mahiya sa ating mga bayani!

…

specially to the poster above who alluded and directly connected the impeachment to the nursing board exam?! my god, what kind of logic and reasoning do you people have?!

i am sad with our country’s politics, but yet sadder by the dumbing down of the people.

the voting shows that followers of the impeachment block is obviously getting lesser and lesser, and the noisier alan and chiz get the more people are turned off, the more they see dinky the more they remember the dinkitization of a friend.

It’s not “a Filipino” or “the Filipino” who did that “sinungaling=Bunye/Arroyo” thing, but it may help that many {inoy sites and blogs are critical of Sec. Bunye and Ate Glue. Blame it, instead, on Google’s inventors:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_bombing
“Google bomb or Googlewash is Internet slang for a certain kind of attempt to influence the ranking (called PageRank) of a given page in results returned by the Google search engine, often with humorous or political intentions. Due to the way that Google’s algorithm works, a page will be ranked higher if the sites that link to that page use consistent anchor text. A Google bomb is created if a large number of sites link to the page in this manner.”

Take note, however, that the same websites appear when you search for “sinungaling” on Yahoo! and MSN (which may have similar algorithms as Google’s).

Under Section 4, Rule III of the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings of the House of Representatives of the Thirteenth Congress, Datumanong said the requirement of substance “is met if there is a recital of facts constituting the offense charged and determinative of the jurisdiction of the Committee.”
Roman, who earlier quoted some of Datumanong’s procedural references, said that “without a proper recitation of facts, how can the accused, the President, defend herself?”

“What is required are averments of ultimate facts which ensnare the respondent to the commission of the offense charged, not by mere inference, which is a conclusion, but by statements of actual acts of inculpatory participation,” Lagman said.

What I have learned from the best Remedial Law experts in the country is that the theory behind the “ultimate facts” requirement in civil action provides that the complaint shall contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the complainant is entitled to relief sought for. Likewise, the defendant in his answer shall state in short and plain language the defenses to the plaintiff’s complaint.

In actual practice and from my years of experience as a trial lawyer in the Philippines, however, courts often depart from the strict observance of the ultimate facts requirement in a pleading and complaints are not killed (dismissed) on that ground specially where the statement of more than the ultimate facts in the complaint are intended to establish in advance what the complainant proposes to prove at the trial so that the defendant will be prepared to meet those allegation of facts.

I have cited two specific allegations in the impeachment complaint:

1) That President Arroyo “appointed Virgilio Garcillano as COMELEC Commissioner and interfered with and manipulated the official election duties of the latter to orchestrate and implement electoral fraud” and that “During the 2004 election period, [Arroyo] engaged in unlawful correspondence with Commissioner Garcillano . . . wherein she directed/countenanced/abetted the commission” of various “electoral frauds”;

2) That President Arroyo “has allowed, abetted and countenanced the assassination and summary executions of 690 political dissenters and 42 media practitioners, the involuntary disappearance of some 176 persons, the torture of 320 persons in the hands of government authorities.”

I dare say that only a practicing Philippine lawyer not worth his title could claim that the above recital of facts violates the ultimate facts requirement in a pleading.

Can President Arroyo properly prepare to defend herself if the impeachment complaint instead only stated:

1) That President Arroyo “cheated during the 2004 presidential elections”; and

2) That President Arroyo “allowed extra-judicial killings”?