Trinidad, Danica Floricia

SY 2012-2013, Second Semester

That New Law

People of this age lives in a fast phase. Fast food restaurants are the most visited during lunch, most people drink instant coffee in the morning, or if they have the spare time, they go to Starbucks, an instant noodle for breakfast and a take out from McDo in the evening. Majority of the people this days are on the go, and possibly, and I’m sure you’ll agree, lives off the internet either on their iPads, iPhones, Androids, Smartphones or laptops.

Gone are the days when people line up on the counter to buy a new pair of shoes or a nice shirt. We have websites like, or sometimes even in Facebook. Hell, we can even buy a car on Airlines nowadays have their own website where you can book flights to Hong Kong, Singapore, Boston or even to Boracay. Tickets to the Script concert are a three minute process. All you need is a click of the mouse or book it right to your fingertips. But one thing is for sure, we always use our Credit Cards to do the job.

I must confess I have been a frequent shopper on the sites mentioned above. I often feel lazy to go out, stand on a long queue that takes hours. Why go to the mall when you can purchase anything you need on the internet.

There is also a time when I have to line up for two days just to apply for my passport. My Mader also had the experience of having to line up on the wee hours of the morning just to apply for her US visa back in ’92. Comparing it now, I can schedule and answer my application form from the US Consular office website. How convenient, especially when I don’t have to go to the Consular office by four in the morning.

But the convenience and the instantaneous transactions come with a price. I have this doubt on some of the sellers on-line especially since you have to indicate your personal information, mainly when you are using your credit cards. There is this huge chance that I could be a victim of identity theft, or that another person would use my credit card to purchase.

Last August 15, 2012, President Aquino III signed Republic Act 10173, known as the ‘Data Privacy act of 2012’. According to said law;

SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. – It is the policy of the State to protect the fundamental human right of privacy, of communication while ensuring free flow of information to promote innovation and growth. The State recognizes the vital role of information and communications technology in nation-building and its inherent obligation to ensure that personal information in information and communications systems in the government and in the private sector are secured and protected.[1]

This act aims to protect personal information that a natural or juridical person has used on any transaction that they have made. [2] I have no idea as to how I should react to this new special law. It has somehow had some advantages and disadvantages on its face, and frankly, one of its disadvantages is that it somehow appears to be over-breadth.


I – This act protects the Journalists and their Sources.[3]

Let us first tackle the most obvious right of protection in which the law applies which is the protection to the journalists. The constitution provides, on Article 3, Bill of Rights:

Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. [4]

Let us admit, this is the usual law provision that the most if not all of the journalists, writer, columnist or whatever you may have called them to protect their rights into publishing and posting their writings on the paper or the internet.

Quoting from an opinion of the court, “Freedom of the press was virtually unknown in the Philippines before 1900. In fact, a prime cause of the revolution against Spain at the turn of the 19th century was the repression of the freedom of speech and expression and of the press.” [5] And as of now, it is one of the symbols of a democratic country. Voicing out opinions thru editorials, magazines and newspapers, and even the polls being made, especially on this electoral period, the people of the Press are given the right of expression.

In connection with this, Atty. Vicente Sotto has authored Republic Act No. 53: AN ACT TO EXEMPT THE PUBLISHER, EDITOR OR REPORTER OF ANY PUBLICATION FROM REVEALING THE SOURCE OF PUBLISHED NEWS OR INFORMATION OBTAINED IN CONFIDENCE [6] on October 5, 1946, protecting the right of the writers, reporters or editors in disclosing their sources. RA 10173 made exclusion in connection with the said Republic Act. In fact, it was made clear on the provision of the new act that there are no amendments are made.

The act ensured that any member of the Press may, with their own discretion, reveal their sources. It is to protect the said sources’ identity. If the news is invasive or highly affects a powerful or influential person that may detriment the source of the news, the reporter, may not reveal the name of his source. It does help to protect the personal identity of the said source.

II – Protection of Personal Information

As you can see on the introductory part of this blog, people lives in a fast phase and most if not all uses the internet to transact, purchase or contract. This makes us vulnerable to identity theft, since we have to make use of our personal information in order to validate our businesses.

Again, the Constitution, being the supreme law of the land provides protection to its people. Although the law does not explicitly provide, every person has the right to privacy.

To quote from jurisprudence, “The essence of privacy is the right to be left alone. In context, the right to privacy means the right to be free from unwarranted exploitation of one’s person or from intrusion into one’s private activities in such a way as to cause humiliation to a person’s ordinary sensibilities.” [7]
This right is usually connected to the right against unreasonable search and seizure. However, it may also pertain to the protection of the information of a person or a private corporation.

In defining what Personal Information pertains to, let us go the section provided by the law:

[g] Personal information refers to any information whether recorded in a material form or not, from which the identity of an individual is apparent or can be reasonably and directly ascertained by the entity holding the information, or when put together with other information would directly and certainly identify an individual. [1]

Kind of confusing isn’t it? However, it only pertains to any information; name, gender or nationality that may identify the person or private corporation who has made the transaction. The law protects the identity of the individual, either a natural or juridical person on being exposed.

Let me use a sample transaction of booking a flight to using Cebu Pacific Air.

[Image available in original] [8]

A person who uses the internet in booking their flight needs to indicate his name, age, gender and other necessary circumstances on the application. Throwing back to the late ‘90s, people who want to travel via air needs to go to the airline’s office to purchase their tickets, standing on long lines or waiting for their numbers to be called. As of today, some still prefer on going to said offices, however other prefer a much more sophisticated way such as doing it on-line.

Upon continuing the transaction, the website also requires the credit card number to be used. This somehow becomes the tricky part. However, RA 10173 created a commission, National Privacy Commission [NPC for brevity], which is tasked to monitor and ensure compliance of the country with international standards for data protection. [9]

The NPC filters data information thru a system that they had devised will secure that there is no anomaly that will happen while an individual is making transaction. It makes me feel a bit secure and a bit confident when I make online transactions or purchases. Once again I will highlight, I often use the internet to purchase any goods or close several transactions using the internet, and this act will become my own personal body guard in the world of the internet.


And like a double edge sword, the law’s advantages are also its flaws.

The 1987 constitution provides the privacy to communication made. Isn’t it that the system being introduced by RA 10173 is also an intrusion on a person or a corporation to contract or transact? We often use our e-mails to make contracts, not only domestically but also internationally. Imagine that you are a business woman who is communicating via e-mail on a foreign supplier, and that you transaction is being monitored by the NPC.

The New Civil Code reiterated the provision of the Constitution, which provides that:

Article 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages:


[11] The privacy of communication and correspondence

This provision entitles a person to file a case for civil liability against any public officials or any private person. Reading the sections from the new RA 10173, the scope of the power given to the NPA seems to violate not only the constitutional right of a person but it also violates provisions introduced by the new civil code. As I read the new provisions of the new special law in conjunction of other laws, it confuses me as to how limited the filtering system of the NPA regarding data’s inputs made by a person or corporation has made.

I ask this question, will the NPA violate a person’s right for unreasonable search and seizure?

On the ruling made by the Supreme Court in Ople vs Torres:

“The Civil Code provides that “every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons” and punishes as actionable torts several acts by a person of meddling and prying into the privacy of another. It also holds a public officer or employee or any private individual liable for damages for any violation of the rights and liberties of another person, and recognizes the privacy of letters and other private communications xxx” [10]

On the case cited, the issue was the implementation of A.O. No. 308, and as the court have stated on this case, won’t the government misuse the data that they have acquired? They may have included a confidentiality clause on the new RA 10173, but there is also this underlying fear that the data that they have filtered to a person may be used against them. On the quoted case, the Supreme Court stressed that, the right to privacy is one of the most threatened rights of a man living in a mass society, and the threats may come from various sources, one on which is the government. [10] It is like opening our personal information to the government, or as how most would say it, we are stark nude in the eyes of the government.


There is no precedent case where said RA applies, therefore my interpretation of the said law may be biased and solely be based on my opinion and as to how I appreciate the law. It may be a good improvement on the IT world, a precaution against any mishandling of sensitive or personal information. Or it may be a cause of riot against private individuals who does not want to disclose their negotiations and information.


[1] Data Privacy Act of 2012 – The Official Gazette :

[2] Data Privacy Act of 2012 – The Official Gazette :

SEC. 4. Scope. – This Act applies to the processing of all types of personal information and to any natural and juridical person involved in personal information processing including those personal information controllers and processors who, although not found or established in the Philippines, use equipment that are located in the Philippines, or those who maintain an office, branch or agency in the Philippines subject to the immediately succeeding paragraph: Provided, That the requirements of Section 5 are complied with.

[3] Data Privacy Act of 2012 – The Official Gazette :

SEC. 5. Protection Afforded to Journalists and Their Sources. – Nothing in this Act shall be construed as to have amended or repealed the provisions of Republic Act No. 53, which affords the publishers, editors or duly accredited reporters of any newspaper, magazine or periodical of general circulation protection from being compelled to reveal the source of any news report or information appearing in said publication which was related in any confidence to such publisher, editor, or reporter.

[4] 1987 Philippine Constitution – :

[5] Tolentino vs Secretary of Finance -Separate Opinion – Padilla:

[6] Republic Act No. 53 – Chan Robles

[7] SJS vs Dangerous Drug Board, et’al. – G.R. No. 157870 :

[8] Sample image of Cebu Pacific Transaction :

[9] Data Privacy Act of 2012 – The Official Gazette :

SEC. 7. Functions of the National Privacy Commission. – To administer and implement the provisions of this Act, and to monitor and ensure compliance of the country with international standards set for data protection, there is hereby created an independent body to be known as the National Privacy Commission xxx

[10] Ople vs Torres – G.R. No. 127685

10175 vs 3327

After the holiday break and gaining so much weight I might add, I come back with something new and something old. Before the break starts, a very controversial law was passed, gaining the whole nation’s interest, most if not all affected are the people who often use the internet, the so called “netizens”. And I admit, I am one of those ‘netizens’ that appealed before even reading the law itself since people are buzzing about it. I only read it thoroughly when my brother asked me to for his assignment. Yeah, shame on me for reacting first before reading the whole law.

Since we are currently on the era where the power of internet is immeasurable and most social networks are used not only to connect with other people but scream opinions on certain topics, either in a negative or a positive way, having these laws acts as buffers or reservoirs of the post being made, or so they say. I suddenly remembered one of the most controversial videos before, when YouTube was a bit new. Way back in 2007, Chris Crocker, a fan of Britney Spears, posted a video on said site which garnered, as the last time I checked, over 45 Million views. From that video, several responses are made, such as parodies.

After that video, several other videos and scandals came and become the hype, or rated to be the most viewed videos. The most recent is the video that trended on twitter, the video of a female public transportation passenger, now dubbed to be “Amalayer”. Now I checked on my Facebook page, and I see the new video of a professor hitting his students, or something akin to having a nervous breakdown. Such power the internet has. Just a click of the mouse or a touch of a finger added by a simple hashtag and you can spread rumours like a wild fire.

R.A. 10175 – AN ACT DEFINING CYBERCRIME, PROVIDING FOR THE PREVENTION, INVESTIGATION, SUPPRESSION AND THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTIES THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES or commonly known as the Cybercrime law became one of the most controversial topic on the latter part of 2012. It was passed and signed last September 2012, divided into thirty-one sections with eight chapters, which criminalized several offenses, such as illegal access or commonly known as hacking, data interference, device misuse, cybersquatting, computer fraud, cybersex and spam. It also includes laws against child pornography and libel. Its provisions apply to all Filipino nationals regardless of the place of commission. Jurisdiction also lies when a punishable act is either committed within the Philippines, whether the erring device is wholly or partly situated in the Philippines, or whether damage was done to any natural or juridical person who at the time of commission was within the Philippines. Regional Trial Courts shall have jurisdiction over cases involving violations of the Act [1].

As I have said, this law became quite controversial on most social networks, gaining so much response, either positively or negatively. Several petitions were filed to the Supreme Court, however, the Supreme Court at first deferred on acting on the petitions making the law effective for a week [2]. There was a mass protest made on several social networks which made the Supreme Court issue a temporary restraining order on the law for 120 days [3].

While R.A. 10175 is serving its 120 days TRO, Senator Mirriam Defensor-Santiago has authored and filed a bill known as Bill No. 3327 – MAGNA CARTA FOR PHILIPPINE INTERNET FREEDOM that would repeal R.A. 10175. It is said that this bill will provide penalties and prohibited acts while including the rights and the protection of the internet users [4]. Majority claims that the law passed, RA 10175, restrains freedom of expression and freedom of speech as defined by the 1987 constitution.

Let me relate my opinion in several provisions of RA 10175 before comparing it to the bill being passed to the Philippine Congress.


(a) Libel

The Cybercrime Law of the Philippines, as I have stated above is divided into 31 sections with 8 chapters, discussing different offenses, one being Libel.

The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines defined libel as public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonour, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead [5]. It happened to be the provision of RA 10175 that made several negative reactions, coming from different sectors especially the Media and several legal institutions.

According to said law, the prohibited act is that of Libel committed through computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future [6]. Most often use the internet to vent out their opinions and frustrations. Some therapist suggest that their patients blog every day, using it as a diary of their life. I often check some of my favourite bloggers posts of their everyday life, or their opinions in fashion. And clearly remember one of the bloggers from Singapore, who has been a victim of a so called “internet bullying” or others called it as “internet bashing”. It also happened to our very own Filipino bloggers, several comments may be viewed as defamation or even libel, but since, it is the internet, the so called bashers are often quoting their constitutional right to freedom of expression. Not only have that readers committed that offense but bloggers as well, although they often made a cry for their freedom of expression as well.

The section regarding libel serves as filter for that online bashing and several libellous articles on the internet, however, the scope indicated on the said law is too broad that it is already crossing the line of limiting several constitutional rights.

(b) Child Pornography

The Cybercrime Law defines Child Pornography in connection with another law, RA 9775 known as the Anti-Child Pornography act of 2009.

RA 9975 enumerated several unlawful/prohibited acts which would be constituted as a violation of said act, such as (a) the employment or persuasion or coercion of a child to create or produce any kind of child pornography (b) production of child pornography (c) Publication or Selling of Child Pornography (d) Possession of any form of Child Pornography with the intent to sell or reproduction or publishing it, etc. [7].

The only difference on of RA 10175 and 9775 is that on the new law of Cybercrime, the degree of penalty is one degree higher when the offense is committed with the use of a computer. This fact confused me because the scope of the anti-child pornography act also taps into the use of the internet on the commission of the offense. So if an offense is committed, which penalty would be followed on to whose jurisdiction will it fall?

(c) Cyber-squatting vis a vis Computer related Identity Theft

Defined to be the acquisition of a domain name in bad faith to profit, mislead, destroy reputation, and deprive others from registering the same. It may be made by making an identical or similar to existing trademark registered or registering the domain with an identical name [8].

Computer-related Identity Theft as defined by the law is the intentional acquisition, use or misuse of the personal information identity of another whether natural or juridical [9].

I often see this thing, especially on e-mails claiming that so called “You have won ___, to claim your price, click on the link” which happens to be either a virus or a scam to get your email address and password or any personal information that your account has. The person who acquired the data can access your email and may even use your email to continue their scam.

Several other personalities have this problem as well. Like I said, I am fond of reading blogs and I sometimes look at their twitter, and it often confuses me because whenever I searched for their name, for example, in twitter, there are five to ten people who appear with the same name and same profile pictures. This is what I like about the new law, is that even though in the internet, people are protected from identity theft.


The bill being passed, in my opinion is a much clearer version of RA 10175. The bill identifies not only the rights of the internet user but specifies the offenses that a “netizen” may commit. Let me give my opinion to several provisions of the bill.

(a) Hacking

Hacking is defined by Section 27 of said bill to be an unlawful for any unauthorized person to intentionally access or to provide a third party with access to, or to hack or aid or abet a third party to hack into data, networks, storage media where data is stored, equipment through which networks are run or maintained, the physical plant where the data or network equipment is housed. The unauthorized access or unauthorized act of providing a third party with access to, or the hacking into, data, networks, storage media where data is stored, equipment through which networks are run or maintained, the physical plant where the data or network equipment is housed shall be presumed to be malicious [10].

We often see hacking incidents on the movies. There is this American show that I often watch, where in they have a female technical analyst that can hack a computer and track as to where the network was pinged. I even catch an episode where it was pinged from China to Europe before going to the States. And yes, it does happen in real life as well.

Hacking is one of the threats, which may result to identity theft or even result into war. I remembered bumping on to news where in the Pentagon was hacked. Secured data may be used or sell to different parties that are interested. Personally, this is one of the internet offenses that I am afraid of since, if a person hacks your account, they can use it to extort money from your contacts.

(b) Copyright Infringement

Copyright Infringement is the unlawful publication of a work either in part or in full any content that he does not have any economic right over. It is often related to plagiarism [11]. It may be a photo or any form of writing that was made originally. I see several photos on the internet, especially on a website called deviantArt, and most of the photos posted by the deviantartist relay their sources, as to who originally photographed the art or as to who the inspiration for the particular work. I often see on the description a disclaimer or the words “based on…”. For further comparison and just for the discussion’s sake, I’ll use the case of Sen. Tito Sotto for this particular section.

Several photos of the speech made by Sen. Sotto became the topic of my news feed a couple of months back on my facebook account. It is said that said speech is the Tagalog version of the late President Kennedy’s speech and that it was copied on several blogs. Accusations flew and claims are been made, but my use of this as an example is that, we often use several quotations to our posts on the internet, and we often fail to use citations. On the case of Sen. Sotto, the speech was posted on the internet without citations. [12]

(c) Piracy

Another section of the new bill pertains to Privacy. Yes, we already have the Anti-Cam cording Law, but the provision on the said bill extends into internet piracy. Download websites, torrents and such who distribute movies or music without the consent of the owners of said mediums. Defining piracy refers to the unauthorized copying, distribution and selling of works in copyright [13].

The offense is very rampant on the internet since not everybody is willing to pay on iTunes for music and movies. In comparison to the previous law, the limitation and definition of the offense regarding on piracy within the context of the bill is much better.

(d) Internet Libel, Hate Speech, Child Pornography and Other expressions

Section 33 of the new bill discusses extensively the provisions regarding internet libel, hate speech, child pornography etc. As I have previously discussed, most bloggers and celebrities experiences the hate speeches. I can often see it on twitter and sometimes they even blog about it. Some video posted on the internet often have hate speeches or hate comments.

I will focus on the hate speech provision on this part since this is one of the most suiting on most can relate to this.

Hate Speech defined by the law is a public and malicious expression calling for the commission of illegal acts on an entire class of persons, a reasonably broad section thereof, or a person belonging to such a class, based on gender, sexual orientation, religious belief or affiliation, political belief or affiliation, ethnic or regional affiliation, citizenship, or nationality, made on the Internet or on public networks [14].

I often see this on one of the YouTube superstars, like Ms. Michelle Phan who posts video tutorials on the said site. I can often see, while checking her videos some hate speech. Within the Philippines, I see this on as I have said bloggers and other celebrities. There are forum sites where some who we call “haters” of a particular person create speeches, sometimes vulgar and often delivered in a very bad way.

Hate Speech is not limited to comments or tweets but also to videos posted or linked containing such offense.

Final Thoughts:

In sum, I can say that the new bill is better than R.A. 10175. The MCFPIF bill discusses extensively the offense as well as giving better rights to internet users. R.A. 10175 is over broad, on its less than ten page discussion of the law, however, Bill 3327 may be long, and yes, I tried to finish everything but it was really long, however, it was meticulously created so that not only the internet users have their right but their obligation on not overusing the power of the internet is limited, and subject to punishment if they have committed such offense.


[1] Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 |

[2] SC Defers action on petitions vs Cybercrime Law |

[3] SC Issues TRO vs Cyberlaw |

[4] Santiago Proposes Magna Carta for Internet |

[5] Chan Robles – Revised Penal Code : Article 353 Definition of Libel |

Art. 353. Definition of libel. — A libel is public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead

[6] Official Gazette – R.A. 10175 : Chapter 2 Section 4 |

(4) Libel. — The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future.

[7] – RA 9775 : Section 4 |

Section 4. Unlawful or Prohibited Acts. – It shall be unlawful for any person:

(a) To hire, employ, use, persuade, induce or coerce a child to perform in the creation or production of any form of child pornography;

(b) To produce, direct, manufacture or create any form of child pornography;

(c) To publish offer, transmit, sell, distribute, broadcast, advertise, promote, export or import any form of child pornography;

(d) To possess any form of child pornography with the intent to sell, distribute, publish, or broadcast: Provided. That possession of three (3) or more articles of child pornography of the same form shall be prima facie evidence of the intent to sell, distribute, publish or broadcast;

(e) To knowingly, willfully and intentionally provide a venue for the commission of prohibited acts as, but not limited to, dens, private rooms, cubicles, cinemas, houses or in establishments purporting to be a legitimate business;

(f) For film distributors, theaters and telecommunication companies, by themselves or in cooperation with other entities, to distribute any form of child pornography;

(g) For a parent, legal guardian or person having custody or control of a child to knowingly permit the child to engage, participate or assist in any form of child pornography;

(h) To engage in the luring or grooming of a child;

(i) To engage in pandering of any form of child pornography;

(j) To willfully access any form of child pornography;

(k) To conspire to commit any of the prohibited acts stated in this section. Conspiracy to commit any form of child pornography shall be committed when two (2) or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of any of the said prohibited acts and decide to commit it; and

(l) To possess any form of child pornography.

[8] – RA 9775 : Section 6 |

(6) Cyber-squatting. – The acquisition of a domain name over the internet in bad faith to profit, mislead, destroy reputation, and deprive others from registering the same, if such a domain name is:

(i) Similar, identical, or confusingly similar to an existing trademark registered with the appropriate government agency at the time of the domain name registration:

(ii) Identical or in any way similar with the name of a person other than the registrant, in case of a personal name; and

(iii) Acquired without right or with intellectual property interests in it.

[9] – RA 9775 : Section 3 |

(3) Computer-related Identity Theft. – The intentional acquisition, use, misuse, transfer, possession, alteration or deletion of identifying information belonging to another, whether natural or juridical, without right: Provided, That if no damage has yet been caused, the penalty imposable shall be one (1) degree lower.

[10] Bill No. 3327 – Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom |!.pdf

[11] Bill No. 3327 – Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom |!.pdf

Section 29. Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights. –

Copyright infringement. – Subject to the Intellectual Properly Code of the Philippines, it shall be unlawful for any person to publish or reproduce on the Internet, in part or in whole, any content that he does not have any economic rights over, or does not acknowledge and comply with the terms of copyright or license governing the intellectual property rights enjoyed by the content being published or reproduced, or falsely claims having intellectual property rights over the content he does not own.

A.2. Non-attribution or plagiarism of copy left content shall constitute infringement.

A.3. Non-attribution or plagiarism of free license or public domain content shall constitute infringement, but shall not be subject to damages.

A.4. Subject to the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, it shall be unlawful for any person to reverse-engineer any whole or part of any computer program, software, code, or script, whether or not executable, that is the subject of a copyright, and that he does not have any property rights over, or does not acknowledge and comply with the terms of copyright or license governing the intellectual property rights enjoyed by the computer program being reverse-engineered.

[12] Copy of a Photo |

[13] Wikipedia: Copyright Infringement |

[14] Bill No. 3327 – Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom : Section 33 B1 |!.pdf

1 comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: