But nevertheless, our call and advocacy for full FOP in the Philippines continues, albeit intermittently now. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)"[reply]
  • Q. What are the elements of the 2012 CybercrIme vis-a-vis Commons Mass Deletions in my Talk page? A. they are: from hacking to attacks online a) using a john or jane doe or anonymous account b) hiding the identity by use of such alternate accounts c) via a habit, scheme or design d) to attempt to delete, erase or in any manner take meta or mass date like photos from any internet site or legitimate forum, device or even media like Commons, Wikipedia, Flickr, phot bucket, Facebook; vide: SECTION 1 (h) Without right refers to either: (i) conduct undertaken without or in excess of authority; or (ii) conduct not covered by established legal defenses, excuses, court orders, justifications, or relevant principles under the law. SEC. 4. Cybercrime Offenses. —(3) Data Interference. — The intentional or reckless alteration, damaging, deletion or deterioration of computer data, electronic document, or electronic data message, without right, including the introduction or transmission of viruses.
Rectifying my mistakes and instead report here phil bldg and sculpture photos Hello everyone. Its my biggest mistake to have made mass deletions. I sincerely appologise most esp to the moderator @Mutichill:. I will not do those deletions by myself again. Instaed i will forward here some violations on phil photos of bldgs and sculotures.


  • Finally, I am submitting this proof to Commons Admins that your Deletion Request is not only without basis but a scheme, habit or plan to take off Valid Photos in Commons; the Statues is 18th Century; it took me 2 days to research on this to prove to Commons Administrators that this and most of your Mass Deletions are unlawful and contrary to Philippine Laws;
  • Intellectual Property Mediation and many other innovations to prevent long court litigations does not make law; as I said only the present not past S. C. ruling on FOP will put finis to all of these pros and cons upon FOP including the finer points of law or grey areas of Copy fair use vio etc. At the very least, an IPO or DOJ not declining to issue Replies to any Letters of ours or yours, will suffice for the moment as Basis of Commons community of editors and admins to create a policy on FOP deletions or undelitions; may I repeat and underscore that even the SC of USA and ours often issue Bad Law or highly divided rulings like 5-4 or here 8-7 not beating the greatest Phil case of Javellana vs. Secretary which made infidels and believers stand weeping or even dancing during the Bagong Lipunan; I admit that there are Commons exact rules like on packaging and the like that does not need debate; for me this is the very beauty fo the Philosopy of Commons or its Founders that pros and cons here make this Commons world better that SC court USA and Phil toss coin decisions, specifically in the 9th Circus Court of California as CA Justice William Bedsworth wroth on me the the 3 elves; I am for inclusion ... thus you see my redundancy and duplicates ... but as I said, I am ahead of your times as I told Justice Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr. at 6:00 pm of Dec 24, 1999 Xmas my first Suspension Holiday : he scolded me for being off-tangent, off- topic; I told him that I am not of this world itong mundong mapaghuzga; soon, the Supreme Court will steal my Robes, Gavel and Golden Br. 73 Throne with is mine until age 70 or 2023 ... my names which as you said precedes all the SC Justices your nominated who cannot even hold my 87.55% Bar rating 12th Place Bar 1983, where UP Summa Cum Laude Napoleon Poblador now one to the top lawyers, failed to land in top 20 due to very low grade in Taxation which I topped at 86%; my classmate Ramon Caguioa sat beside us as my name made noises in the Ateneo since I could cite Volumes of the SCRA in exams but not the pages which is the only property of Ferdinand Edralin Marcos during the Arturo M. Tolentino debates; his younger brother Benjamin now Senior and candidate for CJ was nobody in the Ateneo; I say and know the Law, and I do not commit mistake; I am primary authority; but I underscore that I am co-equal with any editor here and I am just putting or sharing this input because of the present most difficult Mass Deletions that we experience, moro moro or moral farce so to speak; I have never contested nor objected to Deletions Request since my pictures are the subject and I stay neutral; that is why I created this Template: "Respectfully submitted to the sound discretion of editors and I have no objection to the Deletion ..." But Commons is facing a Signal No. 500 Mass Deletions ... and I still have no time yet as of this moment to finis my Legal Treatise to answer the Long Lines of Mass Deletions that appears in my Talk Page; one side of the coin like a pro or a coin can create here an alternate account and start the Mass Deletions; of course, the Mass Deletions were started since the editor said it, she or he is smart, and then admitted after being blocked to have done a great wrong... but then stated that a professor advised that the idea of Mass Deletions starting from smart notion could .... and I countered that my Fish Vendor and hired trike driver told me not to take photos of the fishes and the food Isusumbong nila ako kay Mayor; It's A Frank ... for gullibles and moro moro players I cannot like Justice William Bedsworth wait for the Next Mass Deletions to be copy pasted in my Talk Page;
  • I fervently hope that Commons editors would wait for the Reply or replies to my 2 letters or your would be filed draft to final letters to IPO or DOJ secretary; in the meantime; : "Respectfully submitted ..." as I register my Strong Objection to the Mass Deletions of a single Nominator Never return Adiós Judgefloro (talk) 07:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4 years prescription since 2015 under the New 2019 SC Circular vis-à-vis Copyright law to question any FOP matter: a Legal Bar to delete my photos here and in User:Ramon FVelasquez as tagged by the Smart One September 2020 Mass Deletions

May I, if you please, interject an important matter but off-tangent here: I have still too many pictures to upload, hence I could not yet put inputs and discussions in the more than 50 Mass Deletions of my Photos in User:RamonFVelasquez; may I underscore as Legal Impediment of Deletion the clear and unequivocal S. C. New 2019 Circular on Copyright and Intellectual Property amending the previous CJ circulars - this is for the Special Courts created; in the Hierarchy -a) the highest is this Circular - which puts a Legal Bar by virtue of the 4 years Prescription under the Civil Code and specifically the Copyright Law and Intellectual Property Laws in many Code of the Philippines; b) second is S. C. Jurisprudence on the specific issue of Uploading in Commons, Flickr etc on FOP c) DOJ Secretary Opinion on FOP if not declined d) IPO New Director Opinion on my 2 Letters if ever issued e) secondary authority from CA here or USA S.C. Jurisprudence and then Federal Rules Jurisprudence like the Circuit Courts of CA; f) Learned treatises like that which I cited, Sycip law office inter alia; I opine that this New SC Circular on 4 years prescription (from Uploading by RamonFVelasquez, my Photos taken by him and me and uploaded edited by said Wiki Break User; that is, on 2015 more or less, all photos of mine there can no longer be deleted - since each Mass Deletion Request falls squarely under the 4 corners of 2012 Cybercrime law cognizable by the DOJ per the NBI Cybercrime Division) so all the Mass Deletion Requests of the Smart One thereat Ramon, tagged since September until today, should be Denied outright and I note that the Smart One has been repeatedly ordered to stop the Mass Deletions; I am just waiting for the Right Time to file the proper Pleadings ... on the matter; due to the Declaration against Interest of the Smart One and tons of Evidence of Cyber Crime Mass Deletion); I sincerely hope that Editors will note my Underscoring of the 4 years Bar on Deletion of FOP photos, I repeat from 2016, thus I repeat the tons of Mass Deletions tags by the Smart One on RamonFVelasquez should be stricken off the Talk Page as grave violations of Criminal Law ...
  • I fervently hope that Commons editors would wait for the Reply or replies to my 2 letters or your would be filed draft to final letters to IPO or DOJ secretary; in the meantime; : "Respectfully submitted ..." as I register my Strong Objection to the Mass Deletions of a single Nominator Never return Adiós Judgefloro (talk) 08:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


  •  Comment @Judgefloro: the discussion you pointed out has been concluded since November 23 (5 days ago as of this writing), and has not changed the current status of freedom of panorama in the Philippines (COM:FOP Philippines). Please do avoid creating headings that could only generate crude table of contents. On the church, while the Wikipedia article w:Basilica Minore of Our Lady of Charity did indeed stated that it began in 1578, the first church was demolished in 1975, probably after decades of deteriorating structure that was aggravated by the 1892 earthquake. A replacement (I can't be sure if it was rebuilt using the same design or with some distinct design) was then built that same year and completed in 1978. While donations were indeed used to fund the construction of the church, the article mentions a certain Architect Ignacio Bautista Palma as the church's architect (or perhaps the designer). The IP Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 8293) seems silent over the copyright of copyrightable religious buildings and artworks in the Philippines, if whether architects and the artists still maintain their copyright or if they did transferred copyright via what you mentioned before as the "Canon Law of the Deed" (if I can remember it right). The copyright law itself has no mention of the said canon law under the Part IV ("The Law on Copyright"), suggesting that the artists and architects or their heirs may have retained the copyright of their works (e.g. church buildings, church sculptures, frescoes, and other artwork), and that copyright lasts for 50 years after the death of the last-surviving architect or artist. Thorough search of the IPOPHL document of the Republic Act No. 8293 using the keywords "canon" and "church" yields no target highlights (or search results). The canon law itself seems to relate more on proprietary ownership that is not connected to copyright. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:27, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A search on Google yields two online blog sites detailing the church. Quoting here the relevant paragraphs, and highlighting the passages which seem to indicate this is the new version of the church:

This town’s church was first built in 1578 with bamboo and nipa by Fr. Juan Bautista Pizarro, replaced with brick and stone, destroyed during the 1592 earthquake, restored in 1873, heavily damaged during the 1892 earthquake and repaired in 1893 by Fr. Aquilino Garcia. The present church was designed by Arch. Ignacio Palma Bautista, its cornerstone laid on September 8, 1975 and was consecrated on December 8, 1978, the fourth centennial of the Christianization of Agoo. The church was declared as a minor basilica in 1982, badly damaged during the 1990 earthquake and was again repaired and renovated.

— in: http://benjielayug.com/2004/04/07

The Basilica of Our Lady of Charity, better known as the Agoo Basilica, was constructed only in 1976–78. The original church built by the Spanish was completely destroyed by an earthquake in 1892. The church was designed by Architect Ignacio Palma Bautista. The architecture is unusual because of its two bell towers....

— in: http://manila-photos.blogspot.com/2012/06/agog-in-agoo.html

_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment @JWilz12345: as Rejoinder: as I repeatedly pleaded, and as you said that a draft has been prepared, but until November 23, No draft has been filed and no Reply or Decline has been issued by the New IPO Director or DOJ Secretary; I am baffled by this; hence, since my talk page says: you may submit discussions on the entry, then I religiously if I have time, submitted my Legal expertise on the matter; I take pains in writing long to say my side my legal side for consideration of Commons editors; unlike most of editors who asked the Blocking, I remain with my position of being neutral except except and except against the Mass Deletion Requests tons of DRs put into my talk pages and to erase my photos in User:Ramon FVelasquez;
  • I repeately pleaded on the reading of Prescription on Civil Law and Copyright Law, that is 4 years : specifically, all photos Uploaded by User: Ramon FVelasquez and Mine here, before 2016, should be Denied outright due the the Legal Bar; my legal standpoint is: if the heirs assigns or successors or the architect scupltor who has Copyrights to file the Copyright Infringement has lost the Right by Extinctive Prescription, how much more can my photos Uploaded before 2016 be Deleted, How how and how; I just want to be enlightened; and I underscore that no amount of seminar or lecture or opinion can replace the supposed Reply of the IPO Director and or DOJ Secretary; simply put: my word, his or her word against your theirs or anybody's word with the Deletion button having 2 facets - those anti FOP and those pro FOP; a deeper sense of Philosophy in Commons Founders reveals that if the FOP positions of the Smart One will be continously abated or accepted, then tons of pictures of Churches, Town Halls etc will be taken off from the Meta Data of Pampanga Wikipedia and the Tagalog Wikipedias etc. Even if the New discussion you pointed out has been concluded since November 23, still the debate is put on a Grey Area, until Kingdom Come;
  • Most of these photos of Agoo Basilica had been uploaded before 2016, and therefore by operation of Extinctive prescription law, Deletion is Barred and Copyright Infringement complaint is barred eternally Judgefloro (talk) 08:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Nominator was blocked temporarily due to mass nomination of images from PH. Someone else can review and nominate if they see fit. Thanks. --Missvain (talk) 00:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Agoo Basilica

[edit]

While the bill amending the copyright law is still pending, regular rules will still apply according to IPOPHL-BCRR: a need of permission and license from the copyright holder applies. For this case, while the parish dates to Spanish-era, the current church was actually a 1975 replacement designed by Arch. Ignacio Palma Bautista and completed in 1978. Thus permission and consent for uploaders' choice of licensing from him or his heirs is required for these freely-licensed images to be retained here. Any canon law of deed is only relevant between the parish and the architect, but doesn't affect architect's hold of copyright of the architectural work for non-religious purposes like commercial use of images of this church building.

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • The Photos are National Cultural Treasure:
Gandang Mabagyong Hapon sa Imo poe The Chief Justice Diosdado Peralta and the Joint Force of IPO including the Bureau of Copyrights; did issue the Latest Circulars Implementing the Copyright Law of the Philippines, to wit:
  • Supreme Court’s Revised Rules on IP Cases Improves Litigation, Driving Innovation and Creativity December 23, 2020: "The Intellectual Property of the Philippines (IPOPHL) said the Supreme Court’s (SC) 2020 Special Rules on the Prosecution of Intellectual Property (IP) Cases is testament to the whole-of-society work in ensuring an effective and speedy adjudication of IP rights cases – essential in creating an environment that fosters innovation, investments and entrepreneurship. participated and signed by "IPOPHL Deputy Director General Nelson P. Laluces IPOPHL’s Bureau of Patents Director IV Lolibeth R. Medrano Former IPOPHL DG Ricardo R. Blancaflor IP Rights Practitioner Atty. Ferdinand M Negre IP RIghts Practitioner Atty. Ramon S. Esguerra";
a) the Creator, or Copyright Holder must prove Legal Personality by preponderance of evidence, that is - Documentary proofs of the alleged in the complaint for Copyright or trademark infringement; b) the Special Court taking cognizance of the Filed with paid Docket fees Copyright case will either dismiss or try the case; c) the Case must be filed within 4 years Prescriptive period from the alleged in the complaint publication in any format whether in newspaper, internet etc.; the tolling of the period starts from the publications, here, in Uploading in Commons irrespective of the knowledge of the Complainant, Commons Uploading being Public; d) A Motion to Dismiss may strike out the Complaint upon the ground of Extinctive prescription; irrespective of the Commons Policies, the Court has the mandate to strictly follow the Peralta-IPO Circular of 2019 amending In Toto the pertinent provisions of the 1989 Rules on Evidence or previous Webinars, IPO or Bureau of Copyright issuances by the former and present Directors or Heads; even the former Issued DOJ Opinions are Ipso Facto amended to conform to the above-enumerated requirement; e) Nobody including any Nominator of Commons, including especially herein Mass Deleter, can legally and validly file or tag in Commons, a single or Mass Deletion request, without first obtaining a Special Power of Attorney from the alleged Creators, here for example, SM City SuperMalls; f) Any SPA that may be issued must must and must be submitted to Commons Permissions, and without such SPA, any and all Nominations by herein or any Deletor on FOP inter alia, arising from the alleged rights of Copyrights Holders, the Nomination is Null and Void Ab Initio; any repeated repeated and repeated references to the alleged verbal and not official (Vide: criminal violations of public officials under R.A. 6713 and R.A. 3019) and written statements are Legal Falsehoods, not countenanced by the Rule of Law vis-à-vis the Highest 1987 Constitutional Due Process and Press Freedom or Expression tightly guarded by Philippine Laws; sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 09:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mirrored reply. @Judgefloro: look back at the Section 172.2 of the Republic Act No. 8293.: Works are protected by the sole fact of their creation, irrespective of their mode or form of expression, as well as of their content, quality and purpose. While registration still exists, it only helps to give additional benefits to the copyright holders like architects, sculptors or their heirs, but copyright protection itself already starts from the moment of creation, not from the time of optional registration. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content: Judgefloro's sermon on unconnected matter like cybercrime, unfounded claims about denial of Philippine architects' and sculptors' copyrights, some form of threat against IPOPHL officials, etc.
CONSOLIDATED REPLY-OBJECTION: SYNOPSIS - The En Masse Nominations Request for Deletion by the herein Nominator in no uncertain terms, falls within the 4 corners of the The Cyberstalking and 2012 Cybercrime Law of the Philippines which provides grave penalties for its Violations of this Act: the Series of Unlawful Mass Deletions now being started by herein Nominator will cause irreparable damage and injury to the Meta Files of Wikimedia Commons: I vehemently object to the deletion on Substantive Legal Grounds, under my Lawyer's and Judge's Oath of Office, and as Authority on Criminal Law Review based on my Ateneo Law School records; I submit to the Commons Community In Seriatim, objectively (and based on USA and Philippine Jurisprudence vis-à-vis Substantive laws both Civil - Copyright law of the Philippines amending the New Civil Code provisions on the Law of Property) and Criminal law 1932 Revised Penal Code as amended by the Penal Provisions of both [ https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2012/09/12/republic-act-no-10175/ Republic Act No. 10175] - Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 and Copyright Penal Provisions especially [https://acg.pnp.gov.ph/main/2-uncategorised/263-acg-cyber-security-bulletin-no-132-understanding-the-risk-of-cyberstalking Cyberstalking Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk or harass an individual, group, or organization - monitoring, threats, or gathering information that may be used to threaten or harass);
Now a) Who can question with Legal Personality to the Special Courts on Copyright and Trademark Infringement - Vide: The Intellectual Property of the Philippines (IPOPHL) vis-à-vis the Supreme Court’s (SC) 2020 Special Rules on the Prosecution of Intellectual Property (IP) Cases; and b) within what period of time based on Civil Law on Extinctive Prescription); here are my legal grounds to dismiss the Nomination or Request for Deletion, to wit:
i) I talked to the former Parish Priest Msgr. Jo Aguilan whom I healed as healing Judge in the Barasoain Convent and in his room, now deceased and b) Parish Priest on 24 August 2014, 18:50:54 Fr. Dario V. Cabral, incumbent Parish Priest of Barasoain Church; he confirmed in our discussion, that the Titular Bishop Oliveros now Dennis Villarojo has acquired all rights and properties, Torrens titles of Barasoain Church including all the Monuments therein; hence, the Creator of the Statues transferred all his rights by virtue of the Strict Provisions of Canon law of the Catholic Church on Parish Creation; and in this case, Saint Andrew the Apostle Church the Titular Bishop of Broderick Pabillo the apostolic administrator of the sede vacante Archdiocese of Manila.


ii) I also talked with the PIO Office of Baliuag including Tourism Office, when I was requesting for photos of the Feb 2 2021 Episcopal Coronation; I was told that Mayor Ferdie Estrella, as SOP, following the Strict LGU DILG guidelines, has a signed written contract between the paid official photographer to have waived all his rights in favor of the Municipal government of Baliuag whoever is the Mayor; under the Local Government Code and DILG Laws, all architects and sculptors cannot retain copyrights without violating the Penal Provisions of these codes and the Anti-Graft Law RA 3019 as amended; Ergo, all LGUs including the herein Malolos City Government ipso facto acquires all moral rights surrendered by alleged and all creators of Copyrights subjects and objects;
ii) I will quote here my past rendition for emphasis: 29 January 2012 [File:Emilio222jf.JPG this file] by virtue of Substantive Philippine law on Extinctive prescription of FOUR YEARS from Commons Uploading, that is, legal public and open publishing in any forum or format, nobody including the alleged creators can now question in any court or forum even by the Creator; [File:FvfMalolos1335 01.JPG this also] 18 April 2014, 15:45:57; This also, [File:FvfMalolosCity1317 15.JPG This also] This also [File:FvfMalolosCity1317 17.JPG This also] 18 April 2014, 15:42:36; assuming Ex Gratia Argumenti or Arguendo, that Flickr Photobucket or any Commons Editor has opined otherwise, even if the IPO Bureau of Copyright and IPO Director now incumbents, would say otherwise, even if possibly reversing the former Learned Verbal Answers to my Personal Query and long discussions with my Ateneo School Mate Director Blancaflor, still, the Laws, I cited hold; it is for the Commons Community to decide between my submitted Legal Treatise any the alleged IPO zooms and others;
At this point, I humbly ask a transcript of the IPO Zooms for the guidance of the Bench and the Bar; I would like to examine Legally the contents thereof for a single purpose: I will try my best if I have time and access due to COVID 19 restrictions to personally talk with the a) Integrated Bar of the Philippines President at Pasig City Main Office and b) the IPO Director and Bureau of Copyrights; if they will maintain wrong legal Opinions, then I reserve my Lawyer's Judge's Right to question them individually with the Ombudsman regarding Gross Ignorance of the Law or possible Disbarment in the IBP Office;
Counter-Argument versus alleged Dicta, sayings, Virtual Answers or even Email correspondence of the Bureau of Copyright and IPO Director: Burden of proof (law) - Rule 131. BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS - Burden of Evidence and Preponderance of the evidence  : Judicial Supremacy of the S.C. of the Philippines:


i) FIRST, the Copyright Law cannot be interpreted by them for ONLY the Supreme Court of the Philippines (in a ripe judicial controvery elevated to it either by Petition for Review or Appeal from Special Courts on Copyrights towards Certiorari under Rule 65 to the Court of Appeals) has original and exclusive Jurisdiction expressly GRANTED and mandated by the 1987 Constitution to Say with definiteness what the Law is, that is Stare Decisis or Philippine Specific Jurisprudence on a) who has the copyright or moral rights with legal personality to file in the Special Courts created under the law and S.C. latest Circulars under C.J. Peralta - infringement of copyrights or trademarks b) within 4 years from publication so public in public domain like Commons Uploading in Meta Details, under the New Civil Code law on Extinctive Prescription and Copyright Law; c) any ruling issued on Copyright whether virtual, email or correspondence including Zoom Zoom Zoom or Arbitration FB discussions; d) any ruling or the DOJ Opinion by the Secretary of Justice my classmate; Vide: 2019 Amendments to the 1989 Revised Rules on Evidence A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC
ii) SECOND: it is legally absurd to claim that the Burden of Evidence is upon the herein Uploader Editor; in any country including Germany and USA, inter alia, the Burden of Proof vis-a-vis Burden of Evidence are clearly defined by Federal Rules and here the 1989 Rules on Evidence as amended by C.J. Peralta's Watch New Rules of Court - Burden of Proof is fixed: it stays with the a in Criminal cases particulary Penal Provisions of Copyright Law, the Complainant, here, the creators, architect or sculptors and owners of trademarks and their heirs, assigns or successors-in-interest, must must must, alleged in the Criminal Information to be filed by the Private Prosecutor under the control of the Fiscal, the ultimate facts, their rights to Copyright or Trademark; the Proof of the Burden is Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt, that is Moral Certainty to Convict by Majority Vote of S.C. Justices on Appeal; any Decision whether by the Special Court or IPO or Bureau or DOJ if not elevated and ruled upon by the S.C. are or is not Law or Jurisprudence b) in Civil Cases, the Proof is Preponderance of Evidence resting on the Plaintiff, the creators, architect or sculptors and owners of trademarks and their heirs, assigns or successors-in-interest; III) the Burden of Evidence shifts from the Proponent, that is, the Plaintiff, or herein Nominator of Deletion Request in Commons, or in Flickr or in any Fora, if he or she has the right emanating by Special Power of Attorney from the creators, architect or sculptors and owners of trademarks and their heirs, assigns or successors-in-interest; the Burden of Evidence is shifted by Law on Evidence to the defendant, that is, the alleged Copyright violator, when the Judge rules in the Trial amid objections from the opposing counsel or parties; iv) The IPO Director and Bureau of Copyright Head, can never interpret the Copyright Law; it is only in one case that the Executive Department acquired quasi-judicial powers to rule: in P.D. 1529, the LRA Administrator can say what is the Law on Torrens title upon filing of fees in En Consulta cases versus the Register of Deeds; but but but that is not jurisprudence; the ruling only becomes jurisprudence when elevated to the C.A. and finally to the S.C. issuing a Stare Decisis Decision; this is the same banana with Quasi-Judicial Powers and Rulings of the Executive Agencies, like Immigration, Bureaus of Customs, here Bureau of Copyright (who has no such power); v) The Integrated Bar of the Philippines has jurisdiction to discipline the IPO Director and Bureau of Copyright heads if lawyers based even on Anonymous Complaint more frequently under R.A. 6713 which is broader than Sunlights in the Philippines, or R.A. 3019; the IBP has concurrent jurisdiction with the SC Disbarment Office to suspend or dismiss lawyers including IPO Director and Bureau of Copyright heads if they issue comedy of errors or simply put, refusal to reply to my 2 Letters within a fast time required thereat; but the Lawyer under and representing Director Blanclaflor replied to my query: Can I upload any photos falling under FOP in Commons? He replied yes, since if there is no proviso in the Copyright law prohibiting it, then, the Law permits what is not prohibited; I understand that Blancaflor was succeeded by the former and the incumbent IPO Director; YES, they can reply by email and they should under the mandatory provisions of R.A. 6713 "Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees" or even via Zoom Zoom Zoom or Arbitration Virtual under COVID-19 pandemic restrictions; but they can never interpret the Copyright Law, only, they should as they had issued Implementing Guidelines or Circulars;
vi) More important Now is the Exclusive Original Jurisdiction of the Department of Justice via the NBI's Cybercrime Monitoring Division to assume jurisdiction even upon Anonymous Complaint or NOW by Pandemic Emails against 2 matters that I often repeat and repeat herein as Law and Jurisprudence : a) creation of Anonymous Accounts b) Cyberstalking (which incidentally, I state as my opinion, is part and parcel of the specific provisos of the 2012 Cybercrime Philippine Law, as I did read Wikipedia's edit regarding Congress Bills on the matter; for me that is a surplusage; c) Cybercrime proper : to be specific En Masse (including schemes, habit or trends towards) deletion of Photobucket, Flickr, Instagram or here, Commons Valued Photos of National Interest like Churches, Schools, Monuments and Memorial which are Owned by the Domain here Commons Photos uploaded under Public Domain License, like mine, specifying that My Authorship need not be cited when anybody copies my Commons Photos, permanently transferred to Commons Ownership without anything remaining to me; Vi) In all my archives including my Ramon FVelasquez Photos, I never objected to deletions but most rarely; in Template, I just say submitted to the sound discretion of Commons Community; since 2012, many of my files were deleted under either Speedy Deletion or Regular Deletions filed even by Commons Administrators; Vii) But now, I have a reasonable Ground to fear that there is a "Testing of the Waters", that is a) start or stub deletions by trickles just 1% of 99% edits by a specific editor that apparently is aimed towards b) Domino Deletions or En Masse Deletions as had been done by a) Parent and b) Child anonymous Mass Deleters beginning September 2020 stopping just lately but Nakaabang lang po or just watching for opportune time; On the advice that I should obtain COM:OTRS from the Sculptors, I state with all fairness and legality, that it is a legal absurdity to obtain any permission from the heirs of the Deceased alleged but not proven Copyright holder; Anastacio Caedo (14 August 1907 – 12 May 1990) was a Filipino sculptor; and FYI, the Intestate or Testate Courts would first issue Letters Testamentary or Letters of Administration with the Will Annexed(Letters of Administration by Probate Court Letters Testamentary) only the One Armed with the RTC Probate Orders of Appointment can legally issue the COM:OTRS; and this will take maybe 20 years of protracted litigations;
  • Example of stupidity because of False News: Fr. Ladra said the church’s interior now features a ceiling painting called “Communion of Saints” by Maestro Eladio Santos; I always come to this Church; I witnessed personally how the ceiling was painted; I saw with my 2 eyes the Bayanihan or Communal Donation of Money and Labor; specifically, it is next to impossible for Maestro Eladio Santos to have painted the ceiling; Does he have the legs to climbs thereat look at his age - paid workers, like stonemasons, carpenters, catwalks scaffoldings and painters were paid sorry to say minimum wages and other for free due to Bayanihan; I saw Fr. Labra talking to architects; but I suppose these architects and alleged Maestro Eladio Santos may have suggested the Brand of Oil Paints or sketches; but Why deny these Men at Work in Bulacan the Copyrigthts they waived for this Great Shrine? “Communion of Saints” was not done by Maestro Eladio Santos: PROMISE.
  •  Keep I humbly submit the Unabridged Legal Treatise, ONLY as persuasion to Keep; I underscore that amid my Legal Expertise, I have just One Commons Editor Vote co-equal with any Nominator or Opposing Uploader under the Commons Admin who will keep or deletes; the foregoing Legal Submissions are not meant to touch upon Commons Legal Policy on FOP;
  •  Keep PREMISES CONSIDERED, I humbly submit and register a the Strongest Legal Objection EVER to the Requested Deletion and Fervently Appeal to Commons Community to wait for the Supreme Court Ruling on the Matter of FOP and I guess that would be my starting point... I reiterate with all due respect, that I respectfully and humbly submit to the Sound Discretion of the Commons Community considering that the subject photos are National Cultural Treasures Most Valued Photos for present and future generations, very sincerely Judgefloro (talk) 11:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
a) Your opinion - like that of my b) fish vendor which had tons of wisdom not only in Fish but in Commerce, of my c) Trike Driver who is expert in Transportation - may be believed by the onlookers or Voters in Elections Periods; but without Citation of Philippine Jurisprudence, without basing you argument on any USA or Federal ruling, and worst, without supporting your above Repeated opinions-comments-mirror replies, whatever you may term them - is not worth a Lawyer's salt, or here, a Commons Community Policy on keeping or deleting; rest assured that if you are believe, I never filed any Undeletions, for I know my limitations in time and effort; I would rather go inside the DOJ, the IPO and Bureau of Copyright for Official Statements, PROMISE Judgefloro (talk) 11:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. ƏXPLICIT 13:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Agoo_Basilica&oldid=538699101"