Skip to Content?

Manuel L. Quezon III

Punditry. Politics. History. Commentary.

  • Home
  • The Daily Dose
  • About Me
    • Curriculum Vitae for Manuel L. Quezon III
    • Guestbook
    • Contact Me
  • Links
  • Family
    • Before the mortal remains of Manuel L. Quezon, by Claro M. Recto
    • Extracts from the diaries of Francis Burton Harrison
    • Manuel Quezon, by John Gunther, 1939
    • Nonong Quezon’s life with father
    • Our undemocratic mentality January 11, 1967
    • Panganib ng bayan
    • Philippine racism
    • Politics, Means to an End: Philippines Free Press editorial, August 29, 1953
    • President Quezon in Mexico (press coverage)
    • Quezon’s Code of Citizenship and Ethics
    • Quezon’s speech proclaiming Tagalog the basis of the National Language
    • Remembering Quezon
    • The apolitical Quezon
    • The meaning of equality, January 25, 1967
    • Things and Places named after Quezon
    • Autobiography of Manuel L. Quezon (from a privilege speech)
    • Aurora A. Quezon
    • Mrs. Quezon, by Leon Ma. Guerrero

A bonus for the prosecution, courtesy of the defense! BIR Commissioner Kim Henares was called back to the witness stand, and upon a line of questioning introduced by defense counsel Justice Cuevas, opened up the qualification of the BIR Commissioner as an expert witness.

- from the entry, "An expert witness and postponement of a decision"

So fireworks are expected. If the caucus and the debate afterwards, on the question of bank accounts is important, will it, however, be on the same level of high political drama as the second envelope in the Estrada trial? In terms of how it's viewed as make-or-break for either side, quite possibly; but whether public interest will be as high, remains to be seen. It is entirely possible --even probable-- that many of the arguments will be familiar to those who covered the 2000-2001 Estrada impeachment trial.

- from the entry, "Monday’s Caucus: Like the Second Envelope?"

The facepalm-provoking style, as many quarters see it, of the prosecution has given the defense what it sees an opportunity to focus on style (or what it derides as as a lack of it on the part of the prosecution) and by so doing, sidetrack focus from the substance --i.e., the evidence. Is this convincing to the majority, which sees the evidence trickling out? What is more important is that the opposition and the defense thinks it might.

- from the entry, "The question of the public pulse"

"The Convention thought the Senate the most fit depository of this important trust. Where else than…"

“The Convention thought the Senate the most fit depository of this important trust. Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? What other body would be likely to feel confidence…

"This brings me to one last point. It is not merely that reporting is usefulin gathering the petits…"

“This brings me to one last point. It is not merely that reporting is useful
in gathering the petits faits vrais that create verisimilitude and make a novel gripping or absorbing, although that side of the enterprise is worth paying attention to. My …

© 2012 Manuel L. Quezon III. All rights reserved.

Design by Archon Digital

close