SP Sotto's transcript of interview

Q: on Sec. Locsin citing possible withdrawal from UNHRC..

SP Sotto: Well that's precisely what the United States did. They have dismembered themselves from the UNHRC and the reason they gave is that it is hypocritical and self-serving group and it's making a mockery of human rights. That's the exact wordings of the United States. So I will not be surprised if Sec. Locsin will follow suit considering the way they were, all of a sudden, handling the resolution from Iceland and not even getting the majority of the members of those present in the quorum and saying that it is a UNHRC resolution. So they should review their rules because the rules that they are following is illogical. Let me give you a very...a higher example that what's happened. What happened was 18 voted in favor, 15 against and 15 abstained. And therefore sa 48, 18 lang yung nag-approve. Thirty disapproved. Why? An abstention is a no. Everybody in the parliament knows that - you did not agree. Ngayon, I'll give you a better example, if there is a quorum of 50, one agreed to approve, 49 abstained, is the resolution carried? Based on the rules, that they have, it is. So it's illogical. I will not be surprised and I will be supportive of any decision that Sec. Locsin will arrive at.

Q: Wala na 'yun downside or repercussion...

SP Sotto: Wala. There will be a...as a matter of fact, baka ang gusto nyang buuin pati United Nations na mismo. It's up to the DFA because last year we paid the UN $8.2 million mandatory contribution. We will be saving the country P445 million a year if we detached ourselves from the UN.

Q: Won't that send a bad message to the international community...

SP Sotto: Did they say that against the United States? Umalis sila sa UNHRC. Depende pero tinanong ba nila sa US yan? Hindi naman ah.

Q: So not much of a fallout...

SP Sotto: Wala. I don't think so. Not at all. As a matter of fact it might give them a chance to review and take a hard look at the mirror, the UNHRC. Take it from what the United States said, they are making a mockery of human rights.

Q: Bakit kailangan magkaroon ng bill against fake news?

SP Sotto: Because it has become a serious problem nationwide and not only here but also abroad. As a matter of fact, the in the fake news law, anti-fake news law is now enforced in Singapore and there are other countries who are already tackling it. Ang lakas makasira hindi lang ng reputasyon, hindi lang mga tao, yung mga institution. Eh alam naman kung ano ang fake news at hindi eh, bakit natin ito-tolerate? Eh di dapat we give government the chance to remove it or ask the proper authorities to remove it.

Q: Do you consider yourself a victim of fake news?

SP Sotto: I think so, yeah. Oo. I could say that I was also a victim. I was a victim of cyberbullying, definitely for quite a long time pero yung fake news, remember that fake news about some of us not signing the resolution? That's a fake news. Refusing to sign, yun ang sabi eh. Ah fake news yun.

Q: What will you say to critics, baka sabihin sino magde determine ano fake news...

SP Sotto: Merong magko complain at mag ko complain pagka fake news di ba? And there is the DICT who will be able to handle it and hold the bull by the horns, so to speak.

Q: hindi pa ba enough yung sa libel, iba pa yung measure na 'yun?

SP Sotto: Iba ang sa libel eh. Ang libel, there must be malicious intent. Mabigat masyado ang libel. Iba ito. Ito lang, we're giving the proper authorities the chance to remove...hindi naman half-truths but 'yung fake news. Ang dapat managot dun 'yung nag upload.

Q: ito yung mga disinformation, mga propaganda..

SP Sotto: Yes, ano rin yun, fake news rin yun.

Q: What if legitimate media tapos mali yung sinabi ng source?

SP: Hindi fake news yun. What we're trying to achieve here, and of course marami pang individual ang sasama dito, is that those who would like to come up with some kind of news of their own through the social media, must follow the ethics of journalists like you. You are responsible, you're accountable for what you place. Dapat ganun din yung mga gumagamit ng internet. Yung gustong ilagay na balita roon, siguruhin mo vinerify mo na totoo yan. Now kung hindi totoo, nilgay mo alam mong hindi totoo, you're committing a crime in this bill.

Q: for accountability...

SP Sotto: Oo, yes. Precisely.

Q: How about the financiers of fake news?

SP Sotto: Scam yun eh. Scam naman yun. Automatic na 'yun, ang problem dun, pwedeng i-charge pero naiiwan sa internet eh. What we want to achieve in this bill is you must remove that.

Q: Tatanggalin lang, tapos may penalty sa nag post?

SP Sotto: Yan eh depende na sa kalalabasan ng bill natin. Pero kung ganun naman hindi. Madali na yun.

Q: on COA report on Senate, House not complying with requirements to at least allocate 5% of its budget to GAD programs...

SP Sotto: I'm not familiar with that law on gender development. San napunta yung pera? Sinoli? Kung na revert eh di mabuti nga, good news. Na revert pala eh. Ano ngang batas yun? I'll take a look at it, I'm not familiar with the issue eh.

Q: Sa fake news, kasama dun yung keyboard warriors, yung mga trolls na nababayaran?

SP Sotto: Hindi naman news yun eh. I don't think kasama yun eh. Nag-i-spread sila, ano ini-spread nila? If it's fake, if it's demeaning, if it's ruining the reputation of people then kasali sila.

Q: On Cong. Cayetano's threat to cut senators' term to three years, how possible?

SP Sotto: How can you give what is not yours? No one owns the Senate. The Constitution and the people own the Senate. And the mandate and tenure, term of the senators are in the Constitution. So no single personality can do that. I would like to think that Cong. Alan Peter Cayetano said that in jest and that is why my response was how.

Q: Kung batas, dadaan pa rin naman sa Senate yun...

SP Sotto: Hindi kaya ng batas yun. Hindi pwedeng batas yun eh. There has to be a constitutional amendment.

Q: and to think na hindi pa man sya sure eh...

SP Sotto: You're words not mine.