Independence days
June 12, 2006 by mlq3
Filed under Daily Dose
My blog entry and my Arab News column on the National Democrats have been reacted to by Reds Care (in two entries, first here and then here) and Achieving Happiness. Both are understandably upset over what I wrote. Both suggest I have endorsed the government’s policy of liquidating its enemies; that the statements are unfair, and counter-productive. In Reds Care, I wrote a reply, which was then replied to, in turn.
I have reviewed my column, and I disagree that it gives grounds for supporting the policy of assassination embarked upon by the government. I do believe that for those who don’t possess the same ideological point of view of the victims, it explains why too many (and I continue to assert, most) turn a blind eye to what’s going on.
But I certainly do not intend to cast aspersions on the personal integrity or patriotism of those who have been killed, or who have adopted the National Democratic cause. What I wrote, according to the two bloggers, slanders the memories of those who died. That was not my intention, certainly not my feelings, and if hurt has been caused, I apologize wholeheartedly.
Political killings are wrong. They must be condemned. There is no justification for them. While I do not believe in the National Democratic approach, I believe those espousing it are sincere, honest and brave. I don’t think they have been given a full and sincere chance to stop running for their lives and prove, unhampered by persecution, to work with the people, and work with others to show how their views might change the lives of the masses for the better.
That they choose both political work according to the rules of the existing order, and to pursue change through revolutionary means, is a choice others like myself disagree with. On the other hand, every option is acceptable in the face of injustice and hunger. Until those who disagree with National Democrats actually address injustice and hunger, revolts will continue because unless there is struggle, there can be no hope. And for those with contending views, there can be no reconciliation and peace if violence is done to those working the masses.
My Inquirer column for today is Independence days. Conrado de Quiros writes that a snap election will restore equilibrium to the country. The Inquirer editorial details the administration’s dishonesty in dealing with the budget.
I’d also like to reproduce, below, an article commissioned for their Philippine Independence Day supplement by the Arab News.
***
A complex achievement
By Manuel L. Quezon III
SINCE 1962 (by presidential fiat, and since 1964 by law), Filipinos have commemorated June 12 as Independence Day, when previously, from 1946, they had celebrated their independence on July 4. The decision to shift to June 12, itself celebrated since 1940 as Flag Day, was a historically valid one. But the decision became encrusted with so much kant, and so conflicting and confused were the motivations for the shift, that since then, it must be asked whether Filipinos really know what they are celebrating.
Scrape away the popular conceptions and a clearer picture emerges. In 1896, Andres Bonifacio and his followers tore up their residence certificates, symbolically withdrawing their allegiance from Spain and proclaiming the Katipunan the government of an independent Philippines. The Philippine revolution thus began, and its main preoccupation was primarily inwards: that is, while independence from Spain was being fought, the main concern of leaders like Bonifacio was to inspire Filipinos to adopt an identity as citizens of a new nation.
By 1897, in a power struggle typical of revolutionary movements, Bonifacio had been supplanted by Emilio Aguinaldo, representative of the provincial gentry as Bonifacio had been an exemplar of the proletariat. With Bonifacio’s fall came the rise of an orientation as much concerned with outward developments as an inward advocacy: the full panoply of statehood, in international terms, became more important than the rather mystical, and mass-oriented, Katipunan, the secret society that had planned, and led the revolution, but which was formally abolished and supplanted by a bourgeois-oriented provisional government.
A negotiated peace with Spain had ended hostilities late in 1897Â and Aguinaldo had gone into (he hoped, temporary) exile to plot a reinvigorated independence movement, when the Spanish-American War broke out in 1898. The Americans invaded Cuba; a naval squadron defeated the Spanish naval detachment in the Philippines: the Filipino revolutionaries in exile in Hong Kong were identified, and courted, as American allies. Aguinaldo was brought back to the country, formally resumed the revolution on May 28, 1898, and by June 12 had returned to his native town, Kawit, in Cavite province and proclaimed Philippine independence to the world (recall that Bonifacio had proclaimed independence to his countrymen in 1896).
Apolinario Mabini, lawyer and intellectual and eventually the most important adviser of Aguinaldo, found the June 12 proclamation shockingly provincial and even counter-productive. Among other things, it declared the new nation a protectorate of the United States without having formally negotiated American recognition of either Philippine independence or the government being established by the Filipinos. Mabini attempted to rectify the situation by organizing local governments, which in turn could deputize individuals to represent them in ratifying the June 12 proclamation of independence along more dignified lines, and in turn, ratify a constitution which laid down a formal basis for the leadership of Aguinaldo (hitherto merely proclaimed an “egregious dictator†in Kawit). All this was accomplished by early 1899, when the First Philippine Republic was inaugurated in Malolos, Bulacan.
Filipinos earned the distinction of being the first formally-organized constitutional republic in Asia, the first colony to assert independence in Southeast Asia, and the last Spanish colony to do so in the 19th century. They also had to endure the tragedy of having an otherwise inspiring and potentially solid start to nationhood aborted by American conquest, formally achieved with Aguinaldo’s capture in 1901 and unquestionably asserted by the first decade of the 20th century.
Filipinos, however, didn’t let go of the independence ideal; and they were variously granted, or managed to wheedle out of the Americans, elected provincial government by 1905, a Filipino lower house in the legislature in 1907, a fully Filipino legislature by 1916, and control of the executive with autonomy by 1935 along with a formal commitment to restoring independence by 1946. This was a period of fairly successful nation-building, tragically interrupted by World War II which brought Japanese occupation and liberation by Allied forces: accompanied by the near-total destruction of the infrastructure and carefully-built political infrastructure that had the country confidently poised to resume its independence prior to the outbreak of the war.
And yet independence was recognized by the United States in 1946, adding yet another distinction: the first Asian colony to achieve independence, and the first functioning democracy in Asia in the postwar era. Filipinos forget that this was no piddling accomplishment: the peaceful independence efforts had been closely watched by their neighbors, serving as an inspiration to leaders ranging from Sukarno to Ho Chi Minh; and Americans forget that the effort was successful enough to inspire an initial confidence in American goodwill on the part of these same leaders, and even as far afield as Mao Zedong in China. The confidence among Asians in American benevolence and sincerity didn’t last; and in the Philippines it quickly began to crumble.
A ravaged, wrecked Philippines embarked on independence with conditions –imposed by Americans eager to bask in the shared sacrifice of World War II, but unwilling to match its rhetorical sentimentality with measures to rebuild the country. The Philippines would be rebuilt, but assistance from America would be based on the hard-nosed proposition that Americans receive equal access to the Philippine economy. And thus the pride of having its sovereignty recognized ahead of say, India and Indonesia (whose colonial rulers had watched prewar independence efforts with hostility motivated by the fear) was marred by the irony that those –and other- colonized countries achieved a later, but perhaps more authentic, independence.
It is said that President Diosdado Macapagal decided to transfer independence day from July 4 to June 12 in a fit of annoyance. He was merely the latest in a line of Philippine leaders exasperated over American indifference to the cause of Filipino veterans deprived of their benefits since 1946, and other vexations that included disagreements over tariffs and economic assistance. The gulf between the official proclamations of love, devotion, and a shared democratic idealism with the United States, and the increasingly harsh realities of economic and social conditions in the country (despite having defeated a Communist insurgency in the1940s and 50s), made basking in the rapidly-diminishing warmth of America increasingly unsatisfying to a younger generation of Filipinos.
Macapagal’s initial pique, even if true, gave way to the realization that here was a chance to buttress a failing administration by seizing nationalism away from his critics: the country could, in a sense, be reinvented. If the present was bland and lacking confidence, a mythical past could be appropriated. In 1961, Filipinos had commemorated 15 years of independence (a fact); in 1962, they suddenly were told the country could bask in the glory of 64 years of independence (false). The sad end of the First Republic was set aside to prop up the shaky realities of the Third Republic established in 1946: the intervening period that made possible the restoration of independence began to be subjected to an officially-inflicted amnesia ignoring everything in between.
The country then, in Diosdado Macapagal’s time, and now, under his successors including his daughter, could not afford to make historical distinctions in the rush to reconfigure the past. Doing tha was easier and perhaps more emotionally satisfying than the hard, necessary, work of enabling Filipino society and government to evolve to meet the needs of the future. If it was healthy to refocus the attention of the citizenry on the glories and achievements of the Revolution against Spain and those of the First Republic, it was unhealthy –and delusional- to ignore the end of that republic, and the painstaking and equally inspiring effort to insist on independence being recognized by the United States.
Philippine leaders since Macapagal have been in the position of parvenus claiming a heroic past in competition with Filipino Communists and Socialists equally eager to claim that past: the difference lies in Philippine officialdom trying to incense the corpse of the First Republic (ill-fated but bourgeois and cosmpolitan) while radicals try to reanimate the remains of the Katipunan (also ill-fated, but mystical and mass-based). Outside the Philippine equivalents of the intelligentsia, nomenklatura, and their apparatchiks, whether mainstream or revolutionary, Filipinos have been left with bold slogans (“100 years of independence!†celebrated, deceitfully, in 1998, but then “100 years since independence was originally proclaimed!†was too clumsy, and honest, for government billboards) disguising hot air.
And yet –on June 12, 1898, on the balcony of Aguinaldo’s mansion in Kawit, Cavite, was proclaimed, to the world, the independence of the Philippines. That the proclamation read to the public left some things to be desired, only fairly depicted something all colonies aspiring to independent nationhood have come to learn: that independence and sovereignty must be redefined and reasserted as time passes. The other things done that day: the unfurling of the Philippine flag not in battle, but before a joyous, peaceful, public assembly, and the first public performance of a national anthem that would only have lyrics appended to it a year later: were not only the trappings, but in a sense, the substance of nationhood.
The Philippine flag itself was the product of evolution, incorporating colors and symbols from the independence movements and leaders that came before; and it would be that flag that would be forbidden by the Americans, then grudgingly allowed to be hoisted again; and both flag and anthem would rally Filipinos to reclaim their independence from America and fight for native soil against the Japanese. If today Filipinos live under their Fifth Republic, their familiar symbols of national identity were born under the First; and serve as a reminder of the high achievement –and high tragedy- that has characterized their national identity ever since. This marvelously complexity means that June 12, 2006, marks 108 since independence was proclaimed; and soon, 60 years of uninterrupted independence and sovereignty since it was restored in 1946; and just as the country looked back in February to 20 years since it overthrew the home-grown Marcos dictatorship, next year it can look forward to two decades of having a restored, constitutional, democracy. No mean feats, each one; an inspiring tapestry overall.
Delicious
Facebook
Flickr
LinkedIn
Technorati
Twitter
Loading ...
Dominique on Mon, 12th Jun 2006 10:12 am
I read the Inq7 column and this with much interest. Which leads me to ask: when are we going to see a book on history of the Philippines written by MLQ3?
juan makabayan on Mon, 12th Jun 2006 2:15 pm
“IT WAS the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way- in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.â€â€”Dickens.
I just wonder how the opening of a re-write of our history (or a chapter) would read like.
carlos celdran on Mon, 12th Jun 2006 3:23 pm
They obviously didn’t read your article well. It just seems like a case of miscommunication. You did not at all and in any way seem like you supported the killing of anyone.
I wonder if this uproar on their part was just because they didn’t comprehend your writing styke. Perhaps their English was not too sharp (nothing wrong with that at all but maybe you could post a translated version)? Or maybe a it’s just classic case of paranoia (lots of leftists are percieved to be touchy because they are constantly persecuted) and the so called chocolate chip on the Philippine shoulder which makes us constantly defensive?
Carry on man. They should have read the article more closely that’s all.
anna de brux on Mon, 12th Jun 2006 4:16 pm
MLQ3,
I liked your article “A complex achievement”… Philippine political history in one read!
Corsarius on Mon, 12th Jun 2006 4:39 pm
i second anna de brux. a must-read for Pinoys who want to refresh their grasp of their nation’s “independence” this june 12.
btw, i thought that maybe you’d like to read my independence day entry at crimson crux, if you have the time. there, i share a burmese priest’s passionate belief in the filipino people. if a foreigner can believe in us, why can’t we?
thanks, MLQ3. more power.
manuelbuencamino on Mon, 12th Jun 2006 5:18 pm
Hey your “a complex achievement” makes more sense than Joma’s history and a lot more readable too.
Schumey on Mon, 12th Jun 2006 5:33 pm
A great read and quite an eye-opener. A dissection of history that should be read by our youths. I hope our next generation would not fall in the same trap our current leaders are in.
manuelbuencamino on Mon, 12th Jun 2006 6:13 pm
Just read your exchanges with the reds.
I think I see where your critic is coming from. Communists believe that true democracy and national liberation can only be achieved when a country becomes communist. He could be right or he could be wrong. And that’s the crux of the matter. Communists have to convince more people that theirs is the true way. Short of that, and because they are waging an armed struggle and many people, rightly or wrongly are afraid of them, there is no general outpouring of outrage or sympathy when one of them is killed.
I think it’s clear enough that you condemn the government engaging in extra judicial killings. Your critic calls you on labeling which he believes furthers government propaganda. But he refuses to accept the fact that there is very little sympathy for the communists. People do want a more equitable sharing of the nation’s resources, equal justice or to put it simply, a better life but that desire does not mean the masses support communism. A lot of more has to be done before the great majority of our people will accept communism as the panacea for the justice and inequality we see. If it’s a question of labels then the burden is on the communists to make their label acceptable enough so that people will care when they are victimized. How come Ninoy Aquino’s murder was met with a spontaneous outpouring of outrage and grief? Compare Ninoy and Joma in prison and in exile. Did people care half as much that Joma was also unjustly imprisoned or can’t come home? The fault lies not with the people or with the label. The shortcoming lies with the way they are selling their product.
Karl Garcia on Mon, 12th Jun 2006 6:44 pm
I have read their blog and what struck me was that they assumed you are left leaning.They or we should not assume anything.
anna de brux on Mon, 12th Jun 2006 7:08 pm
I did too.
What struck me was ina alleco silverio-gargar’s “Bawiin mo na Manolo…, “. I thought her piece was quite touching really.
I found Ina drives her points home (not just the Bawiin mo na) without hostility but with dignity; matter of fact, she has a great sense of humor…. Like when she said (well not exactly with the following words – am writing from memory), “I want to see those who kill activists, line them up near the Ayala building (?) so I can make “pitik” on each one of them.”
Karl Garcia on Mon, 12th Jun 2006 7:15 pm
I like these comments of MB form Djb’s blog and I will paste it below…
“Democracy is not a finished product. It cannot be exported.
It is a process that is still evolving thousands of years after man started thinking about an alternative to all forms of totalitarianism.
The whole world is a laboratory for democracy and every individual and every society is involved in the great experiment called democracy. One day if and when it is patented, it can be packaged and exported.
and let’s not make the error of equating democracy with capitalism. The American experiment is about that. Other countries are trying to find their way.
Let’s not equate a nation’s economic system with the principle of one man one vote, minority rights majority rule, checks and balances etc.etc
The enemy of democracy is authoritarian or totalitarian tendencies. Some economic systems tend to encourage these negative tendencies away from democracy like communism and fascism in its true Mussolini concept. But monopoly capitalism also known as merger/consolidation etc is also one of those systems that runs counter to democracy.
Let’s get our medicine right before we even think of prescribing it to others” ………………….
I am sure this can relate to indepence and can be compared to the ideology of communism.
MB, di na ako nakapagpaalam pasensya na.
anna de brux on Mon, 12th Jun 2006 7:27 pm
Karl,
This bit of MB work will be a classic. I was truly impressed.
anna de brux on Mon, 12th Jun 2006 7:28 pm
Re Ina’s blogsite: How I wish she hadn’t plastered her main page with all those Mao pics – seemed very odd to see Monsieur Mao sitting there in a Filipino blog.
Karl Garcia on Mon, 12th Jun 2006 7:39 pm
Anna,
I was impressed by MB too sa Philippinecommentary pa lang at dito ko lang na laman sa blog ni MLQ(a few months back) na columnist pala sya.I remember, even you figured out that he wrote a column long after we’ve been exchanging thoughts with him in the philippine commentary.
Uniffors - Just another harmless weblog » What’s Independence Day? on Mon, 12th Jun 2006 9:04 pm
[...] Manolo Quezon in two must read pieces on Independence Day ,here and here. [...]
Walter I. Balane on Mon, 12th Jun 2006 10:44 pm
Reading “Independence days” is like attending History 1 in UP again, only better and quicker. I suddenly realized there is so much to learn and unlearn about our Philippine “histories”. Yes, I agree with the other bloggers- when is your book due?
I hope a Mindanawon could write as good Mindanao’s histories too, someday.
tonyo on Mon, 12th Jun 2006 11:33 pm
kay ginoong carlos celdran, humihingi ako ng pasensya sa ngalan ng mga pambansa demokrata sa hindi namin pagkaintindi sa eleganteng ingles na ginagamit ni manolo sa kanyang blog. pero sa totoo lang, hindi naman po marahil kaso ng miskomunikasyon o kaluwagan ng gagap sa ingles ang pokus ng usapan sa http://redscare.motime.com — may mga puntong pinagbabalitaktakan lampas sa wikang gamit. maaari rin namang hindi mo naunawaan ang pagkakasulat ng mga argumento sa redscare blog.
dear manuelbuencamino, its really an easy life if you aren’t labeled a communist or leftist in this country. but the “better dead than red” mode of thinking also compels a number of people to subscribe to the alternate adage “better red than dead”, and more importantly, there are many people who look beyond labels and focus on the substantive aspects of the many political forces offering solutions to the national crisis.
juan makabayan on Tue, 13th Jun 2006 5:30 am
My message to the Left, the past year I’ve phoned in radio response after Ka Roger speaks specially at the height of protests:
Re-examine your ideological commitment. Let us rise above ideological differences. We don’t need a package of imported ideology. We ,simple citizens, do not support your calls specially when you say you’ll hit the country-side while we rally in the cities.
I talked to progressive group leaders. I’ve been asking them ,since 2003, to distnguish their group from the Reds and present a viable option for the silent majoritty to support.
Opportunist Extremists, either Left or Right, can only aggravate the crises.
Carl on Tue, 13th Jun 2006 8:27 am
Sympathy for those who would bear arms to topple government in order to replace it with their own brand of totalitarianism in the guise of egalitarianism? Why should there be sympathy for anyone who goes into a belligerent mode by his own free will? We should all be responsible for our actions. When a person decides to live by the sword, that person automatically accepts the other side of the coin, which is to die by the sword. It’s that simple, you can’t have your cake and eat it, too. Which is what most Communists, with the cooperation of media, want to do. So, as far as the public is concerned, you made a choice…deal with it.
Incidentally, this also brings to mind the travesty of indemnifying Communists who “suffered” under the Marcos regime. These people made a choice and they should live with the consequences. There shouldn’t be a financial consideration for having made an ideological decision and having suffered for it. It only shows that, in the Philippines, even ideologues are plain mercenaries.
Rizalist on Tue, 13th Jun 2006 10:53 am
MLQ3,
You seem convinced that the killings are the work of the government. Is this a reliable position to take? Do you actually have the facts on a large enough sample of the killings to generalize? What would the govt gain by such killings. For example, of Sotero Llamas? I only ask because I frankly don’t know who is responsible for them. Yet I am very uncomfortable that everyone seems to assume the killings are political assassinations by the Military against natdems. Do you or does anyone know for a fact that some of this is not the eternally deadly, intensely internal feuds within the communist movement?
JCastro on Tue, 13th Jun 2006 12:13 pm
Rizalist,
The killings are happening after allegations by the military that activists and communists are involved in the attempted overthrow of the government last February. Couple that with the provocative statements made against the Reds by Gen. Palparan, DOJ Sec. Gonzalez, and other government officials, and you have a situation that points to military involvement in their killings.
Assuming the military is involved, it is an alarming situation indeed. If this is true, then the government is deliberately trying to elicit an armed response from Leftists and Communists, Reds and “Pinks”. Like sheep, don’t you think moderates like us will be forced to toe the line with the Arroyo regime? It worked with Marcos before, it’s not inconceivable that it will work again.
hvrds on Tue, 13th Jun 2006 1:06 pm
I am really curious as to why National Democracy is analougous to communism in the Philippines? From John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith, Karl Marx, John Maynard Keynes, Sun Yet Sun, Chiang Kai Chek, Mao, the founding fathers of the U.S. to present day advanced industrial governments are all basically National Democrats. Joseph Stiglitz described the G-7 countries as a mercantilist club. A Marxist would prefer to use the word imperialist club. (Same thing) Any student of political economy would brand them nat dems. Now if you add the socialist perspectives to that they would become Marxists. His proletariat revolution never came about. His analysis based on sociology continues to be compelling though. You combine that with economics and politics and boy you really have something. Economic nationalism so far has tempered the fatal flaws of market capitalism in the advanced countries so far but has definitely not solved the problem. That is for the future. I believe the rest of the developing economies of the world will have their say in that future.
The E.U. was formed by France and Germany wherein they signed the Steel Manufacturing Agreement promising never to turn their surplus steel into panzer divisions and since then the Huns have never crossed the Rhine with their panzer divisions again.
Abraham Lincoln went to war against the confederate states not primarily to free the slaves (read his first inaugural address)but to preserve the nation. The issue was free trade. The most articulate national democrat in the U.S. Pat Buchanan is also an Irish Catholic and staunch defender of the Irish peoples National Democratic movement the IRA. Sein Fein means ourselves. They are not communists.
Please note that Kofi Anan had put his finger on the problems of terrorism as primarily caused by failure of institutions to address economic, political and cultural inequalities. (Failing or failed states) Weak states allow normal people in government to suddenly become sociopaths and crazies and it is these people ususally that take hold of governments. Most of the Al Qaeda group come from countries where chopping heads is still an accepted from of state policy. All one has to do is take a good look at Al Qaeda and their counterparts in the U.S. government. The U.S. formula of Military Keynesianism is close to running its course.
Everything today in every country must be looked through the tangent of the Age of Empire and their new War vs. Islam and whomever they identify as terrorists.
The crazies are in charge of the White House and death squada are fashionable again. An environment of impunity was intitiated at the highest levels of empire. It is shocking how the press in the Philippines has been isolated from what is ongoing in the world concerning zero tolerance and pre-emptive warfare in an asymmetrical war. The military head of Gauntanamo just declared that the three recent suicides there was an act of war. An Undersecretary of State also declared that it was a PR move on the part of the prisoners. It appears that one of the prisoners was scheduled to be released but they neglected to inform him. Branding and marketing in this age of instant communication is crucial. Both Al Qaeda and the U.S. government are players.
Here in the Philippines we have our own set of crazies that are now the poster boys of the media.
Now we hear talk of The Final Solution coming from the hgoest levels of government against the enemies of the State. The legacy of the Totenkopf Division of the Schutzstaffel is alive and well here in the Philippines. They all started out as private armies (mercenaries) also.
Just recently the NY Times came out with an editorial lambasting the Pentagon for amending their manuals on the treatment of combatants implicitly allowing torture as a policy. This is the same Pentagon that trains and equips the Philippine military. The government has just signed a new agreement that allows for U.S. intervention in non-traditional instances. All of a sudden in the Philippines there is zero tolerance for the communists. It is no accident that John Negroponte also known as the father of Death Squads in Latin America is head of the the National Intelligence Community in the U.S.
Everyone should be made aware that the War on Terror is described by the U.S. military as an asymmetrical war. You shoot first and ask questions later. It is primarily a pre-emptive war. One side decides who the enemy is and unilateraaly decides on the predicate solutions.
The Philippines has continued to be the foot stool for U.S. interests in East Asia.
The policy in Iraq is zero tolerance wherein they brought free fire zones to free to fire on any Iraqi zone. Recently a pregnant woman being rushed to a hospital took a wrong turn and was shot to death. Hundreds of mistakes in the name of war have been committed. (Collateral Damage)
hvrds on Tue, 13th Jun 2006 1:11 pm
Editorial
Degrading America’s Image
*
Published: June 6, 2006
For more than seven decades, civilized nations have adhered to minimum standards of decent behavior toward prisoners of war — agreed to in the Geneva Conventions. They were respected by 12 presidents and generations of military leaders because they reflected this nation’s principles and gave Americans some protection if they were captured in wartime.
It took the Bush administration to make the world doubt Washington’s fidelity to the rules. And The Los Angeles Times, reporting yesterday on a dispute over updating the Army rulebook known as the Field Manual, reminded us that there is good reason to worry.
At issue is Directive 2310 on the treatment and questioning of prisoners, an annex to the Field Manual. It has long contained a reference to Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which covers all prisoners, whether they meet the common definition of prisoners of war or are the sort of prisoners the administration classifies as “unlawful enemy combatants,” like suspected members of the Taliban or Al Qaeda.
Article 3 prohibits the use of torture and other overt acts of violence. But Mr. Bush’s civilian lawyers removed it from the military rulebook over the objections of diplomats and military lawyers. Mr. Bush has said he does not condone torture, but he has also said he would decide for himself when to follow the ban on torture imposed by Congress last year. Removing the Geneva Conventions from Army regulations gives the world more cause for doubt.
Article 3 also prohibits “outrages on personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment.” (Remember the hooded man, the pyramids of naked prisoners?) The Pentagon says the new rules require humane treatment, but that is not much comfort, since the Bush team has shown that it does not define humane treatment the way most people do.
There are other aspects of Article 3 that this administration probably finds inconvenient, like its requirement that governments holding prisoners subject them to actual courts “affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.” The hearings at Guantánamo Bay hardly meet that description.
It defies belief that this administration is still clinging to its benighted policies on prisoners after the horrors of Abu Ghraib, the killings at American camps in Afghanistan and the world’s fresh outrage over what appears to have been the massacre of Iraqi men, women and children in the village of Haditha.
In Foreign Territory
The New York Times
Published: June 12, 2006
The U.S. Senate plans to begin consideration this week of the defense authorization bill for the coming year. One distressing section of the package would reauthorize the Pentagon to arm and train foreign militaries, something it was first authorized to do for 2006. Although the money involved represents only a $200 million piece of the half-trillion-dollar Pentagon budget, it marks the continuation of a dangerous militarization of American foreign policy.
Traditionally, the authority to train and equip foreign forces was the territory of the State Department. Arming a foreign power that does not respect human rights invites disaster. So Congress requires the State Department to verify that a government meets certain standards of human rights and democracy before it can receive assistance.
But no such restrictions impede the Defense Department, and the danger is more than theoretical. Six of the 10 African nations the Pentagon proposes to train and equip this year (Algeria, Cameroon, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon and Tunisia) have poor human rights records.
Washington has little control over how recipient countries choose to wield their newfound might, so train-and-equip programs must be kept under strict observation to ensure that they adhere to necessary guidelines. But the Pentagon is notorious for not operating transparently, and the congressional committees that are supposed to oversee Pentagon spending are unlikely to spare much attention for such a small piece of the overall military budget.
Congress should return these programs to State Department supervision. If it cannot summon the will to do that, it should at least mandate that the programs financed by the Pentagon conform to the same democratic and human rights standards that apply when they are run by the State Department.
The U.S. Senate plans to begin consideration this week of the defense authorization bill for the coming year. One distressing section of the package would reauthorize the Pentagon to arm and train foreign militaries, something it was first authorized to do for 2006. Although the money involved represents only a $200 million piece of the half-trillion-dollar Pentagon budget, it marks the continuation of a dangerous militarization of American foreign policy.
Traditionally, the authority to train and equip foreign forces was the territory of the State Department. Arming a foreign power that does not respect human rights invites disaster. So Congress requires the State Department to verify that a government meets certain standards of human rights and democracy before it can receive assistance.
But no such restrictions impede the Defense Department, and the danger is more than theoretical. Six of the 10 African nations the Pentagon proposes to train and equip this year (Algeria, Cameroon, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon and Tunisia) have poor human rights records.
Washington has little control over how recipient countries choose to wield their newfound might, so train-and-equip programs must be kept under strict observation to ensure that they adhere to necessary guidelines. But the Pentagon is notorious for not operating transparently, and the congressional committees that are supposed to oversee Pentagon spending are unlikely to spare much attention for such a small piece of the overall military budget.
Congress should return these programs to State Department supervision. If it cannot summon the will to do that, it should at least mandate that the programs financed by the Pentagon conform to the same democratic and human rights standards that apply when they are run by the State Department.
cvj on Tue, 13th Jun 2006 1:16 pm
I was surprised that Redscare took exception to your claim that most Filipinos don’t care that Leftists are being killed. I find the public’s reaction to these killings unjustifiably muted, but then again, maybe he’s right in pointing out that those who do care just don’t have the means to speak out. For his sake, I hope it’s not just a case of self-deception. On the part of the ‘middle’, however, the continuing lack of concern and even occasional rationalizations on this matter is a scandal.
moe on Tue, 13th Jun 2006 2:31 pm
JCastro
The operative word there is “Assuming.” What if you were to assume differently? That’s the trouble with us. We assume the worst and base all our reactions on that wrost-case assumption. In the meantime, rational queries like Rizalist’s are dismissed with bad supposition and sweeping generalizations, instead of being answered squarely.
mlq3 on Tue, 13th Jun 2006 2:47 pm
Rizalist: the evidence is, of course, anecdotal, not least because the government doesn’t seem inclined to be particularly concerned. at the very least, gen. palparan is one scary guy -and the goings-on in his command are pretty scary. more than one politically-active person i’ve talked to, and these are people by no stretch of the imagination friendly to those being murdered, has recounted how officers and soldiers visit civilian officials, inform them that they have people under surveillance, make veiled warnings about expecting results, and then organize “anti-communist” rallies that are far from spontaneous.
i was told one baranggay captain visited in this manner told the soldiers, “this is not the way to deal with elected civilian officials,” and he was right. at the same time, the officers and men doing the visiting speak of palparan in glowing terms.
of course it’s possible that some of the killings are internal liquidations -but the killings are so extensive they require us to ask -first, can’t government prevent such killings? and second, the intimidation being real, and the killings at least in palparan’s command so obvious, what if it spills over to become afp policy?
Carl on Tue, 13th Jun 2006 2:58 pm
The middle’s attitude is: “You made your bed..then lie in it.” The majority of Filipinos are aware of the Communist tactic of using the sword and the shield. They are ruthless when on the attack. But when they get bloodied, they use the shield of media and human rights. This is the very tactic Jose Maria Sison and Boy Morales envisioned when they created the National Democratic Front and other umbrella organizations. Fortunately, the people see through this sleigh of hand being attempted by the Communists.
And Rizalist is correct. There is no proof that government or the military has a hand in the killings of Communist front leaders. It is all propaganda and assumptions. For the longest time, the Communists denied involvement in the Plaza Miranda bombing. Years later they were proven to have carried it out. Infighting within the Communist organization has often resulted in their killing their own. This was proven to have happened in the late ’70’s. And more recently, we have had the killings of Kintanar and others which were carried out by the Communists themselves. With such a bunch of ruthless brigands and cutthroats, anything is possible. The majority of the people do well not to be drawn into hostilities that they have nothing to do with nor want to have anything to do with. It is only to the interest of Communists and their front organizations to draw the public in.
cvj on Tue, 13th Jun 2006 3:53 pm
The lack of concern for the killing of a fellow human being because of differences in ideology is one of the defective characteristics of today’s middle forces. It reveals just what sort of belief system a lot in the middle share about issues concerning justice and human rights. As an excuse, the left has often been accused of trying to use the institutions of democracy for its own purposes, but considering current events, this is a red herring. The ones who are actually guilty of hijacking democracy are the members of the middle via Gloria Arroyo and her [tacit] supporters. Today, it is the middle who is abusing both the ’sword and the shield’.
anna de brux on Tue, 13th Jun 2006 4:57 pm
I despise the Arroyo government for allowing the political killings to remain unchecked and for major crimes to be committed on any, I repeat, any citizen of the republic.
I’m not left leaning, not a nat dem, not a socialist, not a “red,” etc. but one need not be a communist or a leftist sympanthiser to denounce this government of liars, thieves and cheats for being extremely diabolical; one need not be a left-leaning ideologist to call for the head of vicious Palparan. Palparan, a junior Pol Pot in the making if he could have his way, has no place in a civilized society. He does and says these atrocious things for all the wrong reasons – they stem from a sense of inferiority complex (from the time he was a junior officer) because he is not a PMAer and wants to prove that he is as good if not better. He is under-educated so lives by the dogma that might is right. I know this odious fellow…
If by opposing this despicable government, I am tagged a “leftist”, why, I won’t even give Gloria and Palparan a sideward glance – to me, they are merely power greedy parvenus who should be hanged from the highest lamp post by their toes at the earliest opportunity.
Carl on Tue, 13th Jun 2006 6:56 pm
Plaza Miranda, the paranoia over the “Zombies” and the brutal mass murders that resulted from it, Romy Kintanar, Arturo Tabara. Lately, perhaps Sotero Llamas. The Communists will not stop killing until they achieve their sinister end. Which is to grab total and abolute power for themselves. In the meantime, they use squid tactics and hide behind umbrella organizations while their armed component goes on murdering thousands of Filipinos. And because the public won’t be fooled, their sympathizers blame the apathy of the middle class. Apathy because the Filipinos don’t want to be taken for a ride by agitprop? Preposterous.
Of course, there are still others who may not share the same ideology but, for personal reasons, will strike a pact with the devil at any cost. These people have their own personal agenda. But the public is now smart enough not to fight their battles for them. And in frustration these provocateurs call the public apathetic.
anna de brux on Tue, 13th Jun 2006 8:51 pm
Carl,
You are absolutely right! No conservative education, political pedigree, distinct intelligence, convent or Catholic breeding could ward off the devil when power and money beckons…
Gloria and husband are living examples of people who, for persoanl reasons and agenda struck a pact with the devil and the leftists at any cost to go over and beyond their real station in life. Mike Arroyo wasn’t rich contrary to belief – whatever his family had had been divided if not squandered before the political mana got to them while Gloria, whose pedigree may indeed count a president of the republic, in terms of real social class distinction would be considered a parvenu.
So, just like the Communists that you deplore, Gloria and her band of terribly petit bourgeois social and political parvenus will not stop killing people of any political denomination until they’ve firmly entrenched themselves in power and stuffed their pockets with money that they looted and continue to loot from the coffers of the state with shamelss impunity.
A significant portion of the public, though smart, fought the battle to enable her and her minions to commit a coup d’état because they thought she was of a better mould. Fortunately, there are those who did so have now discovered that Gloria is not worth the ground they walk on… She is and will remain a miserable, ugly duckling for she is morally and physically depraved.
(My profound apologies to the petit bourgeois class who by their station in life may feel slighted by my remarks – to them I say, (borrowing from MLq3°), that is not my intention; that the class is not a problem because at the end of the day, inherent distinction between “petit” and “petit”: there are a vast number of our compatriots of the petit bourgeois class who distinguish themselves in that they are neither social nor political parvenus like Gloria and her minions; they are people who will not sacrifice their inherent moral class for a Gloria’s petit hand out….)
cvj on Tue, 13th Jun 2006 8:54 pm
It does not require anything more than basic human decency to condemn the killings of the leftists. Our history shows that no one group has a monopoly on atrocities or squid tactics. The right, the left and even the middle forces has its civilized and murderous elements. If our community is to remain livable, its members who claim to be civilized should not tolerate any form of violence or injustice whatever its motivation.
The Bystander on Tue, 13th Jun 2006 9:02 pm
FIRST, I agree with Anna in toto as regards her last comment.
SECOND, I despise and condemn all political killings whether the perpetrators be government-sponsored or be they the handiwork of communists killing those who do not share their beliefs.
THIRD, allow me to share this thought from Mr. Renato Constantino: “Whenever a new idea is espoused, protectors of the status quo immediately pounce upon the exponents as subversives. If we wish to assure our democracy a truly working existence, we must not be afraid to place all advocacies — from the lunatic fringe of the right to the left-wing infantilists — within the framework of civil liberties. We proclaim our belief in freedom of thought, yet we act as if any leftist advocacy is illegal and we label anything new as subversive. What we forget is the fact that when advocates of change are allowed to present their viewpoints, society is not necessarily called upon to believe in their wisdom. Society, any democratic society, is merely called upon to grant these advocates their good intentions. The advocates of the new must be credited with the same good will as the holders of power. They too, may be working for the general good. To treat them as mere conspirators is to beg the argument and to squelch any debate. To respect the good faith of these advocates does not mean to agree with them. We must deal with their argument on its own merits, not attempt to discredit them by invective. To call them the enemies of democracy is to behave like the Romans who condemned the Christians as atheists simply because they worshipped in a new way.”
FOURTH, has anyone here read and understood in full the books of Marx, Lenin or Mao? If you haven’t, better rethink your positions and examine from a distance if what you are critical about is not mixed up with bias and prejudice borne out of influence from the “Cold War” syndrome of the 70’s or from local Palparan propaganda version 2006. I’m not an ardent supporter of communism or even socialism per se. I’m for liberal democracy. But if you look closely, some of their proposals for substantive change are worth taking a second look.
anna de brux on Tue, 13th Jun 2006 9:06 pm
CVJ, I concur…
The Bystander on Tue, 13th Jun 2006 9:13 pm
I mean, I agree with Anna as regards this comment of hers:
“I despise the Arroyo government for allowing the political killings to remain unchecked and for major crimes to be committed on any, I repeat, any citizen of the republic.
I’m not left leaning, not a nat dem, not a socialist, not a “red,†etc. but one need not be a communist or a leftist sympanthiser to denounce this government of liars, thieves and cheats for being extremely diabolical; one need not be a left-leaning ideologist to call for the head of vicious Palparan. Palparan, a junior Pol Pot in the making if he could have his way, has no place in a civilized society. He does and says these atrocious things for all the wrong reasons – they stem from a sense of inferiority complex (from the time he was a junior officer) because he is not a PMAer and wants to prove that he is as good if not better. He is under-educated so lives by the dogma that might is right. I know this odious fellow…
If by opposing this despicable government, I am tagged a “leftistâ€, why, I won’t even give Gloria and Palparan a sideward glance – to me, they are merely power greedy parvenus who should be hanged from the highest lamp post by their toes at the earliest opportunity.
Go Anna! Let’s kick Gloria out!
Carl on Tue, 13th Jun 2006 9:16 pm
Pity the poor sods who are so obsessed with Gloria Arroyo. Objectivity isn’t their concern. Nevermind if the class struggle has been going on for decades.
As for squid tactics, it is gratifying to note that a sympathizer admits that the Communists have murderous elements within their ranks.
The Bystander on Tue, 13th Jun 2006 9:16 pm
MLQ3,
Why are my comments the only ones awaiting moderation? Am I still welcome to share my thoughts here? Hope I’m wrong.
mlq3 on Tue, 13th Jun 2006 9:38 pm
bystander, no clue. as a general rule, comments with links get held up for moderation by the software. perhaps if you comment with links a few times, it tends to automatically put you on hold. but nothing to fear, no problem with your comments or commenting.
mlq3 on Tue, 13th Jun 2006 9:41 pm
Carl, your view is interesting. What internal problems would make it ideal for the CPP to both publicly purge local leaders, and how have they managed to pin the blame on the AFP? Is Palparan merely a bogey created by left-leaning media?
cvj on Tue, 13th Jun 2006 9:48 pm
Bystander, what amazes me is the extent to which people can still get taken in by Cold War rhetoric. It’s as if the Berlin Wall never fell. I don’t know about Mao or Lenin, but i think it still pays to study Marx for his insights on Capitalism.
The Bystander on Tue, 13th Jun 2006 10:01 pm
“MLQ3,
You seem convinced that the killings are the work of the government. Is this a reliable position to take? Do you actually have the facts on a large enough sample of the killings to generalize? What would the govt gain by such killings. For example, of Sotero Llamas? I only ask because I frankly don’t know who is responsible for them. Yet I am very uncomfortable that everyone seems to assume the killings are political assassinations by the Military against natdems. Do you or does anyone know for a fact that some of this is not the eternally deadly, intensely internal feuds within the communist movement? –RIZALIST”
Res ipsa loquitor. The thing speaks for itself, DJB.
1. If these are merely the results of internal feuds between and among leftists, why commit them at such a time/period when they are fighting one common evil enemy in the person of Gloria and her minions? Why give the government a reason to pin the blame on the leftists themselves?
2. Do you have to actually investigate each and every killing/murder of activists to convince yourself that indeed these political killings are being perpetrated by the government? Looking back, do I have to have personal knowledge or at least conduct a personal probe to satisfy my intellect that it was Marcos or any of his sympathizers who ordered the assasination of Ninoy Aquino? Or the 10,000 human rights victims perhaps? My gosh, DJB. We are not in a court of law where strict application of the rules of evidence is a condition sine qua non to obtain a conviction. That will come later. We are before the bar of public opinion where the application of the rules on evidence is not given a privileged status.
3. When GMA, DOJ Gonzalez, NSA Gonzales and her generals started to blame the Left and label them as destabilizers and as part of the imagined conspiracy to oust them from power, the political killings increased. In areas where Palparan was assigned, there is not an instance where no activist is killed. Even for the failure of government to abate these killings, blood is already in their hands.
4. We have an Administration whose leaders have lost all morality and decency in their insatiable lust for power. So killing leftists — the weakest link of the anti-Gloria movement (they know that even some of the anti-Gloria middle forces abhor them) — won’t bother their conscience. What would the government gain from these killings? They are being set as grim examples to those whould oppose them that they will suffer the same fate if they continue to mess around.
The Bystander on Tue, 13th Jun 2006 10:12 pm
Oops.. thanks for the explanation MLQ3.
juan makabayan on Wed, 14th Jun 2006 1:09 am
“MLQ3,
You seem convinced that the killings are the work of the government. … –RIZALISTâ€
I was at a rally held up by the police/military phalanx at Morayta where a stage was set, program held, speeches delivered. When Satur went upstage holding a doc, angry at gov’t attempt at his arrest, the police/military men started hissing ‘komunista’. I was mingling along between the two sides, and non-chalantly I laughed and even smiled broadly in my amusement at the utter ’simple-mindedness’, almost childishly naive, instinctve reaction of some hissing police guys to Satur who in his passionate speech fell short of admitting,” I am a communist, and proud of it,, and ready to die for it,” for which the Red crowd might have felt “bitin”. I laughed inwardly, smiling broadly, profoundly amused at the whole scenario. I was there in the midst, smack in the middle of a phalanx of pre-programmed zombied brainwashed robocops on my right and on my left, a crowd of Red-flag-waving, ‘Red wine’ intoxicated, indocrinated militat demagogues herding the hungry, homeless, beat-up desperate folks who couldn’t care less who Mao was nor what Marcos did.
Point is, in the middle, we’re lost, no one to lead, nowhere to go. We lost it, we missed the boat. The season for change, for an honest-to-goodness revolution, has passed. Now are the days of reckoning: what have we learned? done? what’s up ahead?
The Bystander on Wed, 14th Jun 2006 1:55 am
Those in the middle should take the lead. Sadly, most of them, afraid to lose the privileges and perks accorded them, are more than willing to kiss the ass of the fake President. They find it more convenient to dance with the music, Cha-cha even, so long as they remain untouched in their comfort zones!
The left cannot take the lead. More so with the right. So much bias has been levelled against them that every move they make is almost always reacted to with raised eyebrows.
cvj on Wed, 14th Jun 2006 2:33 am
Bystander, why not? In Latin America, the Left *is* already taking the lead. Many of the countries in that continent are either ruled by the moderate left or the hard left. With our discredited Middle and a Right that has nothing to offer to the majority, that is also bound to happen over here once enough people come around. Not necessarily a bad thing, imho.
micketymoc on Wed, 14th Jun 2006 9:57 am
“We are before the bar of public opinion where the application of the rules on evidence is not given a privileged status.”
Thanks for clearing that up!
juan makabayan on Wed, 14th Jun 2006 1:54 pm
cvj, bystander,
Left-lead or right-lead ‘revolutionary councils’, and in between, were hardsell ‘promo offerings’ at the people-power-coalition-patasikin-si-gloria-rally ‘revolution’ tiangges last year. It was ridiculous. I chided a progresibo socdem leader for starting the ‘revo-council’ ball rolling again onstage at Ayala, “People won’t buy it. Who would/should/could appoint whom?” You hear same ‘promo package’ from extreme left to extreme rigt, from Satur to Abat, but what’s inside each package are mortal enemies in the jungle of real-politics. But for the ‘patalsikin si gloria’ expediency, incompatible political creatures just converge without really being ideologically reconciled much less united.
3Q 2003 caucus of ‘midddle-left’ socdem, I told a member that 1) there is a power vacuum
2) it was/is for the silent majority to move in to, if it does not, extremists opportunists will try to move in to that vacuum.
3) they must present a clear and specific political agenda that can galvanize and mobilize the people,
upto now this had been what we are looking for, Q3 2003 was the ‘last two minutes’ when a powerful people’s movement should have been galvanaized, 2004 is the year of the Revolution that never was, it was instead the year of Gloria’s ‘fait acompli’, when the deed was done, by sheer cunning and iniquity GMA had moved in to the power vacuum,
what now, unto the breach? (?)nto the breach.
The Bystander on Wed, 14th Jun 2006 6:01 pm
“We are before the bar of public opinion where the application of the rules on evidence is not given a privileged status.â€
Thanks for clearing that up!
micketymoc said this on June 14th, 2006 at 9:57 am”
–So what’s your point micketymoc?
The Bystander on Wed, 14th Jun 2006 6:17 pm
“Bystander, why not? In Latin America, the Left *is* already taking the lead. Many of the countries in that continent are either ruled by the moderate left or the hard left. With our discredited Middle and a Right that has nothing to offer to the majority, that is also bound to happen over here once enough people come around. Not necessarily a bad thing, imho.
cvj said this on June 14th, 2006 at 2:33 am”
Theoretically, anybody could lead be they from the Left, Right, Middle. I’m speaking, however, from a practical point of view. In a country like the Philippines where perception is equated with reality, the general public’s perception of the Left has always been an antagonistic one. With that kind of environment, it would be hard for the Left to convince the moderates or the indifferent middle class.
cvj on Wed, 14th Jun 2006 7:22 pm
Juan makabayan, i agree the idea of revolutionary councils is a non-starter as it should be. the left has to sell its ideas during elections just like every other political candidate. Forget the middle, it did not hold so it no longer counts.
Bystander, point taken, the left needs to discard some of its tired old dogma and do some updating in light of recent history. Nonetheless, if it can be done in Latin America, it’s certainly possible here. Without a run-off, a youngish ex-military type running on a leftist platform may capture enough votes among the poor just like what almost happened in Peru (but they had a run-off).
juan makabayan on Wed, 14th Jun 2006 11:53 pm
cvj,
in latin america, particularly Nicaragua and El Salvador, liberation theology, complementing the communist ideology, played a key role before, during and after the revolution. similar but not same is the scenario here. liberation theology was rejected subsequently by pope jpII. the institutional church is a formidable political swing factor. cbcp’s statements are ‘on the ball’, calling on the lay to be involved, participate and ‘the gifted and the called’, to lead. cha-cha is gma’s central agenda, aside from the senate, only the church can block it. gma will go for it, maybe succeed for a while but ultimately the church will prevail. good if gma backs off, better if she gets off, steps down, while she still can manage a proper exit. apparently the context is not just political.
comelecAKO on Thu, 15th Jun 2006 12:43 am
Bystander,
micketymoc was probably pointing out that that’s a pretty unlawyerly statement coming from a lawyer. indeed, coming from someone who professes to cleave to the principles of democracy and the rule of law.
to abdicate the rule of law in favor of the bar of public opinion is like abandoning logic and order to chaotic, unreasoning passion. Nothing wrong with passion, but shouldn’t condemnation be based more on more solid and reliable grounds than emotion? especially when we all know how easy it is to whip the public up into a frenzy?
cvj on Thu, 15th Jun 2006 2:54 am
juanmakabayan, for Nicaragua and El Salvador, the connection seems clear. However, i wonder how much the recent electoral victories of the left in countries like Bolivia and Venezuela can be traced to the earlier groundwork on liberation theology as these came about sometime after the Pope’s repudiation. In any case, thanks for pointing that out. Over here, i can imagine how the Church hierarchy can be made to feel more comfortable with the convent-bred Arroyo. We can only hope by this time, they would have learned their lesson from their counterparts in other countries.
comelecAko, you’ve just made up a false opposition between ‘rule of law’ and ‘public opinion’. After that, you proceed to equate ‘public opinion’ with ‘unreasoning passion’. Finally, you go on to dismiss ‘passion’. Easy enough, but all you’ve done is to demolish your own strawman. First of all, it’s too early to talk about rule of law, since while the public is witness to a crime, the culprits haven’t been apprehended yet. Second, ‘public opinion’ is not to be considered automatically inferior. What matters when it comes to opinions is its underlying basis and logic. Third, emotion in this case, is not the ground, but rather, the reaction to a disconnect between what is and what should be.
The Bystander on Thu, 15th Jun 2006 3:20 am
“Bystander,
micketymoc was probably pointing out that that’s a pretty unlawyerly statement coming from a lawyer. indeed, coming from someone who professes to cleave to the principles of democracy and the rule of law.
to abdicate the rule of law in favor of the bar of public opinion is like abandoning logic and order to chaotic, unreasoning passion. Nothing wrong with passion, but shouldn’t condemnation be based more on more solid and reliable grounds than emotion? especially when we all know how easy it is to whip the public up into a frenzy?
comelecAKO said this on June 15th, 2006 at 12:43 am”
My statement, re: “We are before the bar of public opinion where the application of the rules on evidence is not given a privileged status.” ..should be understood in the context of my antecedent statements in the same paragraph. I was criticizing DJB then for his insistence that there must be solid evidence before making any conclusions on government’s involvement in the killings of activists. Of course, there is no problem with that. As I said in that comment thread, the matter of presenting evidence will come later when formal charges are filed against these murderers. The only point I want to drive at is this: It only takes COMMON SENSE for one to realize — based on the timing, the motivation, the pronouncements Gonzalez and Gonzales and the AFP (Palparan in particular) — that government has something to do with these dastardly crimes. By analogy, do I have to have with me a tampered election return or even a fake ballot to conclude for myself that there is indeed cheating during elections? Do I have to conduct a probe into all departments of government before I can say for myself that graft and corruption is the rule and honesty the exception?
What’s so unlawyerly with that? Just because I have made up my mind on a particular issue does not mean I’m already abdicating the rule of law. First and foremost I am a citizen of this country, and as such, I am entitled to whatever I want to believe in. The freedom to believe is absolute. It’s the freedom to act on one’s belief that is not. Sadly, this government is acting desperately and ruthlessly because of the belief that those who oppose it are destabilizers and enemies of democracy.
That’s why it’s called “public opinion” because it isn’t just my own, it’s a belief shared by many, meaning the public at large.
juan makabayan on Thu, 15th Jun 2006 12:43 pm
cvj,
The Docrine of Liberation theology may have been repudiated but its spirit remains strong in latin america for it is ingrained in the ‘basic ecclessial communities’(bec’s) that were founded when the doctrine fused the people and the church, the temporal and divine in a militant struggle for the Kingdom.
You know what?
The development and strengthening of the bec’s is actually ‘the’ real revolution. Our current social crisis is a reflection, manifestation, indication of the state of development of bec’s. If we refresh our notion (google) of basic ecclessial communities (protestants: basic christian) we’ll realize its relevance to the social changes that we hope for and blog about.
antonio walanglaban on Thu, 15th Jun 2006 3:54 pm
Awright, bystander! Hah! Get mo yon, comelecKA? basta lahat kami naniniwala sa isang bagay, pwede na naming ipagsigawan sa kalye na tama kami. Tutal, opinyon namin yon! Halimbawa, kapag napaniwala namin ang mga masa na si Gloria ang nang-holdap sa jeep na sinasakyan ko kagabi, ay hindi na mahalaga kung siya nga talaga yon. Ang importante, ay maraming nag-aagree na boses nya yung narinig namin, pandak yung holdaper, at ubod ng yaman si Gloria – aba! saan nya pa nakuha yung pera kundi sa pang-hoholdap ng maraming jeep? Sentido komon lang yan!
The Bystander on Fri, 16th Jun 2006 12:47 am
“Awright, bystander! Hah! Get mo yon, comelecKA? basta lahat kami naniniwala sa isang bagay, pwede na naming ipagsigawan sa kalye na tama kami. Tutal, opinyon namin yon! Halimbawa, kapag napaniwala namin ang mga masa na si Gloria ang nang-holdap sa jeep na sinasakyan ko kagabi, ay hindi na mahalaga kung siya nga talaga yon. Ang importante, ay maraming nag-aagree na boses nya yung narinig namin, pandak yung holdaper, at ubod ng yaman si Gloria – aba! saan nya pa nakuha yung pera kundi sa pang-hoholdap ng maraming jeep? Sentido komon lang yan!
antonio walanglaban said this on June 15th, 2006 at 3:54 pm”
–Was that what I meant ANTONIO WALANGLABAN? Obviously, that statement of yours speaks for itself. Sorry, but your comment does not even deserve a reaction. Wala nga talaga akong laban pag ganyan mag-isip at tumuligsa ang mga kumakampi sa peke at magnanakaw!
antonio walanglaban on Fri, 16th Jun 2006 12:52 am
asus. kaw naman. porke ba di-agree sa iyo, kampi na ng kalaban?
cvj on Fri, 16th Jun 2006 1:28 am
Juanmakabayan, i did not realize the connection until you pointed it out. I’m definitely going to pursue this line of thinking further.
Bystander, don’t you notice how they have to deliberately misinterpret your points into a suitably weak enough form before supposedly addressing them? I’m all for sarcasm but not when it’s being used to obscure the discussion. It tends to get stale.
antonio walanglaban on Fri, 16th Jun 2006 2:26 am
ano kamo, cvj?
“I was criticizing DJB then for his insistence that there must be solid evidence before making any conclusions on government’s involvement in the killings of activists. Of course, there is no problem with that. As I said in that comment thread, the matter of presenting evidence will come later when formal charges are filed against these murderers.”
?consider them guilty, call them murderers and THEN bring formal charges?
“It only takes COMMON SENSE for one to realize — based on the timing, the motivation, the pronouncements Gonzalez and Gonzales and the AFP (Palparan in particular) — that government has something to do with these dastardly crimes.”
?timing?motivation?pronouncements? circumstantial lahat yan ‘pre. aren’t the oppositionists up in arms because these were precisely the same sort of justifications for that abortion — the “constructive resignation” doctrine?
naman, ‘tol. hindi lahat ng oposisyonista ay
antonio walanglaban on Fri, 16th Jun 2006 2:30 am
ano kamo, cvj?
“I was criticizing DJB then for his insistence that there must be solid evidence before making any conclusions on government’s involvement in the killings of activists. Of course, there is no problem with that. As I said in that comment thread, the matter of presenting evidence will come later when formal charges are filed against these murderers.â€
?consider them guilty, call them murderers and THEN bring formal charges?
“It only takes COMMON SENSE for one to realize — based on the timing, the motivation, the pronouncements Gonzalez and Gonzales and the AFP (Palparan in particular) — that government has something to do with these dastardly crimes.â€
?timing?motivation?pronouncements? circumstantial lahat yan ‘pre. aren’t the oppositionists up in arms because these were precisely the same sort of justifications for that abortion — the “constructive resignation†doctrine?
naman, ‘tol. hindi lahat ng oposisyonista ay walang pakundangan kung mag-komento. meron namang gumagamit pa rin ng lohika. maliban na lang yung sa sobrang galit ay nakaklimutan na yung pinaghihiyawang “adherence to the rule of law” ay dapat ding ina-apply sa sarili.
anna de brux on Fri, 16th Jun 2006 3:03 am
Antonio Walang…,
Tama ka…”maliban na lang yung sa sobrang galit ay nakaklimutan na yung pinaghihiyawang “adherence to the rule of law†ay dapat ding ina-apply sa sarili.”
Would you be so kind as to send that message to Gloria too, please? Baka makining siya sa iyo.
anna de brux on Fri, 16th Jun 2006 3:03 am
Antonio Walang…,
Tama ka…”maliban na lang yung sa sobrang galit ay nakaklimutan na yung pinaghihiyawang “adherence to the rule of law†ay dapat ding ina-apply sa sarili.”
Would you be so kind as to send that message to Gloria too, please? Baka makining siya sa iyo.
moe on Fri, 16th Jun 2006 3:07 am
gladly, mz. anna
moe on Fri, 16th Jun 2006 3:09 am
gladly mz. anna. coz i don’t think this antonio feller will have teh balls to do it himself
anna de brux on Fri, 16th Jun 2006 3:15 am
Eh ben, Monsieur Moe… quand même!!!! (That was supposed to be a statement in the second degree – il ne fallait pas trop etaler en publique….)
moe on Fri, 16th Jun 2006 3:29 am
cvj on Fri, 16th Jun 2006 3:32 am
antonio, he did say ‘bring formal charges’ – that to me, satisfies ‘adherence to the rule of law’. it would have been a different thing altogether if bystander happened to be the presiding judge on this matter, which is probably not the case. There is also the pattern of action, inaction and pronouncements by the administration as described above and in the links from the previous post on this matter. http://www.quezon.ph/?p=921 Far greater than Bystander’s rhetorical excesses, it is the government that is guilty of discouraging ‘adherence to the rule of law’. As a member of the public, you are of course well within your right to refuse to recognize the bigger issue and spend your time nitpicking the statements of someone who does.
juan makabayan on Fri, 16th Jun 2006 2:19 pm
cvj,
the danger of liberation theology is in the subsumming of the eternal into the temporal. the cbcp’s tract and tact is superior to liberation theology — pastoral diligence and social vigilance
cvj on Fri, 16th Jun 2006 3:56 pm
juanmakabayan, in what way would that be a danger? i could see the mixing of eternal and temporal in the case of the Islamic theocracies but as for the Latin American political movements, the ruling Left has retained its secular character.
The Bystander on Fri, 16th Jun 2006 10:41 pm
“Bystander, don’t you notice how they have to deliberately misinterpret your points into a suitably weak enough form before supposedly addressing them? I’m all for sarcasm but not when it’s being used to obscure the discussion. It tends to get stale.
cvj said this on June 16th, 2006 at 1:28 am”
I’ve noticed that too, cvj. These people deliberately misinterpret my statements instead of answering them squarely. Ya, sarcasm is a good way to camouflage the bankruptcy of one’s arguments!
juan makabayan on Fri, 16th Jun 2006 11:17 pm
cvj,
as above, the problem is when the eternal is subsummed or included or taken in the context of the temporal. it should be the other way around. Understandably, this is not a subject that really should be taken in the context of political or social reform, although it can be approached from that angle, it is better to start from where real change should first happen,
you cited two good distinct examples: in a theocracy it is not ‘a mix of’ but ‘eternal over temporal’; on the other hand as in Latin America the gov’t may remain secular but the society as a whole, of which government is but a part, could change, reform, be transformed according to either secular or religious influence. the kind of gov’t obtaining thereby is both an agent and a consequence of change, as such it either works with or contends with the church. observe what has been happening here. in the aftermath of tragic, bloody edsa3, bishop bacani expressed an insightful lament: “a failure of evangelization”. (he, by the way, wrote a book “church in politics”) but edsa3 is a natural consequence of edse2 in which the church’s role was crucial, now in ‘mea culpa’ mode(re-evaluate edsa2) they are more careful, measured. the church vis a vis the gov, so far, with the present cbcp, is more balanced, the bishops knowing that pastoring (i.e. evangelization) is priority and the key.
we can compare different characters of priest-activists from fr luis jalandoni(priests-turned-rebels are one concern of LibTheology, from the spiritual high-ground to the battle-ground), to fr intengan, fr r.reyes to fr polinar(b.e.c org/specialist) to demonstrate the broad range of direction the gov’t – church interaction could take.
To exorcise the illusion of an enchanted kingdom here is a vision for every Filipino to hope for:
A Pastoral Exhortation for the Year of Social Concerns http://abplagdameo.blogspot.com/2006/05/building-civilization-of-love-pastoral.html
anna de brux on Fri, 16th Jun 2006 11:22 pm
Aha Bystander,
I bet Gloria and her minions will never be bankrupt – the Philippines will be but never the Glori & Mike Pidal Arroyo family.
Dagdag, dagdag, Dagdag, dagdag,Dagdag, dagdag,Dagdag, dagdag,Dagdag, dagdag,Dagdag, dagdag,Dagdag, dagdag,Dagdag, dagdag, ad vitam eternam!
Even the Pinoy penchant for reproduction cannot catch up with Gloria’s systematic dagdag…
The Bystander on Fri, 16th Jun 2006 11:32 pm
“?consider them guilty, call them murderers and THEN bring formal charges?”
Why, antoniowalanglaban? For example, is a victim of a crime not entitled to believe at the outset (even before a case is filed) that a crime has been committed and that a suspect is probably guilty thereof? Precisely the reason why a victim of a crime SUBSEQUENTLY files a case in court is because he/she believes (based on testimonial, object, circumstantial, etc. evidence) that the “suspect” is guilty. It would be the height of absurdity for someone to file a case in court who is not convinced or does not believe that a crime has been committed against him.
“?timing?motivation?pronouncements? circumstantial lahat yan ‘pre. aren’t the oppositionists up in arms because these were precisely the same sort of justifications for that abortion — the “constructive resignation†doctrine?”
False analogy yan, pre’. Read and understand the SC ruling carefully before you make any comparison between what is happening now with the extrajudicial killings and Erap’s supposed resignation circa 2001. And since you were the one who interposed such analogy, it is your DUTY to explain the same here.
“naman, ‘tol. hindi lahat ng oposisyonista ay walang pakundangan kung mag-komento. meron namang gumagamit pa rin ng lohika. maliban na lang yung sa sobrang galit ay nakaklimutan na yung pinaghihiyawang “adherence to the rule of law†ay dapat ding ina-apply sa sarili.”
Logic, you say? May I remind you with this?: “Awright, bystander! Hah! Get mo yon, comelecKA? basta lahat kami naniniwala sa isang bagay, pwede na naming ipagsigawan sa kalye na tama kami. Tutal, opinyon namin yon! Halimbawa, kapag napaniwala namin ang mga masa na si Gloria ang nang-holdap sa jeep na sinasakyan ko kagabi, ay hindi na mahalaga kung siya nga talaga yon. Ang importante, ay maraming nag-aagree na boses nya yung narinig namin, pandak yung holdaper, at ubod ng yaman si Gloria – aba! saan nya pa nakuha yung pera kundi sa pang-hoholdap ng maraming jeep? Sentido komon lang yan!
antonio walanglaban said this on June 15th, 2006 at 3:54 pm”
In addition, at itatagalog ko para mas lalo momg maintindihan (syensya na sa tagalog ko pre, bisaya man gud ko!), hindi porke’t galit ang isang tao ay nakalimutan na nyang i-apply sa sarili ang “adherence to the rule of law”. hindi mo siguro naisip na kaya may mga taong galit tulad ko ay ay dahil galit na galit sila sa mga taong pumapatay, nangungurakot at nagsisinungaling. kung hindi tayo magagalit, medyo kailangan na natin sigurong magpatingin sa doktor. Get’s mo, pre?
The Bystander on Fri, 16th Jun 2006 11:42 pm
Hahaha, Anna!
One more thing, Arroyo has earmarked 1 billion pesos to finance the military’s all-out war against the communists with a shorter timetable — two years! My God, this woman who insists to be called President has gone mad..
I smell blood in the air!
antonio walanglaban on Sat, 17th Jun 2006 12:38 am
asus, dong. let me see if i can make this clearer.
Sabi mo, “It only takes COMMON SENSE for one to realize — based on the timing, the motivation, the pronouncements Gonzalez and Gonzales and the AFP (Palparan in particular) — that government has something to do with these dastardly crimes.” (Tagalugin ko ha – Sentido komon lang ang kailangan para malaman – base sa kung kailan naganap ang pagpaslang, sa motibo, at sa mga sinasabi nina Gonzales atbp., na may kinalaman ang gobyerno sa mga krimeng ito. – Pansinin mo, mahal na tagabasa, walang mention ng proof o pruweba. Puro circumstantial evidence lang.)
Ang sabi ko: Ang importante, ay maraming nag-aagree na boses nya yung narinig namin, pandak yung holdaper, at ubod ng yaman si Gloria – aba! saan nya pa nakuha yung pera kundi sa pang-hoholdap ng maraming jeep? [Linawin ko ha? - What matters is that we all agree that it was Gloria's voice that we heard (that the timing was right), the mugger was short (the motivation was present), and Gloria is ridiculously wealthy - where else could she have gotten her wealth but by robbing jeeps? (and Gonzales et al said things that sounded suspiciously like approval of the killings - same non-sequitur, DA! and all circumstantial)]
Sabi mo pa, “I am entitled to whatever I want to believe in.”
Sagot ko naman, “basta lahat kami naniniwala sa isang bagay, pwede na naming ipagsigawan sa kalye na tama kami. Tutal, opinyon namin yon!” (Inglisin natin – We can shout out whatever we believe in, because we are entitled to our opinion. — Sound familiar?)
Seriously, the details differ, but the rationalization remains the same. We don’t need proof to believe so long as the circumstances add up to a conclusion that we are comfortable with. Is that your right? Absolutely. And did I say that you don’t have the right to say it? I didn’t. Ang pinahihiwatig ko ay hindi ako sang-ayon sa takbo ng pagdadahilan mo. Di ba, sabi ko pa nga: asus. kaw naman. porke ba di-agree sa iyo, kampi na ng kalaban?
Tapos, ito pa:
“?consider them guilty, call them murderers and THEN bring formal charges?â€
Why, antoniowalanglaban? For example, is a victim of a crime not entitled to believe at the outset (even before a case is filed) that a crime has been committed and that a suspect is probably guilty thereof? Precisely the reason why a victim of a crime SUBSEQUENTLY files a case in court is because he/she believes (based on testimonial, object, circumstantial, etc. evidence) that the “suspect†is guilty. It would be the height of absurdity for someone to file a case in court who is not convinced or does not believe that a crime has been committed against him.
Ano na nangyari sa innocent until proven guilty? Ang tao ay naghahabla kasi naniniwala siyang guilty yung kalaban niya, but the Court cannot be given that same luxury. The only thing that the Court can do is adhere to the rules of law and evidence to prove that a wrong has been committed and that the accused is guilty. If you criticize someone for adhering to that same standard, then maybe something is wrong with your standards. And do we have to apply the same stringent standards of law and evidence to the formulation of our own opinions? Absolutely. I don’t even know why I have to point that out to you.
“?timing?motivation?pronouncements? circumstantial lahat yan ‘pre. aren’t the oppositionists up in arms because these were precisely the same sort of justifications for that abortion — the “constructive resignation†doctrine?â€
False analogy yan, pre’. Read and understand the SC ruling carefully before you make any comparison between what is happening now with the extrajudicial killings and Erap’s supposed resignation circa 2001. And since you were the one who interposed such analogy, it is your DUTY to explain the same here.
Mali ka, tol. Di ko inihahambing ang mga pagpatay sa “constructive resignation” kuno ni Erap. Basahin mo yung decision pre. i was referring to the iresponsible use of circumstantial evidence to support a conclusion arrived at long before the case arrived in court; an irresponsibility even more heinous because it was committed by officers of the court.
“naman, ‘tol. hindi lahat ng oposisyonista ay walang pakundangan kung mag-komento. meron namang gumagamit pa rin ng lohika. maliban na lang yung sa sobrang galit ay nakaklimutan na yung pinaghihiyawang “adherence to the rule of law†ay dapat ding ina-apply sa sarili.â€
Logic, you say? May I remind you with this?: “Awright, bystander! Hah! Get mo yon, comelecKA? basta lahat kami naniniwala sa isang bagay, pwede na naming ipagsigawan sa kalye na tama kami. Tutal, opinyon namin yon! Halimbawa, kapag napaniwala namin ang mga masa na si Gloria ang nang-holdap sa jeep na sinasakyan ko kagabi, ay hindi na mahalaga kung siya nga talaga yon. Ang importante, ay maraming nag-aagree na boses nya yung narinig namin, pandak yung holdaper, at ubod ng yaman si Gloria – aba! saan nya pa nakuha yung pera kundi sa pang-hoholdap ng maraming jeep? Sentido komon lang yan!
Oo,lohika, pare ko. At yung post ko na pinagpuputok ng butse mo, ang tawag dun, sarcasm. At least si CVJ, na get nya yun.
In addition, at itatagalog ko para mas lalo momg maintindihan (syensya na sa tagalog ko pre, bisaya man gud ko!), hindi porke’t galit ang isang tao ay nakalimutan na nyang i-apply sa sarili ang “adherence to the rule of lawâ€. hindi mo siguro naisip na kaya may mga taong galit tulad ko ay ay dahil galit na galit sila sa mga taong pumapatay, nangungurakot at nagsisinungaling. kung hindi tayo magagalit, medyo kailangan na natin sigurong magpatingin sa doktor. Get’s mo, pre?
Totoo namang “hindi porke’t galit ang isang tao ay nakalimutan na nyang i-apply sa sarili ang ‘adherence to the rule of law’.” Ang sinasabi ko, ikaw ang nakakalimot na hindi magandang magpadaig sa galit. Ok lang magalit, pre. Pero kahit na galit na galit ka na sa ibang tao, dapat pa rin silang tratuhin ayon sa rule of law. Otherwise, ano ang pinag-iba mo sa kanila. Diba?
antonio walanglaban on Sat, 17th Jun 2006 12:40 am
on that last point, remember the Boston Massacre?
anna de brux on Sat, 17th Jun 2006 1:06 am
Bystander,
I think I see the gist of Antonio Walang….. ” Pero kahit na galit na galit ka na sa ibang tao, dapat pa rin silang tratuhin ayon sa rule of law.”
Tama ang payo niya doon sa galit na galit na kay Gloria, kailangan tratuhin pa rin siya ayon sa rule of law – walang galitan, ibig sabihin, huwag kayong magpakita na galit na galit kayo sa kanya para walang sala sa rule of law.
Ganito ang kailangan gawin, damputin na iyang si Gloria (cool lang ang pagdampot, ngiti kayo, lambingan pa ninyo iyong pagsabunot kay bansot), tapos, pitikin, sipain, kagatin, pingutin, lunurin na siya sa Pasig River … Hayaan natin si Mike Arroyo mag-demanda at prove niya ang case niya pag nalunod na si Gloria ayon sa rule of law.
Kaya ako di ako galit sa punyetang Gloria na iyan maski na totoo na bansot siya, na magnanakaw siya, na sinungaling siya na pinapapatay niya ang mga ayaw sa kanya (command responsibility niya kay Pol Pot Palparan e rule of law di ba?), maski mandurukot siya ng pondo para pambili ng fertilizer, maski na mahaba ang dila niya noong magsinungaling siya na hindi siya tatakbo ng presidente noong 2004, maski magsinungaling siya ng sinabi niya na sabi sa kanya ng Dios na tumakbo siya, maski na makapal ang mukha niya noong sabihin niya na hindi siya nagnakaw ng boto…
Maski sabihin na puwedeng magalit – aba hindi! Ayaw ko magalit baka ma rule of law ako!
O sige (pangiti pa at malambing pa, polite pa) – “Puwede po bang lunurin mo na Antonio Walang….itong si punyetang bansotita?” Maraming salamat (rule of law daw, kailangan polite ka pa diyan dahil hindi ka sigurado na bansotita si bansot!)
antonio walanglaban on Sat, 17th Jun 2006 1:17 am
hahahahaha. magandang umaga po, anna. kaso, pagnabasa yan, baka dumami!
anna de brux on Sat, 17th Jun 2006 1:30 am
Good morning din po! (Ayan di ako ma-ru rule of law diyan sigurado!)
Alin po ang ibig mong sabihin na “baka dumami”? Ang mga bansot o iyong manlulunod kay bansotita.
Salamat po.
antonio walanglaban on Sat, 17th Jun 2006 1:36 am
yung gremlins, ba? di ba when a gremlin gets wet, dumadami. pag-nabasa si gloria … baka dumami siya! bwahahahahaha!
anna de brux on Sat, 17th Jun 2006 1:44 am
Heheheh! E di kung ganoon, puwede na natin siyang ma rule of law – illegal assembly or rallying without permit….
antonio walanglaban on Sat, 17th Jun 2006 1:49 am
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
The Bystander on Sat, 17th Jun 2006 2:48 am
“Pansinin mo, mahal na tagabasa, walang mention ng proof o pruweba. Puro circumstantial evidence lang.”
Alam mo pre, or kung hindi mo pa nalalaman, “circumstantial” evidence, although not it the same standing as an “eyewitness” account, is still evidence. A combination of circumstantances pointing to the same fact or set of facts are sufficient in themselves to produce a conviction. And under prevailing juisprudence, moral certainty of guilt, not absolute certainty is enough to warrant a criminal conviction.
Moreover, is this blog or any public fora for that matter the proper venue to present and prove to all and sundry that this Government has something to do with the killings of activists? That was whay in my original comment (my initial reaction to DJB’s statement), I emphasized that the matter of presenting evidence will surely come later when formal charges are filed in a court of law.
There’s nothing so complicated in such a simple proposition as that. Madali lang yan intindihin pre.
“Linawin ko ha? – What matters is that we all agree that it was Gloria’s voice that we heard (that the timing was right), the mugger was short (the motivation was present), and Gloria is ridiculously wealthy – where else could she have gotten her wealth but by robbing jeeps? (and Gonzales et al said things that sounded suspiciously like approval of the killings – same non-sequitur, DA! and all circumstantial)”
If you want to dyingly stress a point, sana naman yung example na kapani-paniwala o at least realistic man lang. San ka ba naman makakakita ng isang Gloria Arroyo na nanghohold-ap ng jeep? Or ipagpalagay na natin na you made the correct analogy or example, bakit sinabi ko ba na hanggang dun lang ang ebidensya na kayang i-present ng mga human rights victims? My initial conclusion that Gloria Arroyo has something to do with these killings was arrived at upon a consideration of all the surrounding circumstances. But I did not say my accusations stop right there. Again, if only to emphasize this point once and for all, the presentation of evidence will definitely come once criminal cases are filed against the perpetrators. But even in the absence (as of now) of formal charges, no one can stop me, not even you or Gloria Arroyo, from making my own conclusions on the culpability of this government. In case you haven’t known, the freedom to believe is absolute. It’s a constitutional right.
“Ano na nangyari sa innocent until proven guilty? Ang tao ay naghahabla kasi naniniwala siyang guilty yung kalaban niya, but the Court cannot be given that same luxury. The only thing that the Court can do is adhere to the rules of law and evidence to prove that a wrong has been committed and that the accused is guilty. If you criticize someone for adhering to that same standard, then maybe something is wrong with your standards. And do we have to apply the same stringent standards of law and evidence to the formulation of our own opinions? Absolutely. I don’t even know why I have to point that out to you.”
Was I “speaking” for and in behalf of the court? Or if that was not what you meant, did I say that the Court should not adhere to the standards of law and justice in deciding for or against an accused? All I am saying is there is a proper venue (that is, in a competent court) for all these “PROVE IT FIRST” brouhaha. Why? Is there anyone right here, right now who can prove/disprove the accusation that government has something to do with these killings? Alam mo pre, presenting evidence involves the physical act of bringing all the object, testimonial (meaning the witness) as well as the circumstantial evidence before a judge and for the latter to rule on the admissibility or non-admissibility of the same. Can it be done here or in any public forum? Of course not. That was what I meant when I said “we are before the bar of public opinion where the application of the rules on evidence is not given a privileged status”.
“Mali ka, tol. Di ko inihahambing ang mga pagpatay sa “constructive resignation†kuno ni Erap. Basahin mo yung decision pre. i was referring to the iresponsible use of circumstantial evidence to support a conclusion arrived at long before the case arrived in court; an irresponsibility even more heinous because it was committed by officers of the court.”
When you cite a case to support your cause, you must be sure that the facts as well as the jurisprudence involved bear a striking resemblance to your argument. It’s not enough to make inferences merely because to your mind, the Supreme Court used the same standard, i.e. circumstantial evidence, in deciding against Erap’s presidency.
“Oo,lohika, pare ko. At yung post ko na pinagpuputok ng butse mo, ang tawag dun, sarcasm. At least si CVJ, na get nya yun.”
Oo nga, na-gets ni CVJ na purely sarcasm lang yung sinabi mo. Okay then, let us again examine what he has to say: Bystander, don’t you notice how they have to deliberately misinterpret your points into a suitably weak enough form before supposedly addressing them? I’m all for sarcasm but not when it’s being used to obscure the discussion. It tends to get stale.
“Ang sinasabi ko, ikaw ang nakakalimot na hindi magandang magpadaig sa galit. Ok lang magalit, pre. Pero kahit na galit na galit ka na sa ibang tao, dapat pa rin silang tratuhin ayon sa rule of law. Otherwise, ano ang pinag-iba mo sa kanila. Diba?”
Why? Do you mean to say that I’m not adhering to the rule of law simply because I have made my conclusions as to the moral guilt of Gloria Arroyo and company? Excuse me ‘tol. Pero kahit galit na galit na ako sa isang tao, hindi ko kayang pumatay o mang-abduct o mang-aresto man lang ng walang warrant. Never kong gagawin yun. Sabihin mo kaya yan kay Ginang Arroyo o sa kanyang mga alipores? Parang mas applicable yan sa kanila.
The Bystander on Sat, 17th Jun 2006 3:23 am
“Pero kahit na galit na galit ka na sa ibang tao, dapat pa rin silang tratuhin ayon sa rule of law. Otherwise, ano ang pinag-iba mo sa kanila. Diba?â€
Maraming galit kay Ginang Arroyo kaya ang ginawa nila ay:
1. Nag file ang ilang Kongresista ng impeachment (na ayon sa Konstitusyon) pero ibinasura ng “majority” sa isang napakababaw na kadahilanan.
2. Nag-protesta sa kalye ang mga tao laban kay Ginang Arroyo na ayon sa Konstitusyon (freedom of assembly and even under BP 880) pero ano ang isinukli? CPR (pag aresto, pamamalo, pag-disperse ng mga rallyista) na idineklarang unconstitutional ng SC.
3. Nag-imbestiga ang Senado (ayon din sa Konstitusyon) na syang natatanging sangay ng gobyerno na pumupuna sa mga anomalya ni Gloria, pero nag issue ng EO 464 na idineklara ring partly unconstitutional ng SC.
4. Nag-imbento si Gloria ng kathang isip na “leftist-rightist conspiracy” para makapag-aresto without warrant sa mga kritiko ng pamahalaan. To recall, the acts committed under PP 1017 (arrest of Randy David, et al, raid on the Daily Tribune etc.) were declared unconstitutional.
5. Patuloy na pagpatay sa mga aktibista at ibang pang kontra kay Ginang Arroyo (oops.. meron palang “prove it first” requirement na dapat ipakita sa blog na ito).
SINO NGAYON ANG SUMUSUWAY SA RULE OF LAW?
anna de brux on Sat, 17th Jun 2006 3:47 am
Bystander,
You know what? This prove, prove thing doesn’t always stand to reason. Example, you don’t have to prove or show that my neighbour’s bull terrier can kill a bull or can kill Antonio Walang… in order to believe that it IS a killer dog…
Would Gloria supporters be willing to have Gloria chased by my neighbour’s bull terrier to prove my point that this dog is a killer dog… The experiment to prove that the said terrier is a killer dog could be quite a dangerous thing…They might find Gloria one head shorter if we decide to follow this particular rule of law.
Anyway, question: can Gloria be pursued criminally as an accomplice to the kidnapping, torture and human rights abuses committed by her AFP henchmen by virtue of her command responsibility over the AFP?
Remember the class action suit (although civil) filed against Marcos for human rights abuses committed, not personally by him but by his henchmen. Maybe, this is the right way to inflict bawas on the purported family wealth of the Pidals, este Arroyos.
Remember Pinochet too…
antonio walanglaban on Sat, 17th Jun 2006 4:43 am
Para kay bystander, siyempre.
1. proof is not evidence.
2. paano ka magkakamoral certainty kung wala ka ngang proof?
3. when I said: “If you criticize someone for adhering to that same standard, then maybe something is wrong with your standards. And do we have to apply the same stringent standards of law and evidence to the formulation of our own opinions? Absolutely. I don’t even know why I have to point that out to you.” I was talking about you criticizing DJB for asking MLQ3 to adhere to a higher standard in formulating his opinions, not you criticizing the Court, for chrissakes. Like you said, this whole thing hasn’t even gotten that far.
4. sabi mo: “Can it be done here or in any public forum? ” E dakila ka naman pala e. Siyempre hindi. Kaya nga ang sabi ko: “And do we have to apply the same stringent standards of law and evidence to the FORMULATION OF OUR OWN OPINIONS? Absolutely.” What part of FORMULATION OF OUR OWN OPINIONS can possibly be construed as “prove it here in this forum”?
5. “When you cite a case to support your cause, you must be sure that the facts as well as the jurisprudence involved bear a striking resemblance to your argument. It’s not enough to make inferences merely because to your mind, the Supreme Court used the same standard, i.e. circumstantial evidence, in deciding against Erap’s presidency.” HAHAHAHA. Hwag mo sabihin tama ang paggamit ng Korte ng circumstantial evidence. Yun ang punto; hindi yung detalye ng kaso. Sino ba naman ang mag-iisip na pareho yung facts ng mga pagpatay at nung pagpapatalsik kay Erap?
6. Di nga nya nagustuhan, pero at least alam niya kung ano ang sarcasm.
7. Ganun ba ang tingin mo sa rule of law? Ang rule of law, pare ko, hindi lang nakikita sa mga pisikal na kilos o gawa. Mas importante na ang pag-adhere mo diyan sa prinsipyo na iyan ay nagsisimula sa isipan. If you think that the exhortation “adherence to the rule of law” is satisfied by mere actions, you are flat wrong. Ehemplo: does a racist stop being a racist because he obeys a law that tells him to offer his busseat to a pregnant woman regardless of her race? Hindi di ba? (At please lang, yung prinsipyo ang pinaguusapan, hindi yung facts). Isa pa. Does a pedophile stop being a pedophile because he tells his parole officer that he doesn’t like kids anymore? (Medyo gross na ehemplo, but I hope you are getting the point). At isa pa uli. Does a lawyer stop being a lawyer because he obeys the law (hahahahaha. yun joke na yun.) Ang punto – dahil baka hindi mo nanaman makuha – ay ito: adherence to the rule of law begins with the mental process. The intellectual commitment to the predicates of justice. Anong klaseng mental commitment to the predicates of justice meron ang isang tao na willing na willing magkundena ng ibang tao, base lamang sa sarili niyang interpretasyon ng mga pangyayari? Uulitin ko yung inobjekan ni CVJ: Nothing wrong with passion, but shouldn’t condemnation be based more on more solid and reliable grounds than emotion?” And let’s not repeat that tripe about “emotion in this case, is not the ground, but rather, the reaction to a disconnect between what is and what should be.” Sino ang maniniwala na you’re opinions are based solely on facts when there are no proven facts here? Just events and circumstances that you have woven into a tapestry of evidence – sufficient to convince you – with the cords of your hatred for all things GMA. And by the way, hatred is an emotion.
8. Basa mo uli yung post ko, pare. Ang sabi ko: “Ang sinasabi ko, ikaw ang nakakalimot na hindi magandang magpadaig sa galit. Ok lang magalit, pre. Pero kahit na galit na galit ka na sa ibang tao, dapat pa rin silang tratuhin ayon sa rule of law.” Tapos basa mo uli ung #7.
9. Hindi mo kayang pumatay? Aba, I hope so. Hindi mo kayang mang-abduct? Aba uli! Dapat lang. Hindi mo kayang mag-arest without a warrant? Absolutely? (Tapos explain mo ngayon sa akin yung rules for warrantless arrest, doctrine of hot pursuit, atbp. Para kunwari mang-mang ako)
10. Tanong ko lang: bakit ba hirap na hirap kang intindihin na kahit na absolute ang freedom of belief ay hindi tamang hilingin na meron tayong mas mataas na batayan sa pagbuo ng ating mga opinyon. Halimbawa uli: Wouldn’t you want a racist to look beyond the color of a man’s skin? O baka naman mali na naman ako duon? Yun lang ang mahalaga, bystander.
11. Maraming galit kay GMA. Obvious ba? Marami ring galit kay ABS-CBN. (Joke din yun, in case you didn’t get it)
12. Dismissal ng impeachment: When you submit to a process, there is an implicit acceptance of the outcome of that process, whatever that outcome may be. To believe otherwise would be to render futile all our institutions (yes, yes, you will say institutions that have been damaged by GMA, and all that. nevertheless…) and condemn us to generations of ad hoc existence.
13. CPR is unconstitutional? What do I do if I find a person lying unconscious on a street? Horrors. Seriously, CPR being adjudged unconstitutional (which you and I obviously agree with) is proof that institutions still function, isn’t it? Except that it doesn’t always function the way you want it to.
14. 16 laws in 2 years.
15. Nag-imbento si Gloria ng kathang isip na “leftist-rightist conspiracy†– what’s your basis to say na walang conspiracy. Oh wait. That’s your personal opinion. The only proof that matters is the proof you choose to accept. You don’t need proof to believe so long as the circumstances add up to a conclusion that you are comfortable with. Is that your right? Absolutely. And did I say that you don’t have the right to say it? I didn’t. Ang pinahihiwatig ko ay hindi ako sang-ayon sa takbo ng pagdadahilan mo.
16. Patuloy na pagpatay sa mga aktibista at ibang pang kontra kay Ginang Arroyo (oops.. meron palang “prove it first†requirement na dapat ipakita sa blog na ito). – uuuuy. nagpatawa siya. At least it would be funny if it weren’t at the expense of those poor people. Sana nga mahuli na yung gumagawa niyan. Kung si Gloria, e di si Gloria. Ang problema kasi dito, pag masyado kang nakatutok duon sa suspek na gusto mong tutukan, kung minsan, yung tunay na salarin ay nakatakas na sa kabilang direksyon.
Whew. Ang haba nito a. Pero, sigurado ako, in true flamer tradition, sasagot ka pa dito. At may iba pang mag-kokomento. Enjoy na lang, mga tol.
Fred on Sat, 17th Jun 2006 10:48 am
Speaking of independence, there’s an interesting post about the possible “curse” made by MLQ…just thought MLQ3 might be interested…
http://dubioz.multiply.com/journal/item/61
The Bystander on Sat, 17th Jun 2006 1:36 pm
Siyempre sasagot ako, lest I be impliedly admitting na SENSIBLE at TAMA yung mga pinagsasabi mo. Ganito yun pre:
1. “proof is not evidence.”
Yan lang ba ang pwede mong ibigay na explanation? Para hindi ka na ma-confuse, halika’t tutlungan kita. Eto ayon sa rule of law na sinasabi mo. Under Section 1, Rule 128 of the Rules of Court, “evidence” is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining IN A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING the truth respecting a matter of fact. So, klaro yan pre ha na when you talk of evidence, the proper forum to present the same is in a court of law. Kung hindi mo pa na gets yun, eh problema mo na yun.
What is the difference between proof and evidence? Under Jones’ treatise on evidence, “proof” is the effect or result of evidence while evidence is the medium of proof.
You want me to state further the difference between factum probandum and factum probans? Wag na. Lalo lang hahaba ang comment kung ito. At baka lalo ka lang ma-confuse. Tama na yun siguro.
2. “I was talking about you criticizing DJB for asking MLQ3 to adhere to a higher standard in formulating his opinions, not you criticizing the Court, for chrissakes. Like you said, this whole thing hasn’t even gotten that far.”
Ganyan naman pala eh. Eh di klaruhin mo. Sa haba ba naman ng mga comments dito, sana nag “quote” ka in reference sa huling sinabi ko. Wag mong i-assume na masusundan ko agad yung pinagpuputok ng butse mo.
But be that as it may, what higher standard of formulating opinions do you want? That’s why it’s called an “opinion” precisely because it’s just another person’s conclusion as to a given set of circumstances. Pag sinabi kong ang gobyerno ang may pakana ng pagpatay sa mga aktibista, sinasabi ko yun as my opinion. Hindi ko kini-claim na absolutely certain ako sa mga sinasabi ko. Pero hindi yun reckless opinion parekoy. May mga basehan ang accusations ko. Again, para hindi ka na naman ma-confuse, eto ang depinisyon ng salitang “opinion”:
opinion (plural: opinions)
noun
1. personal view: the view somebody takes about a certain issue, especially when it is based solely on personal judgement
example: In my opinion it’s all a waste of time.
2. estimation: a view regarding the worth of somebody or something
example: They had a pretty low opinion of me.
3. expert view: an expert assessment of something
example: I told the doctor I wanted a second opinion.
4. body of generally held views: general assessment, judgement, or evaluation
example: pundits and other opinion formers
Microsoft® Encarta® Premium Suite 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Kahit nga ang Korte Suprema, pag naglabas sila ng desisyon, “opinion” pa rin ang tawag dahil no one can be absolutely certain as to the truth or falsity of a particular issue.
3. “E dakila ka naman pala e. Siyempre hindi. Kaya nga ang sabi ko: “And do we have to apply the same stringent standards of law and evidence to the FORMULATION OF OUR OWN OPINIONS? Absolutely.†What part of FORMULATION OF OUR OWN OPINIONS can possibly be construed as “prove it here in this forumâ€?
Asus. Basahin mo na lang ulit yung reaction #2 ko. Before you murmur words like “law” and “evidence”, you must learn when and where to use them. TO REPEAT, the most that we can do here in this forum is formulate our opinions based on circumstances we have so far gathered, e.g. in the news, pronouncements of relatives of the victims, statements of government officials, the possible motivation for the killings etc.. Hay naku! Ikaw talaga oo, pakibasa na lang ulit kung ano ang ibig sabihin ng “ebidensya”. Nasa bandang reacton #1 yun.
4. “HAHAHAHA. Hwag mo sabihin tama ang paggamit ng Korte ng circumstantial evidence. Yun ang punto; hindi yung detalye ng kaso. Sino ba naman ang mag-iisip na pareho yung facts ng mga pagpatay at nung pagpapatalsik kay Erap?
Akala ko ba ay nag-aadhere ka sa “rule of law”? Eh ba’t parang mas marunong ka pa sa Korte Suprema kung maka-asta ka? Pano mo nasabing mali ang pag-apply nila ng “cicumstantial evidence”? Of course, this is another issue. Pero kung binasa mo lang sana ng mabuti ang comment ko, never kung sinabi na tama ang SC sa ruling nila about Edsa 2. Besides, if you’re really an advocate for the rule of law, you have to abide by the said Supreme Court decision because until that decision is reversed, it is part of the law of the land. Hindi ka naniniwala? Eto ang sabi ng batas:
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 386
AN ACT TO ORDAIN AND INSTITUTE
THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES
PRELIMINARY TITLE
CHAPTER I
EFFECT AND APPLICATION OF LAWS
xxxxx
Article 8: Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines. (n)
xxxxx
5. “Di nga nya nagustuhan, pero at least alam niya kung ano ang sarcasm.”
Sus! Nag attempt ka pa to rebutt eh klarong-klaro ang sinabi ni CVJ.
6. “Ganun ba ang tingin mo sa rule of law? Ang rule of law, pare ko, hindi lang nakikita sa mga pisikal na kilos o gawa. Mas importante na ang pag-adhere mo diyan sa prinsipyo na iyan ay nagsisimula sa isipan. If you think that the exhortation “adherence to the rule of law†is satisfied by mere actions, you are flat wrong.
Part of the rule of law parekoy is respecting other people’s beliefs, no matter how wrong you think these beliefs seem to be. Nasa Konstitusyon yan. Isn’t the Constitution the fundamental law of the land? Upholding the Constitution is upholding the rule of law! What more do you ask for? You cannot stop other peole from believing what they want to believe, unless you’re living in an enchanted kingdom like what Arroyo has in mind. You cannnot call their attention and say: “Hoy! You’re not adhering to the rule of law ha dahil hindi kanais-nais yung mga pinag-iisip ninyo!” Ano ba naman yan parekoy, be realistic naman. Ang sinasabi ng “rule of law” ay pwede ka lang parusahan pag may ginawa kang bagay ayon sa paniniwala mo na hindi naman sang-ayon sa batas. Adhering to the rule of law should start with the mental process you say? Part of that mental process is accepting the obvious fact that there are those who do not share your beliefs. The right to have a perverted mind is the same as the right of one who claims to have a “clean” mind. As long as one does not show his perversion through overt acts, then he/she cannot be punished for his beliefs. As the well-settled criminal law principle would state: “There is no crime when there is no law punishing it.” Very basic at elementary yan, parekoy.
7. “Hindi mo kayang pumatay? Aba, I hope so. Hindi mo kayang mang-abduct? Aba uli! Dapat lang. Hindi mo kayang mag-arest without a warrant? Absolutely? (Tapos explain mo ngayon sa akin yung rules for warrantless arrest, doctrine of hot pursuit, atbp. Para kunwari mang-mang ako)”
Pag sinabi kong hindi ko kayang mag-aresto ng walang warrant, ang ibig kong sabihin ay yung warrantless arrest ng kagaya ng ginagawa ng mga alipores ni Ginang Arroyo. Mahirap ba namang intindihin yon?
Eh alam mo naman pala ang rules for making arrests without warrants eh, ba’t mo pa pina-paexplain? Ano yan sarcasm na naman? Basahin mo ma lang ulit young comment ni CVJ tungkol sa sarcasm.
8. “Tanong ko lang: bakit ba hirap na hirap kang intindihin na kahit na absolute ang freedom of belief ay hindi tamang hilingin na meron tayong mas mataas na batayan sa pagbuo ng ating mga opinyon. Halimbawa uli: Wouldn’t you want a racist to look beyond the color of a man’s skin? O baka naman mali na naman ako duon? Yun lang ang mahalaga, bystander.”
Alam ko yon, Antonio walang…. Ano ba namang example yan? Of course I would want every person to believe according to the tenets of law and justice. But can I force him if he/she does not want to? Can he be punished simply because he believes that his white skin is more superior than another person’s black skin? Sino ngayon ang mahirap umintindi?
9. “Dismissal ng impeachment: When you submit to a process, there is an implicit acceptance of the outcome of that process, whatever that outcome may be. To believe otherwise would be to render futile all our institutions (yes, yes, you will say institutions that have been damaged by GMA, and all that. nevertheless…) and condemn us to generations of ad hoc existence.”
Did I say I refuse to accept the outcome of that process? Read carefully, AntonioWalang… Ikaw talaga oo, ino-obscure mo na naman ang punto ng comment ko.
10. “CPR is unconstitutional? What do I do if I find a person lying unconscious on a street? Horrors. Seriously, CPR being adjudged unconstitutional (which you and I obviously agree with) is proof that institutions still function, isn’t it? Except that it doesn’t always function the way you want it to.”
So, what’s your point? Is there anything in my comment which makes any discussion as to whether institutions in this country still function or not?
11. “Nag-imbento si Gloria ng kathang isip na “leftist-rightist conspiracy†– what’s your basis to say na walang conspiracy. Oh wait. That’s your personal opinion. The only proof that matters is the proof you choose to accept. You don’t need proof to believe so long as the circumstances add up to a conclusion that you are comfortable with. Is that your right? Absolutely. And did I say that you don’t have the right to say it? I didn’t. Ang pinahihiwatig ko ay hindi ako sang-ayon sa takbo ng pagdadahilan mo.”
Ayan ka na naman. Mukhang hindi ka na natuto ah. Humihingi ka na naman ng “proof”. Basahin mo uli yung mga previous comments ko. If you don’t believe me, find out for yourself what “proof” or “evidence” means and WHEN and in WHAT proper legal forum it can be demanded.
12. “uuuuy. nagpatawa siya. At least it would be funny if it weren’t at the expense of those poor people.”
Kung nagpatawa man ako sa tingin mo, hindi yon at the expense of those killed, mind you. Sarcasm yun para sa mga taong hindi marunong umintindi o kung nakakaintindi man, sinasadyang ino-obscure ang issue para lang may masabi.
13. “Sana nga mahuli na yung gumagawa niyan. Kung si Gloria, e di si Gloria. Ang problema kasi dito, pag masyado kang nakatutok duon sa suspek na gusto mong tutukan, kung minsan, yung tunay na salarin ay nakatakas na sa kabilang direksyon.”
You keep on insisting on the supposition that I am accusing Gloria Arroyo and her ilk merely because of my hatred for her. Where in the world did you get that? Do I have to again enumerate the reasons for my suspicion that her government could have a hand in these killings?
The Bystander on Sat, 17th Jun 2006 2:05 pm
Siyempre sasagot ako, lest I be impliedly admitting na SENSIBLE at TAMA yung mga pinagsasabi mo. Ganito yun pre:
1. “proof is not evidence.â€
Yan lang ba ang pwede mong ibigay na explanation? Para hindi ka na ma-confuse, halika’t tutlungan kita. Eto ayon sa rule of law na sinasabi mo. Under Section 1, Rule 128 of the Rules of Court, “evidence†is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining IN A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING the truth respecting a matter of fact. So, klaro yan pre ha na when you talk of evidence, the proper forum to present the same is in a court of law. Kung hindi mo pa na gets yun, eh problema mo na yun.
What is the difference between proof and evidence? Under Jones’ treatise on evidence, “proof†is the effect or result of evidence while evidence is the medium of proof.
You want me to state further the difference between factum probandum and factum probans? Wag na. Lalo lang hahaba ang comment kung ito. At baka lalo ka lang ma-confuse. Tama na yun siguro.
2. “I was talking about you criticizing DJB for asking MLQ3 to adhere to a higher standard in formulating his opinions, not you criticizing the Court, for chrissakes. Like you said, this whole thing hasn’t even gotten that far.â€
Ganyan naman pala eh. Eh di klaruhin mo. Sa haba ba naman ng mga comments dito, sana nag “quote†ka in reference sa huling sinabi ko. Wag mong i-assume na masusundan ko agad yung pinagpuputok ng butse mo.
But be that as it may, what higher standard of formulating opinions are you talking about? That’s why it’s called an “opinion†precisely because it’s just another person’s conclusion as to a given set of circumstances. Pag sinabi kong ang gobyerno ang may pakana ng pagpatay sa mga aktibista, sinasabi ko yun as my opinion. Hindi ko kini-claim na absolutely certain ako sa mga sinasabi ko. Pero hindi yun reckless opinion parekoy. May mga basehan ang accusations ko. Again, para hindi ka na naman ma-confuse, eto ang depinisyon ng salitang “opinionâ€:
opinion (plural: opinions)
noun
1. personal view: the view somebody takes about a certain issue, especially when it is based solely on personal judgement
example: In my opinion it’s all a waste of time.
2. estimation: a view regarding the worth of somebody or something
example: They had a pretty low opinion of me.
3. expert view: an expert assessment of something
example: I told the doctor I wanted a second opinion.
4. body of generally held views: general assessment, judgement, or evaluation
example: pundits and other opinion formers
Microsoft® Encarta® Premium Suite 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Kahit nga ang Korte Suprema, pag naglabas sila ng desisyon, “opinion†pa rin ang tawag dahil no one can be absolutely certain as to the truth or falsity of a particular issue.
3. “E dakila ka naman pala e. Siyempre hindi. Kaya nga ang sabi ko: “And do we have to apply the same stringent standards of law and evidence to the FORMULATION OF OUR OWN OPINIONS? Absolutely.†What part of FORMULATION OF OUR OWN OPINIONS can possibly be construed as “prove it here in this forum�
Asus. Basahin mo na lang ulit yung reaction #2 ko. Before you murmur words like “law†and “evidenceâ€, you must learn when and where to use them. TO REPEAT, the most that we can do in this internet forum is formulate our opinions based on circumstances we have so far gathered, e.g. in the news, pronouncements of relatives of the victims, statements of government officials, the possible motivation for the killings etc.. Hay naku! Ikaw talaga oo, basahin mo na lang ulit kung ano ang ibig sabihin ng “ebidensyaâ€. Nasa bandang reacton #1 yun.
4. “HAHAHAHA. Hwag mo sabihin tama ang paggamit ng Korte ng circumstantial evidence. Yun ang punto; hindi yung detalye ng kaso. Sino ba naman ang mag-iisip na pareho yung facts ng mga pagpatay at nung pagpapatalsik kay Erap?”
Akala ko ba ay nag-aadhere ka sa “rule of law� Eh ba’t parang mas marunong ka pa sa Korte Suprema kung maka-asta ka? Pano mo nasabing mali ang pag-apply nila ng “cicumstantial evidence� Of course, this is another issue. Pero kung binasa mo lang sana ng mabuti ang comment ko, never kung sinabi na tama ang SC sa ruling nila about Edsa 2. Besides, if you’re really an advocate for the rule of law, you have to abide by the said Supreme Court decision because until that decision is reversed, it is part of the law of the land. Hindi ka naniniwala? Eto ang sabi ng batas:
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 386
AN ACT TO ORDAIN AND INSTITUTE
THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES
PRELIMINARY TITLE
CHAPTER I
EFFECT AND APPLICATION OF LAWS
xxxxx
Article 8: Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines. (n)
xxxxx
5. “Di nga nya nagustuhan, pero at least alam niya kung ano ang sarcasm.â€
Sus! Nag attempt ka pa to rebutt eh klarong-klaro ang sinabi ni CVJ.
6. “Ganun ba ang tingin mo sa rule of law? Ang rule of law, pare ko, hindi lang nakikita sa mga pisikal na kilos o gawa. Mas importante na ang pag-adhere mo diyan sa prinsipyo na iyan ay nagsisimula sa isipan. If you think that the exhortation “adherence to the rule of law†is satisfied by mere actions, you are flat wrong.
Part of the rule of law parekoy is respecting other people’s beliefs, no matter how wrong you think these beliefs seem to be. Nasa Konstitusyon yan. Isn’t the Constitution the fundamental law of the land? Upholding the Constitution is upholding the rule of law! What more do you ask for? You cannot stop other peole from believing what they want to believe, unless you’re living in an enchanted kingdom like what Arroyo has in mind. You cannnot call their attention and say: “Hoy! You’re not adhering to the rule of law ha dahil hindi kanais-nais yung mga pinag-iisip ninyo!†Ano ba naman yan parekoy, be realistic naman. Ang sinasabi ng “rule of law†ay pwede ka lang parusahan pag may ginawa kang bagay ayon sa paniniwala mo na hindi naman sang-ayon sa batas.
Adhering to the rule of law should start with the mental process you say? Part of that mental process is accepting the obvious fact that there are those who do not share your beliefs. The right to have a perverted mind is the same as the right of one who claims to have a “clean†mind. As long as one does not show his perversion through overt acts, then he cannot be punished for his beliefs. As the well-settled criminal law principle would state: “There is no crime when there is no law punishing it.†Very basic at elementary yan, parekoy.
7. “Hindi mo kayang pumatay? Aba, I hope so. Hindi mo kayang mang-abduct? Aba uli! Dapat lang. Hindi mo kayang mag-arest without a warrant? Absolutely? (Tapos explain mo ngayon sa akin yung rules for warrantless arrest, doctrine of hot pursuit, atbp. Para kunwari mang-mang ako)â€
Pag sinabi kong hindi ko kayang mag-aresto ng walang warrant, ang ibig kong sabihin ay yung warrantless arrest ng kagaya ng ginagawa ng mga alipores ni Ginang Arroyo. Mahirap ba namang intindihin yon?
Eh alam mo naman pala ang rules for making arrests without warrants eh, ba’t mo pa pina-paexplain? Ano yan sarcasm na naman? Basahin mo ma lang ulit young comment ni CVJ tungkol sa sarcasm.
8. “Tanong ko lang: bakit ba hirap na hirap kang intindihin na kahit na absolute ang freedom of belief ay hindi tamang hilingin na meron tayong mas mataas na batayan sa pagbuo ng ating mga opinyon. Halimbawa uli: Wouldn’t you want a racist to look beyond the color of a man’s skin? O baka naman mali na naman ako duon? Yun lang ang mahalaga, bystander.â€
Alam ko yon, Antonio walang…. Ano ba namang example yan? Of course I would want every person to believe according to the tenets of law, morals and justice. But can I force a person if he does not want to? Can he be punished simply because he believes that his white skin is more superior than another person’s black skin? Sino ngayon ang mahirap umintindi, AntonioWalang…?
9. “Dismissal ng impeachment: When you submit to a process, there is an implicit acceptance of the outcome of that process, whatever that outcome may be. To believe otherwise would be to render futile all our institutions (yes, yes, you will say institutions that have been damaged by GMA, and all that. nevertheless…) and condemn us to generations of ad hoc existence.â€
Did I say I refuse to accept the outcome of that process? Read carefully, AntonioWalang… Ikaw talaga oo, ino-obscure mo na naman ang punto ng comment ko.
10. “CPR is unconstitutional? What do I do if I find a person lying unconscious on a street? Horrors. Seriously, CPR being adjudged unconstitutional (which you and I obviously agree with) is proof that institutions still function, isn’t it? Except that it doesn’t always function the way you want it to.â€
So, what’s your point? Is there anything in my comment which makes any discussion as to whether institutions in this country still function or not?
11. “Nag-imbento si Gloria ng kathang isip na “leftist-rightist conspiracy†– what’s your basis to say na walang conspiracy. Oh wait. That’s your personal opinion. The only proof that matters is the proof you choose to accept. You don’t need proof to believe so long as the circumstances add up to a conclusion that you are comfortable with. Is that your right? Absolutely. And did I say that you don’t have the right to say it? I didn’t. Ang pinahihiwatig ko ay hindi ako sang-ayon sa takbo ng pagdadahilan mo.â€
Ayan ka na naman. Mukhang hindi ka na natuto ah. Humihingi ka na naman ng “proofâ€. If you don’t believe me, find out for yourself what “proof†or “evidence†means and WHEN and in WHAT proper legal forum it can be demanded as a matter of right.
12. “uuuuy. nagpatawa siya. At least it would be funny if it weren’t at the expense of those poor people.â€
Kung nagpatawa man ako sa tingin mo, hindi yon at the expense of those killed, mind you. Sarcasm yun para sa mga taong hindi marunong umintindi o kung nakakaintindi man, sinasadyang ino-obscure ang issue para lang may masabi.
13. “Sana nga mahuli na yung gumagawa niyan. Kung si Gloria, e di si Gloria. Ang problema kasi dito, pag masyado kang nakatutok duon sa suspek na gusto mong tutukan, kung minsan, yung tunay na salarin ay nakatakas na sa kabilang direksyon.â€
You keep on insisting on the supposition that I am accusing Gloria Arroyo and her ilk merely because of my hatred for her. Where in the world did you get that conclusion? May proof ka ba (BWAHAHAHA!) na yan ang dahilan ko kaya ko inaakusahan ang gobyerno na may kinalaman sa mga pagpatay? Do I have to again enumerate the reasons for my suspicion that her government could have a hand in these killings?
anna de brux on Sat, 17th Jun 2006 5:52 pm
MLQ3, folks, Antonio Walang….,
This all started when Antonio Walang….. said that you need evidence to prove an allegation but as I posted, that might be a dangerous tenet.
Why?
Well, here again is a living example.
I believe, claim, allege that my neighbour’s dog is a killer dog – it is a pittbull terrier. Now, would you believe me or would you demand that I show proof that it is a killer dog?
Would Gloria supporters be willing to have Gloria chased by my neighbour’s pitbull terrier to prove my point that this dog is a killer dog… The experiment to prove that the said terrier is a killer dog could be quite a dangerous thing…They might find Gloria one head shorter if we decide to follow this particular rule of law.
In other words, the belief that Gloria may have a hand in the killing of activists, etc. requires no tangible proof as far as I am concerned because by virtue of her command responsibility over the AFP who are professionally trained “killers” (by virtue of their profession and this is in no way a reprimand), I don’t have to see her in the action of giving orders to shoot or pulling the trigger to believe what she is capable of.
While the killings remain unabated, unchecked and the culprits are not caught, Gloria remains responsible not only morally but also legally as commander in chief of the troops.
I echo the sentiments of Bystander – Gloria must defend herself before the public, she must answer the charges stated against her before the bar of public opinion. She cannot throw stupid and silly lines in the air like “where’s your proof, where’s your evidence, how do you know”.
Mafiosis do that… (if you want proof, read the life of Bonano of New York!)
The Bystander on Sat, 17th Jun 2006 6:43 pm
HI ANNA,
That’s what I was trying to point out to AntonioWalang… that Gloria is morally and legally responsible as “President” and as “Commander-in-Chief” for these extra-judicial killings. Just yesterday, she practically launched an all-out war against the Communists by announcing that the insurgency problem must be wiped out in two years. She made no distinction between non-combatants represented by progressive groups and combatants represented by the NPA.
The Bystander on Sat, 17th Jun 2006 6:59 pm
“I believe, claim, allege that my neighbour’s dog is a killer dog – it is a pittbull terrier. Now, would you believe me or would you demand that I show proof that it is a killer dog?”
Hahaha. In law, that’s what you call res ipsa loquitor. The thing speaks for itself.
The Bystander on Sat, 17th Jun 2006 7:01 pm
Poor Gloria. She is being likened to a killer dog.
The Bystander on Sat, 17th Jun 2006 7:15 pm
Marcos was never indicted in a court of law (of course he died in exile) for the deaths and disappearances of hundreds if not thousands of people during martial law. Yet, public opinion points to Marcos as the one responsible for the human rights violations. The pattern, the motive, the timing, and the pronouncements of government officials like NSA Gonzales cannot be disregarded simply because other people want solid, absolute proof of government’s covert participation in this killing spree.
antonio walanglaban on Sat, 17th Jun 2006 11:07 pm
“Wag mong i-assume na masusundan ko agad yung pinagpuputok ng butse mo.” Tama ka. Nag-assume nga ako na kaya mo ako sundan. Mali ako dun pare. I shouldn’t have assumed such a thing.
“I believe, claim, allege that my neighbour’s dog is a killer dog – it is a pittbull terrier. Now, would you believe me or would you demand that I show proof that it is a killer dog?” Yes,Anna, you must prove that your neighbor’s dog is a killer. If you can’t prove that, then your opinion that it is a killer is absolutely menaingless. Except to you, of course, because that’s your opinion.
If somebody get’s killed in the meantime, then that’s proof. The law may be a bitch, but it is the law.
About Res ipsa loquitor: bystander is again wrong. He confuses this doctrine as an excuse for being too lazy to prove allegations. The doctrine is that the negligence of an alleged wrongdoer can be inferred from the fact that the accident happened. This doctrine allows a defendant to be found guilty of negligence without an actual showing that he was negligent. Its use is limited in theory to cases in which the cause of the plaintiff’s injury was entirely under the control of the defendant, and the injury presumably could have been caused only by negligence. So, in your example, if a person were killed by a dog that was restrained only with an inadequate chain or cage, then the fact that dog’s owner is guilty of negligence can be presumed, since if the owner was not negligent, he would not have used such inadequate means of restraint. But to say that a mere CLAIM or ALLEGATION is enough to bring some sort of legal consequence is wrong.
The Bystander on Sun, 18th Jun 2006 12:05 am
“”Wag mong i-assume na masusundan ko agad yung pinagpuputok ng butse mo.”Tama ka. Nag-assume nga ako na kaya mo ako sundan. Mali ako dun pare. I shouldn’t have assumed such a thing.”
Mali ka na naman parekoy. Sinabi ko yun in regard to that particular comment thread. Hindi ibig sabihin na hindi ko masusundan yung mga sinasabi mo. Don’t mislead other commenters parekoy to make it appear na hindi ko kayang sagutin yung mga punto mo.
“About Res ipsa loquitor: bystander is again wrong. He confuses this doctrine as an excuse for being too lazy to prove allegations. The doctrine is that the negligence of an alleged wrongdoer can be inferred from the fact that the accident happened. This doctrine allows a defendant to be found guilty of negligence without an actual showing that he was negligent. Its use is limited in theory to cases in which the cause of the plaintiff’s injury was entirely under the control of the defendant, and the injury presumably could have been caused only by negligence. So, in your example, if a person were killed by a dog that was restrained only with an inadequate chain or cage, then the fact that dog’s owner is guilty of negligence can be presumed, since if the owner was not negligent, he would not have used such inadequate means of restraint. But to say that a mere CLAIM or ALLEGATION is enough to bring some sort of legal consequence is wrong.”
BWAHAHAHA! Alam mo parekoy sinabi ko yun only to describe Anna’s example of the killer dog. FYI, res ipsa loquitor is not a criminal law principle. It is a civil law principle. It has no application to our discussion re: killing of activists. You need not explain, albeit haphazardly, what is not applicable to the case under consideration.
The Bystander on Sun, 18th Jun 2006 12:11 am
Patulan ba naman yung “res ipsa loquitor”? Hahaha. Hindi lahat nang hinahain parekoy kinakain mo.
antonio walanglaban on Sun, 18th Jun 2006 12:19 am
“Mali ka na naman parekoy. Sinabi ko yun in regard to that particular comment thread. Hindi ibig sabihin na hindi ko masusundan yung mga sinasabi mo. Don’t mislead other commenters parekoy to make it appear na hindi ko kayang sagutin yung mga punto mo.” Ok. That’s your opinion.
Also, I don’t need to mislead anyone. All they have to do is read the posts. To paraphrase you, the record “speaks for itself.” HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Tama ka, tort nga yun. Sinabi ko bang criminal law? and yes, no application to killing activists. kaya nga kay anna ako nag-reply, di naman sa’yo, diba? And besides, mali ka talaga.
“‘I believe, claim, allege that my neighbour’s dog is a killer dog – it is a pittbull terrier. Now, would you believe me or would you demand that I show proof that it is a killer dog?’
Hahaha. In law, that’s what you call res ipsa loquitor. The thing speaks for itself. ” Hindi nga example ng res ipsa yung sinasabi ni Anna, diba? Haphazard ba? O baka naman nag-assume lang ako na kaya mong sundan?
This will be the 95th reply to this post. 5 more, bystander. Kaya mo yan.
antonio walanglaban on Sun, 18th Jun 2006 12:24 am
Mali, nag-post ka pala habang sinasagot kita. So, hopefully, kung mahihintay mo ito, o mauunahan kita, pang-98 na ito.
Di ba sabi mo we should let our opinions be heard if we think something wrong is afoot (not your words of course, but certainly the driving force of your on-line life). well, you were wrong. and you’re a funny one to imply that I shouldn’t have posted an opinion on your mangling of res ipsa.
antonio walanglaban on Sun, 18th Jun 2006 12:28 am
Grr. 98 ito. 97 yung kanina. 3 pa, bystander. gogoGO!
antonio walanglaban on Sun, 18th Jun 2006 12:30 am
1 na lang. Haay. Hina ko talaga sa math.
anna de brux on Sun, 18th Jun 2006 12:46 am
Aha! 100 is mine!
Yeeeehawwww!
The Bystander on Sun, 18th Jun 2006 1:17 am
“Tama ka, tort nga yun. Sinabi ko bang criminal law? and yes, no application to killing activists. kaya nga kay anna ako nag-reply, di naman sa’yo, diba? And besides, mali ka talaga.”
–Sasagutin ko pa ba ito? Ok cge. Kahit kay Anna ka pa nag-reply, maling-mali pa rin yung application mo ng res ipsa loquitor. Pero parang malayong-malayo na tayo sa original discussion ah. Magandang strategy yan AntonioWalang… para makalimutan yung ikinasisikip ng dibdib mong PROOF at EVIDENCE. Hahaha!
“Di ba sabi mo we should let our opinions be heard if we think something wrong is afoot (not your words of course, but certainly the driving force of your on-line life). well, you were wrong. and you’re a funny one to imply that I shouldn’t have posted an opinion on your mangling of res ipsa.”
–How can I be wrong in correcting your fallacious statements? And why do you say that I am mangling the doctrine of res ipsa? Sino itong atat na atat i-discuss ang res ipsa na hindi naman applicable sa main issue? Buti pa ang i-discuss mo yung version mo ng PROOF at EVIDENCE. Hahaha!
The Bystander on Sun, 18th Jun 2006 1:20 am
Oh, number 101 ako ha. Tamang-tama for a discussion on PROOF and EVIDENCE. Hahaha!
antonio walanglaban on Sun, 18th Jun 2006 1:51 am
Asus! Agree naman pala tayo na “how can I be wrong in correcting your fallacious statements?”
Ikaw na rin ang nagsabi “‘proof’ is the effect or result of evidence while evidence is the medium of proof.” For evidence to be taken as proof, the evidence must be competent and relevant. Ibig sabihin, dapat acceptable yung evidence as Korte (competent), at pangalawa, dapat yung ebidensiya ay relevant (di ko alam yan sa tagalog) sa kaso. Kung di siya competent at di siya relevant, evidence will never constitute proof. Kaya nung sinabi ko na wala kang proof, ang ibig sabihin nun, ay yung ebidensiya na pilit mo pinagwawagan ay di pa napapatunayan na competent, at relevant. Get mo? Pasensya na kung di ko nabanggit lahat ng steps sa reasoning. Kala ko kasi masusundan mo. Anyway, Tama ka na ang forum ay hindi venue para sa pag-determina kung competent nga at relevant ang ebidensiya. Kaya nga, sinabi ko, yung tinitira ko ay yung iyong pagdadahilan sa pagbatikos mo kay DJB. Sabi ko, malabong naniniwala ka pa sa (Anna, cover your eyes, ayaw mo mabasa ito) rule of law, kung sa pagdadahilan mo palang, di na importante na meron kang sapat na proof (not evidence) na basehan ng opinyon mo.
Pero ulit, entitled ka sa opinyon mo. Ang sa akin lang ay we should hold ourselves to higher standards in formulating our opinions. These higher standards include subjecting all evidence – even if just in our heads – to the same rules that a Court uses to determine whether or not the evidence is good enough to be considered proof. Mahirap nga gawin yun, kasi wala kang access to witnesses. Obvious naman yun diba. So, if you can’t determine with certainty -using these higher standards – whether there is proof enough to support your conclusions, siguro hinay-hinay lang sa pagpuna sa mga taong (tulad ni DJB) gustong mag-adhere dun sa standards na willing kang i-ignore. Kasi nga naman, opinyon mo lang yun. Dba?
Your turn. Tell me why I’m wrong about res ipsa. And if you can’t , well, I’ll understand.
Hinga ka muna malalim. Tapos, isip ka ng maraming latin na salita, para masaya. Malay mo, baka makahanap ka ng latin na di ko maiintindihan. Hehe. Tulad ng loquitOr. Di ko alam yun e. Ang alam ko loquitUr. Subpwena, anyone?
anna de brux on Sun, 18th Jun 2006 2:22 am
Queztion: Is there still rule of law in da Pinas?
antonio walanglaban on Sun, 18th Jun 2006 2:26 am
Paalam na po kay bystander. Saya mong kausap.
Paalam na po kay Anna. Dapat maging kolumnista ka dito sa Pinas.
Paalam na po kay MLQ3. Salamat sa pagpayag mong ituloy namin itong usapang ito ng ganito ka tagal. It has gone on so ad infinitum it has crossed the border into ad nauseam.
Salamat sa pag-dinig sa aking panig.
anna de brux on Sun, 18th Jun 2006 2:35 am
Who me? Become a commie in the Philippines? Bahhhh… what on earth for?
I love the haute bourgeoisie that’s why I can’t stand parvenus like Gloria.
anna de brux on Sun, 18th Jun 2006 2:36 am
O sige, Tonyo, good luck… don’t forget to duck when they CPR you with their rule of law.
The Bystander on Sun, 18th Jun 2006 3:12 am
“For evidence to be taken as proof, the evidence must be competent and relevant. Ibig sabihin, dapat acceptable yung evidence as Korte (competent), at pangalawa, dapat yung ebidensiya ay relevant (di ko alam yan sa tagalog) sa kaso. Kung di siya competent at di siya relevant, evidence will never constitute proof. Kaya nung sinabi ko na wala kang proof, ang ibig sabihin nun, ay yung ebidensiya na pilit mo pinagwawagan ay di pa napapatunayan na competent, at relevant. Get mo?”
—-I’ll take you back to Rule 128 of the Rules of Court parekoy. The rule states that “evidence†is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining IN A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING the truth respecting a matter of fact. Ano ka ba naman AntonioWalang..? We should not even be demanding that evidence must be “competent” and “relevant” in this forum. It is only before a competent court and it is only before an impartial judge who is MANDATED to apply the rules of admissibility. I am under no obligation to satisfy the requirements of competency and relevancy because we are not in a court of law and obviously you are far from being a judge. That was why I said in that comment thread: “Before you murmur words like “law†and “evidenceâ€, you must learn WHEN and WHERE to use them. TO REPEAT, the most that we can do in this internet forum is formulate our opinions based on circumstances that have so far been gathered, e.g. in the news (the published facts), pronouncements of relatives of the victims, statements of government officials, the possible motivation for the killings etc..” Your assertion is not only misguided, it is totally out of place.
“Pasensya na kung di ko nabanggit lahat ng steps sa reasoning. Kala ko kasi masusundan mo.”
—-Sus, palusot ka pa. Kung hindi ko ni-remind sayo, eh hindi mo ireresearch!
“Anyway, Tama ka na ang forum ay hindi venue para sa pag-determina kung competent nga at relevant ang ebidensiya. Kaya nga, sinabi ko, yung tinitira ko ay yung iyong pagdadahilan sa pagbatikos mo kay DJB. Sabi ko, malabong naniniwala ka pa sa (Anna, cover your eyes, ayaw mo mabasa ito) rule of law, kung sa pagdadahilan mo palang, di na importante na meron kang sapat na proof (not evidence) na basehan ng opinyon mo.”
—-Mukhang nalilito ka pa kung ano ang ibig sabihin ng salitang “opinyon” parekoy. Is it a condition sine qua non that for a person to express an opinion, he must first have with him solid proof to support his views? Kaya nga ang tawag dun “opinyon” eh, dahil hindi kini-claim ng opinion maker/writer na absolutely certain sya sa mga punto nya. I-research mo yung etymology ng “opinion” parekoy para malinawan yung isip mo kung ano talaga ang ibig sabihin ng salitang “opinion”. Or kung hindi mo mahanap, basahin mo na lang uli sa dictionary ang meaning at hanapin mo doon (kung may mahanap ka) kung kailangan bang may hawak na solid, uncontroverted proof muna bago puwedeng magbigay ng opinyon ang isang tao. O baka naman may iba kang libro?
“Pero ulit, entitled ka sa opinyon mo. ANG SA AKIN LANG ay we should hold ourselves to higher standards in formulating our opinions. These higher standards include subjecting all evidence – even if just in our heads – to the same rules that a Court uses to determine whether or not the evidence is good enough to be considered proof. Mahirap nga gawin yun, kasi wala kang access to witnesses. Obvious naman yun diba. So, if you can’t determine with certainty -using these higher standards – whether there is proof enough to support your conclusions, siguro hinay-hinay lang sa pagpuna sa mga taong (tulad ni DJB) gustong mag-adhere dun sa standards na willing kang i-ignore. Kasi nga naman, opinyon mo lang yun. Dba?”
—-Hindi naman pala requirement yan ng “rule of law” na sinasabi mo eh. Sariling standards mo lang yan na pilit mong i-apply ko rin sa opinions ko. If the dictates of law and justice do not so provide and require, then why should I burden myself with having to gather evidence (which could probably take months to finish) for the mere purpose of expressing an opinion? Talagang high nga siguro yung standards mo, high to the point of absurdity and impracticability. And what exactly is your COMPETENCE (bwahaha!) to expect from other people that kind of standard?
“Tell me why I’m wrong about res ipsa. And if you can’t , well, I’ll understand. Hinga ka muna malalim. Tapos, isip ka ng maraming latin na salita, para masaya. Malay mo, baka makahanap ka ng latin na di ko maiintindihan. Hehe. Tulad ng loquitOr. Di ko alam yun e. Ang alam ko loquitUr. Subpwena, anyone?”
—-Uy, nag-aastang marunong. Sorry ha, magaling ka pala sa spelling. Eh pano kung sabihin ko sayong may mga Supreme Court cases na ang mine-mention ay res ipsa loquitOR? Eto ang isang example parekoy:http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/150920.htm
Hindi na ako maghahanap ng “latin maxims” dahil meron na akong libro nun. Bumili ka na lang.
The Bystander on Sun, 18th Jun 2006 3:24 am
MLQ3, mukhang may problema na naman sa software mo. Awaiting moderation na naman yung comments ko. Rejoinder sana yon sa last comment ni AntonioWalang…. Paki-accept na lang, thanks!
The Bystander on Sun, 18th Jun 2006 3:26 am
“For evidence to be taken as proof, the evidence must be competent and relevant. Ibig sabihin, dapat acceptable yung evidence as Korte (competent), at pangalawa, dapat yung ebidensiya ay relevant (di ko alam yan sa tagalog) sa kaso. Kung di siya competent at di siya relevant, evidence will never constitute proof. Kaya nung sinabi ko na wala kang proof, ang ibig sabihin nun, ay yung ebidensiya na pilit mo pinagwawagan ay di pa napapatunayan na competent, at relevant. Get mo?â€
—-I’ll take you back to Rule 128 of the Rules of Court parekoy. The rule states that “evidence†is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining IN A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING the truth respecting a matter of fact. Ano ka ba naman AntonioWalang..? We should not even be demanding that evidence must be “competent†and “relevant†in this forum. It is only before a competent court and it is only before an impartial judge who is MANDATED to apply the rules of admissibility. I am under no obligation to satisfy the requirements of competency and relevancy because we are not in a court of law and obviously you are far from being a judge. That was why I said in that comment thread: “Before you murmur words like “law†and “evidenceâ€, you must learn WHEN and WHERE to use them. TO REPEAT, the most that we can do in this internet forum is formulate our opinions based on circumstances that have so far been gathered, e.g. in the news (the published facts), pronouncements of relatives of the victims, statements of government officials, the possible motivation for the killings etc..†Your assertion is not only misguided, it is totally out of place.
“Pasensya na kung di ko nabanggit lahat ng steps sa reasoning. Kala ko kasi masusundan mo.â€
—-Sus, palusot ka pa. Kung hindi ko ni-remind sayo, eh hindi mo ireresearch!
“Anyway, Tama ka na ang forum ay hindi venue para sa pag-determina kung competent nga at relevant ang ebidensiya. Kaya nga, sinabi ko, yung tinitira ko ay yung iyong pagdadahilan sa pagbatikos mo kay DJB. Sabi ko, malabong naniniwala ka pa sa (Anna, cover your eyes, ayaw mo mabasa ito) rule of law, kung sa pagdadahilan mo palang, di na importante na meron kang sapat na proof (not evidence) na basehan ng opinyon mo.â€
—-Mukhang nalilito ka pa kung ano ang ibig sabihin ng salitang “opinyon†parekoy. Is it a condition sine qua non that for a person to express an opinion, he must first have with him solid proof to support his views? Kaya nga ang tawag dun “opinyon†eh, dahil hindi kini-claim ng opinion maker/writer na absolutely certain sya sa mga punto nya. I-research mo yung etymology ng “opinion†parekoy para malinawan yung isip mo kung ano talaga ang ibig sabihin ng salitang “opinionâ€. Or kung hindi mo mahanap, basahin mo na lang uli sa dictionary ang meaning at hanapin mo doon (kung may mahanap ka) kung kailangan bang may hawak na solid, uncontroverted proof muna bago puwedeng magbigay ng opinyon ang isang tao. O baka naman may iba kang libro?
“Pero ulit, entitled ka sa opinyon mo. ANG SA AKIN LANG ay we should hold ourselves to higher standards in formulating our opinions. These higher standards include subjecting all evidence – even if just in our heads – to the same rules that a Court uses to determine whether or not the evidence is good enough to be considered proof. Mahirap nga gawin yun, kasi wala kang access to witnesses. Obvious naman yun diba. So, if you can’t determine with certainty -using these higher standards – whether there is proof enough to support your conclusions, siguro hinay-hinay lang sa pagpuna sa mga taong (tulad ni DJB) gustong mag-adhere dun sa standards na willing kang i-ignore. Kasi nga naman, opinyon mo lang yun. Dba?â€
—-Hindi naman pala requirement yan ng “rule of law†na sinasabi mo eh. Sariling standards mo lang yan na pilit mong i-apply ko rin sa opinions ko. If the dictates of law and justice do not so provide and require, then why should I burden myself with having to gather evidence (which could probably take months to finish) for the mere purpose of expressing an opinion? Talagang high nga siguro yung standards mo, high to the point of absurdity and impracticability. And what exactly is your COMPETENCE (bwahaha!) to expect from other people that kind of standard?
“Tell me why I’m wrong about res ipsa. And if you can’t , well, I’ll understand. Hinga ka muna malalim. Tapos, isip ka ng maraming latin na salita, para masaya. Malay mo, baka makahanap ka ng latin na di ko maiintindihan. Hehe. Tulad ng loquitOr. Di ko alam yun e. Ang alam ko loquitUr. Subpwena, anyone?â€
—-Uy, nag-aastang marunong. Sorry ha, magaling ka pala sa spelling. Eh pano kung sabihin ko sayong may mga Supreme Court cases na ang mine-mention ay res ipsa loquitOR? Eto ang isang example parekoy: http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/nov2005/150920.htm
Hindi na ako maghahanap ng “latin maxims†dahil meron na akong libro nun. Bumili ka na lang.
The Bystander on Sun, 18th Jun 2006 3:33 am
MLQ3, everybody:
Okay na pala. Pasensya na guys kung naulit ko ng tatlong beses ang last comment ko. Bigla kasing nagka-problema ang software ni MLQ3. Baka sa sobrang dami na siguro ng comments. Hehe.
Anyway, thanks MLQ3 for allowing us to discuss till kingdom come. Great blog!
anna de brux on Sun, 18th Jun 2006 4:02 am
Heheheh!
I really enjoyed reading the legal repartees of our 2 able protagonists here.
Bystander, your defence is outstanding; Antonio Walang… being the prosecutor ain’t that bad pero nahihilo ako sa pagsunod ng explanations niya sometimes because I thought the issues sometimes became mere rhetorics (or perhpas that was his aim – to make readers hilo?) and were veering towards distraction instead of focusing on the essential but I must admit he put up a good attack – although your defence was equally great.
He was a worthy adversary, don’t you think?
I like the way you stated things – you were methodical, easier to follow and there was no friggin about which is how it should be. Legal hocus-pocusing and gobbledygooking should not be used as substitutes for lack of assurance or brilliance.
Congratulations to both of you…. and thanks MLQ3 for allowing that debate. I learned loads of things and hope the others did to.
The Bystander on Sun, 18th Jun 2006 4:43 am
Thanks, Anna. It was more of an impassioned discussion. Tit for tat, so to speak.
Ya, he was also firm in his views. And for that alone, he is a worthy opponent. This is the beauty of the internet. Virtually two people, unknown to each other, converge in another person’s (Manolo’s) blog and debate like there’s no tomorrow.
I like your style too, Anna — especially that “killer dog” example of yours. Hehe! Well seriously, you’re one commenter/commentator who will not mince words on a particular topic. In addition, you speak with such authority as regards your chosen field of endeavor that I can’t help but ask: what is this woman doing in Belgium? She should have been here and help educate our countrymen!
juan makabayan on Sun, 18th Jun 2006 8:38 pm
Bystander,
I agree. GMA is anwerable for the number of judicial killings, considering GMA’s decisions, proclamations, actuations and recent policy statements re the Reds.
The Bystander on Sun, 18th Jun 2006 9:23 pm
That’s what I was trying to point out to the other commenter AntonioWalanglaban. But I guess we both have exhausted all possible arguments for this issue. He also has some valid reasons for taking the other position.
cvj on Mon, 19th Jun 2006 7:45 am
juanmakabayan, thanks for the explanation and the link to the bishop’s blog. (just saw it now.)
rape movies on Sat, 8th Jul 2006 2:59 pm
Get me more text about it
Sudoku on Fri, 1st Dec 2006 4:44 pm
Buon luogo piacevole senza qualsiasi cosa dispari, ben progettata!