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!

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.

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!

—-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 “evidence”, 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.