Like Rashomon


In Why the Pangandaman Issue Refuses to Die or At Least Abate, the Warrior Lawyer points to the archetype of the Bullying Official as the reason behind the longevity of the Valley Golf Beating Story. There seems to have been a kind of bewilderment in official circles that the beatings became headline material. Warrior Lawyer explains why:

Furthermore, the Pangandamans lost the war for public sympathy from the onset, the circumstances of the event being what it is. Setting aside the question of who gave provocation, it’s clear from the versions of both sides that the De la Paz family were at the losing end of the encounter. There was the father, no spring chicken, and his 14-year old son and college-age daughter, against able-bodied young men, powerful and influential people at that, and their armed bodyguards. Who’s being bullied here ? Pinoys will always sympathize with the underdog.

And if the rumors are to be believed, the Pangandaman camp have little idea of how the blogosphere operates. They have allegedly tried to find out and “profile” the persons behind the blogs attacking them to find ways to counteract such efforts. If true, then they betray a total lack of understanding of the viral nature of the beast. It’s not the individual blogs that dictate the agenda (not that there is even one) of the blogosphere but the medium itself: the immediacy and rapid dissemination of news and opinion among community members numbering in the tens of thousands. Issues take on a life of their own in the internet, by reason of the sheer momentum generated by information speedily passing from one person to another through blogs, social networking sites and the like. The only way to deal with it is on its own terms, by battling it out in the democratic space provided by the internet.

Moreover, the blogosphere is not a universe unto itself. Bloggers are, like it or not, part of the world at large. They are not immune from political and societal forces and will not be restrained from, at the very least, commenting on the issues of the day. They simply won’t keep quiet and anyone who tries to make them shut up would be like King Canute commanding the tides of the sea to roll back.

In his blog (see The Golf Incident: The Trouble with Mirrors), [email protected], a person inclined to be judicious at all times, was concerned over what he perceived to be yet another case of the mob mentality of the blogosphere:

The initial reaction and predictable one is to call for the resignation of the politicians involve in the case. Related to this a series of debate has ensued on Net both via the blogs and the comment threads. The huffing and puffing of beliefs and opinions.

These are all well and good on a certain level but it would be unfortunate if it becomes an issue of trial by posts and a discussion/debate that would pull out all known political and social beliefs and theories. The first one falling into a lynch mob mentality and the second one reminds one of the ineffective men of the floating island of Laputa (from Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travel). The citizens of Laputa intelligent men that they were had one tragic flaw – so indulged in the pursuit of knowledge and reasoning that they did not use their knowledge for any practical use: to much into the thought process and no input in the action.

After a reasonable time; debate without action is as effective as cupping a corpse.

So here we are;

I am not really a fan of trial by posts. It is a blind rage that can be destructive to those who receive and uses its power. Rather it would be better to use this “power” to ensure that the case is monitored and not left to die. Legal measures are a welcome resort in such case and for the politicians involved in the case – leave of absence or resignation would also be appropriate.

And again when the debate goes way for argument’s sake – well it becomes useless and at some point deadly – apathy is not the only thing that kills a cause.

This medium is truly like a mirror and reflects the actions of all those involved.

His concern was for the truth to emerge; I engaged him in discussions on this over several days, arguing that there were two issues at hand, a political one, and one of personal justice, and that the political issue had resolved itself when the Secretary hadn’t even deigned to offer to go on leave, move to resolve matters, or in any way relinquish (at least temporarily) his authority so as to foster an unimpeded investigation; that the other concerns were properly the province of the courts as far as assigning compensation for any damages, etc. The very fact a national official reacted by going to Baguio to be seen to be “malakas” with the President, not relinquishing his post or going on leave, would send a message (implicitly supported by the President’s silence on the matter and her New Year’s activities in the secretary’s bailiwick) he was untouchable.

Baratillo prefered a more phlegmatic approach, waiting for evidence to trickle in. In subsequent conversations, Baratillo brought up the movie Rashomon as an apt comparison to the whole golf mauling brouhaha:

The film depicts the rape of a woman and the apparent murder of her husband through the widely differing accounts of four witnesses, including the rapist and, through a medium (Fumiko Honma), the dead man. The stories are mutually contradictory, leaving the viewer to determine which, if any, is the truth. The story unfolds in flashback as the four characters – the bandit Taj-maru (Toshiro Mifune), the murdered samurai (Masayuki Mori), his wife (Machiko Kyo), and the nameless woodcutter (Takashi Shimura) – recount the events of one afternoon in a grove. But it is also a flashback within a flashback, because the accounts of the witnesses are being retold by a woodcutter and a priest (Minoru Chiaki) to a ribald commoner (Kichijiro Ueda) as they wait out a rainstorm in a ruined gatehouse identified by a sign as Rashomon.

On the other hand, The Marocharim Experiment compared it to a story by Guy de Maupassant and observed,

Yet for all the bitching and whining that is taking place between the Hauchecomes and the Malandains of this issue, we’re pretty much privy to it. Like the villagers who saw the fight between Hauchecome and Malandain as nothing more than a battle of differences between strings and pocketbooks, many still see this as a battle of whodunnit first at the golf course many of us can’t afford to go to.

While they squabble about who struck the other first, some of us fail to frame this issue along – not to separate it from – the many different injustices we all suffer. The fact that something occured means that it cannot be denied.

To be sure, that is what’s unfolded since the first account, by Bambee dela Paz, emerged. This is a public issue only insofar as a public official is involved, a minor was physically harmed, and that the official took it to the point of repeated physical confrontation because he had the ultimate check on any efforts to impose reason and sobriety -his bodyguards- and continued to brandish these things as the case became a publicly-discussed one.

In a comment on Journaling on the Net, columnist Ducky Paredes took the opposite tack from my entry on the subject, where I’d pointed out that this was a case of provincial warlordism colliding with metropolitan expectations of limits on official behavior:

I am glad that some on the blogsphere want to know what really happened and not what they want to believe. It’s tough for the Pangandamans; they’re in government and with the unpopular Gloria Arroyo plus they;re outsiders being from Mindanao and Muslims. Tough but all of that has to be factored in.

Accepted that the beating up was too much - an overkill; but as a Valley golfer, let me just say that the ones who breached etiquette were the De la Paz twosome who even drove the ball and almost hit Mayor Pangandaman.

The world has gone crazy? Yes. It has dumped on the Pangandamans mainly because of ther being in government, with Gloria and are outsiders.

This is not to say that I condone what was done to the De la Paz father and son; but, could it be that they had it coming?

This is basically the case for the Pangandaman’s defense, cleverly argued indeed (there is a certain truth, perhaps, to pointing out anyone associated with the President won’t get much by way of an assumption of any kind of innocence; but the “from Mindanao” and “Muslim” arguments are canards, because first of all, there are no “outsiders” on the golf course, their being golfers making them part of the more cosmopolitan golf-playing set; and the Muslim part being totally irrelevant because what is colliding is not religion but rather, wardlordism, is equally represented among Muslims and Christians).

The whole thing has been furiously argued -and in great detail- in all sorts of places though the forum that is quoted a lot happens to be a particular thread on Here, two commenters, “rge,” and “jick” basically give the pros and cons for both sides, with “rge” laying the case for the Pangandamans and “jick” taking the skeptical side (see “rge’s” Fri Jan 02, 2009 4:39 pm post on page 13; then “jick’s” response, Fri Jan 02, 2009 9:15 pm on page 14; where he questions the alleged preview of the fact-finding committee’s finds as being awfully close to the Pangandaman side posted on page 5 of the forum). Add to the various eyewitness accounts, the Incident Report first put online in a scoop by At Midfield.

I’ve taken the liberty of reproducing the efforts of “jick” to put together the two main eyewitness accounts (Bambee dela Paz’s, in green, and a member of the Pangandaman flight, in red) with his observations and his reference to the Guards’ report (in blue):

So this is all very interesting in a CSI sort of way, but it’s interesting to note that the pertinent facts emerged early on and have not changed: an official and his group, beat up a citizen and a minor. The only thing that has changed is that after some time, the officials got out their version and went on a media counter-offensive; and that other details began to be revealed, such as, that the fight may have originally been picked by the citizen; and aside from that, there seems to be imputations of aggressive/unpleasant behavior concerning both dela Paz, Sr. and Pangandaman, Jr. In other words, as with most fights, it was between gorillas. But it was all taken a fight too far (since there were, apparently, two, as was known from the start).

The whole problem is if it had stayed at fight one, the Secretary, the Mayor, et al. would be in the clear and could argue they put a gorilla in his place; fight two showed they were gorillas, too -and with armed goons, to boot.

But I also believe that the window of opportunity, so to speak, for this to be a public issue, has already closed. The moment the dela Pazes took it to court, and the Pangandangans filed their counter-suits, it has become a battle over compensation which is for the courts to decide, and in which the public ought to have little interest -except the more general one, for all cases, that it be concluded by means of a speedy and fair trial. But as far as the political resolution of the political part of this issue: where public pressure ought to have been applied to pressure the Secretary to make manifest his willingness to be held accountable for the incident, and for the President to suspend the Mayor, the chance for that has passed. As it was expected to, of course.


2 pings

Skip to comment form

    • BrianB on January 5, 2009 at 10:47 pm

    The bloggers have their day.

    “But I also believe that the window of opportunity, so to speak, for this to be a public issue, has already closed.”… But character “assassination” may continue.

  1. I’ve been wondering why the secretary is the one speaking when he claims he wasn’t involved? Can’t we have a statement from the Pangandamans actually involved in the fight?

  2. It was obvious that the Pangandaman’s side is a spin and my gut feel tells me not to trust fooliticians of a place that is the subject of the taped Garci conversation regarding the electoral cheating of adding 1 million votes.

    Second one of the companion is an allege jueteng bagman, so credibility wise the Pangandamans have nothing.

    De la Paz lawyer R. Fotun was quoted in a news article that the elder Pangandaman the DAR secretary was shouting invectives at the victim so he is not exactly uninvolved as reported earlier. I give the lawyers’ statement more credibility he being a professional will not issue statement that are untrue.

    Funny how this “witnesses” accounts are coming up now when the Antipolo police are so frustrated for lack of cooperation. I say Valley Golf & Country club should be held liable and for golfers not to go to this thugs haven until they can assure the safety of golfers. Why they allow people to carry firearms in a golf course is beyond me and there should be a law where firearms in any establishment should not be allowed.

    Yes, there has to be a political resolution to this issue unfortunately in the land of cheats it is the rule of men and not the rule of law that applies. This is where we as bloggers need to come in but of course we expect others to see it differently and this is part of the dysfunctional mindset of people exposed all their life to this aberration.

    • manuelbuencamino on January 6, 2009 at 2:52 am

    Valley Golf and Boxing Club

    • Bert on January 6, 2009 at 3:02 am


    • UP n grad on January 6, 2009 at 6:00 am

    Who again won the case again Jalosjos? The victim was a prostitute, wasn’t she, and the perpetrator of course is Jalosjos. Whoever put Jalosjos in jail is one of our latter-day paragons of professionalism in justice.

    • Pilipinoparin on January 6, 2009 at 6:24 am

    Was he promoted to Supreme court or was he demoted to the lowest court in the boondocks after that case? Just wondering what happened to the good guys who did the good deeds.

    • Leytenian on January 6, 2009 at 8:20 am

    it’s an incentive for our politicians to have the power to say : hindi niyo ba ako kilala?

    an incentive that cannot provide value to the community , a power that the people will never benefit.

    The Constitution says:

    “Public officials and employees shall remain true to the people at all times. They must act with justness and sincerity and shall not discriminate against anyone.They shall at all times respect the rights of others, and shall refrain from doing acts contrary to law, good morals, good customs, public policy, public order, public safety and public interest.

    Public officials and employees shall provide service to everyone without unfair discrimination. ”

    Hindi mo ba ako kilala? is a verbal form of discrimination, prejudice and pre-judgement that is in conflict with our Constitution.

    Where is Justness and Public safety in this case?

    • Jon on January 6, 2009 at 10:12 am

    Apparently both sides didn’t know each other. The good thing is, they’re now fighting in the right forum: in the courts. Does it matter who started the fight in computing the correct payment for “damages”?

    Will it be considered “justice” for the dela Pazes if the secretary is sacked and the mayor suspended?

    Personally, I would prefer to have the both the secretary and the mayor be suspended until the case is resolved. My reason is simple, they can use their office (and its power) to obstruct in the case.

  3. When I was reading the Scribd here I recalled my conversation with the Youtube user Pulisnapogi on the Revised Penal Code Article 11 Sec. 1, where he argued that the Pangandamans are justified in beating the De La Pazes because of the umbrella poke.

    I am no lawyer, but when I read the subsequent Sec. 4 in the same Article I can’t help but think that the Court will no longer support the Pangandaman’s case, well unless of course the Honorable offices of the DAR and the Mayor of Masiu is dragged and influenced it.

    Anyways, I must commend on your call for the rule of law and for the vigilance that the Republic demands.

    Do support a moderate call here:

    • Jon on January 6, 2009 at 2:44 pm

    Kahit ano pa ang sasabihin ng mga Pangandaman, talagang si Mayor Nasser ang nagsimulang nanuntok!

    At ang kanilang counter-suit na abuse of minor ay dahil tumira na ang mga dela paz habang nasa golf cart si Angel! Wow, dapat diyan ay endangerment of own child by bringing him in the golf course! Grabe, talagang walang magbibigay dito kaya tuloy ang kaso and the blogging world will not stop talking about this also!

    • TonGuE-tWisTeD on January 6, 2009 at 2:48 pm

    The other flightmate of Nasser Jr, Adnan Pacasum, I presume is a cousin, or at least a relative. Looked like the same age as the brothers and similarly, heavy-built (check Facebook). The Pandamans’ father is married to a Bai Yasmin Pacasum and it would of course be knee-jerk for a relative to come to the aid of another who is engaged in a fistfight. There was no mention of him joining the fray in any of the stories that had been published. Or he might have been referred to as one of the bodyguards.

    Ang laki ng katawan nung magkapatid, eto may pangatlo pang barako, disregarding the other flight and the bodyguards, napakatrouble-maker naman nitong Delfin Dela Paz para pangunahan yung away na iyun. Suicidal.

    • kaminaman on January 6, 2009 at 6:48 pm

    This is single-issue advocacy ( fighting the alleged abuses of power by the Pangandamans) will always attract some people but will not resonate with the rest of the people.

    No matter how justify and righteous the advocacy is.
    Just like telling hungry and poor people the importance of not cutting trees or preserving our forests. True, but why do the the public cares?

    Wake up bloggers, iba namang isyu yung dalhin ninyo. Kayo kayo na lang nag kakaintindihan.

    A perfect example of elitism. Or are you really out of touch?

    No wonder, your campaign against GMA always fell. Ni hindi nga napanpasin ng publiko. Kahit tama yung isyu and your explanations.

    Masyado kasing high level ang bloggers.

    Anyway, kung talagang for meantal masturbation lang itong blogging.

    Dont expect the general public to symphatize or understand the issues you are raising in the blosgosphere.

    As i said, kayo-kayo lang.

    Cha-cha, involuntary disaapperances, creation of jobs, solving urban squatting, relevance of Catholic religion,and other sects, legitimacy of GMA rule vis-avis the country’s politcal development and maturity, etc etc.




  4. “This is single-issue advocacy ( fighting the alleged abuses of power by the Pangandamans) will always attract some people but will not resonate with the rest of the people.”Kaminaman

    First they came for Jonas Burgos, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t an activist.

    Then they came to handcuff and detain journalists in Peninsula upon the orders of the Interior Secretary, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a journalist.

    Then they came to pick up Jun Lozada from the airport for a long, long ride, and I didn’t speak up because I was “apathetic”.

    Then they came to push for Con-Ass to prolong the Malacanang tenant’s stay beyond 2010, and I didn’t speak up because I was “apolitical”.

    Then they came to bully a 14-year old boy and his dad in the golf course and I didn’t speak up because…… I wasn’t an “elistista”!

    Then they came for me……. and by that time no one was left to speak up.

    • baycas on January 6, 2009 at 9:00 pm

    Both sides cry physical injuries.

    On Physical Injuries:

    Title Eight, Chapter Two

    On Physical Injuries inflicted on minors less than twelve (12) years old:

    Article VI

    • baycas on January 6, 2009 at 9:01 pm

    Both sides cry self-defense.

    On Self-Defense:

    Title One, Chapter Two

    On Self-Defense explained:

    The [email protected] Professor

    • baycas on January 6, 2009 at 9:01 pm

    …reasonable action in anger means proportional retaliation against the person who has wronged you. Horder explains, “For men of honour, therefore, to act justly in the face of an affront or other injustice is to inflict proportional requital, retaliation of the correct amount, on the perpetrator of the injustice.” In other words, reasonable action in provocation means action which is proportionate to the provocation.

    From “Murder and the Reasonable Man” by Cynthia Lee

    • DTA on January 6, 2009 at 10:59 pm

    Too late to get hold of this news, because I was focused on other things, especially with a different subject matter that does not concern with politics or someone’s stupidity.

    I read the blog from the alleged victim, and then told myself that whoever blogs an incident and accuses their enemy has the first shot in information warfare; before the Pangandamans could counterreact, their public image has been damaged greatly, carpet-bombed by the blogosphere, shaped by the initial impression made by the recounted incident of the victim involved. It’ll take them some time before the public could forget this incident.

    I read the other comments, counter-comments, accusations and counter-accusations, all the dirty skeletons dragged out of the closet, the idiotic trolling, and I shook my head; I’ll be having a hard time accepting those statements, one way or another possibly slanted for the purposes of either aggrieved party.

    Until we finally get a notarized statement, officially checked over, the allegations will remain questionable for me, but sadly it’ll be accepted as truth by most people.

    • Jon on January 6, 2009 at 11:01 pm

    Kaminaman what are you talking about? By posting comments here you’re also a blogger!

    So far, talagang walang gustong magbigay daan for an amicable settlement…, talagang pataasan sila ng ihi.

    Sa pulit-ulit kong basa ng mga accounts, ang kay Bambee pa rin ang realistic account.

    • Bert on January 6, 2009 at 11:48 pm


    pssst, nawalan daw ng gana, e, narito pa rin, heheh.

    • leytenian on January 7, 2009 at 3:59 am

    Cha-cha, involuntary disaapperances, creation of jobs, solving urban squatting, relevance of Catholic religion,and other sects, legitimacy of GMA rule vis-avis the country’s politcal development and maturity, etc etc.

    ang dami mo namang request. we have discussed all that already. keep browsing.

    political development and maturity comes from discussions and debate. it doesn’t matter what issue is being blogged about, it is also about growing at personal level within the blogosphere community. you can disagree and you may prove your point but the beauty of the blog is for free to achieve maturity.

    I don’t find Manolo’s blog only for the elites.But I do have the attitude of an elite. 🙂

    Get that attitude going and use that personal attitude to your advantage. You only have two choices, a pessimist or an optimist. Which one do you think is best for you and for your country. And how do you apply the Bambee case at personal level. Has it occurred to you that it might happen to you and your family in the near future ( knock on wood) ? Who would support you? is it not the blogosphere as a way? The publicity itself is enough to make majority aware. For me, awareness is another form of growing democracy at national level and individual’s maturity at personal level. Both are needed to grow this country.

    • Kulas on January 7, 2009 at 5:44 am

    Pareho yatang bully itong mga ito(pangandamans & dela Paz). Sa totoo lang marami ring 14 anos na bully dahil sa bully ang magulang – just look at the Pangandamans, bully tatay, bully rin mga anak.

    • kaminaman on January 7, 2009 at 8:02 am


    “pssst, nawalan daw ng gana, e, narito pa rin, heheh.”

    If i found something wrong in our society, do i have to live like a hermit?

    If i denounced the so-called gross consumerism, do i have to throw away all the items i bought ?

  5. Ah-ha, someone is once again advocating permissiveness.

    Kaminaman, regardless of whether its a “single-issue advocacy” or whatever, the mere fact that it involves people in high levels of power, and their actions vs. a “mere” (I put that in quotes because the dela paz family isn’t exactly “mere” either, but are so in relation to the Pangandamans) citizen should be of interest and IS important, alongside the other concerns you mention.

    There is actually more to this than its being a “single-issue” thing and (to all the Palace spinsters out there) not necessarily dealing with La Gloria: its about people in positions of power, and the abuse that’s common with them. The… sense of entitlement of the Powerful, if you will, that is still oh-so-prevalent in our supposedly modern society.

    As for those other issues… look around, iho. They are being discussed AND dealt with. There are people trying to do their gosh-darned best to help address these issues. Many of them are in the blogosphere, too.

    And the last time I looked, there is nothing in a democracy that said its citizens cannot “focus” on an issue of relatively lower importance.

    Also, at the end of the day, the citizenry, even the blogosphere, can talk all we want but, really, its in the hands of those in positions of responsibility – and not just in government, either – to do something about it because they hold most of the resources and authority to do so.

    This isn’t useless. Debate and discussion serve a purpose in ANY democracy, if only to make people sit up and take notice, lest they forget, and then, as another poster, put it, find out that they cannot debate or discuss any longer.

    I for one am heartened by the reactions to this (I actually first saw this over my Plurk, would you believe…). I will submit that we should have, in the spirit of fairness, have heard the side of the Pangandamans themselves.

    But I think its gone beyond who threw the first punch. At the end of the day, people I think were horrified by the lack of restraint of the more powerful side in the exercise of that power. Most of the people I talked to about this were angry over THAT, and some even chimed in similar experiences.

    And, regardless, why include a 14-year old boy in the melee?

    And if the Pangandamans were the aggrieved party, what for the spin?

  6. Heard that they are asking the bloggers to stop commenting against them. Well, their surname ( or family at that) would not have been this popular now were it not for their own acts.

    • Marcelo on January 7, 2009 at 5:21 pm

    Pistols or sabers at dawn?

    • Bert on January 7, 2009 at 9:39 pm

    “If i found something wrong in our society, do i have to live like a hermit?’


    You want to get back at the denizens that frequent the tree. That’s why you are barking, and scratching, at the tree that harbors you.

    You are not living like a hermit, you are living like an ingrate.

    • baycas on January 8, 2009 at 12:04 am

    A pinoygolfer commenter posted a translation of “Del Fin de la Paz” as “The End of Peace.” But what could really be “The Spark of the Brawl?”

    If “playing through” is already hard enough to accomplish as it is so touchy a task in a gentleman’s game of golf…

    Playing Through another group is one of the most difficult and contentious parts of golf. It is difficult because, often, there is an implication that the group who is “being played through” is guilty of slow play and they typically resent that implication – even if it’s true. So if you are going to ask another group to allow you to play through them, do so in a courteous manner and at a convenient time in the round.

    …what more if one is “overtaken” – even if it is false?

    What is more resentful than having a situation wherein champion golfers in a flight are being overtaken without so much as a very obvious by-your-leave by the offender?

    Kortesiya lang, siya nga?

    Now, who’s in a better position to initiate settlement talk? Pastrana side or Fortun?

    Tigilan na sana ang pataasan…’di ba?

    • nash on January 8, 2009 at 12:43 am

    ” is single-issue advocacy..” kaminanaman…

    i love the irony of your post!!!! it made my day.

    …..baka ikaw ang single issue..if you go outside this tiny niche of the blogosphere…there are topics ranging from sayote culture to why belo left her boytoy..

    • supremo on January 8, 2009 at 12:49 am

    Out of topic since the current subject is too local for me to comment on. Is the The Explainer show still on?

    • Bert on January 8, 2009 at 2:25 am

    supremo, yes, i’ve had a view of The Explainer just the other day in my side of the world.

    • supremo on January 8, 2009 at 3:21 am


    I think they took it out of the ANC line up here. A travel show replaced it.

    • PhilwoSpEditor on January 8, 2009 at 8:36 am


    Hope its sabers… I’d like to see a mayor and a 56-year-old at it and fight like men. Then again, I wish we could settle disputes in such a manner, just like back in the old days.

    • Jon on January 8, 2009 at 12:23 pm

    So, if things stand where they are right now: there will be no disciplinary actions against any Pangandaman (does it reflect their clout in the Arroyo admin?), and things will be settled in the courts….in 10 years time?

    • Bert on January 8, 2009 at 2:01 pm


    It’s still ANC here, could be they tranferred it to another time slot in your side.

    • grd on January 8, 2009 at 4:00 pm

    there was an earlier similar incident in davao where govt pinol mauled an alleged abusive korean national also in the golf course. it did not receive so much attention as this one. not much condemnation. no outrage. no disciplinary action against pinol being a govt official. i think not even a case filed in court.


    anything about the “alabang boys”?

    • PhilwoSpEditor on January 8, 2009 at 4:38 pm


    I hope they get those three… I mean, that much drugs and the persecution on the case dismisses the damned thing.

    Um, two of the relatives spill the beans (Brodett); Verano did a big boo boo and well I’m waiting for the integrated bar to do something about it because I also think it was unethical even though I’m no law expert; what else… Hmmm, PDEA keeps citing bribery in DOJ without proof or at least audio or video or even paperwork or even PHOTOS. And well this is far from over as I see it…

    Personally, I want to see the alabang boys in a congested prison in muntinlupa for 25 years. Really…

    • Lurker_Lang on January 8, 2009 at 7:42 pm


    who would want to shout foul..they’re koreans afterall.

    but bambee is different! she i one of us… one of us who can afford to play golf. we don’t want any promdi pangandaman strutting around our golf fairway like kings do we? in any case, she is a fellow blogger herself so its understandable if we protect our own kind. never mind the other kind..

    kape tayo sa starbucks 🙂

    • Lurker_Lang on January 8, 2009 at 7:43 pm

    “she is one of us”

    • bw on January 9, 2009 at 12:09 am

    You can only appreciate this brouhaha when you are an avid fan of the game, a weekend type of golfer at the very least. Sadly, some people attempt to make comments with nary a knowledge of the game 🙁

    Where was the marshal when this happened ? Isn’t he suppose to supervise the fairways and ensure that people go with the flow and finish the game within 4-5 hours ??

    It is perfectly OK to go ahead of a SLOWER group as long as you courteusly ask the group in front of you. The de la Pazes were only TWO players – were they on a cart or walking ?? The Pangandaman’s were probably a group of 4 but if they were on a cart, they would be theoretically faster than the 2 people walking.

    Question is – did the Pangandamans ask the de la Paz group that they want to go in front of them? Did de la PAz refuse? I can tell you I’ve seen novice golfers who take 15 strokes to finish a par 4, look for every goddam ball that goes into the woods and it backs up the entire 18 holes. When this happens, you want to go in front of them or ask the marshall to get them going on time.

    There’s lots of loose ends in this incident that we do not know. It’s either Pangandaman barged his way ahead of de la Paz without asking his approval, or de la Paz refused to grant the request – who knows. One thing is certain – one side or both sides have lack knowledge of golf etiquette hence they ended up cutting each others’ throats 🙁

    • rego on January 9, 2009 at 12:50 am

    Hey I play golf too, But there no fucking way that I appreciate this brouhaha and how they even deal with it. There is just no sense for people debate on it. Both parties shoudl just go to court and settle everything there. Dont drag the whole nation for their personal drama, please!.

  7. Golf requires concentration, skill and the golf swing. .
    I am a golfer and golf etiquette is an extremely important part of my game.

    Etiquette has to do with manners. It is thru the courtesy I show to other people that I communicate my respect for them and that I show them how important I think they are.

    Golf is a game that requires my concentration. If I am in the process of teeing off , or trying to make a putt or swing my iron into a narrow fairway, it will be much more difficult for me to concentrate if someone is laughing, cell phone is ringing, rattling their clubs, someone around the tee or green. or someone is waving at me.

    I’m not sure if this ” tililing ocho ocho mentality” de lapa maz melee is about PACE of Play. Golf of 18 holes can be played in average hours from 4 hours to 6 hours depending on how many players and the weather. Pace of play can be readily available prior to your first tee at the clubhouse.

    I think this is about Play through. Playing Through another group is one of the most difficult and contentious parts of golf. It is difficult because, often, there is an implication that the group who is “being played through” is guilty of slow play and they typically resent that implication — even if it’s true. So if you are going to ask another group to allow you to play through them, do so in a courteous manner and at a convenient time in the round.

    Convenient time in the round should be prior to the set up at the tee or after putting at the greens on the way to the next tee. It should not be in the fairway, not at the greens, not while walking around the fairway or in the middle of a PAR 3, 4 or 5 hole game.

    Here’s my take: If there is another group immediately ahead of the group you are asking, they will naturally decline to let you through and they will be annoyed that you bothered them.

    Therefore the pangandamans annoyed and bothered the dela paz at the wrong time. The Pangandamans don’t understand golf etiquette. They should not play the game of golf . They should just focus on their guns. It’s not the right combination of their lifestyle and temper.

    One thing about golf is you never annoy anyone, never. Don’t even try to play through. That’s ethics. Just relax and swing.

    • bw on January 9, 2009 at 1:42 am

    ouch… I guess the golf ethics in Pinas is a little different 😯 In North America it is perfectly OK to ask to be let through, as long as it is done for the convenience of everyone, say a couple of guys in a cart behind 4 guys walking. If you are not sure you can call the marshall and ask for help and he will make the decision.

    • Bert on January 9, 2009 at 2:01 am

    “You can only appreciate this brouhaha when you are an avid fan of the game, a weekend type of golfer at the very least. Sadly, some people attempt to make comments with nary a knowledge of the game “-bw

    Why sadly? I have nary a knowledgeof the game but I commented that kids should be spared the violence that adults in the fairway indulge in their moments of rage.

    Do I have to be a Tiger Wood to have the luxury of saying that?

    • bw on January 9, 2009 at 2:11 am

    Nope, I wasn’t referring to you in particular. It’s about taking our blinders off and pause with our tendency to stereo-type people. Perhaps we just need to have a sense of appreciation of what really happens in the fairway. That is all what I am trying to say. 😎

    Here’s something interesting :

  8. bw,

    I guess the golf ethics in Pinas is a little different 😯 In North America it is perfectly OK to ask to be let through

    Golf is also game of patience. Your actions in the fairway reflects your personality of the game and your score. Playing through can be acceptable but one must understand this.

    “If there is another group immediately ahead of the group you are asking, they will NATURALLY DECLINE to let you through and they will be ANNOYED that you bothered them.

    take note of the word NATURAL. That’s the foundation of manner and ethics in sports.

    In this case, the Pangandamans will be better off playing with guns. 🙂

  9. bw,

    Golfers normally DO NOT PLAY THROUGH except when the group ahead of you are not good golfers. The not so good golfers will allow the good players to pass through.

    In this case, the de la paz are good players, the 18 year old is a golf scholar. Therefore, their manners oon

  10. I don’t think the mayor showed patience in this case and even did his part to know the group ahead of them. It was his responsibility to take action because he is the one who ask to play through. If the dela paz says NO, then the mayor should have respected that. It is the mayor’s responsibility to assess the dela paz group’s acceptance of his request. If the dela paz showed arrogance then the mayor should just say ” sorry, it’s ok. I was just asking if I can catch up with my dad who are ahead of you. And sorry to bother you. Have a good game. and see you around”

    you see, that’s what i’m going to say if I sense that the group ahead of me is showing signs of being annoyed by my request. I guess i have a better personality skills over the mayor. I should become a mayor then 🙂 heheheh

    • leytenian on January 9, 2009 at 4:18 am


    are you sure that all golfers in america will ask to play through during a normal PACE of Play. If there were few golfers in a particular time frame , it is still the responsibility of the golfer who will ask to ‘PLAY THROUGH” to assess the state of mind of the golfers who are ahead.

    Again, the mayor has no right to claim his own PACE OF PLAY.

    Now, BW, do you really play good golf or you are just of those golfers who annoys people at the golf course. Or you are just playing because you want to branded as a golfer. I am sensing you are not.

    I am reacting because this is obviously POLITICAL arrogance. Who has more responsibility to the public for apology, the dela paz or the pangandamans? who pays the pangandamans salary and make money to play golf? is it not you and me and my mother and my family as well as the family of dela paz?

    It would be more appropriate professionally for the mayor to just resign or give the public a humble apology and accept his own mistakes. It is not even just about the dela paz, it is about the blogosphere.

    There’s no amount of explanations from the political side that could change the perception of the filipino people. It was not right and it is embarrassing for the whole country. It will not matter if the dela paz were arrogant, they have the rights to say NO and be arrogant about it.

Load more

Leave a Reply

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