Small Business Corp. (SB Corp.), an agency of the Trade Department, raised P1.18 billion through the issuance of MSME notes last year, up 6 percent from P1.11 billion in 2011, the department said in a statement Tuesday. The MSME notes, which SB Corp. use to fund and guarantee micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSME), were largely bought by banks to meet the mandated allotment of resources to MSME. More banks subscribed to the MSME notes last year—89 banks of which 53 are rural banks. Most of the banks are existing investors in the SB Corp.-issued securities. “The reason is that many banks comply with the legislated MSME lending requirement by buying MSME notes issued by SB Corp., Finance Undersecretary Gil S. Beltran noted in a text message to reporters on Tuesday. The law requires banks to allot at least 8 percent of resources to micro and small businesses and 2 percent to medium-sized enterprises. “Banks have adequate funds, but are unsuccessful in looking for MSME beneficiaries,” said Beltran, who is concurrent director SB Corp. MSME notes are part of interest yielding securities which banks may use to meet the mandate allotment of resources under Republic Act 9501 or the Amended Magna Carta for Micro, Small and Medium Businesses. SB Corp. has also been able to wean banks in risk-based lending, including Country Bank of Taguig, Bangko Alabang, Mt. Carmel Rural Bank of Batangas, New Rural Bank of San Leonardo in Nueva Ecija, Rural bank of San Jose in Camarines Sur, People’s Bank of Caraga in Agusan Del Sur, and Rural Bank of Rizal in Zamboanga Del Norte. “This risk-based lending will provide deserving SMEs access to financing even without collateral, and in the long-run these banks will be able to lend with more confidence and maintain a good quality portfolio,” SB Corp. president and chief operating officer Benel P. Lagua noted in the statement. — VS, GMA News

AMITA LEGASPI, GMA NewsJanuary 29, 2013 5:03pm

 

Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza admitted Tuesday that one of the provisions of the controversial Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 is defective, but argued that it is not enough reason to void the entire law.

In an interview with reporters before the oral arguments, Jardeleza said Section 19 of Republic Act 10175 is not needed for law enforcement.

Section 19, also known as the "take-down provision," empowers the Department of Justice to block computer data found to be in violation of the law.

It states that "when computer data is prima facie found to be in violation of the provision of this Act, the DOJ shall issue an order to restrict or block access to such computer data."

However, despite his agreement regarding the unconstitutionality of Section 19, Jardeleza stressed that it was by no means a reason to scrap the entire law.

“Except for Section 19, the whole law is constitutional. Under the law, you can declare parts unconstitutional pero hindi lahat. If you have a case of mango, just because bulok yung isa hindi ibig sabihin na yung buong case ay bulok,” he said.

Vague provision


Critics of the Cybercrime Law have pointed out that the "take-down provision" is too vague on how it will be carried out.

Internet law expert Atty. JJ Disini, who also earlier filed a petition against the Cybercrime Law,  said that Sec. 19 is actually a "desirable provision" in the context of cyberbullying and scams. However, he added that "(T)he way it was worded in the law, unfortunately, it did not contain the necessary safeguards."

When the Supreme Court began hearing oral arguments against the law on January 15, Justice Teresita Leonardo De Castro also expressed reservations over Sec. 19.

"(It) isn't specific enough as to how government intends to find prima facie evidence. This is something we need to find out," De Castro had said.

No defense for Sec. 19

On January 22, UP Law professor and anti-Cybercrime Law petitioner Harry Roque Jr. confirmed that Congress has no plans to defend the controversial clause.

"Nag-file ng compliance ang SolGen na nagsasabing hindi na magpapadala ng abugado ang Congress para depensahan ang 'take down clause' [Section 19] ng cybercrime law," he said.

 

Roque welcomed the development, saying that it essentially meant that the government was not contesting the petitioners' claim on the unconstitutionality of the clause.

 

"Maganda iyan dahil ang lumalabas dito, walang ahensiya ng gobyerno na dedepensa sa take down clause... walang tumututol kung baga sa sinasabi ng petitioners na unconstitutional ang Section 19," Roque said.

 

He added that he had earlier received a document from the OSG specifically agreeing to his camp's argument that Section 19 is unconstitutional.

Penalty for libel

Defending the constitutionality of the law before SC justices, Jardeleza said those who will be charged with libel under RA 10175 will be meted with the penalty that is stated in the Revised Penal Code.

“Libel is specially mentioned as a content offense, but Congress did not provide for penalty,” he said. “That should be welcomed because it is protection of speech.”

Jardeleza noted that penalties for other offenses cited in the Anti-Cybercrime Law are provided. — BM/TJD, GMA News