Lessons from Renato Corona’s experience: Five tips on how to survive an impeachment trial

After 43 sessions within the span of 5 months, the impeachment trial of Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona has finally ended with an overwhelming vote for a “guilty” verdict. So much has been said about how the prosecution cut corners and violated the most sacred parts of the Philippine Constitution just to demonize the respondent in the public’s eyes, but not a lot has been said about the fact that this was ignored by majority of the judges. What they highlighted instead was Corona’s omission of some of his savings on his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) and made it look like such a horrible and despicable crime. Likewise, not a lot is being said about what will happen now.

It’s a good question. What will happen to the Philippine Republic now that the perceived enemy of the state has been removed? Most of us know the answer to that one. Of course the status quo will prevail. President Benigno Simeon “BS” Aquino had succeeded in removing someone he perceived as a major blockage to his corruption reform drive and someone who happened to play a key role in the distribution of Hacienda Luisita to its rightful owners. There will only be a handful of people from the opposition who will attempt to criticize BS Aquino lest they risk attracting his ire and be persecuted the same way as Corona was.

Another good question is, what will happen to Corona? Will he eventually join the private sector or will he retire? I’d like to think that Corona should be able to easily move on from all this. After being publicly humiliated for months by the President and his allies, there should be nothing more that can hurt him now. He should come out of this a stronger individual. His supporters understand that what happened to him was a political assassination and do not see him as a lesser man despite his removal from office. Only lesser people would think otherwise. If what he is saying is the truth — that he did not steal his savings, then he should be able to walk with his head held up high since he does not have anything to be ashamed of.

There is no reason Corona has to come out of this the loser. In fact, he fought for the Filipino people. He knew there was a risk that he would be removed but he still didn’t go down without a fight. What happened to him stressed the importance of respecting the rule of law and the consequences of not doing so.

Corona stayed long enough to see to it that the ruling on the distribution of the Hacienda Luisita was finalized. The beneficiaries — the hardworking farmers — will remember Corona as an honorable man for they have waited a quarter of a century for this to happen. It was BS Aquino’s late mother, former President Cory Aquino who made sure that the land stayed with the Conjuangco family that long. Hacienda Luisita is indeed, one of Corona’s legacies. The second one would have to be his challenge to all public servants to divulge their savings in whatever currency it is kept. Now the spotlight is on Corona’s accusers and the public is waiting for them to do the right thing. Third and last, because of the impeachment trial, a lot more people are aware of BS Aquino’s real motives and it seems mostly self-serving.

Corona’s impeachment trial has certainly taught me a lot of things about Filipinos and human nature in general. There are things in life that are beyond our control and we need to be careful about how to deal with these lest these consume us. I think the whole impeachment exercise can only be good for the Filipino people if some can finally accept that there were things that should not have been done. If the people who were against Corona continue justifying that the violations perpetrated by the prosecution were worth it because of the outcome, then our society will certainly regress instead of progress.

Here are some other things that I got from watching the whole impeachment proceeding:

1. Do not fall for traps — In his own trial, Corona was tricked into testifying against himself. The prosecutors and Senators kept emphasizing earlier on that the impeachment trial is sui generis or the impeachment court is unique in its purpose and that the proceedings are not judicial in nature but political. According to them, this meant that they would observe liberality in applying the rules of court. While they were very liberal in tolerating the violations of the prosecution team, they became very strict in interpreting the mandate of the law when it was time to hand out the verdict.

This demonstrated that what seemed like a friendly invitation by the prosecutors and Senators then for Corona to show up was just a trick to bait him into incriminating himself. We will recall that after Corona’s testimony, the prosecution had changed its tune and decided that they will not cross-examine him anymore. The Senators for their part were suddenly no longer interested in uncovering the truth despite all the obvious holes in the prosecution’s allegations.

The best defense is Article III Section 17 of the Bill of Rights: No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself. Never show up on the invitation of the so-called “distinguished” gentlemen of the impeachment court.

2. Put on your best poker face — While we understand that the months of relentless black propaganda thrown by the prosecution with the help of various media organizations took its toll on Corona, it was his nervous breakdown in the court that probably helped convince some Senators that either he was putting on an act or he was weak emotionally and physically. I personally hate it when I cry in the middle of having a heated debate with someone because I come across as weak. It’s the same thing with what happened to Corona. He could have avoided this had he not spoken for three hours and made himself a bit emotional towards the end; or if he had allowed his lawyers do most of the talking; or as mentioned above, use Article III Section 17.

Let’s face it; while we know what we are going through, it is sometimes hard for some people to realize what we are going through. It is even futile to make our detractors understand how we feel especially when they already have a pre-conceived notion of what kind of a person we are. Besides, we should never ever let our opponents know how we really feel. We should keep them guessing. Never let them know you are affected by their bullying. Bullies will keep bullying you when they know that what they are doing is having an effect on you.

3. Be ruthless — This is the only way you will win. The prosecution showed no mercy from the beginning until the end. It was obvious that Corona’s emotional plea to be understood fell on deaf ears because the prosecution was singularly focused on removing him. Some members of the public could see that the prosecutors were very hostile with the witnesses but that was all a tactic to rattle the person into admitting guilt or to test their credibility. Some Senators like Franklin Drilon and Teofisto Guingona did not hide their animosity towards Corona from the very beginning but refused to inhibit themselves as judges. Even the very blatant conflict of interest did not stop Edgardo Angara from acting as judge and issuing a guilty verdict. He saw his son’s role as prosecutor as a non-issue.

The defense may have been very honorable and laudable for their professionalism but they were dealing with a bunch of unscrupulous men and women who had the advantage of playing on their home court with their own set of rules. In the end, the defense team should have used caution in dealing with double-crossers who did not honor their words. In the end, it was the foul-mouthed prosecutor, Rodolfo Fariñas who hammered the last nail on the coffin. It was what appealed to the crowd and the judges.

4. Know yourself and your enemies – in general; one should know one’s weakness and strength before going into battle. You should also do the same with your enemies. Corona had the people almost cheering for him on the first day of his testimony. Just before he felt sick and walked out of the courtroom, he challenged his accusers to join him in signing waivers to disclose their own dollar accounts. Most people were impressed with his maneuver. The presiding officer had to bang the gavel to demand order in the court because some people where even clapping. Unfortunately, by then, the pressure of being on the witness stand had put a lot of strain on his health and caused him to do something that insulted the Senators who, as it turned out later, obviously could not move on from the perceived slight.

5. Be careful with who you associate with — sometimes people ask why bad things happen to relatively good people. More often than not it’s simply due to the party they associated themselves with. The whole country knows why Corona became the target of impeachment complaints. It was not because members of the House of Representatives were really concerned about his SALN. It couldn’t be because it is assumed that they were not privy to his accounts because of the bank secrecy law. Even Senator Juan Ponce Enrile confirmed this when he said “It seemed that the case was being built up only after the charges were actually filed.”

Yes, the impeachment complaints were filed because the complainants thought Corona just had to go simply because he was former President Gloria Arroyo’s appointee. In the Philippines, one’s connection can make you and also break you. There’s just nothing in between.

These lessons may be too late to save Corona but it is not too late for other individuals who may become the next target of the Aquino government. Everyone needs to be very careful nowadays because the law can’t seem to protect anybody anymore. Since Corona, who held the Chief Justice position could not even get due process, what more ordinary citizens? As former Senator Francisco Tatad wrote in his recent article, we are getting closer to authoritarianism:

With Corona’s conviction and removal, PNoy is now virtually in control of the three branches of government. He may not have what it takes to exercise such control, but there will be no shortage of people who will want to do it for him. This was clear enough in the Senate trial, where representatives of supposedly independent constitutional bodies and agencies, such as the Ombudsman, the Commission on Audit and the Anti-Money Laundering Council, slavishly anticipated his bidding.

Corona’s impeachment and conviction accomplished the destruction of the tripartite system. With the surrender of the entire Congress, and the Supreme Court being “chilled” and spooked by Corona’s removal and by Justice Mariano del Castillo’s pending impeachment, PNoy has morphed into a strongman. Many had hoped the Senate would have the courage and the wisdom to turn back the rush toward authoritarianism. This was not to be.

That should send a chill down everybody’s spine.

[Photo courtesy Yahoo! News.]

print

72 Comments on “Lessons from Renato Corona’s experience: Five tips on how to survive an impeachment trial”

  1. I guess anything can become betrayal of public trust now, huh? Even something as far-fetched as plagiarism, as in Justice del Castillo’s case.

    With all three branches of government tainted by PNoy’s influence, he’s got absolute power. And what do they say about absolute power? It corrupts absolutely. Kung walang corrupt pala, ha?

    From the movie “The World Is Not Enough”:
    Q: “Now pay attention 007, I’ve always tried to teach you two things: First, never let them see you bleed.”
    Bond: “And the second?”
    Q: “Always have an escape plan.”

    1. I think the Senators who voted to remove Corona did not have foresight. They did not think about the implications of giving in to the wishes of the executive. They did not have the balls to say no.

      Thanks for the line from James Bond. Very appropriate for the theme of the article.

    2. Let me remind you that Public Service is Public Trust. You know, when one is a government employee and plagiarizes something, I am sure the man is guilty of betrayal of thrust.

      What is absolute power when one is just doing his job? BS Aquino had sworn to protect and defend the constitution. Isnt that what BS Aquino had done?

      1. You’re acting like a little baby when you said that. Remember when Noynoy said “The law is now a privilige to the few”. The second sentence just speaks of total hypocrisy. BS Aquino never defended the Constitution; he just broke the rules and defy it to get what he wants. Astig, ‘no? 😛

        One Noynoy critic chided: “Noynoy, Noynoy, Noynoy. It’s like this. the Supreme Court was given by the mandate of the people as final and sole interpreter of the law, not you, not your allies, not the yellows and not even your justice secretary!”

        You get my drift, ignorant jackass? 😛

        1. Daido,

          No I dont get your drift.

          Aren’t goverment employees sworned-in to protect and defend the constitution?

          No name calling please. It is not nice bro, even a little baby needs respect too. Let focus on the issue, that’s what a real man does.

        2. @Totalass:

          Read Ilda’s reply. PNoy is violating the Constitution. Such hypocrisy.

          Astig, ‘no?

      2. BS Aquino had sworn to protect and defend the constitution. Isnt that what BS Aquino had done?

        He’s already violated his mother’s own constitution even before the trial started. Congressman Toby Tiango even testified that PNoy was the mastermind behind the railroading of the impeachment complaints.

  2. I really liked lesson no. 3! To me, the other thing that it says is that TAMA NA ANG PAAWA EFFECT NG MGA PINOY! Wala silang mapapala diyan because other people also have their own problems so they should not expect anyone else to help them out.

    1. Yes. Filipinos should avoid accepting favours as much as possible because those who give it always want something big in return. It usually happens during Election Day. Voters think that the money the candidates give them is free but they usually pay a big price for accepting it.

  3. Personally.I believe that the CJ will get out of this sad experience a better man and I know a lot of people still hold him in high steem,myself included.

    1. I hope so. At least there are still columnists who are writing about the real motives behind his removal. I know former Senator Tatad will be writing a book about the whole impeachment.

      1. Ilda,

        I think the real motive why Corona was removed, is because he did something wrong and I know it.

        Whatever happened during the process good or bad, I fully support those 20 Senators who had done their jobs based from evidence available to them.

        1. @Jackass:

          And what is that ‘wrong’ that you are talking about? I think that the non-disclosure of his SALN’ is a non-impeachable offense.

          Fact is that the 20 senators who voted for the guilty verdict is not because of evidence. The 3 senators who voted for Corona’s acquittal used their brains; those 20 have voted for the sake of politics and favor. Yes, you commend them because they are also idiots like yourself. 😛

          w

        2. I think the real motive why Corona was removed, is because he did something wrong and I know it.

          They exaggerated every complaint. 45 properties was reduced to five; $12Million was reduced to $2.4; even the claim that the court clerk was dismissed due to her SALN was inccorect and etc.

          You fully support those who were just interested in getting voted in 2013. I agree.

        3. Daido,

          I think you know what I am talking about. Dont ask me. I am ignorant, remember you called me that?

          And now you call me an idiot. Do you really have to treat people like that?

          It reflects a man’s character how they treat people. You see, you can believe what you want to believe and I will not treat you like a dirt bag. Actually I will respect you even more if you start acting like a gentleman.

        4. @Jackass: You said that you will respect me if I act as a gentleman yet you commend on the prosecution and the 20 senators for Corona’s conviction even most of them are doing their work in an un-gentlemanly manner. Vilfication? Ruining one’s reputation? Is that what you call respect? Please.

    2. Sacrosant,

      I respect your opinion, but you know what? this guy had done terribly wrong which is good enough for the BAR council to disbar him.

      You know, had this happened in the USA corona had been disbarred already.

      1. The perceived error in his SALN could have been easily corrected. I bet that the reason why PNoy is not for signing the waiver for all public servants including his own staff is so he can give them a chance to correct their own declarations, which is actually allowed in the SALN law. Unfortunately, they did not give Corona a chance to do that.

        1. Ilda,

          I aggree an error in a SALN could be easily corrected, but he got caught in the process during the impeachment trial and a little late to do that, is it not.

          Well, I will give you a benefit of the doubt that Corona wasnt given that chance to correct his SALN. But instead, I want to take you to a different mind set.

          I think Corona was given that chance to resign, but he didnt. That was his chance to correct his SALN. I am adamant that Corona was not acquitted because of his admission of the P80 million and $2.5 million he didnt include in his SALN.

          A chief justice should be and must BE held to meet the highest standard and with that admission he failed.

          I would like to ask your opinion if what Corona had done is good enough for disbarment.

          Hey, I am new at GRP and I enjoyed reading your well written essay.

  4. All hail the Yellow King.

    Poverty has been solved by the great Yellow King. We shall sing of his accomplishments, wave yellow banners and parade in the streets with glee and joy.

  5. The trial of Justice Corona was already pre-judged, like they did in Congress. The Kangaroo Court of Enrile, just want to show people, that there is an apparent trial. Can you see: real actors and real comedians, playing their roles?
    The five minutes impeachment in Congress is already a violation of the Due Process. Enrile allowed :liars; fabricated evidences; small lady who provided evidences; Mr. Anonymous, who also provided fabricated evidences, etc…Corona, like Jesus Christ, went into a Mockery of a Trial…the judgement is: “Crucify Him! Crucify Him!”…this time Pontius Enrile, did not wash his hands…He was part of the conspiracy…Justice Corona was not sold for thirty (30) pieces of silver. But, maybe millions and billions of pesos. The money are now in the bank accounts of those , who voted “Guilty” …they are all terrifed to sign the waiver..

    1. Ilda, that is an excellent analysis as usual. I can compare you with such veteran writers like Amando Doronila, Bobi Tiglao, Jojo Robles, Carmen Pedrosa and Nestor Mata.Yes, it is never advisable for the accused to testify for oneself and Corona knows this. It inevitably incriminates oneself. But he wanted to give his message to the Filipino people, not the senator judges who he knows have already convicted him at the very start. He had no choice.

    2. Political expediency prevailed over due process, the rule of law and the evidence presented. It was a political exercise in furtherance of political opportunism. They all wanted to look good for the coming senatorial elections. The informal dictatorship is now consolidating its power over the branches of government. We know of the bow well movement 188. The bow well movement 20 are a welcome addition to Mr. BS Aquino’s political species menagerie.

      1. @ Deh Fuhrer

        Interesting take this “They all wanted to look good for the coming senatorial elections.”

        Following this line of thinking, we can derive that those who voted for an acquittal “looks bad”. So what then is your take on those who opine or those who rabidly lobbies for an acquittal?

        1. Ilda,

          I aggree an error in a SALN could be easily corrected, but he got caught in the process during the impeachment trial and a little late to do that, is it not.

          Well, I will give you a benefit of the doubt that Corona wasnt given that chance to correct his SALN. But instead, I want to take you to a different way of critical thinking.

          I think Corona was given that chance to resign, but he didnt. That was his chance to correct his SALN and could have done it without sacrificing his integrity. I am adamant that Corona was not acquitted because of his admission of the P80 million and $2.5 million he didnt intentionally include in his SALN. I am talking about culpable violation of the constitution

          A chief justice should be and must BE held to meet the highest standard and with that admission he failed.

          I would like to ask your opinion if what Corona had done is good enough for disbarment.

          Hey, I am new at GRP and I enjoyed reading your well written essay.

        2. If you had a different handle, I’d probably take you a bit more seriously. With a name like yours, one can’t help but think that you are just here to insult us.

          I think Corona was given that chance to resign, but he didnt. That was his chance to correct his SALN and could have done it without sacrificing his integrity.

          That’s just your way of justifying why the Aquino government had to resort to lies and black propaganda.

          I am adamant that Corona was not acquitted because of his admission of the P80 million and $2.5 million he didnt intentionally include in his SALN. I am talking about culpable violation of the constitution.

          He was convicted because the Senators did not have empathy. They were going to convict him whether he testified or not. That is very clear now. They weren’t even interested in the details of his deposits. Culpable violation of the constitution was committed by PNoy, prosecution, little ladies and the ombudsman.

          A chief justice should be and must BE held to meet the highest standard and with that admission he failed.

          The prosecution did not have to resort to demonising him to the public. They didn’t care if his reputation was destroyed in the process of publicising lies. In fact, if they really had a solid case, they would not have resorted to exaggerating their complaints. They just wanted to poison the minds of the public and it obviously worked on people like you.

          Anyway, nakakasawa na. Just go ahead and think what you like. History will be the judge of who’s right.

    1. @Der

      Thanks for the link. Yes, I read it. It’s not clear who they are protecting, really. It seems like while everyone was busy, they were working on how to silence their critics.

  6. Good one again, Ilda, thanks!
    Now we wait and see who else he’s going to demolish to seal his grip on power. I never thought I would agree with a Marcos lackey, but sadly Tatad has a point. The wait for his term to end seems like forever.

    1. @mommyjo

      Thank you. We’ll see who is next soon enough. He has to keep his supporters entertained lest they start realising that he hasn’t really done anything different from past administrators.

  7. If Corona hadn’t testified about his dollar accounts and peso accounts that were undeclared in his SALN because they were allegedly co-mingled, I think he would have been acquitted. The defense could have argued that the evidence presented in the Ombudsman’s testimony is inadmissible because it violated the foreign currency deposit secrecy. But Corona’s testimony rendered the issue moot. It’s also a great mystery to me why the defense had to call on the Ombudsman in the first place when the prosecution’s case was very weak.

    1. If Corona hadn’t testified about his dollar accounts and peso accounts that were undeclared in his SALN because they were allegedly co-mingled, I think he would have been acquitted.

      I do not know about being acquitted had he not testified at all. The senators were adamant from the start that only Corona could shed light into the allegations. It was a ploy that both prosecutors and some senators were in on. The defense could have called their attention on Article III Section 17 of the Bill of Rights and asked for a mistrial as soon as possible.

      I think most of the senators who are allied with PNoy would have voted guilty no matter what. They were very blatant about their bias towards the prosecution. Certainly, there would have been more than three “not guilty” verdict but I don’t think it would have reached eight judging from the reasoning of the 20 senators. What I think the defense should have done was seek the help of the SC the minute the violations of the prosecution kept piling up. A mistrial was their only escape. I think in the end, Cuevas’ relationship with Enrile did not help. He was deferring too much to the presiding officer while the private prosecutors did not have any qualms about being rude.

      1. [The senators were adamant from the start that only Corona could shed light into the allegations.]

        May I ask which senators in particular? And was it really from the start, or only after the Ombudsman’s testimony? And did they compel Corona to testify on their official capacity as senator-judges and during the impeachment proceedings by threatening him with a citation for contempt if he didn’t testify, or was it only in their press statements that they said that only Corona could shed light into the allegations? Because if it’s the latter and not the former, I don’t think there was a violation of Section 17 of the Bill of Rights.

        [I think most of the senators who are allied with PNoy would have voted guilty no matter what.]

        Perhaps you’re right, but these senators would have had a much harder time rationalizing their decision to convict if Corona didn’t testify about his dollar and allegedly co-mingled peso accounts, and some of them might have actually voted to acquit.

        1. May I ask which senators in particular? And was it really from the start, or only after the Ombudsman’s testimony?

          It was even before the ombudsman’s testimony. I watched the trial from Day One. From memory the Senators who kept asking him to testify were: Drilon, Lacson, Pimentel, Cayetano, Enrile and Trillanes. And the prosecutors kept asking the defense when they will present their client as well. Even the spokespersons for the prosecutors were telling the public that only Corona needed to testify.

          The attacks from all fronts definitely affected the decision of respondent and his defense. You just can’t win when the media is on the prosecutor’s side. Normally, judges aren’t supposed to talk to the media or even watch anything about the case. During the impeachment trial, the judges were blatantly discussing what they thought of Corona. They played a big role in poisoning the minds of the public.

    1. @JV

      I think those who think that Miriam will make a fool of herself in the international court are misguided. Part of the reason Miriam loses her patience in the Senate is because she is surrounded by idiots. Like what she said in one of her interviews, the intellectual environment in the ICC will be so much better than what she has been exposed to. This means, there is no need for her to shout “Waaaaah!”

  8. Ilda,

    Good article, but you have overly concentrated on the processes of which the impeachment trial was conducted. Yes, I agree it wasnt as smooth as I expected it to be, but you have sacrificed objectivity as to what the constitution had mandated us how to treat violation of the law of the land.

    I dont think it is demonizing to prosecute one who is allegedly violated the Constitution, Do you really think so?

    If you think that way, I could safely say that all criminals are demonized. I beg to disagree.

    1. If you take out your vindictive and malicious mind of yours, then you will get what Ilda said. Only Yellow Zombies like yourself have flawed analysis as jerks like you only used FEELINGS than logic and reasons.

      All that you’ve said was nonsense since you’re actually anti-intellectual.

    2. …but you have sacrificed objectivity as to what the constitution had mandated us how to treat violation of the law of the land.

      What does that statement even mean?!?

      The most sacred part of the constitution – the Bill of Rights – was violated by the prosecution and the ombudsman. That is a greater crime than the perceived violation of the SALN law, which is even in conflict with the foreign currency secrecy law. As pointed out by Senator Miriam Santiango, when there is a conflict, you prioritise the rights of the invidivual.

      For goodness sake, he wasn’t even charged with ill-gotten wealth. I personally don’t care where he invested his money all these years. $2.4 million is not even impressive.

      Only people who don’t have their own savings would think that it is excessive.

      I dont think it is demonizing to prosecute one who is allegedly violated the Constitution, Do you really think so?

      Do yourself a favour and read up on individual rights in our constitution because you don’t know what you are talking about. There is no due process when the minds of the public has already been poisoned.

      1. Ilda,

        I think we both understand the “Bill of Rights” and I dont want to take it any further before it gets too complicated. I dont think due process was violated during the impeachment trial. Let us differ on that and agree to disagree that we both see it differently. Yeah, the beuaty of our civil rights.

        What I meant sacrificing objectivity with regards to the constitution is the oath taken and our duty to hold, defend and protect the constitution. What are you protecting? Are you protecting and defending the constitution?

        To think that P80m and P2.5 million is not impressive is naive especially when we know how much a Justice in the SC makes. I know a friend who makes more than a million pesos annually who couldnt save even if he wants to.

        I am just curious, how much is an impressive savings? I think that is a huge savings.

        Thanks goodness, JPE wouldnt allow the ill-gotten wealth charge against Corona.

        1. You obviously do not understand the Bill of Rights because you think Corona was given due process. I already pointed out earlier that it was even Congressman Toby Tiangco who testified that the impeachment filed by the House was railroaded. You also admitted earlier that he had to be demonised by the media so he could be prosecuted, which means you agree that he wasn’t given due process.

          You speak of the constitution being violated but ignored Corona’s right to due process and right to privacy. The Bill of Rights is more supreme than the SALN law.

          To think that P80m and P2.5 million is not impressive is naive especially when we know how much a Justice in the SC makes. I know a friend who makes more than a million pesos annually who couldnt save even if he wants to.

          You make it sound like being CJ was his only job. You conveniently ignored again that he was an executive at Development Bank of the Philippines and SGV. He was also a professor at the Ateneo. Just because your friend couldn’t save as much as Corona doesn’t mean it’s not possible to save that much. Think outside the square. You also conveniently ignored his claim that they do not have a lavish lifestyle.

          Yes, $2.4 million is not impressive to me. I know people who have more. $2.4 won’t even buy me a nice house in New York, Paris or London. He already explained that the P80million includes the proceeds of the sale from the BSEI property.

        2. Ilda, that’s the problem. These people are not thinking outside the box.

          They reasd in the yelowtard news the phrase undeclared bank deposit according to daang matuwid dud and that’s it.

          Peer pressure and poor comprehension!

          Paminsan-minsan, gamitain nyo naman yung ulo nyo. Puro kayo EMO.

          Pwe!

        3. @ Trosp

          Proofreaders will have a heyday with your posts.

          You say poor comprehension and would want to pass off as an intellectual when you can not even construct your sentences moreso your spellings properly.

          As your favorite channel is wont to say “Think before you click”

        4. @Curious

          Let those proof readers have they heyday. No problemo.

          As I’ve said before in this blog, grammar and spelling are not my strong points. But I don’t let them to be a handicap in expressing myself. (My Tagalog grammar is worse.)

          I write to express. Not to impress.

          Have my comments given you some sleepless night that all you can think of to refute them are my grammar and spelling?

          Just like the other commenter here in this blog, he was also claiming that grammar has something to do with comprehension.

          Jeez…

          I’ll pretend in my thinking that you’ve a very good grammar but I won’t pretend in my thinking that you’ve got a a poor comprehension.

          Since when did I passed myself as intellectual? Is there something in my comments that I’m passing myself as intellectual? Where have you read that?

          Is that the way how you comprehend my comments? Then quote them from my comments.

          Otherwise, check your comprehension before you click.

        5. “Just like the other commenter here in this blog, he was also claiming that grammar has something to do with comprehension.”

          Hindi ba? Ma-misplaced mo nga lang ang mga comma, or words, iba na ang meaning?

          Sya ng pala, ano ibig mo sabihin dito? – I’ll pretend in my thinking that you’ve a very good grammar but I won’t pretend in my thinking that you’ve got a a poor comprehension.

          Parang medyo magulo sya. Kahit ako di ko alam paano mag-react dyan 🙂

          “Have my comments given you some sleepless night that all you can think of to refute them are my grammar and spelling?”

          Baka kasi di nya alam kung i-rerefute ka o kakampihan ka nya?

        6. @bereal

          Try to comprehend these –

          From online dictionary –

          comprehension n
          1. the act or capacity of understanding

          gram·mar n.
          1. The study of how words and their component parts combine to form sentences.

          context n
          1. the parts of a piece of writing, speech, etc., that precede and follow a word or passage and contribute to its full meaning

          For me, grammar is totally different from comprehension.

          As I have explained before, grammar and spelling are not my strong points but my comprehension is.

        7. gram·mar n.
          1. The study of how words and their component parts combine to form sentences.

          Pag mali ang pagkumpuni mo sa bahagi ng isang sentence, naiiba ang meaning nito.

          Halimbawa:

          Please!!!! Don’t!!!!Stop!!!! Nagpapahiwatig sa paraan ng madamdaming pananalita na di sang-ayon ang sumulat sa nangyayari o sa ginagawa sa kanya.
          Please don’t stop!!!! – pag yan ang sinabi ng babae sa would-be rapist, ibig sabihin may consent na sya don. LOL

          O kaya

          “….but I won’t pretend in my thinking that you’ve got a a poor comprehension.”

          ang ibig mo ba’ng sabihin nito “…pero hindi ako magkukunwari na isipin na mahina ka’ng umintindi”

          Hindi ba mas madaling arukin at walang bahid ng anumang alinlangan sa gusto mong ipabatid kung sinabi mo na lang na “…pero naniniwala ako’ng mabilis kang makaintindi.” o sa Ingles “…but I believe you comprehend well.”

          comprehension n
          1. the act or capacity of understanding

          Kung hindi mo maintindihan paano aayusin ang mga bahagi ng sentences mo, malamang magulo ang pagkakaintindi sa sinulat mo kasi nga mali ang pagkakaunawa mo kung paano mo buuin ang mga ito.

          Kaya pag pinaparatangan mo ang mga nagpo-post na mahina ang pang-unawa nila, napapahalakhak kami ng mga tropa ko.

          Gets?!

        8. @bereal

          So you forgot the definition of “context”.

          Even there is the correct grammar as what our constitution was written with, oftentimes learned readers tend to come up with their different interpretations of what they’ve read. The factors are their individual comprehensive ability and of course, the agenda factor.

          In your case, what I’ve written was –

          “I’ll pretend in my thinking that you’ve a very good grammar but I won’t pretend in my thinking that you’ve got a a poor comprehension.”

          From your comment:

          **************************************
          ““….but I won’t pretend in my thinking that you’ve got a a poor comprehension.”

          ang ibig mo ba’ng sabihin nito “…pero hindi ako magkukunwari na isipin na mahina ka’ng umintindi”
          **************************************

          You’re correct in comprehending it even though you omit the preceding sentence.

          So I don’t see any issue with my poor grammar. You’ve correctly comprehended what I want to imply. What is your issue then with my grammar?

          I can’t understand why you want to put your words into what I would like to write.

          According to you:

          **************************************
          “….but I won’t pretend in my thinking that you’ve got a a poor comprehension.”

          ang ibig mo ba’ng sabihin nito “…pero hindi ako magkukunwari na isipin na mahina ka’ng umintindi”

          Hindi ba mas madaling arukin at walang bahid ng anumang alinlangan sa gusto mong ipabatid kung sinabi mo na lang na “…pero naniniwala ako’ng mabilis kang makaintindi.” o sa Ingles “…but I believe you comprehend well.”
          **************************************

          Ano ba ang alinlangan mo at gusto mong baguhin ang ibig sabihin ko sa comment ko?

          Tama na nga ang comprehension mo, pero sinunod mo pa rin yung agenda mo.

          Kung ang tingin mo sa taong tinutukoy ko ay magaling ang comprehension nya, then defend him.

          That commenter has claimed that I’m passing off myself as an intellectual so I was telling him he has a poor reading comprehension.

          Since when in my comments here I passed off myself as an intellectual?

          Nakakatuwa ang comprehension mo kid. Naintindihan mo na nga pero ang gusto mo yung nasa isip mo ang masusunod.

  9. Ilda,

    “Do yourself a favour and read up on individual rights in our constitution because you don’t know what you are talking about. There is no due process when the minds of the public has already been poisoned.”

    Thanks you but no thanks, but I have probably read the bill of rights and individual rights many decades before you were born.

    If you read the book Malcolm X and the Sons of Mississippi then you can relate to me what is individual rights.

      1. Ilda,

        Good Morning!

        Do you mind if we continue arguing over a dead horse? Let us just be careful not to shoot the dead horse again, not a good thing to do.

        I am not sure how to convice you that I am not a Corona bias; however, I am an old gizzard who believes that the constitution is the supreme and the highest arbitrator there is to run a country in a civilized and an orderly manner.

        Consequently, in my mind it is my duty and everyone’s duty to hold, defend, and protect the Constitution. Doing so, I would agree that I am biased to anyone who violates it. I think that is fair enough and a good foundation to teach our youth of their most highest patriotic duty.

        I thank you and I shall follow your brilliant ideas.

    1. “Thanks you but no thanks, but I have probably read the bill of rights and individual rights many decades before you were born. ”

      So, the last constitution you read would be what Marcos wrote to legitimize his dictatorship.

    2. @Jackass

      If I may butt in, what individual rights you want us, the comment readers, to relate with if we read those books? Can you not just tell us what you want to say without making us feeling guilty because we haven’t read those books and you have?

      Malcolm X from Wiki –

      “…As a spokesman for the Nation of Islam he taught black supremacy and advocated separation of black and white Americans—in contrast to the civil rights movement’s emphasis on integration. After breaking with the Nation of Islam in 1964—saying of his association with it, “I was a zombie then … pointed in a certain direction and told to march”—and becoming a Sunni Muslim, he disavowed racism and expressed willingness to work with civil rights leaders, though still emphasizing black self-determination and self defense.”

      Which part of his life would you advice us to read?

      We don’t even know what Malcolm could have been has he lived longer. Another Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson whom, correct me if I’m wrong, I can assume your role models also, because they’re civil rights advocates? Not forget to mention ACLU.

      How I wish I can recommend to the comment readers to visit http://www.stoptheaclu.com/ if one would like to browse civil rights hypocrisies in US of A.

      Cheers!

  10. Hi again Ilda,

    What?

    You mean you dont take me seriously because of my username? Wow….unbelievable.

    Look, I have not insulted anyone as far as I know; that is not in my character; however, if I did my apologies. I am here to exchange ideas under different point of view and honestly, I find it very interesting to speak with you. Two people with different point of views could be friend, couldnt they?

    I have seen many objectionable usernames and I am sorry you take my username lightly.

    You see, a jackass is kind of hardheaded and stubborn animal under the common name MULE or DONKEY. If you have seen a first world war movies or even cowboy movies they use a jackass, mule, or donkey for logistics.

    1. Because in the context, trollfag, the word ‘jackass’ can be meant to be stubborn, idiotic, and stupid. 😛

      Just accept the fact that you are biased against Corona since you have that vindictive mind of yours, as Ilda poined out. Then be proud, total jackass, because you’re happy that innocent people will be killed just like what happened in 2004 since Corona is now impeached.

      “Introduce a little ANARCHY. Upset the established order. And everything becomes… CHAOS. I’m an agent of CHAOS. Oh, and you know the thing about chaos, it’s FAIR!

  11. The best way for any public figure to survive impeachment is to RESIGN even before the trial starts. The problem with our country compared to our foreign counterparts is that our leaders want to CLING to power instead of stepping down for the good of the country. Where are those virtues our past politicians have like ‘delicadeza’ and ‘palabra de honor’ ? We need people like these… people who are selfless and do not mind stepping down if need be.

    Btw, I ‘m talking about all politicians in our country,including PNoy,the senators, congressmen,etc. not just your beloved CJ. If ever they find themselves in a position of doubt, (meaning if they find themselves in scandals, impeachment trials, etc.) I hope they do their part in stepping down for the good the country.

    1. @anonymous

      The best way for any public figure to survive impeachment is to RESIGN even before the trial starts.

      What’s the point in doing that if you can take down others with you if you opt to fight? What Corona did was better because he exposed the real characters of the members of the House of Representatives, Senate, the Ombudsman and particularly PNoy. Now hopefully, the momentum generated by the circus will help keep more Filipinos focused on seeking transparency in government.

      …not just your beloved CJ

      People who can’t think outside the square tend to confuse our support for upholding the rule of law with support for Corona, the man. They are two different things.

  12. There is only one lesson in the Corona experience: If you are notoriously identified and benefited with a previous administration that is so corrupt, you should watch your back at the moment a new administration comes in.

  13. quite ironic that the author should write about corona being held up as a hero of land reform by the HLI farmers. the same corona that gave billions to cojuangco from the coconut levy.

    now. who was being self-serving again?

  14. Reason why the pursuit stopped short in opening Corona’s dollar deposit… ’cause everybody cloaked in that court room knows, it’d take precedence and theirs would be next…

    That one fine thing we Filipinos laid so calm about after that impeachment, will come back biting us in the ass… I bet, these crooks hid all their pork kick backs on such accounts…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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