jopoc Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 alam mo pareho lamang naman tayong naniniwala sa presumption of innocence...parehong lang naman ang brand demokrasya na pinaniniwalaan natin...alam ko galit ka sa trial by publicity...pero as i have mentioned before...hindi kapuwedeng mamili ng isang aspeto lang ng demokrasya...you have to take the whole thing...hook, line and sinker...one of the things that i do NOT like sa mga ginagawa ng mga arroyois they are STONEWALLING and doing everything within their power (money) to evade ang mga tanongng mga FILIPINO...so, bakit ?...bakit kelangang bayaran ang mga congressman para hindi matuloy ang impeachment process?...bakit kelangan si IGGY ang sumalo ng kaso ni JOSE PIDAL...tapos ngayon, si IGGY na naman ang nag-lease ng mga helicopter...mabuti pa nga si MIKEY at asawa niya......mas matapang they submittted themselves to the BIR ... bakit kailangan ni Bunye na mag-i have 2 discs...tapos, yung 'i'm sorry' ni GMA ?...ang daming tanong...pero walang sagot...ang laging sagot..."magkita nalang tayo sa korte"... eh alam naman natin sa korte, ang ebidensiya laging nakaturo sa mga small time nacrooks na binayaran...like what happened dun sa palawan...those in power, those who have money....they know how to get around the law...with high paid lawyers, the rich and powerful use the law to their advantage....di ba sabi mo nga...nagbayad ng 10 million yung kliyente mo para hindi matawagsa senate hearing - that's one way of getting around the law... ..if there's anything that we could agree on...totoong marami ang incompetent sa administrasyon ni Pnoy...pero that'san improvement sa panahon ni GMA...talamak ang incompetent at corrupt sa panahon ni Gloria... if you believe in the presumption of innocence, then you should believe that GMA, MIKE and IGGY have nothing to explain as long as the case has not been filed in COURT. remember that only courts can determine guilt of a person. so if they dont want to answer, let it be, let us still presume that they are innocent. as to small time crooks na binayaran, as far as i am concerned, if they voluntarily allowed themselves to be the fall guys for the big time crooks, that is their look out. Quote Link to comment
wolfwhistler Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 no semantics here. the ombudsman and DOJ merely make PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIONS, meaning, they will study/investigate whether or not the case should be filed in court. normally, the DOJ, or the public prosecutors aka fiscals, will file cases in regular courts while the Ombudsman will file the case in the sandiganbayan. its is the regular court (rtc or mtc) and the Sandiganbayan that is actually a court, not the ombudsman or doj. my point is simple. kung may malakas na ebidensya ang doj or ombudsman, hindi dapat tumatagal ang investigation. they should have filed it in court already. so ask yourself, WHY THE DELAY???? ps. on a personal note, i did not study law for 8 years. 5 years lang (had to extend 1 year for not being the brightest in class. hehe) a. so, what is the lie here? she merely admitted that the bank document is authentic. remember that rowena is a mere bookeeper. utusan lang sya. hindi naman sya ang magsasabi kung lease payment o hindi and whether or not it was an advance payment for the lease. she was merely relying on what she knows. saan ka nakakita ng bookeeper na nakikialam kung papaano magbabayad ang mga boss nya? b. rowena made it clear that her boss is iggy. the records are clear that mike is not a shareholder of LTA in 2001-2010, so how can mike be her boss in 2004? c. if someone lies to me, i file the proper case, i will not take the law in my hands. if rowena suddenly recants her statement, do you think its still believable? would you not say she was doing it out of duress and coercion? d. bondoc is an attack dog of the pnoy administration. look at his previous articles. he has always been the one taking a first crack against FG. i cannot be envious of you at all for belonging to a much maligned group of individuals...but thank you for enlightening me about how the legal process start and how it progresses... "why the delay"?...i think, as i have mentioned previously, we need better prosecutors...'fiscals' sabi mo nga...and with the change of administration, i'm hoping there will be changesin the mindsets of quite a few of our kababayans...perhaps, in 2 or 3 years...a more responsiblecitizenry would emerge ... it took gloria 9 years to turn us into what we are now...i am hoping thatin half the time, we could turn 180 degrees... who knows ? baka mawala na ang 'utang na loob' sa kultura natin?...maybe rowena,might NOT even consider to be a board member of PAG-IBIG next time..i think YOU are more qualified than her... Quote Link to comment
jopoc Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 "why the delay"?...i think, as i have mentioned previously, we need better prosecutors...'fiscals' sabi mo nga...and with the change of administration, i'm hoping there will be changesin the mindsets of quite a few of our kababayans...perhaps, in 2 or 3 years...a more responsiblecitizenry would emerge ... it took gloria 9 years to turn us into what we are now...i am hoping thatin half the time, we could turn 180 degrees... who knows ? baka mawala na ang 'utang na loob' sa kultura natin?...maybe rowena,might NOT even consider to be a board member of PAG-IBIG next time..i think YOU are more qualified than her... better prosecutors? look, the DOJ secretary and the Ombudsman are both Pnoy appointees. so what utang na loob are you looking for? rowena's best qualification in pag-ibig is basically the best qualification Puno, Torres, alvarez all have...... TRUST AND CONFIDENCE OF THE PRESIDENT. Quote Link to comment
sandy51 Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 better prosecutors? look, the DOJ secretary and the Ombudsman are both Pnoy appointees. so what utang na loob are you looking for? rowena's best qualification in pag-ibig is basically the best qualification Puno, Torres, alvarez all have...... TRUST AND CONFIDENCE OF THE PRESIDENT. Hindi ko magetz disagreement ninyo ni Sir Wolfwhistler. Mukhang nasa parehong runway naman kayo. Yung isa nga lang nsa zero six while yung isa nsa two four. He he. Seriously, I think the problem of justice here in the Philippines is that the interpretation is most often subjective, yet the legal people always say dura lex sed lex. If only they could really mean what they say, no matter how repulsive it is, then maybe the Philippines can be better. Take the case of Imelda. If Imelda were innocent, hindi ba injustice to her? If guilty, however, hindi ba injustice to the Filipino people? If guilty nga but mahina naman evidence, masakit man tangapin pero dapat acquitted. c'est la vie. Sir jopoc, paki tingin naman tanong ko sa topic "(IN)Justice in the RP". TIA Quote Link to comment
wolfwhistler Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 if you'd ask me, i love to see cases filed against GMA and her minions in court, not in the senate. ask yourself, how many cases has this administration filed in court against GMA? Here's a sample of evidence . Except, as you said, because of the Anti-wire tapping law, the evidence is considered illegal. But everybody knows about the Garci Tapes ! And there are those who will close their eyes and minds and say that this conversation never happened and say "there is NO evidence". Those who know better...know better... "GMA: So nagmamatch?" "Garcillano: Oho. Sa Basilan, alam nyo naman ang mga military dun eh hindi masyadong marunong kasi silang gumawa eh. Katulad ho dun sa Sulu, sa General Habacon. Pero hindi naman ho, kinausap ko na 'yung Chairman ng Board sa Sulu. Ang akin patataguin ko na muna yung EO ng Pangutaran na para hindi siya maka-testigo ho." In the last sentence, GMA even condoned as you lawyers put it, "obstruction of justice"... Quote Link to comment
KillTheDEVIL Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 Pls protect the whistleblowers. Quote Link to comment
jopoc Posted August 24, 2011 Share Posted August 24, 2011 Hindi ko magetz disagreement ninyo ni Sir Wolfwhistler. Mukhang nasa parehong runway naman kayo. Yung isa nga lang nsa zero six while yung isa nsa two four. He he. Seriously, I think the problem of justice here in the Philippines is that the interpretation is most often subjective, yet the legal people always say dura lex sed lex. If only they could really mean what they say, no matter how repulsive it is, then maybe the Philippines can be better. Take the case of Imelda. If Imelda were innocent, hindi ba injustice to her? If guilty, however, hindi ba injustice to the Filipino people? If guilty nga but mahina naman evidence, masakit man tangapin pero dapat acquitted. c'est la vie. Sir jopoc, paki tingin naman tanong ko sa topic "(IN)Justice in the RP". TIA sabi nga, there is always the presumption of innocence. that rule applies not only to GMA, but to every filipino citizen. mabigat ang burden of proof sa criminal cases. so kung wala o mahina ang ebidensya, wag sasama ang loob. ganyan talaga ang batas. isipin nyo na lang kung kayo ang kinakasuhan, tapos nasa iyo pa ang responsibilidad na patunayan na hindi ka guilty. ok lang ba yun sa iyo???? Here's a sample of evidence . Except, as you said, because of the Anti-wire tapping law, the evidence is considered illegal. But everybody knows about the Garci Tapes ! And there are those who will close their eyes and minds and say that this conversation never happened and say "there is NO evidence". Those who know better...know better... "GMA: So nagmamatch?" "Garcillano: Oho. Sa Basilan, alam nyo naman ang mga military dun eh hindi masyadong marunong kasi silang gumawa eh. Katulad ho dun sa Sulu, sa General Habacon. Pero hindi naman ho, kinausap ko na 'yung Chairman ng Board sa Sulu. Ang akin patataguin ko na muna yung EO ng Pangutaran na para hindi siya maka-testigo ho." In the last sentence, GMA even condoned as you lawyers put it, "obstruction of justice"... you said it, the recording is inadmissible in court. in legal parlance, it is called fruit of the poisonous tree. so, in a trial by publicity, guilty nga sya, pero in court, malabong pareho ang hatol. Pls protect the whistleblowers. do you know most of the whistleblowers are extortionists? or at least, they have their own vested interest in being a whistleblower? Quote Link to comment
sandy51 Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 sabi nga, there is always the presumption of innocence. that rule applies not only to GMA, but to every filipino citizen. mabigat ang burden of proof sa criminal cases. so kung wala o mahina ang ebidensya, wag sasama ang loob. ganyan talaga ang batas. isipin nyo na lang kung kayo ang kinakasuhan, tapos nasa iyo pa ang responsibilidad na patunayan na hindi ka guilty. ok lang ba yun sa iyo???? Exactly sir jopoc. Hindi ba dapat naman talaga na kung sino nag bintang, sya ang magpatunay? you said it, the recording is inadmissible in court. in legal parlance, it is called fruit of the poisonous tree. so, in a trial by publicity, guilty nga sya, pero in court, malabong pareho ang hatol. do you know most of the whistleblowers are extortionists? or at least, they have their own vested interest in being a whistleblower? Mayron pa nga sumbong kuno, pero ang totoo is para hindi sya masama sa kaso. Kaya yung mga sinumbung nya nakuha ang property pero yung kanya safe - e magkasama naman sila. Hero pa labas nya. Oh my! Paano kaya madala sa 21st Century ang pagiisip nang Pilipino Quote Link to comment
jopoc Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 remember that whistleblowers BENEFITTED from the crime (if there was any). so questionable agad ang motive nila, as the supreme court held, the testimonies of whistleblowers came from "Polluted source". Quote Link to comment
KillTheDEVIL Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 Pls prioritize crime prevention Quote Link to comment
KillTheDEVIL Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 Mayron pa nga sumbong kuno, pero ang totoo is para hindi sya masama sa kaso. Kaya yung mga sinumbung nya nakuha ang property pero yung kanya safe - e magkasama naman sila. Hero pa labas nya. Oh my! Paano kaya madala sa 21st Century ang pagiisip nang Pilipino ONe of the requirements for someone to turn into state witness is that "the applicant must be the least guilty among the accused". Quote Link to comment
zenislev Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 ONe of the requirements for someone to turn into state witness is that "the applicant must be the least guilty among the accused". still, most of the least guilty one among the mob received a considerable amount of looted wealth that makes me want to strangle his neck by my bare hands. Quote Link to comment
wolfwhistler Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 better prosecutors? look, the DOJ secretary and the Ombudsman are both Pnoy appointees. so what utang na loob are you looking for? rowena's best qualification in pag-ibig is basically the best qualification Puno, Torres, alvarez all have...... TRUST AND CONFIDENCE OF THE PRESIDENT. likewise, Renato Corona and Merceditas Gutierrez who were both appointed by GMA...they have the "trust and confidence of " GMA...Ironic that Pnoy protects his appointees...whilst with GMA, her appointees protects her... Quote Link to comment
wolfwhistler Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 you said it, the recording is inadmissible in court. in legal parlance, it is called fruit of the poisonous tree. so, in a trial by publicity, guilty nga sya, pero in court, malabong pareho ang hatol. what do you really mean by trial by publicity ?...that GMA is guilty...can this be paralleled with Nixonwho was also tried by the press ?.....and everybody in American knows he was guilty ...and he paid for it.. a legal question to you...may the supreme court decide to do away with the anti-wire tapping law if it feels that there is no justice in the 2004 elections ?...perhaps nixon v. united states might help clear the air ?because the supreme court can 'interpret' the law as they wish...would you think carpio might interpret the law differently from CORONA, a GMA midnight appointee ? as for your supposed "presumption of innocence" for every filipino...why have you already "convicted" whistleblowersas EXTORTIONISTS ?....i can enumerate to you quite a few who are not...why would you stand for presumption of innocencewhen it is with regards to the arroyos and their cohorts....but when it comes to whistleblowers you have lumped them intoextortionists...? tsk...tsk...the lady with the blindfold is peeking and the scale is unbalanced ?...hehehe... Quote Link to comment
jopoc Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 likewise, Renato Corona and Merceditas Gutierrez who were both appointed by GMA...they have the "trust and confidence of " GMA...Ironic that Pnoy protects his appointees...whilst with GMA, her appointees protects her... glad you know that Pnoy is no different from GMA. what do you really mean by trial by publicity ?...that GMA is guilty...can this be paralleled with Nixonwho was also tried by the press ?.....and everybody in American knows he was guilty ...and he paid for it.. that is the difference between US politics and the philippines. inthe US, a oublic official who becomes part of a scandal, whether it is about corruption or not (like weiner), they have the delicadeza to resign. in the philippines, no such thing. anyway, we are not legally obligated to have delicadeza. a legal question to you...may the supreme court decide to do away with the anti-wire tapping law if it feels that there is no justice in the 2004 elections ?...perhaps nixon v. united states might help clear the air ?because the supreme court can 'interpret' the law as they wish...would you think carpio might interpret the law differently from CORONA, a GMA midnight appointee ? in my opinion, the SC cannot do away with the anti-wire tapping law. they are bound by the laws. as for your supposed "presumption of innocence" for every filipino...why have you already "convicted" whistleblowersas EXTORTIONISTS ?....i can enumerate to you quite a few who are not...why would you stand for presumption of innocencewhen it is with regards to the arroyos and their cohorts....but when it comes to whistleblowers you have lumped them intoextortionists...? tsk...tsk...the lady with the blindfold is peeking and the scale is unbalanced ?...hehehe... i never pointed to anybody, right? i just made a general statement, i even qualified it by saying "MOST".besides, the presumption of innocence is for cases filed in court. it is intended to be availed by persons are subjected to being penalized. i dont think the whistleblowers are in the same position since they are on the part of the prosecution and not the sie of the accused (defense). Quote Link to comment
KillTheDEVIL Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 pls run after those who benefitted from the purchase of 2nd hand choppers. Quote Link to comment
KillTheDEVIL Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 likewise, Renato Corona and Merceditas Gutierrez who were both appointed by GMA...they have the "trust and confidence of " GMA...Ironic that Pnoy protects his appointees...whilst with GMA, her appointees protects her... Let's expect some changes soon Master. I'm sure Pnoy would never stop until reforms in the judiciary are implemented. Quote Link to comment
jopoc Posted August 25, 2011 Share Posted August 25, 2011 Let's expect some changes soon Master. I'm sure Pnoy would never stop until reforms in the judiciary are implemented. i believe corona's retirement will come after Pnoy's term. Quote Link to comment
wolfwhistler Posted August 26, 2011 Share Posted August 26, 2011 i believe corona's retirement will come after Pnoy's term. thanks to GMA... Quote Link to comment
wolfwhistler Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 that is the difference between US politics and the philippines. inthe US, a oublic official who becomes part of a scandal, whether it is about corruption or not (like weiner), they have the delicadeza to resign. in the philippines, no such thing. anyway, we are not legally obligated to have delicadeza. i do NOT know whether you are feigning knowledge ...but unlike in the arroyo administration when 'kapit tuko' is the order of the day, there have been quite a few resignations in the NEW administration...7 as of the last count... even merceditas tendered hers (after a visit from GMA?) though i doubt if gutierrez has suddenly come to her senses...i think it is more likely that she is tired of lying for gloria...a gracious exit, so to speak... there is hope...delicadeza, which was lost during the arroyo reign, is making a comeback, albeit, slowly... very slowly...please go back in our history and you will learn that there was, actually, such a thing, delicadeza, when filipinos would rather have HONOR than wealth or power...it is difficult to re-learn the traits our nation used to have, but shouldn't we, at least try, instead of joining the bandwagon of cheaters, liars and thieves ? Do you think the Arroyos and their cohorts will take us there ? Or will Pnoy be a better choice ? Quote Link to comment
sandy51 Posted August 27, 2011 Share Posted August 27, 2011 Let's expect some changes soon Master. I'm sure Pnoy would never stop until reforms in the judiciary are implemented. This is I think one of Pinoy's problem. He is trying to reform the judiciary. Someone in his staff probably forgot to tell him that in the Philippines there are three independent branches of government. Maybe it's that person who forgot to give the phone call. ha ha Quote Link to comment
wolfwhistler Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 This is I think one of Pinoy's problem. He is trying to reform the judiciary. Someone in his staff probably forgot to tell him that in the Philippines there are three independent branches of government. Maybe it's that person who forgot to give the phone call. ha ha actually, it is under Pnoy's aegis when the 3 branches of gov't became independent..that was the reform...during GMA's era, the legislative and executive, though, supposedly independent of each other was controlled by the presidentusing bags of money to make the legislators toe the line...for instance, during the GMA impeachment....ask father panlilio... fortunately, the judicial branch remained independent...or else we could have been under martial rule....but only until gma was able to appoint enough of her loyalists to tilt the balance...jopoc must have beenreferring to corona (accepting gma's midnight appointment)when jopoc said something about delicadeza not observed in the phils... but of course, all of my speculations are just that...speculations...but did you ever wonder about that saying..."where there is smoke, there is fire" ?...or maybe this one..."if it walks like a duck...etc..etc.." Quote Link to comment
sandy51 Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 actually, it is under Pnoy's aegis when the 3 branches of gov't became independent..that was the reform...during GMA's era, the legislative and executive, though, supposedly independent of each other was controlled by the presidentusing bags of money to make the legislators toe the line...for instance, during the GMA impeachment....ask father panlilio... fortunately, the judicial branch remained independent...or else we could have been under martial rule....but only until gma was able to appoint enough of her loyalists to tilt the balance...jopoc must have beenreferring to corona (accepting gma's midnight appointment)when jopoc said something about delicadeza not observed in the phils... but of course, all of my speculations are just that...speculations...but did you ever wonder about that saying..."where there is smoke, there is fire" ?...or maybe this one..."if it walks like a duck...etc..etc.." Sorry but I don't get it. If as you say, it is under Pinoy's time that he made the three branches truly independent, then why is he trying to reform those who are supposed to be independent of him? If you are independent, would you like the idea of someone trying to reform you? Of course not. You would probably say "mind your own business". So, whoever it is that is trying to reform you would be wasting his time, because you wouldn't care less Quote Link to comment
wolfwhistler Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 Sorry but I don't get it. If as you say, it is under Pinoy's time that he made the three branches truly independent, then why is he trying to reform those who are supposed to be independent of him? If you are independent, would you like the idea of someone trying to reform you? Of course not. You would probably say "mind your own business". So, whoever it is that is trying to reform you would be wasting his time, because you wouldn't care less this might explain your quandary... "A bully pulpit is a public office or other position of authority of sufficiently high rank that provides the holder with an opportunity to speak out and be listened to on any matter. The bully pulpit can bring issues to the forefront that were not initially in debate, due to the office's stature and publicity. This term was coined by President Theodore Roosevelt, who referred to the White House as a "bully pulpit," by which he meant a terrific platform from which to advocate an agenda. Roosevelt famously used the word bully as an adjective meaning "superb" or "wonderful" (a more common expression in his time than it is today)" just as justice corona would speak his mind about the executive, pnoy could also use his bully pulpit ... Pnoy is going by the rules when it comes to the independence of the 3 branches of gov't compared with GMA whoallegedly lied, cheated and stole to try and control all 3 branches... i'm sorry, too...because if you don't get it by reading my political speculations a second time...it is my belief that you might never get politics at all... Quote Link to comment
robbietan Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 fortunately, the judicial branch remained independent...or else we could have been under martial rule....but only until gma was able to appoint enough of her loyalists to tilt the balance...jopoc must have beenreferring to corona (accepting gma's midnight appointment)when jopoc said something about delicadeza not observed in the phils... with dividi and the rest of the sc that "legalized" the 2001 coup, I do not think the sc in gloria's time was independent Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.