Connect-the-dots

In today’s news, ASEAN OKs rights body in charter. Last Sunday’s Inquirer editorial had come out in support of the proposal.

SWS: Satisfaction ratings for VP de Castro, 3 others stable.

Since 2000, more than 1,700 civilians killed, wounded in terror attacks, mostly in Mindanao. This means more casualties than, say, Indonesia. Then 1,000 families evacuated; 130 MILF, Abu forces face arrest but Warrants vs beheading suspects on hold.

Appointments merry-go-round: Palace names Defensor bank board director. There’s an interesting account of behind-the-scenes lobbying in the Palace, to retain or be given jobs: see Last-minute lobbying stalls Cabinet revamp:

Reyes, who is now on his fourth Cabinet post since he was appointed defense chief in 2001, earlier appealed to the Chief Executive during cocktails at the Palace after she delivered her State of the Nation Address last July 23…

…Also Monday, Commission on Higher Education (CHED) chairman Carlito Puno said in an interview at dzMM that it is still not yet clear whether he would indeed be replaced by National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) director general Romulo Neri as disclosed by the latter on Friday.

Court junks Trillanes bid to attend Senate sessions (and not even allow him to work from his cell? See also Judge shuts out Trillanes) In the Senate, Villar unfazed by ouster threat over choice posts but Villar and Pimentel will meet on committees. A potential compromise involves Loren Legarda as Blue Ribbon Committee chairman. John Nery says the proposal’s worth a closer look. Meanwhile, President wants to have Sen. Santiago serve in the International Court of Justice: Santiago willing to give up Senate seat for ICJ.

Things are proceeding more smoothly in the House: 2 House Arroyos get committees for aiding de Venecia. In Uniffors thinks Reyes’ appointment and that of the President’s son, Mikey, as House Energy Committee chairman, points to a previous working relationship between Reyes and the President’s son. Uniffors also connects the dots between the appointment of Heherson Alvarez as mining czar, and the designation of the President’s brother-in-law, Ignacio Arroyo, as chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources. See also More House officials appointed.

Also, apropos of my question concerning solar power (in yesterday’s entry), San Miguel eyeing solar power as alternative energy for facilities. Meanwhile, Water officials monitor levels in 3 major dams. See the Inquirer editorial on weird weather, and its effects on the energy situation.

Economics news: BIR misses VAT collection target for 1st five months (see Jan-May VAT take is 23.2% short also). Meanwhile, Strong peso cuts debt payments government says, but read Tony Abaya’s column which explains why this ain’t so:

It is not just the exporters who are hurting from the strong peso. The 50 or so million Filipinos who depend on monthly remittances from their relatives working abroad have lost some 18 percent of the peso proceeds of their dollars, compared to two years ago.

So have the enterprises that depend directly on tourism: hotels, restaurants, tour guides, resorts…

…[A] strong peso – and its twin, a record-breaking stock market – benefit only a small group of people: Players in the stock market and foreign portfolio managers who speculate with hundreds of millions of dollars, hiring no more than a couple of secretaries and messengers, but who will not hesitate to stampede out of the economy at the first hint of trouble, as they did in 1997.

The overwhelming majority of the population suffers from the strong peso.

Theoretically – and I underline that word – a strong peso makes oil imports, our biggest single import item, cheaper. But in reality, it doesn’t. The Shellane cooking gas that we used to buy at P495 in 2005 now costs P550 per canister. Our household consumed 54 kwh less than in the previous month, yet our Meralco bill is higher by P2,311.80. And premium gas is now more than P40 per liter. Of course, it is all due to the price of oil going past $75 per barrel, but it does take the sheen off the strong peso.

Theoretically, the strong peso makes our foreign debt and its servicing smaller. P20 billion less for every dollar that the peso appreciates, it is said. But only if we actually make a substantial payment in the here and now, which is doubtful considering that the government is strapped for cash and cannot even meet its tax collection targets.

To crow about the strong peso and the record-breaking stock market, as President Arroyo does, and to be annoyed when told that it is harming the economy, as she is, makes one wonder where she got her doctorate in economics.

Add to this, Average monthly bill for water to rise 24%. In his blog, here and here, Philippine Politics 04 has been covering the rise in electricity rates.

also, State lawyers to meet Marcos son on Lucio.

Jonas Burgos-related news: Jonas hearing focuses on car plates while Jonas looked at me for help, says witness (see Witness tells how 4 men took away Joe Burgos son also).

Overseas, Second South Korean hostage killed while Germany may end ransom payments for kidnap victims. In Indonesia, Indonesian Radical Leads Campaign on Anti-Terror Police. In Malaysia, Elite Malays and Mixed Marriage. In Thailand, Clashes in front of a royal advisor’s house irk the junta. In Japan, LDP failure in election to change Japan’s political, economic outlook. This is interesting: Pig disease hits southern Vietnam (in light of a similar outbreak here at home: Execs say hog cholera in Bulacan under control).

Nouriel Roubini’s Blog asks, Are We at The Peak of a Minsky Credit Cycle?

Specifically, the crucial macro question that we should ask ourselves today is whether we are at the peak of a Minsky Credit Cycle. Or as the UBS economist George Magnus — an expert of financial instability – put it: “Have we reached a Minsky moment?”

Hyman Minsky was an American economist who died in 1996. His main contribution to economics was a model of asset bubbles driven by credit cycles. In his view periods of economic and financial stability lead to a lowering of investors’ risk aversion and a process of releveraging. Investors start to borrow excessively and push up asset prices excessively high. In this process of releveraging there are three types of investors/borrowers. First, sound or “hedge borrowers” who can meet both interest and principal payments out of their own cash flows. Second, “speculative borrowers” who can only service interest payments out of their cash flows. These speculative borrowers need liquid capital markets that allow them to refinance and roll over their debts as they would not otherwise be able to service the principal of their debts. Finally, there are “Ponzi borrowers” cannot service neither interest or principal payments. They are called “Ponzi borrowers” as they need persistently increasing prices of the assets they invested in to keep on refinancing their debt obligations.

The other important aspect of the Minsky Credit Cycle model is the loosening of credit standards both among supervisors and regulators and among the financial institutions/lenders who, during the credit boom/bubble, find ways to avoid prudential regulations and supervisions.

Minsky’s ideas and model fit nicely the last two US credit booms and asset bubbles that ended up in a recession: the S&L-based real estate boom and bust in the late 1980s; and the tech bubble and bust in the late 1990s. But the experiences of the last few years suggest another Minsky Credit Cycle that has probably now reached its peak. First, it was the US households (and households in some other countries) that releveraged excessively: rising consumption, falling and negative savings, increased in debt burdens and overborrowing, especially in housing but also in other categories of consumer credit, an increase in leverage that was supported by rising asset prices (housing and, more recently, equity). We know now that many sub-prime borrowers, near-prime borrowers and many condo-flippers were exactly the Minsky “Ponzi borrowers”: think of all the “negative amortization mortgages” and no down-payment and no verification of income and assets and interest rate only loans and teaser rates. About 50% of all mortgage originations in 2005-2006 had such characteristics. Also, many other households (near prime and subprime borrowers) were Minsky “speculative borrowers” who expected to be able to refinance their mortgages and debts rather than paying a significant part of their principal.

In his column, Adel Tamano says there’s a way to define who belongs to the opposition:

First, the following three broad issues will determine one’s true political leanings: (1) Corruption; (2) Charter change (Cha-cha); and (3) Human Rights or extra-judicial killings. Obviously, a senator who claims to be with the opposition but refuses to push a Senate investigation on Joc-Joc Bolante, “Hello Garci” and Jose Pidal, the top three corruption scandals according to our surveys during the elections, is not an authentic oppositionist. Similarly, a GO senator who supports Cha-cha prior to 2010, against the obvious sentiments of the Filipino majority, will be shown to be a phony. In the same vein, a GO senator who refuses to take the administration to task over its lousy human rights record should rightly be viewed as an administration hack.

It is your actions that determine your opposition status, not your press releases or comments to media. That said, the choice of Senate president, alone, cannot determine one’s status as opposition or administration.

Second, another more exact method of determination of the real political sentiments of the GO senators is to see if they will remain true to their campaign promises, specifically the 10-point program of the GO. This 10-point program was approved by the GO candidates and was the basis for the policy statements and debates during the heated election period.

An interesting thing about Connie Veneracion‘s columns is her clearly enlightened view towards parenting. In her column today, she discusses what se sees as the merits of an untraditional approach to education.On a related note,see The Myth About Boys by David von Drehle.

I can only dream department: Chin Wong writes about running applications directly from a flash drive… But apparently Apple is behind in this department.

In the blogosphere, David Llorito asks some interesting questions. A Nagueno in the Blogosphere demonstrates how executive leadership is undertaken.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , ,

106 comments

Skip to comment form

    • vic on August 1, 2007 at 11:25 pm

    Trillanes, despite everything won the seat, but still has to prove himself. And many, very many before him, who had been expected to be what many already made him appear to be, failed miserably.

    • my gulay! on August 2, 2007 at 12:01 am

    Speaking of education, check this out:
    http://tristancafe.com/forum/117668

    Marcos emerging as the “pinakamagaling na presidente ng pilipinas?” Where did these people get this notion? What the hell are they teaching in schools nowadays?!

    • manuelbuencamino on August 2, 2007 at 12:52 am

    Bencard,

    First you said: “what judge would believe the words of an accused traitor?”

    Then you said: “treason is a war crime. unless you now believe that we are in a “state of war” with the NPA and MILF, then we can talk about treason and conspiracy to commit it.”

    Yes, please get back to me as soon as you reach an agreement with yourself over the meaning of traitor and treason.

    • manuelbuencamino on August 2, 2007 at 1:02 am

    Bencard,

    “in the first place, there is no equivalence, moral, legal or otherwise, between voting for trillianes and “legitimizing” the oakwood mutiny. about the only thing in common between them is that they are both foolhardy.”

    Is not a vote for Trillanes a vote for an “accused traitor”? Does not that vote, at the very least, qualify as condoning or tolerating what he is accused of?

    Are you now dismissing the acts of a traitot as mere foolhardiness?

    • manuelbuencamino on August 2, 2007 at 1:06 am

    Jaxius,

    “Some people believe he did what he did on Oakwood for that reason. However, they say it was in a far less noble way than what you probably think.”

    How would you have done it?

    • manuelbuencamino on August 2, 2007 at 1:08 am

    BrianB,

    “I suppose if he doesn’t turn out to be like that he’ll disappoint a lot of people.”

    Without a doubt.

    • Bencard on August 2, 2007 at 1:54 am

    buencamino, whatever you do, don’t put words in my mouth. people who voted for him voted for him to be senator, not to condone him, which is not in their power to do.

    • Bencard on August 2, 2007 at 3:59 am

    btw buencamino, when i use the word “traitor” as applied to trillianes, i mean a person accused of crime involving betrayal of a cause or a trust, rather than as an actor in a crime of treason. treason is a technical, legal term defined by law. one can be a traitor without necessarily committing treason.

    • jaxius on August 2, 2007 at 7:11 am

    manuelbuencamino,

    Judas betrayed Christ for 30 pieces of silver.

    • benign0 on August 2, 2007 at 8:01 am

    mlq3,

    I agree with what you said. If not for heroes, we would not be enjoying the rights we take for granted today. In fact if Edsa 1 hadn’t happened, maybe we’d still be living in dictatorial bliss today.

    However, one can’t compare what our so-called “heroes” like Trillianes are fighting for today with those that truly groundbreaking heroes fought for and ACHIEVED in the past.

    The Philippines, unlike the state that the U.S. and many countries where in when REAL revolutions occurred (whether civil/military or in terms of culture or paradigm) already has the fundamental legal frameworks to uphold justice and equality.

    All we need to do is UNDERSTAND and EXECUTE them PROPERLY.

    Real revolutions are accompanied by REVOLUTIONARY thoughts and ideas. And heroes SUCCEED in their plight when these ideas eventually get applied, result in transformational change in how their society is constituted.

    What is it about what this bozo Trillianes is supposedly “fighting” for that is revolutionary or transformational? The mutiny he participated in is just one of many other dime-a-dozen mutinies that have already plagued Pinoy society. And the Law is pretty clear about how mutineers are to be dealt with. And then he and his handlers pander to that age-old predisposition of Pinoys to relate with underdogs.

    “Boo hoo, the guy’s in prison after fighting for our ‘rights’. Sige na nga let’s vote for the bozo.”

    Ayan tuloy. He continuously gets compared (albeit unfairly) to that other POPULARLY-elected jailbird Jalosjos.

    Excuse us, but there are no “rights” to fight for nowadays, because lest we forget, they are ALREADY inherent in our legal framework. We just need to vote for the RIGHT people into the offices we fund with our taxes so that these doctrines are interpretted, applied, and executed, PROPERLY.

    That’s the part of the equation Pinoys don’t understand. And it’s that pathetic lack of understanding that elevates bozos like Trillianes into this lechon manok pedestal he is on today.

    • manuelbuencamino on August 2, 2007 at 9:34 am

    Bencard,

    I didn’t put words in your mouth, I interpreted the votes for Trillanes. I wanted to know if you thought my interpretation was correct. I mean, how can one vote for Trillanes and not take into consideration his role in the Oakwood Mutiny?

    As to your statement : “when i use the word “traitor” as applied to trillianes, i mean a person accused of crime involving betrayal of a cause or a trust, rather than as an actor in a crime of treason. treason is a technical, legal term defined by law. one can be a traitor without necessarily committing treason.”

    Lewis Carrol had a shorter way of explaining what words mean in his Alice in Wonderland novels.

    Don’t hide behind the skirt of the law. Laymen can also define treason. Even my MacBook carries a definition of the word.

    Trea-son n.
    1.violation of the allegiance owed by a person to his or her own country; fpr example, by aiding an enemy. See also high treason.
    2.betrayal or disloyalty.
    3. an act of betrayal or disloyalty

    Synonyms:
    sedition,disloyalty, treachery, subversion, betrayal, duplicity

    Antonym” allegiance

    • manuelbuencamino on August 2, 2007 at 9:36 am

    Jaxius,

    “Judas betrayed Christ for 30 pieces of silver.”

    Huh?

    • hvrds on August 2, 2007 at 9:54 am

    Lawrence San Juan agreed to a lesser charge and plead guilty. He claimed that he accepts his responsibility in the Oakwood incident only insofar as his actions were meant simply as a protest action against his superiors. He said that it was not meant to be a challenge to his commander in chief. He said that he was not aware of the leadership’s (Magdalo) motive of trying to bring down the government.

    After his escape and subsequent capture he was put in solitary confinement and has now returned to the fold of the military and pledged allegiance to his commander in chief.

    The alleged crime of Trillanes is rebellion. Mind you not attempted rebellion.

    He is being tried in a military court martial for conduct unbecoming a gentleman. The maximum penalty for his alleged military offense is discharge from the service. He is no longer a member of the military the day he filed his candidacy.

    Any dumb civilian would be able to surmise that based on the above facts his alleged crime is bailable.

    When Fidel Castro and his men attacked the Moncada Barracks and were captured they were jailed for so obvious a rebellion by Batista.

    I sincerely doubt whether the trail of Trillanes will proceed with dispatch. If he plays his cards right the government will give him a platform which will be more valuable than his not being able to attend Senate hearings.

    “I do not know which makes a man more conservative—to know nothing but the present, or nothing but the past. John Maynard Keynes

    “Remember the power of justice. Jurors will circumvent the law to mete out justice. People will break the law to obtain justice. People will die in wars to win it. People can live without food or shelter or love. This is a species that can bear every kind and character of pain except one pain – the pain of injustice.” Gerald Spence, Human Rights lawyer

    • jaxius on August 2, 2007 at 10:06 am

    manuelbuencamino,

    what I am getting at is that some of those officers did what they did in Oakwood for less noble reasons than idealism and a better tomorrow. Hmmm, some say it was to the tune of millions of pesos. Yung iba, nagoyo lang.

  1. Bravo!
    It’s about your column today :Judicial limbo….
    Great piece, indeed.

    Justice is really blind in Pilipinas.
    In our country, it’s JUST TIIS, especially with gonzales at the helm, and supported by an illegitimate, what else can Juan-de-la-Cruz do?

    Every pot can hold as much and when the time comes, the excesses spill and what do we have? Perhaps, it’s time [overdue, in fact…] for the crocodiles and the piranhas to think and mend their ways……

    • rego on August 2, 2007 at 10:20 am

    Again, benigno you nailed it so well!

    That is exactly how I feel about Trillanes. He was actually in my original list of the 3 people that I would like to vote in the last election. Because I wanted new blood in the senate. But then if take out oakwood, there is nothing left in Trillanes. Then ask your self further. “What good does Oakwood accomplished?” The answer is NOTHING SIGNIFICANT!!. So i just decided to erase his name in my list.

    • Jeg on August 2, 2007 at 10:25 am

    I would even forward the idea that a soldier has no right to rebel against an oppressive government.

    I suppose that is why the American constitution has a provision on the right of citizens to form militias.

    • Bencard on August 2, 2007 at 10:39 am

    buencamino, i can understand your legal naivete. treason as a crime is defined by the revised penal code. your “macbook” layman’s definition is probably good in your “wonderland” but has nothing to do with the question you first raised concerning the crimes alleged to have been committed by trillianes.

    • Shaman of Malilipot on August 2, 2007 at 10:56 am

    Bencard, it has always been my understanding that the presumption of innocence continues throughout the trial until the accused is convicted with finality.

    So, you’re now saying that once the prosecution presents its evidence, the accused loses the presumption of innocence? Remember that the Trillanes trial is not yet over and you have already branded him a traitor.

    Now, pray tell me, do lawyers really have a power of understanding that is beyond the ken of non-lawyers?

    • Shaman of Malilipot on August 2, 2007 at 11:06 am

    Exactly, Rego, that’s what I’ve said.

    And yet, after the Senate has investigated the fertilizer fund scam, the Tanodbayan has done nothing about it.

    And don’t be too optimistic about Senate investigations as long as your President GMA is up there. Remember EO 464? GMA is the greatest obstacle to uncovering corruption in government right now. That’s why the stink doesn’t go away.

    • manuelbuencamino on August 2, 2007 at 11:08 am

    Bencard,

    “buencamino, i can understand your legal naivete. treason as a crime is defined by the revised penal code. your “macbook” layman’s definition is probably good in your “wonderland” but has nothing to do with the question you first raised concerning the crimes alleged to have been committed by trillianes.”
    Oh I see. But read Lewis Carol’s “Through the Looking Glass”.

    “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,’ it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.’

    ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

    ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master – that’s all.’

    Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. ‘They’ve a temper, some of them – particularly verbs: they’re the proudest – adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs – however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!’

    ‘Would you tell me, please,’ said Alice, ‘what that means?’

    ‘Now you talk like a reasonable child,’ said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. ‘I meant by “impenetrability” that we’ve had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you’d mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don’t mean to stop here all the rest of your life.’

    ‘That’s a great deal to make one word mean,’ Alice said in a thoughtful tone.

    ‘When I make a word do a lot of work like that,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘I always pay it extra.’

    ‘Oh!’ said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.

    ‘Ah, you should see ’em come round me of a Saturday night,’ Humpty Dumpty went on, wagging his head gravely from side to side, ‘for to get their wages, you know.’

    (Alice didn’t venture to ask what he paid them with; so you see I can’t tell you.)

    ‘You seem very clever at explaining words, Sir’ said Alice. ‘Would you kindly tell me the meaning of the poem called “Jabberwocky”?’

    • manuelbuencamino on August 2, 2007 at 11:11 am

    Jaxius,

    “manuelbuencamino,
    what I am getting at is that some of those officers did what they did in Oakwood for less noble reasons than idealism and a better tomorrow. Hmmm, some say it was to the tune of millions of pesos. Yung iba, nagoyo lang.”

    At yung iba pa?

  2. “for those who can read the law but cannot understand how it works, ‘presumption of innocence’ is only an initial presumption. once an evidence is produced that tends to support the charge, the presumption vanishes like a bubble and the accused must produce his own proof to rebut the prosecution’s evidence. if all that trillianes has is a vague claim that he mutinied ‘against corruption’, he could be in big trouble.”

    no wonder. the moment everyone heard Madam’s voice on that tape, her bubble burst. and Malacanang’s own proof to rebut this “evidence” is for Madam to say “I AM SORRY.”
    well, as Bencard put it, if all that Madam has is a vague speech of being sorry that she lapsed in her judgement, she “could be” *wink,wink* in “big trouble.”

    “what judge would believe the words of an accused traitor?”

    The operational word here is ACCUSED. i cnt imagine judges have a duty to believe anyone’s words (defense or prosecution) except those spoken by sworn witnesses and the voice of evidence.

    “I would even forward the idea that a soldier has no right to rebel against an oppressive government. The most they could do is not to follow illegal orders.”

    And yet, when Balutan and Gudani refused to follow EO whatsit, what happened? they get court-martialed up to their asses.

    And just so Jaxius realizes this, the only logical conclusion for disobeying orders is rebellion or mutiny. anyhow, isn’t refusing to follow orders alrdy constituted as mutiny?

    as in King’s Peace, the High King had this to say abt soldiers and orders, after one of his lieutenants massacred a whole army who had already surrendered in battle. (he was pissed that he had to exile his lieutenant who was a very good commander, plus also punish every soldier who followed her order)

    “Henceforth, every soldier must learn WHEN to follow orders.”

    This is enlightening.

    “Excuse us, but there are no ‘rights’ to fight for nowadays, because lest we forget, they are ALREADY inherent in our legal framework. We just need to vote for the RIGHT people into the offices we fund with our taxes so that these doctrines are interpretted, applied, and executed, PROPERLY.”

    Excuse me too, Benigno. Inherent in LAW or not, rights must always be fought for. even when not in LAW, every human being “has the inherent right…”

    You get that? Human Rights never needed to be institutionalized in the first place if there were no tyrants or cruel people. But since there are, everyone needs to fight for their rights, always. And why? Bec these rights are always under threat.

    Of course, your reasoning that all a citizen needs to do is to “vote for the right people,” leaves much to be desired. it abandons all idea of civic duty and upholds that once people have finished voting, they are free to leave everything to the people they voted into office. it is of course, a sure path to apathy.

    HVRDS,

    bravo for quoting Gerald Spence.

    • Bencard on August 2, 2007 at 11:45 am

    shaman, presumption of innocence is not irrebutable, otherwise there can never be a conviction. if the judge finds the prosecution’s evidence sufficient to convict, the accused must present evidence to cast, at least, a reasonable doubt about his guilt. he cannot just hide behind the mantle of vanishing presumption.

    i did not brand him a traitor, but i called him an ACCUSED traitor. there’s a difference, isn’t there?

    lawyers have four years of formal legal education, plus at least half a year of intense preparation for the bar, not including the previous four years spent learning all other aspects of life. as lawyers, most usually spend a lifetime studying the law to keep abreast. now, i leave it up to you to answer your own question concerning a lawyer’s “power of understanding” of the law.

    • Bencard on August 2, 2007 at 11:55 am

    devilsadvoc8, even “sworn witnesses” can have low credibility or none at all in the eyes of a judge. also, an accused can take the witness stand and testify if he wants to.

    • BrianB on August 2, 2007 at 11:57 am

    “Justice is really blind in Pilipinas.
    In our country, it’s JUST TIIS, especially with gonzales at the helm, and supported by an illegitimate, what else can Juan-de-la-Cruz do?”

    Besides embarrassing them to foreign observers, there’s nothing we can do. “We” being those people who would actually dare to recognize injustice and criminality and call them (naively) by their true names.

    We have to go beyond the democracy of expectations wherein people who don’t expect their rights to be respected get their rights disrespected and people wearing designer clothes get kids gloves. Pick a barangay, there’ll be people there getting their rights trampled on.

    Bencard is always so lawyerly I puke at the thought that he’s actually never experienced a totally stupid ruling and a judge so opaque you can’t help but suspect he’s a robot created by corrupt politicians with a score to settle with you.

    • BrianB on August 2, 2007 at 12:00 pm

    Gerald Spence obviously hasn’t been to our shores.

    • rego on August 2, 2007 at 12:35 pm

    “And yet, after the Senate has investigated the fertilizer fund scam, the Tanodbayan has done nothing about it. ”

    Shamman,

    But charges was already file in the Tanodbayan right? And Bolante was in hiding so the Tanodbayan can not prosecute her. But if she comes back then then tanodbayan can do their job.

    Please dont tell that this is only true with Gloria. Because we all know that there is the Bobby Dacer case that is related to Erap and Lacson and Cesar Mancao and Ray aquino is also in hiding. Yet you and your ilk are all praise of Erap and Lacson…

    Then what happens to other allegation of corruption, the Greman bank account etc etc… where are all the results of investgations for this.

    “And don’t be too optimistic about Senate investigations as long as your President GMA is up there. Remember EO 464? GMA is the greatest obstacle to uncovering corruption in government right now. That’s why the stink doesn’t go away.”

    So why did the people elected the opposition senators then? walang lang? The EO 464 was already challenged in court and SC has ruled on this already. So this should not prevent the people and the senate to substantiate their charges of corruption.

    So ano na lang ang gusto mong mangyari magdadadak na lang tayo? Let our politician run under the campaign promise of anti corruption, vote for them because of that promise. But dont expect them to deliver that promise? Di kay parang nag lolokohan na lang tayo kung ganyang ganyan rin lang? Di kaya eto talaga ang rason on why the stinks doesn’t go away. Turo lang tayo ng turo kay Glori pero yung mga taong inaasahan nating huhuli kay Gloria ay wala namang ginangawa para mahuli sya. Ngawa lang nang ngawa sa TV!

    • rego on August 2, 2007 at 12:44 pm

    “Excuse me too, Benigno. Inherent in LAW or not, rights must always be fought for. even when not in LAW, every human being “has the inherent right…”

    Not to preempt benigno’s response but just one question devils. How can you fight without referring to the law that defines what ever rights your are fighting for?

    • manuelbuencamino on August 2, 2007 at 12:55 pm

    Rego,

    “Turo lang tayo ng turo kay Glori pero yung mga taong inaasahan nating huhuli kay Gloria ay wala namang ginangawa para mahuli sya. Ngawa lang nang ngawa sa TV!”

    So mas okay na si Gloria?

    • romy on August 2, 2007 at 12:57 pm

    MLQ3, surveys are services that are rendered for a price. Hence the better the services, the more satisfactions and benefits for the buyer. Its like the law of suppy and demand as you said. In my opinion, surveys were manipulated to served a purpose. Its publications were meant to form public opinion/s or sometimes to influenced court decision. However, my proposal is not to ban surveys but to make it transparent and established its credibility.

    • manuelbuencamino on August 2, 2007 at 1:06 pm

    Rego,

    “How can you fight without referring to the law that defines what ever rights your are fighting for?”

    Inherent rights nga. Hindi nga kailangan i-define pa yan ng batas. Kailangan lang tao ka, kasali na yan sa pagkatao mo. Galing yan sa Panginoon hindi sa mga abogado.

    • inodoro ni emilie on August 2, 2007 at 1:09 pm

    manuel,

    kahit hindi mo man banggitin ang Panginoon, let’s call that the natural moral law, as opposed to positive human law.

    ma-law-law kow akow sa yow, regow.

    • benign0 on August 2, 2007 at 1:42 pm

    You misunderstand Devil. I do in fact agree with what you say that “inherent in LAW or not, rights must always be fought for”.

    What Trillianes did by participating in a rebellion, however, is clearly outside the framework of the law. That may be justified when what you are fighting for happens to be outside of the existing legal framework.

    The trouble is, a lot of the “rights” these bozos were “fighting” for are in fact already enshrined within the legal framework of the Philippines; which means there are also legal means to uphold and enforce them (there are legal means to continue this “fight”).

    Which brings to question why this bozo now runs for a Senate seat. It is a tacit acknowledgement that there is, after all, AN ALTERNATIVE to REBELLION. The fact that he’d even take a stab at coming up with a semblance of a platform (albeit riddled with cliched motherhood statements) for his candidacy acknowledges that there is in fact a legal framework to accomodate his agenda.

    Ergo, his rebellion was completely unjustified, unprovoked, and therefore should be punished within the same legal framework within which he now seeks office.

    It’s really simple.

    The guy’s a crook.

    It is SOCIETY that is making him out to be anything more than that. 😉

    • Shaman of Malilipot on August 2, 2007 at 2:00 pm

    Bencard,

    Let me quote your words again:

    “once an evidence is produced that tends to support the charge, the presumption vanishes like a bubble and the accused must produce his own proof to rebut the prosecution’s evidence.”

    Once again, here’s my understanding of the above sentence, not having the benefit of four years of formal legal education, plus a half year of intense preparation for the bar:

    After the prosecution has finished its presentation of evidence that “tends to support the charge”, the accused is no longer presumed innocent, the presumption of innocence having “vanish(ed) like a bubble”. In the meantime that the defense is presenting its evidence, the accused is no longer presumed innocent (the bubble has burst, remember?) until such time that the judge is persuaded to believe that the defence has given proof that rebuts the prosecution’s evidence and renders a decision of acquittal.

    It’s either I’m having a hard time understanding the cause-and-effect and sequential flow of events in your sentence quoted above, or you’re having difficulty expressing yourself, despite the benefit of four years of formal legal education, plus a half year of intense preparation for the bar.

    • manuelbuencamino on August 2, 2007 at 2:11 pm

    INE,

    Tama ka dyan. Mas accurate yun terminology mo,

    Ginamit ko lang yun word na Panginoon para maiwasan na pumasok pa ang mga pilosopng gagawa ng mahabang kwento tungkol sa natural moral law at positive human law.

    • Shaman of Malilipot on August 2, 2007 at 2:35 pm

    Rego,

    To my knowledge, no case has been filed yet by the Tanodbayan (si Ombudsgirl pa!) in connection with the fertilizer fund scam. Even if Joke-Joke Bolante (by the way, he is a “he”) is in the US (he is not hiding, he has been detained by US authorities), he can still be charged in absentia and the Tanodbayan can request his extradition.

    I’m for the prosecution of those responsible (both the mastermind and the hatchet men), whoever they are, for the murders of my kababayan Bubby Dacer and his driver.

    My anti-Gloria stance does not mean that I’m pro-Erap or pro-Lacson. If Erap and Lacson committed crimes, let them take the rap, just as I want Gloria to be held accountable for her many sins against the people. But, you and your ilk just want to “move on.”

    • Shaman of Malilipot on August 2, 2007 at 3:05 pm

    “So why did the people elected the opposition senators then? walang lang? The EO 464 was already challenged in court and SC has ruled on this already. So this should not prevent the people and the senate to substantiate their charges of corruption.

    “So ano na lang ang gusto mong mangyari magdadadak na lang tayo? Let our politician run under the campaign promise of anti corruption, vote for them because of that promise. But dont expect them to deliver that promise? Di kay parang nag lolokohan na lang tayo kung ganyang ganyan rin lang? Di kaya eto talaga ang rason on why the stinks doesn’t go away. Turo lang tayo ng turo kay Glori pero yung mga taong inaasahan nating huhuli kay Gloria ay wala namang ginangawa para mahuli sya. Ngawa lang nang ngawa sa TV!”

    The people elected the opposition senators, first to express their displeasure with Gloria, and second, because they want the Senate to continue with its oversight function over the corrupt Executive Department, despite the obstacles that Gloria throws on its way. Just look how obstructionist Gloria is: After the SC declared some portions of EO 464 unconstitutional, Gloria came up with Memorandum (18 or 180, I’m not sure). Of course, the Senate and the people should continue fighting to pry open the cover that Gloria is steadfastly keeping over the stink.

    Anong gusto kong mangyari? For Gloria to resign so the obstacles can be swept away. Then, we may have an easier time washing the stink away. But with Gloria there, for sure, the stink won’t go away.

    • vic on August 2, 2007 at 3:27 pm

    Most serious criminal cases in the West, especially in the U.S.(in Canada, an accused has a choice to be tried by the Judge and Jury or the by the Trial Judge alone for crimes punishable by more 5 years. Anything less is tried by Judge alone.) are decided by the Jury. And the members of the Jury as we all know are picked from among the citizens, without regards if they have a day of know schooling in law. The Presiding Judge who is a member of the Bar, may give them some points of law and instructions for maybe a day or two and from time to time may guide the Jury, but those members, usually number in 12 men and women who maybe just drivers, nurses, waiters, some maybe just high school graduates can decide on the fate of the accused based on volumes of evidence that may need a lawyer judge who spent 4 years of formal education or more the same, and usually came up with the proper verdict in less time than lawyers can decide on points of law..

    So understanding of evidence of wrongs or criminal acts is not a law science, nor a rocket science (law is not a science anyways) but more of a common sense and basically like knowing which one is your left or right hand.

  3. “even ‘sworn witnesses’ can have low credibility or none at all in the eyes of a judge. also, an accused can take the witness stand and testify if he wants to.”

    I know that Bencard. But where is the judge or jury to go if there are no other evidence that can be presented except sworn testtimonies of witnesses? i acknowledge the fact abt the problem of credibility, but that is the job of the defense and prosecution to prove or disprove a person as being credible of bearing witness to the crime. I only pointed out that judges have no duty to believe either the prosecution or the defense (when you said: what judge would believe an accused traitor…) or anyone for that matter except those presented as witnesses and those bearing testimonies relevant to the case. i just thought that: of course no judge should believe pointblank anything an accused says nor anything the accuser says. else that judge would not be neutral. i thought that would’ve been obvious to you.

    Benigno,

    tnx for the clarification. i too, agree with you that there are legal remedies to address his complaints. but you should see that the way this administration is running the country, everything is being made a mockery of. LAW least of all, JUSTICE most of all.

    they always say, bring the issue to the proper court/venue yada, yada. and yet when people try to, they thwart them at every means. remember that this guy had a meeting with GMA herself some nights before the Oakwood incident. that alone speaks volumes that this guy tried to reach out to the then president and air his grievances personally. that it had to result to Oakwood speaks a lot of what happened at that meeting.

    people question his methods, but few consider that this man is a military man, first and foremost. he is bred and trained to think in military terms. allowing that his methods were wrong, people shouldn’t be surprised that that was the solution he thought of first. but that doesn’t make his grievances less truthful, that doesn’t diminish this guy’s heart, or his fervent wish for change.

    now that he has people who advises him on the legal ramifications of his act, you see him trying to do the right thing. when this guy staged the mutiny, he was justly misguided. but i believe his heart and idealism is in the right place, and that’s why i voted for him.

    yes, Benigno. i am one of the voters you consider a “fool” for voting this “bozo” into office. only time and this “bozo’s” future actions will tell which one of us has it right.

    • jaxius on August 2, 2007 at 7:04 pm

    devilsadv8,

    “people question his methods, but few consider that this man is a military man, first and foremost. he is bred and trained to think in military terms.”

    Think in military terms? As opposed to what? Just because he was a military officer, should we treat him with kid gloves? That makes him so special that he needs people to advise him with the legal ramifications of his act. Why can’t everybody have that?

    Nobility of purpose has never been a defense for a crime. If an accused told the you that he robbed so that he could feed his family, would you give him the benefit that you have been giving trillanes just because he mutinied for the supposed good of the country?

    • jaxius on August 2, 2007 at 7:12 pm

    Vic,

    a jury is a trier of facts. Questions about law rules of procedure (to include admissibility of evidence, what laws to apply, witnesses, etc.) are left to the court. So, paraphrasing Rummy, it ain’t a cakewalk as you would like to believe.

    • benign0 on August 2, 2007 at 7:35 pm

    “now that he has people who advises him on the legal ramifications of his act, you see him trying to do the right thing. when this guy staged the mutiny, he was justly misguided. but i believe his heart and idealism is in the right place, and that’s why i voted for him.”

    I understand where you’re coming from Devil. The situation there seems such that you’d latch on to even the smallest hint of nobility in intentions.

    Unfortunately, in my experience, good intentions, idealism, and big hearts are not enough or, at worst, don’t NECESSARILY make for a good leader.

    For me it is about vision and being a big enough son-of-a-bitch to go after it. One may be the saintliest saint in the world, but without a vision, you will simply drag your constituents down with you in your eventual martyrdom.

    • cvj on August 2, 2007 at 7:45 pm

    Benign0, sometimes a sonofabitch is just a sonofabitch.

    • Bencard on August 2, 2007 at 7:54 pm

    shaman, i think i’ve said enough. i don’t think i have any obligation to you, or anyone here, to convince you/him/her. if you have problems with my communication skills, that’s too bad, but i’m not gonna forfeit my dessert for that, would i?. you’re right, any body can be his own counsel with or without legal education. dai man ako nagpapa-oragon kaysa imo. (pardon my latin, lol).

    • vic on August 2, 2007 at 8:01 pm

    jaxius, I’m quite aware of that, cause two of my sisters had already sat in the jury and a few of my friends. although it is illegal in Canada for a Jury Member after the verdict to talk to the Media, privately, they can talk about their experience. As I mentioned the trial is guided by the presiding judge as it progress and both the prosecutor and the defense can object and the Jury can sometime get excused during the “legal arguments”among lawyers, and of course being a layman, i limit myself to the arguments that anyone is capable of knowing what is right or wrong, given the proper guidance by in impartial arbiter….thanks…

    • benign0 on August 2, 2007 at 8:28 pm

    “Benign0, sometimes a sonofabitch is just a sonofabitch”

    Same can be said about idealist mutineers. Sometimes they’re just that.

  4. “Just because he was a military officer, should we treat him with kid gloves?”

    No. And neither is he asking for it. unless you haven’t heard, he’s not asking that the charges agst him be dropped, unlike what happened to someone else there, w/o a nilly-willy explanation of why they were dropped. he’s only asking that he be allowed to attend the senate sessions. it’s nigh impossible in that situation to escape. he’ll still face the charges, he’ll still be in detention before and after the sessions. he only wants to do the job. IMO, he can even do it behind bars. tho i doubt he would be much effective behind it. certainly, he will have more difficulties doing his job in that situation.

    “Nobility of purpose has never been a defense for a crime.”

    And I doubt he’s using that as his defense. And neither am I condoning his actions (Oakwood) on that reason. unless you missed what i wrote, i said what he did was wrong.

    and a crime such as rebellion (or mutiny) cannot be compared to a petty crime like robbery or theft. robbery/theft is wrong no matter what reasons pushed you to do it. but rebellion is an entirely diff thing. it maybe a crime by the letter of the law, but it being right and wrong changes based on the circumstances and personalities involved. and if we always thought this is a crime that should ALWAYS be punished no matter what reasons, then why wasn’t the EDSA 1 crowd hanged? after the festivities, Cory should have hunted them all down and said: we must follow the letter of the law blindly. we all committed the crime of rebellion and must therefore be punished. and then when everyone’s dead, she should’ve hung herself as well.

    “I understand where you’re coming from Devil. The situation there seems such that you’d latch on to even the smallest hint of nobility in intentions.”

    I’m glad you understand. It seemed so obvious. I desperately looked for someone with at least a “hint” of goodness in them from among those who ran for senators, and the dearth of them really disappointed me. but lo and behold comes Trillanes. i had no doubt he’ll bumble like an idiot when it comes to the law and legal matters, i had no doubt he has no capability to author a good law himself, i even told myself that he maybe just doing a Jinggoy and Loi and seeking the seat jz for immunity’s sake. But then I heard him speak. Then I heard him say he has no plans to take the pork barrel. Yes! He hit the jackpot! I said to myself, this guy may just be another Gringo. This guy may not even be sincere in his intentions to work for change. But what are my choices? This guy has a chance he “may” actually mean his words. There’s a chance that this guy “may” actually be sincere. And I said to myself, no matter how little that chance is, I’ll take it and I’ll let him prove if I’m right in believing him. Agst everyone else to choose from, I chose the one who had at least a slight chance of being sincere. better him than another TRAPO who’s been there and done that, but really did nothing.

    “Unfortunately, in my experience, good intentions, idealism, and big hearts are not enough or, at worst, don’t NECESSARILY make for a good leader.”

    Yes. These qualities don’t necessarily make for an “efficient” leader. but that leader would still be good for me.

    “For me it is about vision and being a big enough son-of-a-bitch to go after it. One may be the saintliest saint in the world, but without a vision, you will simply drag your constituents down with you in your eventual martyrdom.”

    I beg to disagree. Really disagree. You may have all the vision in the world, but if you go down that path of SOBs, your vision will simply be swallowed up by that SOB attitude of yours. and then you’ll simply be a SOB minus the vision.

    I thought we would’ve learned from Marcos who had “a vision.” I guess not. If you haven’t noticed yet, Gloria is doing the same. She has “a vision” and she is breeding her own SOBs and making herself the queen of them.

    No. Good things grow from good intentions, not bad ones. And no, being grayishly bad-good doesn’t count as good. in fact, if you do have a vision and you’re such a big SOB, I doubt that vision of yours is a good vision that’ll be good for everybody. being such a big bad SOB will make that vision so warped I doubt you would even recognize that it is evil already.

    But that’s jz me. we must find that SOB that can steer this country into prosperity by a vision he/she has. you believe it so much you must’ve someone in mind. care to tell us?

    • rego on August 3, 2007 at 2:26 am

    Very good point, devil! So I guess everyone has our own personal reason for voting for someone that must be respected by everyone. Trillanes was already elected , so be it. But he is in jail. And he doesn’t solicit any special treatment according to you. Then the best thing that we can do so to let the court decide his fate. I want him to go all the way to the Supreme Court for his petition. What ever the decision is then that should be it. And that shoudl be repescted by everyone.

    • rego on August 3, 2007 at 2:35 am

    Right, shaman, how could I forget! All you and ilk really wanted is for Gloria to resign.

    To me, I dont think that will really eliminate the stench of corruption that is plaguing the country. I firmly believe that substatiating all allegetion of corruption from both side, filing the complaint and prosecuting and punishing then with the full extent of the law them will do the job. And thes should applied to everybody not just on Gloria.

Load more

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.