Any way, Your Honors, I rest my case for now (hand extended to Mr. Advocate).

right now, you are living under the protection of the very “rule of law” that you despise, otherwise you would either be in jail or dead.

don’t you patronize me. i have no reason to “be too hard on myself” and i never would. why should i subscribed to your line of aberrant thinking? believe what you want to believe but i’m absolutely certain i’m not “one of the lower forms” that you are, and love to associate with, sore eyes.

But as you see the purpose of it is to drive the point closer to home because I think you are losing it Benny, allowing yourself to be reduced to one track-mindedness which is not good for someone who claims to be a good trial lawyer. As a trial lawyer, you should be flexible enough to take both sides, shouldn’t you? What happens if “I take the law into my hands” and I hire you as my attorney? How easily could you reprogram your perception of the issues now if your loyalty is to personalities and not to ideas?

You see, just an aggrieved husband in the case of the hypothetical, a society is also entitled to self-defense against those who would undermine its institutions like, well, the Rule of Law.

Think of the Pulido trickery at this juncture. Aren’t you sickened by it at all? Aren’t we letting go a political rapist here because of a technicality, of your rule of law, the law of numbers and brute power? Wouldn’t that be enough provocation in the law of self-defense in the larger context of political competition?

Benny don’t be too hard on yourself. Only fools don’t change their stands. cvj, manolo and others did when called for by their conscience. I honestly don’t believe you are one of the lower forms.

applying your “hypothetical” to your “problem” with respect to pgma, if you think you are justified to take the law into your own hands, go ahead. let’s see if you don’t end up in jail, or dead in the confrontation with the law, at worst.

please please don’t put me in a malicious “hypothetical” and be “sincerely sorry” for it as though it actually
happened . i think that’s the reason why there’s so much cases of killings arising from deliberate provocations in political discussions in the philippines. can you not argue intellectually without personally infuriating your opponent and then say “sorry” for it at the same time?

As you can see, so aggrieved you won’t even wait to engage in the niceties of evidence presentation pursuant to the Rule of Law but you would simply take the law into your hands. Would you take that as something equivalent to people taking to the streets because angered by rank abuse of power?

And yet, what many Filipinos are simply patiently asking is an opportunity for the operation of the essence Rule of Law, no more, no less. Why should that be denied by the formalities of your rule of law?

Without the impeachment trial, GMA will continue to claim legitimacy by the Comelec count. Without the rape trial, the sex is consensual by account of your cowardice to come out.

There’s no cheating and betrayal of public trust despite that the whole country heard the president’s voice in the Garci tapes and there is no rape despite that you saw it committed in front of you. If it is not proven in court it is not true.

Am I a coward? Maybe, maybe not. But I’m 100 percent certain of one thing. If I go by your rule of law, I am NOT unless otherwise you prove it in court.

our government exists and continues to exist because of the rule of law. in fact, our nation’s very existence depends on law. without it, there will no philippines as a state but a geographical place populated by millions of independent, self-governing families whose relationship with each other relies chiefly on their respective weaponry and killing machines. you survive by eating what you can produce and protect from covetous neighbors who will take it if you were not strong enough to resist. you cannot sell anything because the only payment you can expect are bullets from a gun’s barrel. your wife, your children, are easy prey unless you have the force to defend them.

we cannot escape law in our life. it is as essential as the air we breath, the water we drink, the food we eat.

if you think you have no redress for your anger and dissatisfaction with pgma following the rule of law, just be patient and wait for the right process to take its course. her “unwillingness” to help her accusers prove their case(s) against her is not unlawful. if you think it is politically incorrect, let her face the verdict of history. she will not be president for all her life.