Comments on: The swarm

By: comelecAKO

comelecAKO — Thu, 31 Aug 2006 05:26:46 +0000

that’s alright tonyo. I still consider you a friend.

By: tonyo

tonyo — Thu, 31 Aug 2006 04:02:09 +0000

Shumey,

What else can it be but double talk. And not only that it can also be described as doble kara. Gma and her gang are good with technicalities specially when it suits their purpose, not to mention delaying tactics whenever it’s convinient.

comelecako, whatever your purpose may be in addressing me as your “friend.” Apparently, another one of your double talk bs. I am telling you so you know – I am no friend of your.

By: DiYumu Yuko

DiYumu Yuko — Thu, 31 Aug 2006 03:12:27 +0000

You bet, Schumey, votes are sacred, but how do you educate people especially in rural areas where the ordinary citizens are in fact properties of the haciendas or the plantations as in Tarlac and Negros. They even think that they have no right to think for themselves as a matter of fact. Tehy vote for who their amos vote for, and if the Amo is a friend of the Pandak, presto, insance votes for the Pandak. And his is one reason I guess for the TY (Thank you) evelopes to the Hacienderos with a plaque and a note with something like this, “Salamat. Aasahan mong hindi kita hihigpitan. O bigay ka muna ng 5M pesos, saka mo na dagdagan!”

By: DiYumu Yuko

DiYumu Yuko — Thu, 31 Aug 2006 03:05:23 +0000

Karl:

E kundi ba gago bakit pinababayaang mag-appoint si Pandak ng mga tatao sa Ombudsman, SC, pulis at militar who are the ones supposed to issue warrants, arrest and prosecute crooks like the Pidals? Can’t understand that system as a matter of fact.

Now, they want a parliament that they are not even aware of. other contries in Asia have long adopted that as a matter of fact because most have royalties. Filipinas meron, Chieftains but not real monarchs.

They may try to make a parliamentary government, OK, basta katulad sa Taiwan na nagsasabunutan, nagsusuntukan, etc kapag nagdebate at hindi magkasundo. On the other hand, I would not recommend such in the Philippines. Mauubos silang lahat! Just imagine the private armies and guns these tongressmen are keeping and storing in their warehouses. Si Beltran nga lang ang alam kong cannot afford niyan.

By: Shaman of Malilipot

Shaman of Malilipot — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:25:13 +0000

Rummel, democratizing the UN is pure wishful thinking. Nobody but nobody can do it. No, not even the charismatic Aung San Suun Kyi. The only way the UN can be democratized is to abrogate the veto powers of the 5 permanent members of the Security Council and eliminate permanent memberships altogether. Do you think the 5 permanent members would agree? They would rather see the UN go the way of the League of Nations than give up their veto power.

By: comelecAKO

comelecAKO — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 08:35:26 +0000

tonyo, my friend, i am sorry if i sounded patronizing. that wasn’t my intention.

jon, i don’t blame people for mistrusting the comelec. nor do i fault them for it. i am just trying to explain the back-stories to these issues. i don’t have all the answers, but where I do have them, i share them for whatever good it might be worth. just like any other opinion writer.

By: Jon Mariano

Jon Mariano — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 06:21:45 +0000

ComelecAko, I think that Tonyo’s is just a manifestation of deep mistrust in the Comelec as an institution. Like another opinion writer’s opinion, he called this action (receiving the petition, and saying that the SC has bla bla bla, and Comelec will bla bla bla) as double talk. And the distrusting people would think that something in midstream can happen again wherein SnB can further their agenda.

If you go on technicalities again, you’re right that this is how it is done. But can you blame people if they don’t trust the Comelec people and the institution itself?

By: tonyo

tonyo — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 05:58:37 +0000

comelecako, you are a funny one with your patronizing words. Just like your boss, Abalos.

By: comelecAKO

comelecAKO — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 05:12:58 +0000

And at what point exactly did the COMELEC violate the law or the Supreme Court prohibition, tonyo? The Supreme Court prohibition is explicit: The COMELEC is prohibited from taking cognizance of any petition for charter change. The COMELEC has not yet taken cognizance of anything. Before the en bance can even reject the petition for refusal to take jurisdiction (which is what refusing to take cognizance means), the petition must first be brought before it. Which is what happened as a consequence of receiving the petition. If we didn’t receive the petition, how could we properly reject it? Inaction – or as you would prefer, not even receiving the petition – would have only prolonged the uncertainty of the petition’s fate. This way, since it with us already, we can definitively reject it and force the issue to go to the next stage which is the Supreme Court. This is called due process, tonyo. We cannot short circuit due process simply because of the apparent obviousness of the conclusion. That would make us just as bad as the people you claim to rage against.

By: antonio walanglaban

antonio walanglaban — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 03:18:12 +0000

toots, i was there and it seemed to me less like a defense of SnB and more of a reminder that the public should not be too credulous. he mentioned something about a coin having two sides. when we try to get our friends to be fair about a certain situation, don’t we also – almost by default – use this two-sided coin analogy? this leads me to believe that what he said was a reminder that we should first look more deeply into the allegations (rather than simply relying on their scandalous face-value) before coming to a judgment. sounds fair to me.