menu Menu
Independence days
By mlq3 Posted in Daily Dose on June 12, 2006 121 Comments 11 min read
A Complex Achievement Previous Arts & Sciences Next

My blog entry and my Arab News column on the National Democrats have been reacted to by Reds Care (in two entries, first here and then here) and Achieving Happiness. Both are understandably upset over what I wrote. Both suggest I have endorsed the government’s policy of liquidating its enemies; that the statements are unfair, and counter-productive. In Reds Care, I wrote a reply, which was then replied to, in turn.

I have reviewed my column, and I disagree that it gives grounds for supporting the policy of assassination embarked upon by the government. I do believe that for those who don’t possess the same ideological point of view of the victims, it explains why too many (and I continue to assert, most) turn a blind eye to what’s going on.

But I certainly do not intend to cast aspersions on the personal integrity or patriotism of those who have been killed, or who have adopted the National Democratic cause. What I wrote, according to the two bloggers, slanders the memories of those who died. That was not my intention, certainly not my feelings, and if hurt has been caused, I apologize wholeheartedly.

Political killings are wrong. They must be condemned. There is no justification for them. While I do not believe in the National Democratic approach, I believe those espousing it are sincere, honest and brave. I don’t think they have been given a full and sincere chance to stop running for their lives and prove, unhampered by persecution, to work with the people, and work with others to show how their views might change the lives of the masses for the better.

That they choose both political work according to the rules of the existing order, and to pursue change through revolutionary means, is a choice others like myself disagree with. On the other hand, every option is acceptable in the face of injustice and hunger. Until those who disagree with National Democrats actually address injustice and hunger, revolts will continue because unless there is struggle, there can be no hope. And for those with contending views, there can be no reconciliation and peace if violence is done to those working the masses.

My Inquirer column for today is Independence days. Conrado de Quiros writes that a snap election will restore equilibrium to the country. The Inquirer editorial details the administration’s dishonesty in dealing with the budget.

I’d also like to reproduce, below, an article commissioned for their Philippine Independence Day supplement by the Arab News.

***

A complex achievement
By Manuel L. Quezon III

SINCE 1962 (by presidential fiat, and since 1964 by law), Filipinos have commemorated June 12 as Independence Day, when previously, from 1946, they had celebrated their independence on July 4. The decision to shift to June 12, itself celebrated since 1940 as Flag Day, was a historically valid one. But the decision became encrusted with so much kant, and so conflicting and confused were the motivations for the shift, that since then, it must be asked whether Filipinos really know what they are celebrating.

Scrape away the popular conceptions and a clearer picture emerges. In 1896, Andres Bonifacio and his followers tore up their residence certificates, symbolically withdrawing their allegiance from Spain and proclaiming the Katipunan the government of an independent Philippines. The Philippine revolution thus began, and its main preoccupation was primarily inwards: that is, while independence from Spain was being fought, the main concern of leaders like Bonifacio was to inspire Filipinos to adopt an identity as citizens of a new nation.

By 1897, in a power struggle typical of revolutionary movements, Bonifacio had been supplanted by Emilio Aguinaldo, representative of the provincial gentry as Bonifacio had been an exemplar of the proletariat. With Bonifacio’s fall came the rise of an orientation as much concerned with outward developments as an inward advocacy: the full panoply of statehood, in international terms, became more important than the rather mystical, and mass-oriented, Katipunan, the secret society that had planned, and led the revolution, but which was formally abolished and supplanted by a bourgeois-oriented provisional government.

A negotiated peace with Spain had ended hostilities late in 1897 and Aguinaldo had gone into (he hoped, temporary) exile to plot a reinvigorated independence movement, when the Spanish-American War broke out in 1898. The Americans invaded Cuba; a naval squadron defeated the Spanish naval detachment in the Philippines: the Filipino revolutionaries in exile in Hong Kong were identified, and courted, as American allies. Aguinaldo was brought back to the country, formally resumed the revolution on May 28, 1898, and by June 12 had returned to his native town, Kawit, in Cavite province and proclaimed Philippine independence to the world (recall that Bonifacio had proclaimed independence to his countrymen in 1896).

Apolinario Mabini, lawyer and intellectual and eventually the most important adviser of Aguinaldo, found the June 12 proclamation shockingly provincial and even counter-productive. Among other things, it declared the new nation a protectorate of the United States without having formally negotiated American recognition of either Philippine independence or the government being established by the Filipinos. Mabini attempted to rectify the situation by organizing local governments, which in turn could deputize individuals to represent them in ratifying the June 12 proclamation of independence along more dignified lines, and in turn, ratify a constitution which laid down a formal basis for the leadership of Aguinaldo (hitherto merely proclaimed an “egregious dictator” in Kawit). All this was accomplished by early 1899, when the First Philippine Republic was inaugurated in Malolos, Bulacan.

Filipinos earned the distinction of being the first formally-organized constitutional republic in Asia, the first colony to assert independence in Southeast Asia, and the last Spanish colony to do so in the 19th century. They also had to endure the tragedy of having an otherwise inspiring and potentially solid start to nationhood aborted by American conquest, formally achieved with Aguinaldo’s capture in 1901 and unquestionably asserted by the first decade of the 20th century.

Filipinos, however, didn’t let go of the independence ideal; and they were variously granted, or managed to wheedle out of the Americans, elected provincial government by 1905, a Filipino lower house in the legislature in 1907, a fully Filipino legislature by 1916, and control of the executive with autonomy by 1935 along with a formal commitment to restoring independence by 1946. This was a period of fairly successful nation-building, tragically interrupted by World War II which brought Japanese occupation and liberation by Allied forces: accompanied by the near-total destruction of the infrastructure and carefully-built political infrastructure that had the country confidently poised to resume its independence prior to the outbreak of the war.

And yet independence was recognized by the United States in 1946, adding yet another distinction: the first Asian colony to achieve independence, and the first functioning democracy in Asia in the postwar era. Filipinos forget that this was no piddling accomplishment: the peaceful independence efforts had been closely watched by their neighbors, serving as an inspiration to leaders ranging from Sukarno to Ho Chi Minh; and Americans forget that the effort was successful enough to inspire an initial confidence in American goodwill on the part of these same leaders, and even as far afield as Mao Zedong in China. The confidence among Asians in American benevolence and sincerity didn’t last; and in the Philippines it quickly began to crumble.

A ravaged, wrecked Philippines embarked on independence with conditions -imposed by Americans eager to bask in the shared sacrifice of World War II, but unwilling to match its rhetorical sentimentality with measures to rebuild the country. The Philippines would be rebuilt, but assistance from America would be based on the hard-nosed proposition that Americans receive equal access to the Philippine economy. And thus the pride of having its sovereignty recognized ahead of say, India and Indonesia (whose colonial rulers had watched prewar independence efforts with hostility motivated by the fear) was marred by the irony that those -and other- colonized countries achieved a later, but perhaps more authentic, independence.

It is said that President Diosdado Macapagal decided to transfer independence day from July 4 to June 12 in a fit of annoyance. He was merely the latest in a line of Philippine leaders exasperated over American indifference to the cause of Filipino veterans deprived of their benefits since 1946, and other vexations that included disagreements over tariffs and economic assistance. The gulf between the official proclamations of love, devotion, and a shared democratic idealism with the United States, and the increasingly harsh realities of economic and social conditions in the country (despite having defeated a Communist insurgency in the1940s and 50s), made basking in the rapidly-diminishing warmth of America increasingly unsatisfying to a younger generation of Filipinos.

Macapagal’s initial pique, even if true, gave way to the realization that here was a chance to buttress a failing administration by seizing nationalism away from his critics: the country could, in a sense, be reinvented. If the present was bland and lacking confidence, a mythical past could be appropriated. In 1961, Filipinos had commemorated 15 years of independence (a fact); in 1962, they suddenly were told the country could bask in the glory of 64 years of independence (false). The sad end of the First Republic was set aside to prop up the shaky realities of the Third Republic established in 1946: the intervening period that made possible the restoration of independence began to be subjected to an officially-inflicted amnesia ignoring everything in between.

The country then, in Diosdado Macapagal’s time, and now, under his successors including his daughter, could not afford to make historical distinctions in the rush to reconfigure the past. Doing tha was easier and perhaps more emotionally satisfying than the hard, necessary, work of enabling Filipino society and government to evolve to meet the needs of the future. If it was healthy to refocus the attention of the citizenry on the glories and achievements of the Revolution against Spain and those of the First Republic, it was unhealthy -and delusional- to ignore the end of that republic, and the painstaking and equally inspiring effort to insist on independence being recognized by the United States.

Philippine leaders since Macapagal have been in the position of parvenus claiming a heroic past in competition with Filipino Communists and Socialists equally eager to claim that past: the difference lies in Philippine officialdom trying to incense the corpse of the First Republic (ill-fated but bourgeois and cosmpolitan) while radicals try to reanimate the remains of the Katipunan (also ill-fated, but mystical and mass-based). Outside the Philippine equivalents of the intelligentsia, nomenklatura, and their apparatchiks, whether mainstream or revolutionary, Filipinos have been left with bold slogans (“100 years of independence!” celebrated, deceitfully, in 1998, but then “100 years since independence was originally proclaimed!” was too clumsy, and honest, for government billboards) disguising hot air.

And yet -on June 12, 1898, on the balcony of Aguinaldo’s mansion in Kawit, Cavite, was proclaimed, to the world, the independence of the Philippines. That the proclamation read to the public left some things to be desired, only fairly depicted something all colonies aspiring to independent nationhood have come to learn: that independence and sovereignty must be redefined and reasserted as time passes. The other things done that day: the unfurling of the Philippine flag not in battle, but before a joyous, peaceful, public assembly, and the first public performance of a national anthem that would only have lyrics appended to it a year later: were not only the trappings, but in a sense, the substance of nationhood.

The Philippine flag itself was the product of evolution, incorporating colors and symbols from the independence movements and leaders that came before; and it would be that flag that would be forbidden by the Americans, then grudgingly allowed to be hoisted again; and both flag and anthem would rally Filipinos to reclaim their independence from America and fight for native soil against the Japanese. If today Filipinos live under their Fifth Republic, their familiar symbols of national identity were born under the First; and serve as a reminder of the high achievement -and high tragedy- that has characterized their national identity ever since. This marvelously complexity means that June 12, 2006, marks 108 since independence was proclaimed; and soon, 60 years of uninterrupted independence and sovereignty since it was restored in 1946; and just as the country looked back in February to 20 years since it overthrew the home-grown Marcos dictatorship, next year it can look forward to two decades of having a restored, constitutional, democracy. No mean feats, each one; an inspiring tapestry overall.


Previous Next

Leave a Reply

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

  1. cvj,

    in latin america, particularly Nicaragua and El Salvador, liberation theology, complementing the communist ideology, played a key role before, during and after the revolution. similar but not same is the scenario here. liberation theology was rejected subsequently by pope jpII. the institutional church is a formidable political swing factor. cbcp’s statements are ‘on the ball’, calling on the lay to be involved, participate and ‘the gifted and the called’, to lead. cha-cha is gma’s central agenda, aside from the senate, only the church can block it. gma will go for it, maybe succeed for a while but ultimately the church will prevail. good if gma backs off, better if she gets off, steps down, while she still can manage a proper exit. apparently the context is not just political.

  2. Bystander,

    micketymoc was probably pointing out that that’s a pretty unlawyerly statement coming from a lawyer. indeed, coming from someone who professes to cleave to the principles of democracy and the rule of law.

    to abdicate the rule of law in favor of the bar of public opinion is like abandoning logic and order to chaotic, unreasoning passion. Nothing wrong with passion, but shouldn’t condemnation be based more on more solid and reliable grounds than emotion? especially when we all know how easy it is to whip the public up into a frenzy?

  3. juanmakabayan, for Nicaragua and El Salvador, the connection seems clear. However, i wonder how much the recent electoral victories of the left in countries like Bolivia and Venezuela can be traced to the earlier groundwork on liberation theology as these came about sometime after the Pope’s repudiation. In any case, thanks for pointing that out. Over here, i can imagine how the Church hierarchy can be made to feel more comfortable with the convent-bred Arroyo. We can only hope by this time, they would have learned their lesson from their counterparts in other countries.

    comelecAko, you’ve just made up a false opposition between ‘rule of law’ and ‘public opinion’. After that, you proceed to equate ‘public opinion’ with ‘unreasoning passion’. Finally, you go on to dismiss ‘passion’. Easy enough, but all you’ve done is to demolish your own strawman. First of all, it’s too early to talk about rule of law, since while the public is witness to a crime, the culprits haven’t been apprehended yet. Second, ‘public opinion’ is not to be considered automatically inferior. What matters when it comes to opinions is its underlying basis and logic. Third, emotion in this case, is not the ground, but rather, the reaction to a disconnect between what is and what should be.

  4. “Bystander,

    micketymoc was probably pointing out that that’s a pretty unlawyerly statement coming from a lawyer. indeed, coming from someone who professes to cleave to the principles of democracy and the rule of law.

    to abdicate the rule of law in favor of the bar of public opinion is like abandoning logic and order to chaotic, unreasoning passion. Nothing wrong with passion, but shouldn’t condemnation be based more on more solid and reliable grounds than emotion? especially when we all know how easy it is to whip the public up into a frenzy?

    comelecAKO said this on June 15th, 2006 at 12:43 am”

    My statement, re: “We are before the bar of public opinion where the application of the rules on evidence is not given a privileged status.” ..should be understood in the context of my antecedent statements in the same paragraph. I was criticizing DJB then for his insistence that there must be solid evidence before making any conclusions on government’s involvement in the killings of activists. Of course, there is no problem with that. As I said in that comment thread, the matter of presenting evidence will come later when formal charges are filed against these murderers. The only point I want to drive at is this: It only takes COMMON SENSE for one to realize — based on the timing, the motivation, the pronouncements Gonzalez and Gonzales and the AFP (Palparan in particular) — that government has something to do with these dastardly crimes. By analogy, do I have to have with me a tampered election return or even a fake ballot to conclude for myself that there is indeed cheating during elections? Do I have to conduct a probe into all departments of government before I can say for myself that graft and corruption is the rule and honesty the exception?

    What’s so unlawyerly with that? Just because I have made up my mind on a particular issue does not mean I’m already abdicating the rule of law. First and foremost I am a citizen of this country, and as such, I am entitled to whatever I want to believe in. The freedom to believe is absolute. It’s the freedom to act on one’s belief that is not. Sadly, this government is acting desperately and ruthlessly because of the belief that those who oppose it are destabilizers and enemies of democracy.

    That’s why it’s called “public opinion” because it isn’t just my own, it’s a belief shared by many, meaning the public at large.

  5. cvj,
    The Docrine of Liberation theology may have been repudiated but its spirit remains strong in latin america for it is ingrained in the ‘basic ecclessial communities'(bec’s) that were founded when the doctrine fused the people and the church, the temporal and divine in a militant struggle for the Kingdom.

    You know what?

    The development and strengthening of the bec’s is actually ‘the’ real revolution. Our current social crisis is a reflection, manifestation, indication of the state of development of bec’s. If we refresh our notion (google) of basic ecclessial communities (protestants: basic christian) we’ll realize its relevance to the social changes that we hope for and blog about.

  6. Awright, bystander! Hah! Get mo yon, comelecKA? basta lahat kami naniniwala sa isang bagay, pwede na naming ipagsigawan sa kalye na tama kami. Tutal, opinyon namin yon! Halimbawa, kapag napaniwala namin ang mga masa na si Gloria ang nang-holdap sa jeep na sinasakyan ko kagabi, ay hindi na mahalaga kung siya nga talaga yon. Ang importante, ay maraming nag-aagree na boses nya yung narinig namin, pandak yung holdaper, at ubod ng yaman si Gloria – aba! saan nya pa nakuha yung pera kundi sa pang-hoholdap ng maraming jeep? Sentido komon lang yan!

  7. “Awright, bystander! Hah! Get mo yon, comelecKA? basta lahat kami naniniwala sa isang bagay, pwede na naming ipagsigawan sa kalye na tama kami. Tutal, opinyon namin yon! Halimbawa, kapag napaniwala namin ang mga masa na si Gloria ang nang-holdap sa jeep na sinasakyan ko kagabi, ay hindi na mahalaga kung siya nga talaga yon. Ang importante, ay maraming nag-aagree na boses nya yung narinig namin, pandak yung holdaper, at ubod ng yaman si Gloria – aba! saan nya pa nakuha yung pera kundi sa pang-hoholdap ng maraming jeep? Sentido komon lang yan!

    antonio walanglaban said this on June 15th, 2006 at 3:54 pm

    –Was that what I meant ANTONIO WALANGLABAN? Obviously, that statement of yours speaks for itself. Sorry, but your comment does not even deserve a reaction. Wala nga talaga akong laban pag ganyan mag-isip at tumuligsa ang mga kumakampi sa peke at magnanakaw!

  8. Juanmakabayan, i did not realize the connection until you pointed it out. I’m definitely going to pursue this line of thinking further.

    Bystander, don’t you notice how they have to deliberately misinterpret your points into a suitably weak enough form before supposedly addressing them? I’m all for sarcasm but not when it’s being used to obscure the discussion. It tends to get stale.

  9. ano kamo, cvj?

    “I was criticizing DJB then for his insistence that there must be solid evidence before making any conclusions on government’s involvement in the killings of activists. Of course, there is no problem with that. As I said in that comment thread, the matter of presenting evidence will come later when formal charges are filed against these murderers.”

    ?consider them guilty, call them murderers and THEN bring formal charges?

    “It only takes COMMON SENSE for one to realize — based on the timing, the motivation, the pronouncements Gonzalez and Gonzales and the AFP (Palparan in particular) — that government has something to do with these dastardly crimes.”

    ?timing?motivation?pronouncements? circumstantial lahat yan ‘pre. aren’t the oppositionists up in arms because these were precisely the same sort of justifications for that abortion — the “constructive resignation” doctrine?

    naman, ‘tol. hindi lahat ng oposisyonista ay

  10. ano kamo, cvj?

    “I was criticizing DJB then for his insistence that there must be solid evidence before making any conclusions on government’s involvement in the killings of activists. Of course, there is no problem with that. As I said in that comment thread, the matter of presenting evidence will come later when formal charges are filed against these murderers.”

    ?consider them guilty, call them murderers and THEN bring formal charges?

    “It only takes COMMON SENSE for one to realize — based on the timing, the motivation, the pronouncements Gonzalez and Gonzales and the AFP (Palparan in particular) — that government has something to do with these dastardly crimes.”

    ?timing?motivation?pronouncements? circumstantial lahat yan ‘pre. aren’t the oppositionists up in arms because these were precisely the same sort of justifications for that abortion — the “constructive resignation” doctrine?

    naman, ‘tol. hindi lahat ng oposisyonista ay walang pakundangan kung mag-komento. meron namang gumagamit pa rin ng lohika. maliban na lang yung sa sobrang galit ay nakaklimutan na yung pinaghihiyawang “adherence to the rule of law” ay dapat ding ina-apply sa sarili.

  11. Antonio Walang…,

    Tama ka…”maliban na lang yung sa sobrang galit ay nakaklimutan na yung pinaghihiyawang “adherence to the rule of law” ay dapat ding ina-apply sa sarili.”

    Would you be so kind as to send that message to Gloria too, please? Baka makining siya sa iyo.

  12. Antonio Walang…,

    Tama ka…”maliban na lang yung sa sobrang galit ay nakaklimutan na yung pinaghihiyawang “adherence to the rule of law” ay dapat ding ina-apply sa sarili.”

    Would you be so kind as to send that message to Gloria too, please? Baka makining siya sa iyo.

  13. gladly mz. anna. coz i don’t think this antonio feller will have teh balls to do it himself

  14. Eh ben, Monsieur Moe… quand même!!!! (That was supposed to be a statement in the second degree – il ne fallait pas trop etaler en publique….)

  15. antonio, he did say ‘bring formal charges’ – that to me, satisfies ‘adherence to the rule of law’. it would have been a different thing altogether if bystander happened to be the presiding judge on this matter, which is probably not the case. There is also the pattern of action, inaction and pronouncements by the administration as described above and in the links from the previous post on this matter. http://www.quezon.ph/?p=921 Far greater than Bystander’s rhetorical excesses, it is the government that is guilty of discouraging ‘adherence to the rule of law’. As a member of the public, you are of course well within your right to refuse to recognize the bigger issue and spend your time nitpicking the statements of someone who does.

  16. cvj,

    the danger of liberation theology is in the subsumming of the eternal into the temporal. the cbcp’s tract and tact is superior to liberation theology — pastoral diligence and social vigilance

  17. juanmakabayan, in what way would that be a danger? i could see the mixing of eternal and temporal in the case of the Islamic theocracies but as for the Latin American political movements, the ruling Left has retained its secular character.

  18. “Bystander, don’t you notice how they have to deliberately misinterpret your points into a suitably weak enough form before supposedly addressing them? I’m all for sarcasm but not when it’s being used to obscure the discussion. It tends to get stale.

    cvj said this on June 16th, 2006 at 1:28 am”

    I’ve noticed that too, cvj. These people deliberately misinterpret my statements instead of answering them squarely. Ya, sarcasm is a good way to camouflage the bankruptcy of one’s arguments!

  19. cvj,

    as above, the problem is when the eternal is subsummed or included or taken in the context of the temporal. it should be the other way around. Understandably, this is not a subject that really should be taken in the context of political or social reform, although it can be approached from that angle, it is better to start from where real change should first happen,

    you cited two good distinct examples: in a theocracy it is not ‘a mix of’ but ‘eternal over temporal’; on the other hand as in Latin America the gov’t may remain secular but the society as a whole, of which government is but a part, could change, reform, be transformed according to either secular or religious influence. the kind of gov’t obtaining thereby is both an agent and a consequence of change, as such it either works with or contends with the church. observe what has been happening here. in the aftermath of tragic, bloody edsa3, bishop bacani expressed an insightful lament: “a failure of evangelization”. (he, by the way, wrote a book “church in politics”) but edsa3 is a natural consequence of edse2 in which the church’s role was crucial, now in ‘mea culpa’ mode(re-evaluate edsa2) they are more careful, measured. the church vis a vis the gov, so far, with the present cbcp, is more balanced, the bishops knowing that pastoring (i.e. evangelization) is priority and the key.

    we can compare different characters of priest-activists from fr luis jalandoni(priests-turned-rebels are one concern of LibTheology, from the spiritual high-ground to the battle-ground), to fr intengan, fr r.reyes to fr polinar(b.e.c org/specialist) to demonstrate the broad range of direction the gov’t – church interaction could take.

    To exorcise the illusion of an enchanted kingdom here is a vision for every Filipino to hope for:

    A Pastoral Exhortation for the Year of Social Concerns http://abplagdameo.blogspot.com/2006/05/building-civilization-of-love-pastoral.html

  20. Aha Bystander,

    I bet Gloria and her minions will never be bankrupt – the Philippines will be but never the Glori & Mike Pidal Arroyo family.

    Dagdag, dagdag, Dagdag, dagdag,Dagdag, dagdag,Dagdag, dagdag,Dagdag, dagdag,Dagdag, dagdag,Dagdag, dagdag,Dagdag, dagdag, ad vitam eternam!

    Even the Pinoy penchant for reproduction cannot catch up with Gloria’s systematic dagdag…

  21. “?consider them guilty, call them murderers and THEN bring formal charges?”

    Why, antoniowalanglaban? For example, is a victim of a crime not entitled to believe at the outset (even before a case is filed) that a crime has been committed and that a suspect is probably guilty thereof? Precisely the reason why a victim of a crime SUBSEQUENTLY files a case in court is because he/she believes (based on testimonial, object, circumstantial, etc. evidence) that the “suspect” is guilty. It would be the height of absurdity for someone to file a case in court who is not convinced or does not believe that a crime has been committed against him.

    “?timing?motivation?pronouncements? circumstantial lahat yan ‘pre. aren’t the oppositionists up in arms because these were precisely the same sort of justifications for that abortion — the “constructive resignation” doctrine?”

    False analogy yan, pre’. Read and understand the SC ruling carefully before you make any comparison between what is happening now with the extrajudicial killings and Erap’s supposed resignation circa 2001. And since you were the one who interposed such analogy, it is your DUTY to explain the same here.

    “naman, ‘tol. hindi lahat ng oposisyonista ay walang pakundangan kung mag-komento. meron namang gumagamit pa rin ng lohika. maliban na lang yung sa sobrang galit ay nakaklimutan na yung pinaghihiyawang “adherence to the rule of law” ay dapat ding ina-apply sa sarili.”

    Logic, you say? May I remind you with this?: “Awright, bystander! Hah! Get mo yon, comelecKA? basta lahat kami naniniwala sa isang bagay, pwede na naming ipagsigawan sa kalye na tama kami. Tutal, opinyon namin yon! Halimbawa, kapag napaniwala namin ang mga masa na si Gloria ang nang-holdap sa jeep na sinasakyan ko kagabi, ay hindi na mahalaga kung siya nga talaga yon. Ang importante, ay maraming nag-aagree na boses nya yung narinig namin, pandak yung holdaper, at ubod ng yaman si Gloria – aba! saan nya pa nakuha yung pera kundi sa pang-hoholdap ng maraming jeep? Sentido komon lang yan!

    antonio walanglaban said this on June 15th, 2006 at 3:54 pm”

    In addition, at itatagalog ko para mas lalo momg maintindihan (syensya na sa tagalog ko pre, bisaya man gud ko!), hindi porke’t galit ang isang tao ay nakalimutan na nyang i-apply sa sarili ang “adherence to the rule of law”. hindi mo siguro naisip na kaya may mga taong galit tulad ko ay ay dahil galit na galit sila sa mga taong pumapatay, nangungurakot at nagsisinungaling. kung hindi tayo magagalit, medyo kailangan na natin sigurong magpatingin sa doktor. Get’s mo, pre?

  22. Hahaha, Anna!

    One more thing, Arroyo has earmarked 1 billion pesos to finance the military’s all-out war against the communists with a shorter timetable — two years! My God, this woman who insists to be called President has gone mad..

    I smell blood in the air!

  23. asus, dong. let me see if i can make this clearer.

    Sabi mo, “It only takes COMMON SENSE for one to realize — based on the timing, the motivation, the pronouncements Gonzalez and Gonzales and the AFP (Palparan in particular) — that government has something to do with these dastardly crimes.” (Tagalugin ko ha – Sentido komon lang ang kailangan para malaman – base sa kung kailan naganap ang pagpaslang, sa motibo, at sa mga sinasabi nina Gonzales atbp., na may kinalaman ang gobyerno sa mga krimeng ito. – Pansinin mo, mahal na tagabasa, walang mention ng proof o pruweba. Puro circumstantial evidence lang.)

    Ang sabi ko: Ang importante, ay maraming nag-aagree na boses nya yung narinig namin, pandak yung holdaper, at ubod ng yaman si Gloria – aba! saan nya pa nakuha yung pera kundi sa pang-hoholdap ng maraming jeep? [Linawin ko ha? – What matters is that we all agree that it was Gloria’s voice that we heard (that the timing was right), the mugger was short (the motivation was present), and Gloria is ridiculously wealthy – where else could she have gotten her wealth but by robbing jeeps? (and Gonzales et al said things that sounded suspiciously like approval of the killings – same non-sequitur, DA! and all circumstantial)]

    Sabi mo pa, “I am entitled to whatever I want to believe in.”

    Sagot ko naman, “basta lahat kami naniniwala sa isang bagay, pwede na naming ipagsigawan sa kalye na tama kami. Tutal, opinyon namin yon!” (Inglisin natin – We can shout out whatever we believe in, because we are entitled to our opinion. — Sound familiar?)

    Seriously, the details differ, but the rationalization remains the same. We don’t need proof to believe so long as the circumstances add up to a conclusion that we are comfortable with. Is that your right? Absolutely. And did I say that you don’t have the right to say it? I didn’t. Ang pinahihiwatig ko ay hindi ako sang-ayon sa takbo ng pagdadahilan mo. Di ba, sabi ko pa nga: asus. kaw naman. porke ba di-agree sa iyo, kampi na ng kalaban?

    Tapos, ito pa:

    “?consider them guilty, call them murderers and THEN bring formal charges?”

    Why, antoniowalanglaban? For example, is a victim of a crime not entitled to believe at the outset (even before a case is filed) that a crime has been committed and that a suspect is probably guilty thereof? Precisely the reason why a victim of a crime SUBSEQUENTLY files a case in court is because he/she believes (based on testimonial, object, circumstantial, etc. evidence) that the “suspect” is guilty. It would be the height of absurdity for someone to file a case in court who is not convinced or does not believe that a crime has been committed against him.

    Ano na nangyari sa innocent until proven guilty? Ang tao ay naghahabla kasi naniniwala siyang guilty yung kalaban niya, but the Court cannot be given that same luxury. The only thing that the Court can do is adhere to the rules of law and evidence to prove that a wrong has been committed and that the accused is guilty. If you criticize someone for adhering to that same standard, then maybe something is wrong with your standards. And do we have to apply the same stringent standards of law and evidence to the formulation of our own opinions? Absolutely. I don’t even know why I have to point that out to you.

    “?timing?motivation?pronouncements? circumstantial lahat yan ‘pre. aren’t the oppositionists up in arms because these were precisely the same sort of justifications for that abortion — the “constructive resignation” doctrine?”

    False analogy yan, pre’. Read and understand the SC ruling carefully before you make any comparison between what is happening now with the extrajudicial killings and Erap’s supposed resignation circa 2001. And since you were the one who interposed such analogy, it is your DUTY to explain the same here.

    Mali ka, tol. Di ko inihahambing ang mga pagpatay sa “constructive resignation” kuno ni Erap. Basahin mo yung decision pre. i was referring to the iresponsible use of circumstantial evidence to support a conclusion arrived at long before the case arrived in court; an irresponsibility even more heinous because it was committed by officers of the court.

    “naman, ‘tol. hindi lahat ng oposisyonista ay walang pakundangan kung mag-komento. meron namang gumagamit pa rin ng lohika. maliban na lang yung sa sobrang galit ay nakaklimutan na yung pinaghihiyawang “adherence to the rule of law” ay dapat ding ina-apply sa sarili.”

    Logic, you say? May I remind you with this?: “Awright, bystander! Hah! Get mo yon, comelecKA? basta lahat kami naniniwala sa isang bagay, pwede na naming ipagsigawan sa kalye na tama kami. Tutal, opinyon namin yon! Halimbawa, kapag napaniwala namin ang mga masa na si Gloria ang nang-holdap sa jeep na sinasakyan ko kagabi, ay hindi na mahalaga kung siya nga talaga yon. Ang importante, ay maraming nag-aagree na boses nya yung narinig namin, pandak yung holdaper, at ubod ng yaman si Gloria – aba! saan nya pa nakuha yung pera kundi sa pang-hoholdap ng maraming jeep? Sentido komon lang yan!

    Oo,lohika, pare ko. At yung post ko na pinagpuputok ng butse mo, ang tawag dun, sarcasm. At least si CVJ, na get nya yun.

    In addition, at itatagalog ko para mas lalo momg maintindihan (syensya na sa tagalog ko pre, bisaya man gud ko!), hindi porke’t galit ang isang tao ay nakalimutan na nyang i-apply sa sarili ang “adherence to the rule of law”. hindi mo siguro naisip na kaya may mga taong galit tulad ko ay ay dahil galit na galit sila sa mga taong pumapatay, nangungurakot at nagsisinungaling. kung hindi tayo magagalit, medyo kailangan na natin sigurong magpatingin sa doktor. Get’s mo, pre?

    Totoo namang “hindi porke’t galit ang isang tao ay nakalimutan na nyang i-apply sa sarili ang ‘adherence to the rule of law’.” Ang sinasabi ko, ikaw ang nakakalimot na hindi magandang magpadaig sa galit. Ok lang magalit, pre. Pero kahit na galit na galit ka na sa ibang tao, dapat pa rin silang tratuhin ayon sa rule of law. Otherwise, ano ang pinag-iba mo sa kanila. Diba?

  24. Bystander,

    I think I see the gist of Antonio Walang….. ” Pero kahit na galit na galit ka na sa ibang tao, dapat pa rin silang tratuhin ayon sa rule of law.”

    Tama ang payo niya doon sa galit na galit na kay Gloria, kailangan tratuhin pa rin siya ayon sa rule of law – walang galitan, ibig sabihin, huwag kayong magpakita na galit na galit kayo sa kanya para walang sala sa rule of law.

    Ganito ang kailangan gawin, damputin na iyang si Gloria (cool lang ang pagdampot, ngiti kayo, lambingan pa ninyo iyong pagsabunot kay bansot), tapos, pitikin, sipain, kagatin, pingutin, lunurin na siya sa Pasig River … Hayaan natin si Mike Arroyo mag-demanda at prove niya ang case niya pag nalunod na si Gloria ayon sa rule of law.

    Kaya ako di ako galit sa punyetang Gloria na iyan maski na totoo na bansot siya, na magnanakaw siya, na sinungaling siya na pinapapatay niya ang mga ayaw sa kanya (command responsibility niya kay Pol Pot Palparan e rule of law di ba?), maski mandurukot siya ng pondo para pambili ng fertilizer, maski na mahaba ang dila niya noong magsinungaling siya na hindi siya tatakbo ng presidente noong 2004, maski magsinungaling siya ng sinabi niya na sabi sa kanya ng Dios na tumakbo siya, maski na makapal ang mukha niya noong sabihin niya na hindi siya nagnakaw ng boto…

    Maski sabihin na puwedeng magalit – aba hindi! Ayaw ko magalit baka ma rule of law ako!

    O sige (pangiti pa at malambing pa, polite pa) – “Puwede po bang lunurin mo na Antonio Walang….itong si punyetang bansotita?” Maraming salamat (rule of law daw, kailangan polite ka pa diyan dahil hindi ka sigurado na bansotita si bansot!)

  25. hahahahaha. magandang umaga po, anna. kaso, pagnabasa yan, baka dumami!

  26. Good morning din po! (Ayan di ako ma-ru rule of law diyan sigurado!)

    Alin po ang ibig mong sabihin na “baka dumami”? Ang mga bansot o iyong manlulunod kay bansotita.

    Salamat po.

  27. yung gremlins, ba? di ba when a gremlin gets wet, dumadami. pag-nabasa si gloria … baka dumami siya! bwahahahahaha!

  28. “Pansinin mo, mahal na tagabasa, walang mention ng proof o pruweba. Puro circumstantial evidence lang.”

    Alam mo pre, or kung hindi mo pa nalalaman, “circumstantial” evidence, although not it the same standing as an “eyewitness” account, is still evidence. A combination of circumstantances pointing to the same fact or set of facts are sufficient in themselves to produce a conviction. And under prevailing juisprudence, moral certainty of guilt, not absolute certainty is enough to warrant a criminal conviction.

    Moreover, is this blog or any public fora for that matter the proper venue to present and prove to all and sundry that this Government has something to do with the killings of activists? That was whay in my original comment (my initial reaction to DJB’s statement), I emphasized that the matter of presenting evidence will surely come later when formal charges are filed in a court of law.

    There’s nothing so complicated in such a simple proposition as that. Madali lang yan intindihin pre.

    “Linawin ko ha? – What matters is that we all agree that it was Gloria’s voice that we heard (that the timing was right), the mugger was short (the motivation was present), and Gloria is ridiculously wealthy – where else could she have gotten her wealth but by robbing jeeps? (and Gonzales et al said things that sounded suspiciously like approval of the killings – same non-sequitur, DA! and all circumstantial)”

    If you want to dyingly stress a point, sana naman yung example na kapani-paniwala o at least realistic man lang. San ka ba naman makakakita ng isang Gloria Arroyo na nanghohold-ap ng jeep? Or ipagpalagay na natin na you made the correct analogy or example, bakit sinabi ko ba na hanggang dun lang ang ebidensya na kayang i-present ng mga human rights victims? My initial conclusion that Gloria Arroyo has something to do with these killings was arrived at upon a consideration of all the surrounding circumstances. But I did not say my accusations stop right there. Again, if only to emphasize this point once and for all, the presentation of evidence will definitely come once criminal cases are filed against the perpetrators. But even in the absence (as of now) of formal charges, no one can stop me, not even you or Gloria Arroyo, from making my own conclusions on the culpability of this government. In case you haven’t known, the freedom to believe is absolute. It’s a constitutional right.

    “Ano na nangyari sa innocent until proven guilty? Ang tao ay naghahabla kasi naniniwala siyang guilty yung kalaban niya, but the Court cannot be given that same luxury. The only thing that the Court can do is adhere to the rules of law and evidence to prove that a wrong has been committed and that the accused is guilty. If you criticize someone for adhering to that same standard, then maybe something is wrong with your standards. And do we have to apply the same stringent standards of law and evidence to the formulation of our own opinions? Absolutely. I don’t even know why I have to point that out to you.”

    Was I “speaking” for and in behalf of the court? Or if that was not what you meant, did I say that the Court should not adhere to the standards of law and justice in deciding for or against an accused? All I am saying is there is a proper venue (that is, in a competent court) for all these “PROVE IT FIRST” brouhaha. Why? Is there anyone right here, right now who can prove/disprove the accusation that government has something to do with these killings? Alam mo pre, presenting evidence involves the physical act of bringing all the object, testimonial (meaning the witness) as well as the circumstantial evidence before a judge and for the latter to rule on the admissibility or non-admissibility of the same. Can it be done here or in any public forum? Of course not. That was what I meant when I said “we are before the bar of public opinion where the application of the rules on evidence is not given a privileged status”.

    “Mali ka, tol. Di ko inihahambing ang mga pagpatay sa “constructive resignation” kuno ni Erap. Basahin mo yung decision pre. i was referring to the iresponsible use of circumstantial evidence to support a conclusion arrived at long before the case arrived in court; an irresponsibility even more heinous because it was committed by officers of the court.”

    When you cite a case to support your cause, you must be sure that the facts as well as the jurisprudence involved bear a striking resemblance to your argument. It’s not enough to make inferences merely because to your mind, the Supreme Court used the same standard, i.e. circumstantial evidence, in deciding against Erap’s presidency.

    “Oo,lohika, pare ko. At yung post ko na pinagpuputok ng butse mo, ang tawag dun, sarcasm. At least si CVJ, na get nya yun.”

    Oo nga, na-gets ni CVJ na purely sarcasm lang yung sinabi mo. Okay then, let us again examine what he has to say: Bystander, don’t you notice how they have to deliberately misinterpret your points into a suitably weak enough form before supposedly addressing them? I’m all for sarcasm but not when it’s being used to obscure the discussion. It tends to get stale.

    “Ang sinasabi ko, ikaw ang nakakalimot na hindi magandang magpadaig sa galit. Ok lang magalit, pre. Pero kahit na galit na galit ka na sa ibang tao, dapat pa rin silang tratuhin ayon sa rule of law. Otherwise, ano ang pinag-iba mo sa kanila. Diba?”

    Why? Do you mean to say that I’m not adhering to the rule of law simply because I have made my conclusions as to the moral guilt of Gloria Arroyo and company? Excuse me ‘tol. Pero kahit galit na galit na ako sa isang tao, hindi ko kayang pumatay o mang-abduct o mang-aresto man lang ng walang warrant. Never kong gagawin yun. Sabihin mo kaya yan kay Ginang Arroyo o sa kanyang mga alipores? Parang mas applicable yan sa kanila.

  29. “Pero kahit na galit na galit ka na sa ibang tao, dapat pa rin silang tratuhin ayon sa rule of law. Otherwise, ano ang pinag-iba mo sa kanila. Diba?”

    Maraming galit kay Ginang Arroyo kaya ang ginawa nila ay:

    1. Nag file ang ilang Kongresista ng impeachment (na ayon sa Konstitusyon) pero ibinasura ng “majority” sa isang napakababaw na kadahilanan.

    2. Nag-protesta sa kalye ang mga tao laban kay Ginang Arroyo na ayon sa Konstitusyon (freedom of assembly and even under BP 880) pero ano ang isinukli? CPR (pag aresto, pamamalo, pag-disperse ng mga rallyista) na idineklarang unconstitutional ng SC.

    3. Nag-imbestiga ang Senado (ayon din sa Konstitusyon) na syang natatanging sangay ng gobyerno na pumupuna sa mga anomalya ni Gloria, pero nag issue ng EO 464 na idineklara ring partly unconstitutional ng SC.

    4. Nag-imbento si Gloria ng kathang isip na “leftist-rightist conspiracy” para makapag-aresto without warrant sa mga kritiko ng pamahalaan. To recall, the acts committed under PP 1017 (arrest of Randy David, et al, raid on the Daily Tribune etc.) were declared unconstitutional.

    5. Patuloy na pagpatay sa mga aktibista at ibang pang kontra kay Ginang Arroyo (oops.. meron palang “prove it first” requirement na dapat ipakita sa blog na ito).

    SINO NGAYON ANG SUMUSUWAY SA RULE OF LAW?

  30. Bystander,

    You know what? This prove, prove thing doesn’t always stand to reason. Example, you don’t have to prove or show that my neighbour’s bull terrier can kill a bull or can kill Antonio Walang… in order to believe that it IS a killer dog…

    Would Gloria supporters be willing to have Gloria chased by my neighbour’s bull terrier to prove my point that this dog is a killer dog… The experiment to prove that the said terrier is a killer dog could be quite a dangerous thing…They might find Gloria one head shorter if we decide to follow this particular rule of law.

    Anyway, question: can Gloria be pursued criminally as an accomplice to the kidnapping, torture and human rights abuses committed by her AFP henchmen by virtue of her command responsibility over the AFP?

    Remember the class action suit (although civil) filed against Marcos for human rights abuses committed, not personally by him but by his henchmen. Maybe, this is the right way to inflict bawas on the purported family wealth of the Pidals, este Arroyos.

    Remember Pinochet too…

  31. Para kay bystander, siyempre.

    1. proof is not evidence.
    2. paano ka magkakamoral certainty kung wala ka ngang proof?
    3. when I said: “If you criticize someone for adhering to that same standard, then maybe something is wrong with your standards. And do we have to apply the same stringent standards of law and evidence to the formulation of our own opinions? Absolutely. I don’t even know why I have to point that out to you.” I was talking about you criticizing DJB for asking MLQ3 to adhere to a higher standard in formulating his opinions, not you criticizing the Court, for chrissakes. Like you said, this whole thing hasn’t even gotten that far.
    4. sabi mo: “Can it be done here or in any public forum? ” E dakila ka naman pala e. Siyempre hindi. Kaya nga ang sabi ko: “And do we have to apply the same stringent standards of law and evidence to the FORMULATION OF OUR OWN OPINIONS? Absolutely.” What part of FORMULATION OF OUR OWN OPINIONS can possibly be construed as “prove it here in this forum”?
    5. “When you cite a case to support your cause, you must be sure that the facts as well as the jurisprudence involved bear a striking resemblance to your argument. It’s not enough to make inferences merely because to your mind, the Supreme Court used the same standard, i.e. circumstantial evidence, in deciding against Erap’s presidency.” HAHAHAHA. Hwag mo sabihin tama ang paggamit ng Korte ng circumstantial evidence. Yun ang punto; hindi yung detalye ng kaso. Sino ba naman ang mag-iisip na pareho yung facts ng mga pagpatay at nung pagpapatalsik kay Erap?
    6. Di nga nya nagustuhan, pero at least alam niya kung ano ang sarcasm.
    7. Ganun ba ang tingin mo sa rule of law? Ang rule of law, pare ko, hindi lang nakikita sa mga pisikal na kilos o gawa. Mas importante na ang pag-adhere mo diyan sa prinsipyo na iyan ay nagsisimula sa isipan. If you think that the exhortation “adherence to the rule of law” is satisfied by mere actions, you are flat wrong. Ehemplo: does a racist stop being a racist because he obeys a law that tells him to offer his busseat to a pregnant woman regardless of her race? Hindi di ba? (At please lang, yung prinsipyo ang pinaguusapan, hindi yung facts). Isa pa. Does a pedophile stop being a pedophile because he tells his parole officer that he doesn’t like kids anymore? (Medyo gross na ehemplo, but I hope you are getting the point). At isa pa uli. Does a lawyer stop being a lawyer because he obeys the law (hahahahaha. yun joke na yun.) Ang punto – dahil baka hindi mo nanaman makuha – ay ito: adherence to the rule of law begins with the mental process. The intellectual commitment to the predicates of justice. Anong klaseng mental commitment to the predicates of justice meron ang isang tao na willing na willing magkundena ng ibang tao, base lamang sa sarili niyang interpretasyon ng mga pangyayari? Uulitin ko yung inobjekan ni CVJ: Nothing wrong with passion, but shouldn’t condemnation be based more on more solid and reliable grounds than emotion?” And let’s not repeat that tripe about “emotion in this case, is not the ground, but rather, the reaction to a disconnect between what is and what should be.” Sino ang maniniwala na you’re opinions are based solely on facts when there are no proven facts here? Just events and circumstances that you have woven into a tapestry of evidence – sufficient to convince you – with the cords of your hatred for all things GMA. And by the way, hatred is an emotion.
    8. Basa mo uli yung post ko, pare. Ang sabi ko: “Ang sinasabi ko, ikaw ang nakakalimot na hindi magandang magpadaig sa galit. Ok lang magalit, pre. Pero kahit na galit na galit ka na sa ibang tao, dapat pa rin silang tratuhin ayon sa rule of law.” Tapos basa mo uli ung #7.
    9. Hindi mo kayang pumatay? Aba, I hope so. Hindi mo kayang mang-abduct? Aba uli! Dapat lang. Hindi mo kayang mag-arest without a warrant? Absolutely? (Tapos explain mo ngayon sa akin yung rules for warrantless arrest, doctrine of hot pursuit, atbp. Para kunwari mang-mang ako)
    10. Tanong ko lang: bakit ba hirap na hirap kang intindihin na kahit na absolute ang freedom of belief ay hindi tamang hilingin na meron tayong mas mataas na batayan sa pagbuo ng ating mga opinyon. Halimbawa uli: Wouldn’t you want a racist to look beyond the color of a man’s skin? O baka naman mali na naman ako duon? Yun lang ang mahalaga, bystander.
    11. Maraming galit kay GMA. Obvious ba? Marami ring galit kay ABS-CBN. (Joke din yun, in case you didn’t get it)
    12. Dismissal ng impeachment: When you submit to a process, there is an implicit acceptance of the outcome of that process, whatever that outcome may be. To believe otherwise would be to render futile all our institutions (yes, yes, you will say institutions that have been damaged by GMA, and all that. nevertheless…) and condemn us to generations of ad hoc existence.
    13. CPR is unconstitutional? What do I do if I find a person lying unconscious on a street? Horrors. Seriously, CPR being adjudged unconstitutional (which you and I obviously agree with) is proof that institutions still function, isn’t it? Except that it doesn’t always function the way you want it to.
    14. 16 laws in 2 years.
    15. Nag-imbento si Gloria ng kathang isip na “leftist-rightist conspiracy” – what’s your basis to say na walang conspiracy. Oh wait. That’s your personal opinion. The only proof that matters is the proof you choose to accept. You don’t need proof to believe so long as the circumstances add up to a conclusion that you are comfortable with. Is that your right? Absolutely. And did I say that you don’t have the right to say it? I didn’t. Ang pinahihiwatig ko ay hindi ako sang-ayon sa takbo ng pagdadahilan mo.
    16. Patuloy na pagpatay sa mga aktibista at ibang pang kontra kay Ginang Arroyo (oops.. meron palang “prove it first” requirement na dapat ipakita sa blog na ito). – uuuuy. nagpatawa siya. At least it would be funny if it weren’t at the expense of those poor people. Sana nga mahuli na yung gumagawa niyan. Kung si Gloria, e di si Gloria. Ang problema kasi dito, pag masyado kang nakatutok duon sa suspek na gusto mong tutukan, kung minsan, yung tunay na salarin ay nakatakas na sa kabilang direksyon.

    Whew. Ang haba nito a. Pero, sigurado ako, in true flamer tradition, sasagot ka pa dito. At may iba pang mag-kokomento. Enjoy na lang, mga tol.

  32. Siyempre sasagot ako, lest I be impliedly admitting na SENSIBLE at TAMA yung mga pinagsasabi mo. Ganito yun pre:

    1. “proof is not evidence.”

    Yan lang ba ang pwede mong ibigay na explanation? Para hindi ka na ma-confuse, halika’t tutlungan kita. Eto ayon sa rule of law na sinasabi mo. Under Section 1, Rule 128 of the Rules of Court, “evidence” is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining IN A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING the truth respecting a matter of fact. So, klaro yan pre ha na when you talk of evidence, the proper forum to present the same is in a court of law. Kung hindi mo pa na gets yun, eh problema mo na yun.

    What is the difference between proof and evidence? Under Jones’ treatise on evidence, “proof” is the effect or result of evidence while evidence is the medium of proof.

    You want me to state further the difference between factum probandum and factum probans? Wag na. Lalo lang hahaba ang comment kung ito. At baka lalo ka lang ma-confuse. Tama na yun siguro.

    2. “I was talking about you criticizing DJB for asking MLQ3 to adhere to a higher standard in formulating his opinions, not you criticizing the Court, for chrissakes. Like you said, this whole thing hasn’t even gotten that far.”

    Ganyan naman pala eh. Eh di klaruhin mo. Sa haba ba naman ng mga comments dito, sana nag “quote” ka in reference sa huling sinabi ko. Wag mong i-assume na masusundan ko agad yung pinagpuputok ng butse mo.

    But be that as it may, what higher standard of formulating opinions do you want? That’s why it’s called an “opinion” precisely because it’s just another person’s conclusion as to a given set of circumstances. Pag sinabi kong ang gobyerno ang may pakana ng pagpatay sa mga aktibista, sinasabi ko yun as my opinion. Hindi ko kini-claim na absolutely certain ako sa mga sinasabi ko. Pero hindi yun reckless opinion parekoy. May mga basehan ang accusations ko. Again, para hindi ka na naman ma-confuse, eto ang depinisyon ng salitang “opinion”:

    opinion (plural: opinions)
    noun

    1. personal view: the view somebody takes about a certain issue, especially when it is based solely on personal judgement

    example: In my opinion it’s all a waste of time.

    2. estimation: a view regarding the worth of somebody or something

    example: They had a pretty low opinion of me.

    3. expert view: an expert assessment of something

    example: I told the doctor I wanted a second opinion.

    4. body of generally held views: general assessment, judgement, or evaluation

    example: pundits and other opinion formers

    Microsoft® Encarta® Premium Suite 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

    Kahit nga ang Korte Suprema, pag naglabas sila ng desisyon, “opinion” pa rin ang tawag dahil no one can be absolutely certain as to the truth or falsity of a particular issue.

    3. “E dakila ka naman pala e. Siyempre hindi. Kaya nga ang sabi ko: “And do we have to apply the same stringent standards of law and evidence to the FORMULATION OF OUR OWN OPINIONS? Absolutely.” What part of FORMULATION OF OUR OWN OPINIONS can possibly be construed as “prove it here in this forum”?

    Asus. Basahin mo na lang ulit yung reaction #2 ko. Before you murmur words like “law” and “evidence”, you must learn when and where to use them. TO REPEAT, the most that we can do here in this forum is formulate our opinions based on circumstances we have so far gathered, e.g. in the news, pronouncements of relatives of the victims, statements of government officials, the possible motivation for the killings etc.. Hay naku! Ikaw talaga oo, pakibasa na lang ulit kung ano ang ibig sabihin ng “ebidensya”. Nasa bandang reacton #1 yun.

    4. “HAHAHAHA. Hwag mo sabihin tama ang paggamit ng Korte ng circumstantial evidence. Yun ang punto; hindi yung detalye ng kaso. Sino ba naman ang mag-iisip na pareho yung facts ng mga pagpatay at nung pagpapatalsik kay Erap?

    Akala ko ba ay nag-aadhere ka sa “rule of law”? Eh ba’t parang mas marunong ka pa sa Korte Suprema kung maka-asta ka? Pano mo nasabing mali ang pag-apply nila ng “cicumstantial evidence”? Of course, this is another issue. Pero kung binasa mo lang sana ng mabuti ang comment ko, never kung sinabi na tama ang SC sa ruling nila about Edsa 2. Besides, if you’re really an advocate for the rule of law, you have to abide by the said Supreme Court decision because until that decision is reversed, it is part of the law of the land. Hindi ka naniniwala? Eto ang sabi ng batas:

    REPUBLIC ACT NO. 386
    AN ACT TO ORDAIN AND INSTITUTE
    THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES

    PRELIMINARY TITLE

    CHAPTER I
    EFFECT AND APPLICATION OF LAWS

    xxxxx

    Article 8: Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines. (n)

    xxxxx

    5. “Di nga nya nagustuhan, pero at least alam niya kung ano ang sarcasm.”

    Sus! Nag attempt ka pa to rebutt eh klarong-klaro ang sinabi ni CVJ.

    6. “Ganun ba ang tingin mo sa rule of law? Ang rule of law, pare ko, hindi lang nakikita sa mga pisikal na kilos o gawa. Mas importante na ang pag-adhere mo diyan sa prinsipyo na iyan ay nagsisimula sa isipan. If you think that the exhortation “adherence to the rule of law” is satisfied by mere actions, you are flat wrong.

    Part of the rule of law parekoy is respecting other people’s beliefs, no matter how wrong you think these beliefs seem to be. Nasa Konstitusyon yan. Isn’t the Constitution the fundamental law of the land? Upholding the Constitution is upholding the rule of law! What more do you ask for? You cannot stop other peole from believing what they want to believe, unless you’re living in an enchanted kingdom like what Arroyo has in mind. You cannnot call their attention and say: “Hoy! You’re not adhering to the rule of law ha dahil hindi kanais-nais yung mga pinag-iisip ninyo!” Ano ba naman yan parekoy, be realistic naman. Ang sinasabi ng “rule of law” ay pwede ka lang parusahan pag may ginawa kang bagay ayon sa paniniwala mo na hindi naman sang-ayon sa batas. Adhering to the rule of law should start with the mental process you say? Part of that mental process is accepting the obvious fact that there are those who do not share your beliefs. The right to have a perverted mind is the same as the right of one who claims to have a “clean” mind. As long as one does not show his perversion through overt acts, then he/she cannot be punished for his beliefs. As the well-settled criminal law principle would state: “There is no crime when there is no law punishing it.” Very basic at elementary yan, parekoy.

    7. “Hindi mo kayang pumatay? Aba, I hope so. Hindi mo kayang mang-abduct? Aba uli! Dapat lang. Hindi mo kayang mag-arest without a warrant? Absolutely? (Tapos explain mo ngayon sa akin yung rules for warrantless arrest, doctrine of hot pursuit, atbp. Para kunwari mang-mang ako)”

    Pag sinabi kong hindi ko kayang mag-aresto ng walang warrant, ang ibig kong sabihin ay yung warrantless arrest ng kagaya ng ginagawa ng mga alipores ni Ginang Arroyo. Mahirap ba namang intindihin yon?

    Eh alam mo naman pala ang rules for making arrests without warrants eh, ba’t mo pa pina-paexplain? Ano yan sarcasm na naman? Basahin mo ma lang ulit young comment ni CVJ tungkol sa sarcasm.

    8. “Tanong ko lang: bakit ba hirap na hirap kang intindihin na kahit na absolute ang freedom of belief ay hindi tamang hilingin na meron tayong mas mataas na batayan sa pagbuo ng ating mga opinyon. Halimbawa uli: Wouldn’t you want a racist to look beyond the color of a man’s skin? O baka naman mali na naman ako duon? Yun lang ang mahalaga, bystander.”

    Alam ko yon, Antonio walang…. Ano ba namang example yan? Of course I would want every person to believe according to the tenets of law and justice. But can I force him if he/she does not want to? Can he be punished simply because he believes that his white skin is more superior than another person’s black skin? Sino ngayon ang mahirap umintindi?

    9. “Dismissal ng impeachment: When you submit to a process, there is an implicit acceptance of the outcome of that process, whatever that outcome may be. To believe otherwise would be to render futile all our institutions (yes, yes, you will say institutions that have been damaged by GMA, and all that. nevertheless…) and condemn us to generations of ad hoc existence.”

    Did I say I refuse to accept the outcome of that process? Read carefully, AntonioWalang… Ikaw talaga oo, ino-obscure mo na naman ang punto ng comment ko.

    10. “CPR is unconstitutional? What do I do if I find a person lying unconscious on a street? Horrors. Seriously, CPR being adjudged unconstitutional (which you and I obviously agree with) is proof that institutions still function, isn’t it? Except that it doesn’t always function the way you want it to.”

    So, what’s your point? Is there anything in my comment which makes any discussion as to whether institutions in this country still function or not?

    11. “Nag-imbento si Gloria ng kathang isip na “leftist-rightist conspiracy” – what’s your basis to say na walang conspiracy. Oh wait. That’s your personal opinion. The only proof that matters is the proof you choose to accept. You don’t need proof to believe so long as the circumstances add up to a conclusion that you are comfortable with. Is that your right? Absolutely. And did I say that you don’t have the right to say it? I didn’t. Ang pinahihiwatig ko ay hindi ako sang-ayon sa takbo ng pagdadahilan mo.”

    Ayan ka na naman. Mukhang hindi ka na natuto ah. Humihingi ka na naman ng “proof”. Basahin mo uli yung mga previous comments ko. If you don’t believe me, find out for yourself what “proof” or “evidence” means and WHEN and in WHAT proper legal forum it can be demanded.

    12. “uuuuy. nagpatawa siya. At least it would be funny if it weren’t at the expense of those poor people.”

    Kung nagpatawa man ako sa tingin mo, hindi yon at the expense of those killed, mind you. Sarcasm yun para sa mga taong hindi marunong umintindi o kung nakakaintindi man, sinasadyang ino-obscure ang issue para lang may masabi.

    13. “Sana nga mahuli na yung gumagawa niyan. Kung si Gloria, e di si Gloria. Ang problema kasi dito, pag masyado kang nakatutok duon sa suspek na gusto mong tutukan, kung minsan, yung tunay na salarin ay nakatakas na sa kabilang direksyon.”

    You keep on insisting on the supposition that I am accusing Gloria Arroyo and her ilk merely because of my hatred for her. Where in the world did you get that? Do I have to again enumerate the reasons for my suspicion that her government could have a hand in these killings?

  33. Siyempre sasagot ako, lest I be impliedly admitting na SENSIBLE at TAMA yung mga pinagsasabi mo. Ganito yun pre:

    1. “proof is not evidence.”

    Yan lang ba ang pwede mong ibigay na explanation? Para hindi ka na ma-confuse, halika’t tutlungan kita. Eto ayon sa rule of law na sinasabi mo. Under Section 1, Rule 128 of the Rules of Court, “evidence” is the means, sanctioned by these rules, of ascertaining IN A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING the truth respecting a matter of fact. So, klaro yan pre ha na when you talk of evidence, the proper forum to present the same is in a court of law. Kung hindi mo pa na gets yun, eh problema mo na yun.

    What is the difference between proof and evidence? Under Jones’ treatise on evidence, “proof” is the effect or result of evidence while evidence is the medium of proof.

    You want me to state further the difference between factum probandum and factum probans? Wag na. Lalo lang hahaba ang comment kung ito. At baka lalo ka lang ma-confuse. Tama na yun siguro.

    2. “I was talking about you criticizing DJB for asking MLQ3 to adhere to a higher standard in formulating his opinions, not you criticizing the Court, for chrissakes. Like you said, this whole thing hasn’t even gotten that far.”

    Ganyan naman pala eh. Eh di klaruhin mo. Sa haba ba naman ng mga comments dito, sana nag “quote” ka in reference sa huling sinabi ko. Wag mong i-assume na masusundan ko agad yung pinagpuputok ng butse mo.

    But be that as it may, what higher standard of formulating opinions are you talking about? That’s why it’s called an “opinion” precisely because it’s just another person’s conclusion as to a given set of circumstances. Pag sinabi kong ang gobyerno ang may pakana ng pagpatay sa mga aktibista, sinasabi ko yun as my opinion. Hindi ko kini-claim na absolutely certain ako sa mga sinasabi ko. Pero hindi yun reckless opinion parekoy. May mga basehan ang accusations ko. Again, para hindi ka na naman ma-confuse, eto ang depinisyon ng salitang “opinion”:

    opinion (plural: opinions)
    noun

    1. personal view: the view somebody takes about a certain issue, especially when it is based solely on personal judgement

    example: In my opinion it’s all a waste of time.

    2. estimation: a view regarding the worth of somebody or something

    example: They had a pretty low opinion of me.

    3. expert view: an expert assessment of something

    example: I told the doctor I wanted a second opinion.

    4. body of generally held views: general assessment, judgement, or evaluation

    example: pundits and other opinion formers

    Microsoft® Encarta® Premium Suite 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

    Kahit nga ang Korte Suprema, pag naglabas sila ng desisyon, “opinion” pa rin ang tawag dahil no one can be absolutely certain as to the truth or falsity of a particular issue.

    3. “E dakila ka naman pala e. Siyempre hindi. Kaya nga ang sabi ko: “And do we have to apply the same stringent standards of law and evidence to the FORMULATION OF OUR OWN OPINIONS? Absolutely.” What part of FORMULATION OF OUR OWN OPINIONS can possibly be construed as “prove it here in this forum”?

    Asus. Basahin mo na lang ulit yung reaction #2 ko. Before you murmur words like “law” and “evidence”, you must learn when and where to use them. TO REPEAT, the most that we can do in this internet forum is formulate our opinions based on circumstances we have so far gathered, e.g. in the news, pronouncements of relatives of the victims, statements of government officials, the possible motivation for the killings etc.. Hay naku! Ikaw talaga oo, basahin mo na lang ulit kung ano ang ibig sabihin ng “ebidensya”. Nasa bandang reacton #1 yun.

    4. “HAHAHAHA. Hwag mo sabihin tama ang paggamit ng Korte ng circumstantial evidence. Yun ang punto; hindi yung detalye ng kaso. Sino ba naman ang mag-iisip na pareho yung facts ng mga pagpatay at nung pagpapatalsik kay Erap?”

    Akala ko ba ay nag-aadhere ka sa “rule of law”? Eh ba’t parang mas marunong ka pa sa Korte Suprema kung maka-asta ka? Pano mo nasabing mali ang pag-apply nila ng “cicumstantial evidence”? Of course, this is another issue. Pero kung binasa mo lang sana ng mabuti ang comment ko, never kung sinabi na tama ang SC sa ruling nila about Edsa 2. Besides, if you’re really an advocate for the rule of law, you have to abide by the said Supreme Court decision because until that decision is reversed, it is part of the law of the land. Hindi ka naniniwala? Eto ang sabi ng batas:

    REPUBLIC ACT NO. 386
    AN ACT TO ORDAIN AND INSTITUTE
    THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES

    PRELIMINARY TITLE

    CHAPTER I
    EFFECT AND APPLICATION OF LAWS

    xxxxx

    Article 8: Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines. (n)

    xxxxx

    5. “Di nga nya nagustuhan, pero at least alam niya kung ano ang sarcasm.”

    Sus! Nag attempt ka pa to rebutt eh klarong-klaro ang sinabi ni CVJ.

    6. “Ganun ba ang tingin mo sa rule of law? Ang rule of law, pare ko, hindi lang nakikita sa mga pisikal na kilos o gawa. Mas importante na ang pag-adhere mo diyan sa prinsipyo na iyan ay nagsisimula sa isipan. If you think that the exhortation “adherence to the rule of law” is satisfied by mere actions, you are flat wrong.

    Part of the rule of law parekoy is respecting other people’s beliefs, no matter how wrong you think these beliefs seem to be. Nasa Konstitusyon yan. Isn’t the Constitution the fundamental law of the land? Upholding the Constitution is upholding the rule of law! What more do you ask for? You cannot stop other peole from believing what they want to believe, unless you’re living in an enchanted kingdom like what Arroyo has in mind. You cannnot call their attention and say: “Hoy! You’re not adhering to the rule of law ha dahil hindi kanais-nais yung mga pinag-iisip ninyo!” Ano ba naman yan parekoy, be realistic naman. Ang sinasabi ng “rule of law” ay pwede ka lang parusahan pag may ginawa kang bagay ayon sa paniniwala mo na hindi naman sang-ayon sa batas.

    Adhering to the rule of law should start with the mental process you say? Part of that mental process is accepting the obvious fact that there are those who do not share your beliefs. The right to have a perverted mind is the same as the right of one who claims to have a “clean” mind. As long as one does not show his perversion through overt acts, then he cannot be punished for his beliefs. As the well-settled criminal law principle would state: “There is no crime when there is no law punishing it.” Very basic at elementary yan, parekoy.

    7. “Hindi mo kayang pumatay? Aba, I hope so. Hindi mo kayang mang-abduct? Aba uli! Dapat lang. Hindi mo kayang mag-arest without a warrant? Absolutely? (Tapos explain mo ngayon sa akin yung rules for warrantless arrest, doctrine of hot pursuit, atbp. Para kunwari mang-mang ako)”

    Pag sinabi kong hindi ko kayang mag-aresto ng walang warrant, ang ibig kong sabihin ay yung warrantless arrest ng kagaya ng ginagawa ng mga alipores ni Ginang Arroyo. Mahirap ba namang intindihin yon?

    Eh alam mo naman pala ang rules for making arrests without warrants eh, ba’t mo pa pina-paexplain? Ano yan sarcasm na naman? Basahin mo ma lang ulit young comment ni CVJ tungkol sa sarcasm.

    8. “Tanong ko lang: bakit ba hirap na hirap kang intindihin na kahit na absolute ang freedom of belief ay hindi tamang hilingin na meron tayong mas mataas na batayan sa pagbuo ng ating mga opinyon. Halimbawa uli: Wouldn’t you want a racist to look beyond the color of a man’s skin? O baka naman mali na naman ako duon? Yun lang ang mahalaga, bystander.”

    Alam ko yon, Antonio walang…. Ano ba namang example yan? Of course I would want every person to believe according to the tenets of law, morals and justice. But can I force a person if he does not want to? Can he be punished simply because he believes that his white skin is more superior than another person’s black skin? Sino ngayon ang mahirap umintindi, AntonioWalang…?

    9. “Dismissal ng impeachment: When you submit to a process, there is an implicit acceptance of the outcome of that process, whatever that outcome may be. To believe otherwise would be to render futile all our institutions (yes, yes, you will say institutions that have been damaged by GMA, and all that. nevertheless…) and condemn us to generations of ad hoc existence.”

    Did I say I refuse to accept the outcome of that process? Read carefully, AntonioWalang… Ikaw talaga oo, ino-obscure mo na naman ang punto ng comment ko.

    10. “CPR is unconstitutional? What do I do if I find a person lying unconscious on a street? Horrors. Seriously, CPR being adjudged unconstitutional (which you and I obviously agree with) is proof that institutions still function, isn’t it? Except that it doesn’t always function the way you want it to.”

    So, what’s your point? Is there anything in my comment which makes any discussion as to whether institutions in this country still function or not?

    11. “Nag-imbento si Gloria ng kathang isip na “leftist-rightist conspiracy” – what’s your basis to say na walang conspiracy. Oh wait. That’s your personal opinion. The only proof that matters is the proof you choose to accept. You don’t need proof to believe so long as the circumstances add up to a conclusion that you are comfortable with. Is that your right? Absolutely. And did I say that you don’t have the right to say it? I didn’t. Ang pinahihiwatig ko ay hindi ako sang-ayon sa takbo ng pagdadahilan mo.”

    Ayan ka na naman. Mukhang hindi ka na natuto ah. Humihingi ka na naman ng “proof”. If you don’t believe me, find out for yourself what “proof” or “evidence” means and WHEN and in WHAT proper legal forum it can be demanded as a matter of right.

    12. “uuuuy. nagpatawa siya. At least it would be funny if it weren’t at the expense of those poor people.”

    Kung nagpatawa man ako sa tingin mo, hindi yon at the expense of those killed, mind you. Sarcasm yun para sa mga taong hindi marunong umintindi o kung nakakaintindi man, sinasadyang ino-obscure ang issue para lang may masabi.

    13. “Sana nga mahuli na yung gumagawa niyan. Kung si Gloria, e di si Gloria. Ang problema kasi dito, pag masyado kang nakatutok duon sa suspek na gusto mong tutukan, kung minsan, yung tunay na salarin ay nakatakas na sa kabilang direksyon.”

    You keep on insisting on the supposition that I am accusing Gloria Arroyo and her ilk merely because of my hatred for her. Where in the world did you get that conclusion? May proof ka ba (BWAHAHAHA!) na yan ang dahilan ko kaya ko inaakusahan ang gobyerno na may kinalaman sa mga pagpatay? Do I have to again enumerate the reasons for my suspicion that her government could have a hand in these killings?

  34. MLQ3, folks, Antonio Walang….,

    This all started when Antonio Walang….. said that you need evidence to prove an allegation but as I posted, that might be a dangerous tenet.

    Why?

    Well, here again is a living example.

    I believe, claim, allege that my neighbour’s dog is a killer dog – it is a pittbull terrier. Now, would you believe me or would you demand that I show proof that it is a killer dog?

    Would Gloria supporters be willing to have Gloria chased by my neighbour’s pitbull terrier to prove my point that this dog is a killer dog… The experiment to prove that the said terrier is a killer dog could be quite a dangerous thing…They might find Gloria one head shorter if we decide to follow this particular rule of law.

    In other words, the belief that Gloria may have a hand in the killing of activists, etc. requires no tangible proof as far as I am concerned because by virtue of her command responsibility over the AFP who are professionally trained “killers” (by virtue of their profession and this is in no way a reprimand), I don’t have to see her in the action of giving orders to shoot or pulling the trigger to believe what she is capable of.

    While the killings remain unabated, unchecked and the culprits are not caught, Gloria remains responsible not only morally but also legally as commander in chief of the troops.

    I echo the sentiments of Bystander – Gloria must defend herself before the public, she must answer the charges stated against her before the bar of public opinion. She cannot throw stupid and silly lines in the air like “where’s your proof, where’s your evidence, how do you know”.

    Mafiosis do that… (if you want proof, read the life of Bonano of New York!)

  35. HI ANNA,

    That’s what I was trying to point out to AntonioWalang… that Gloria is morally and legally responsible as “President” and as “Commander-in-Chief” for these extra-judicial killings. Just yesterday, she practically launched an all-out war against the Communists by announcing that the insurgency problem must be wiped out in two years. She made no distinction between non-combatants represented by progressive groups and combatants represented by the NPA.

  36. “I believe, claim, allege that my neighbour’s dog is a killer dog – it is a pittbull terrier. Now, would you believe me or would you demand that I show proof that it is a killer dog?”

    Hahaha. In law, that’s what you call res ipsa loquitor. The thing speaks for itself.

  37. Marcos was never indicted in a court of law (of course he died in exile) for the deaths and disappearances of hundreds if not thousands of people during martial law. Yet, public opinion points to Marcos as the one responsible for the human rights violations. The pattern, the motive, the timing, and the pronouncements of government officials like NSA Gonzales cannot be disregarded simply because other people want solid, absolute proof of government’s covert participation in this killing spree.

  38. “Wag mong i-assume na masusundan ko agad yung pinagpuputok ng butse mo.” Tama ka. Nag-assume nga ako na kaya mo ako sundan. Mali ako dun pare. I shouldn’t have assumed such a thing.

    “I believe, claim, allege that my neighbour’s dog is a killer dog – it is a pittbull terrier. Now, would you believe me or would you demand that I show proof that it is a killer dog?” Yes,Anna, you must prove that your neighbor’s dog is a killer. If you can’t prove that, then your opinion that it is a killer is absolutely menaingless. Except to you, of course, because that’s your opinion.

    If somebody get’s killed in the meantime, then that’s proof. The law may be a bitch, but it is the law.

    About Res ipsa loquitor: bystander is again wrong. He confuses this doctrine as an excuse for being too lazy to prove allegations. The doctrine is that the negligence of an alleged wrongdoer can be inferred from the fact that the accident happened. This doctrine allows a defendant to be found guilty of negligence without an actual showing that he was negligent. Its use is limited in theory to cases in which the cause of the plaintiff’s injury was entirely under the control of the defendant, and the injury presumably could have been caused only by negligence. So, in your example, if a person were killed by a dog that was restrained only with an inadequate chain or cage, then the fact that dog’s owner is guilty of negligence can be presumed, since if the owner was not negligent, he would not have used such inadequate means of restraint. But to say that a mere CLAIM or ALLEGATION is enough to bring some sort of legal consequence is wrong.

  39. “”Wag mong i-assume na masusundan ko agad yung pinagpuputok ng butse mo.”Tama ka. Nag-assume nga ako na kaya mo ako sundan. Mali ako dun pare. I shouldn’t have assumed such a thing.”

    Mali ka na naman parekoy. Sinabi ko yun in regard to that particular comment thread. Hindi ibig sabihin na hindi ko masusundan yung mga sinasabi mo. Don’t mislead other commenters parekoy to make it appear na hindi ko kayang sagutin yung mga punto mo.

    “About Res ipsa loquitor: bystander is again wrong. He confuses this doctrine as an excuse for being too lazy to prove allegations. The doctrine is that the negligence of an alleged wrongdoer can be inferred from the fact that the accident happened. This doctrine allows a defendant to be found guilty of negligence without an actual showing that he was negligent. Its use is limited in theory to cases in which the cause of the plaintiff’s injury was entirely under the control of the defendant, and the injury presumably could have been caused only by negligence. So, in your example, if a person were killed by a dog that was restrained only with an inadequate chain or cage, then the fact that dog’s owner is guilty of negligence can be presumed, since if the owner was not negligent, he would not have used such inadequate means of restraint. But to say that a mere CLAIM or ALLEGATION is enough to bring some sort of legal consequence is wrong.”

    BWAHAHAHA! Alam mo parekoy sinabi ko yun only to describe Anna’s example of the killer dog. FYI, res ipsa loquitor is not a criminal law principle. It is a civil law principle. It has no application to our discussion re: killing of activists. You need not explain, albeit haphazardly, what is not applicable to the case under consideration.

  40. “Mali ka na naman parekoy. Sinabi ko yun in regard to that particular comment thread. Hindi ibig sabihin na hindi ko masusundan yung mga sinasabi mo. Don’t mislead other commenters parekoy to make it appear na hindi ko kayang sagutin yung mga punto mo.” Ok. That’s your opinion. 🙂 Also, I don’t need to mislead anyone. All they have to do is read the posts. To paraphrase you, the record “speaks for itself.” HAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Tama ka, tort nga yun. Sinabi ko bang criminal law? and yes, no application to killing activists. kaya nga kay anna ako nag-reply, di naman sa’yo, diba? And besides, mali ka talaga.

    “‘I believe, claim, allege that my neighbour’s dog is a killer dog – it is a pittbull terrier. Now, would you believe me or would you demand that I show proof that it is a killer dog?’

    Hahaha. In law, that’s what you call res ipsa loquitor. The thing speaks for itself. ” Hindi nga example ng res ipsa yung sinasabi ni Anna, diba? Haphazard ba? O baka naman nag-assume lang ako na kaya mong sundan?

    This will be the 95th reply to this post. 5 more, bystander. Kaya mo yan.

  41. Mali, nag-post ka pala habang sinasagot kita. So, hopefully, kung mahihintay mo ito, o mauunahan kita, pang-98 na ito.

    Di ba sabi mo we should let our opinions be heard if we think something wrong is afoot (not your words of course, but certainly the driving force of your on-line life). well, you were wrong. and you’re a funny one to imply that I shouldn’t have posted an opinion on your mangling of res ipsa.

keyboard_arrow_up