Antonio Trillanes: Criticism And Controversies

[juan t]

Eto naman analogy ko. Trillanes has a certification signed by Gazmin. For every output there has to be an input, otherwise ur output becomes suspect. Following ur example, may diploma ka, but the univ has no record of u enrolling. Di ba, maybe just maybe, Recto product ang peg?

 

 

 

I cant see the Recto angle coming into play here, and this is why: No one, not even Duterte, is questioning the authenticity of the amnesty certificate. There was a public proclamation. It had to go through Congress first. It was all over the news...etc. There is no question that this is not a Recto document. So going back to your analogy - It should be: a person, with his diploma, whom everyone including the previous dean knows to have graduated from that school, is in danger of having his education voided just because the school cannot find his application. Doesn't that sound stupid to you?

 

 

I believed in the cause Trillanes had. I shared the idealism, understood the frustration. Then he got aligned with the yellow mob. He just lost it there.

 

No one can be Liberal and be pro-people. (I heard you say but he's Nacionalista! IKR. )

 

 

You shared his idealism. I don't think his idealism has changed. Please be more specific on why you are vehemently opposed to him now. Sorry to be blunt but i think that just saying "he got aligned with the yellow mob" is such a lazy argument. It's a product of propaganda that claims "dilawan" automatically equals "bad" without even explaining why.

[will robie]

Like I said, yours is one opinion. Others may say that a president's proclamation and the secretary's signature (with authority of the president) is documentation enough. Even lawyers are divided on this so until a decision is handed down, that statement of yours remains an opinion.

How can something that is written in the Constitution be an opinion?

[tk421]

The words in the constitution is subject to interpretation, or haven't you heard? Kaya nga isa yun sa major role ng Supreme Court eh. SMH.

 

Kaya nga dati nakaka lusot ang pork barrel sa national budget until it was ruled that it was unconstitutional.

Edited September 19, 2018 by tk421

[juan t]

How can something that is written in the Constitution be an opinion?

It doesn't say in the constitution that the president's signature absolutely has to be the one signed on the amnesty certificate.

[camiar]

It doesn't say in the constitution that the president's signature absolutely has to be the one signed on the amnesty certificate.

hahahahaha!

 

hilarious!

 

this should be in the political jokes thread!

[juan t]

hahahahaha!

 

hilarious!

 

this should be in the political jokes thread!

 

 

I don't get the joke. Past administrations have done the same thing before and no one made any objections. All these went through Congress without any hitch. Even this administration didn't see anything wrong with this issue at first, otherwise they would have raised it right away rather than that ridiculous missing application angle. You make it seem like its an obvious error. So what's so funny?

[camiar]

It doesn't say in the constitution that the president's signature absolutely has to be the one signed on the amnesty certificate.

 

 

hahahahaha!

 

hilarious!

 

this should be in the political jokes thread!

 

 

 

 

I don't get the joke. Past administrations have done the same thing before and no one made any objections. All these went through Congress without any hitch. Even this administration didn't see anything wrong with this issue at first, otherwise they would have raised it right away rather than that ridiculous missing application angle. You make it seem like its an obvious error. So what's so funny?

Basahin mo yung statement mo.

 

Baka pati ikaw humagalpak din ng tawa sa ka-ignorantehan mo tungkol sa Constitution.

[juan t]

 

 

 

 

Basahin mo yung statement mo.

 

Baka pati ikaw humagalpak din ng tawa sa ka-ignorantehan mo tungkol sa Constitution.

Are you going to state your point, or do you just want to play guessing games?

[will robie]

It doesn't say in the constitution that the president's signature absolutely has to be the one signed on the amnesty certificate.

I knew it. Refer to my post in which I pointed out the article abd section of the Constitution and my explanation of the documentation. I knew na mamimilosopo ka kaya lang sablay na sablay kaya pinangunahan na kita dun sa post ko. Edited September 19, 2018 by will robie

[juan t]

I knew it. Refer to my post in which I pointed out the article abd section of the Constitution and my explanation of the documentation. I knew na mamimilosopo ka kaya lang sablay na sablay kaya pinangunahan na kita dun sa post ko.

 

Anong "I knew it" ang pangasasabi mo jan? Are you talking about this OPINION of yours?

 

 

Is it? Try checking out the Constitution. Article VII Section 19. Baka mamilosopo ka at sabihin mo na sinabi ko ay "amnesty can be signed by the president" at nandun ay "the president can grant amnesty." Unahan na kita. When you grant an amnesty, it has to be documented, hence, the president is the only one who can sign the amnesty, not a defense secretary.

 

 

Paulit-ulit lang tayo ah! You are trying to prove your point with your an OPINION. That may be your own interpretation of the Constitution but I am sure others have a different view.

[darksoulriver]

 

Paulit-ulit lang tayo ah! You are trying to prove your point with your an OPINION. That may be your own interpretation of the Constitution but I am sure others have a different view.

 

check mo please lang kung may nakalagay dun Defense Secretary o can be deligated... hindi mo kailangan pa ng intrepretation.

 

parang awa mo na... wag ka nman masyadong pahalata... hahaha

[juan t]

 

check mo please lang kung may nakalagay dun Defense Secretary o can be deligated... hindi mo kailangan pa ng intrepretation.

 

parang awa mo na... wag ka nman masyadong pahalata... hahaha

 

 

Check mo rin kung nakalagay dun kelangan yung presidente mismo mag sign at hindi yung defense secretary na may authorization.

[will robie]

Anong "I knew it" ang pangasasabi mo jan? Are you talking about this OPINION of yours?

 

 

Paulit-ulit lang tayo ah! You are trying to prove your point with your an OPINION. That may be your own interpretation of the Constitution but I am sure others have a different view.

Again, how can something that is written I the Constitution be an opinion?

[will robie]

Is it? Try checking out the Constitution. Article VII Section 19. Baka mamilosopo ka at sabihin mo na sinabi ko ay "amnesty can be signed by the president" at nandun ay "the president can grant amnesty." Unahan na kita. When you grant an amnesty, it has to be documented, hence, the president is the only one who can sign the amnesty, not a defense secretary.

 

juan t, I am quoting my post again because namimilosopo ka pero sablay. Read this again and again until you understand what I am getting at.

[juan t]

juan t, I am quoting my post again because namimilosopo ka pero sablay. Read this again and again until you understand what I am getting at.

 

Ang kukulit... I understand very well what you, darksoulriver, and camiar are getting at. You guys are echoing Duterte saying that the amnesty is invalid because it is the president's signature that has to be on the certificate and no one else.

 

The Constitution states that : THE PRESIDENT SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO GRANT AMNESTY.

 

What Pnoy did (and several other presidents of the past by the way) is this:

1. He GRANTED amnesty through a proclamation. His signature is on this proclamation. In that proclamation, he tasked a committee to process the applications.

2. Gazmin signed the certificate of amnesty on behalf of Aquino. The certificate basically states something like "this is to certify that Trillanes was granted amnesty by virtue of proclamation 75 by Pres. Aquino.

 

The issue we are arguing about is number 2.

 

You are saying that Gazmin signing the certificate equates to the defense secretary being the one who granted the amnesty and not Pnoy and that would make it invalid.

 

My opinion is: that Pnoy already granted the amnesty through Proclamation 75. (satisfying Article VII Section 19 of the constitution). The certificate signed by Gazmin is only an administrative function to process the application. This document, the certificate of amnesty, did not grant Trillanes amnesty but rather it certified that he was granted amnesty