Court Dismisses Save 182’s Case Against SM Baguio

But Baguio Tree Huggers say “WE WUZ ROBBED! Judge was ‘bribed'”

save 182 says baguio judge was bribed to dismiss case against SM BaguioA typical and pervasive Filipino dysfunction is the unwillingness to accept defeat.

Even in instances where the defeat is incontestable (such as Manny Pacquiao’s knock out), Filipinos will find a way to question the fact that they’ve lost.

The usual and by now hopelessly cliched accusations will fly around, such as that the opponent cheated, judges were bribed, or the contest was rigged by some ‘mafia conspiracy’.  All pretty familiar and boring, typical of how quickly the Pinoy mentality latches on any excuse for his underachievement — no matter how silly or remotely related it is.

To the Pinoy Intellectual Dugyot what really is of supreme importance is that he can claim that he actually won if it were not cheated — which is somewhat part of the Pinoy repertoire that includes crediting themselves for other people’s achievements.

Pinoy Pride, ika nga.  Or is it just Pinoy Dunong-dunungan (people pretending to be experts)?

More often than not, those who loudly protest such defeats and go into all sorts of hysterics actually just don’t understand the rules in play.

Only a few days after Manny Pacquiao suffered sudden defeat at the hands of Juan Manuel Marquez, we find another situation where “we didn’t lost, we were cheated” thinking as well as sheer Pinoy Dunong-dunungan has come into play.

Members of Boycott SM Baguio and Save 182 are throwing a hissy-fit party with chief provocateur Karlo Altomonte banging the tribal gong after Judge Antonio Estevez of Branch 15 of the Baguio Regional Trial Court dismissed petitions against SM Baguio’s pine tree earth balling/mall expansion.

Here is a copy of the Court Decision on Save 182 petition against SM Baguio given to me by reporter friends who got a hold of it.

The decision is 20 pages long and takes a bit time to read, but here are a couple of passages worth highlighting — which tends to go against the claims propagated by Altomonte and members of Boycott SM/Save 182.

The court identified 9 issues for resolution:

1. Whether or not the legal and procedural requirements for the issuance of the Tree Cutting and Earth-balling Permit to the Private Defendants were duly complied with.

2. Whether or not the legal and procedural requirements for the issuance of an ECC and the amendment thereto were complied with by the Private Defendants and enforced by the Public Defendants.

3. Whether or not the legal and procedural requirements for the issuance of a Building Permit were complied with by the Private Defendants and enforced.

4. Whether or not the cutting and earth-balling of the trees at the Luneta Hill, Baguio City will cause the irreparable damage and detrimental effect to the resident of Baguio City, the Plaintiffs, and the environment.

5. Whether or not the proposed site is validly owned by SMIC, limited for the purpose of proving the alleged irregularity in the issuance of the subject permits, amendments, and certificates.

6. Whether or not SM complied with the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Baguio.

7. Whether or not the Private Defendants will suffer irreparable damage int he event that the proposed expansion of the mall will not be allowed

8. Whether the Plaintiffs are barred from instituting the above-captioned cases for the failure to exhaust administrative remedies under DAO 9637 and DAO 2003-30

9. Whether or not Cordillera Global Network and the other Plaintiffs have the legal personality to institute the above-captioned cases.

After reading the entire decision on Save 182’s complaint against SM City Baguio, I have come away with the impression that it is nothing but a nuisance suit — something typical of ambulance chasers who might be in dire need of money.

Of the 9 issues, let me just take up three and can read up the rest in the PDF file which can be accessed from the link above.

What the decision on these three issues spell out is that the court thinks Cordillera Global Network and Save 182 do not have any business interfering in SM’s business, but just for the sake of resolving the issue the court proceeded with the case.  Moreover, it resoundingly refuted claims that SM was actually doing harm to the environment by removing 182 trees from its private property.

The lawyer of Save 182 ought to give back any fees charged and do community service for failing to win any of the 9 issues presented, a dismal showing of whatever legal expertise which runs into a serious deficit.

On issue number 9, which basically looks into whether the Cordillera Global Network, other groups, and individuals actually have any business suing SM over the balling of pine trees.

Under the Rules of Court, Section 2, Rule 3:

A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest.

Source: Law Phil dot Net

What this rule basically says is that Juan cannot sue Pedro for cheating Maria out of deal, if Juan does not have any right to any part of the deal.  Basically, it prevents people from being a nuisance by sticking its nose in other people’s business.

The thing is, SM was basically removing trees from its own property — not the Cordillera Global Network’s property or public land.  The only requirement for this, as far as I know, is for SM to get clearance and permission from DENR — which it did.  What Cordillera Global Network and other groups did was pretty much like if your neighbor sues you for doing some landscaping — to which, if it happened to me, would probably result in a lot of four letter words erupting in my quiet neighborhood.

As I understand it he court decided to relax this rule, otherwise, it would have been dismissed.

On issue number 8,  which basically goes into whether the group filing the suit actually used the administrative processes prescribed by law for protesting the issuance of permits and licenses.

Apparently, the madudunong people in Save 182 were too EAGER to catch the limelight that they didn’t even so much as bother to first shoot an e-mail or write a letter to the DENR to tell them that they shouldn’t allow SM to ball trees in its own property.  They were too ready to GRANDSTAND and hysterically ACCUSE the DENR for the sake of publicity.

Here’s what the court had to say:

The Plaintiffs, as stakeholders, did not assail the issuance of the Amended ECC by way of an appeal with the Secretary of the DENR in accordance with the provisions as stated under Section 6 of DAO 2003-30. Alleged irregularities in the issuance of the Tree Cutting and Earth-Balling Permit to the Private Defendants were not, likewise, questioned by the Plaintiffs with the Secretary of the DENR or the Office of the President pursuant to the provisions of Section 1 of DENR DAO 1990-87. Lastly, the alleged infirmities in the issuance of the Building Permit to the Private Defendants were not raised on appeal to the Secretary of the DPWH as provided for under Section 307 of the National Building Code.

It is to be stressed that a case filed without the exhaustion of available administrative remedies renders a cause without the exhaustion of action premature.  Consequently, and as held in the base of Bangus Fry Fisherfolk vs. Honorable Lanzanas [G. R. 131442, July 10,2003, 405 SCRA 550], resort to the courts prior to the availing of this administrative remedy makes the cases dismissible. Undoubtedly, this pronouncement applies to these Environmental Cases.

Here, there was clearly no invocation of any exception to the exhaustion rule by the Plaintiffs at any state of the proceedings. Further they have not shown any administrative act to show that the issuance of the Permits was patently illegal. They have…correspondence whatsoever was shown by Plaintiffs to prove that they had given Public Defendants a chance to remedy whatever they alleged was improperly performed by them. There was no showing of any impracticability or oppressiveness in applying the doctrine.

Seeming to be completely IGNORANT of these basic procedures, SAVE 182 went on a much publicized TILILING RAMPAGE all over media PREMATURELY.

Perhaps, if the court weren’t lenient with the group, the case would have been thrown out of court.  But apparently, the judge was prevailed upon to hear it and allowed the case to proceed.

Here’s what the court said:

Undoubtedly, on the basis of these principles, the Environmental Cases ought to fail. Given, however, the importance of these cases, the Court will not leave the issues unresolved as the substantive issues therein contained deserve to be addressed once and for all, given their importance to the constituents of the City of Baguio, the Filipino People, as a whole, and the novelty and susceptibility to their being raised again in the future. The Court shall then proceed to discuss the substantial issues herein raised.

On issue number 4, which looks into the claim of Save 182 that the removal of the trees in SM’s own property will have a negative impact on the environment of Baguio City and the rest of the country.

It seems Save 182 was done in by its own witnesses. Dr. Michael Bengwayan, for instance, was shown to be talking out of his hat — if he had one — substituting CONJECTURE for something that ought to be established by SCIENTIFIC means.

Here’s a part of the decision that should be closely read:

Plaintiffs presented six witnesses on this particular issue. However, only one, in the person of Dr. Michael A. Bengwayan, was competent to testify on the alleged irreparable damage and deleterious effects of cutting and/or earth-balling trees to the Plaintiffs and to the environment.

Dr. Bengwayan readily quantified the effects of removing the trees in such a manner but admitted, on cross examinatio, that his conclusions on the effect of cutting and/or earth balling a tree is dependent on different factors such as the age, size, and health thereof as well as the location and surface area of the place where it is planted (TSN, July 26, 2012, p. 24). The Court notes, however, that the testimony of the witness is not generally based on his personal knowledge (TSN, 26 July 2012, p. 37) but on mere predictions (TSN, July 26, 2012, p. 25). Verily, Dr. Bengwayan’s testimony appears to be mere conclusions of fact devoid of any scientific basis or proper attribution and consequently failed to prove, by the quantum of evidence required, that the cutting and earth-balling of the 182 trees at the Luneta Hill, Baguio City will cause detrimental effects to the environment, the residents of the City of Baguio, and will eventually result to irreparable damage.

It is worth to note that parts of the testimony of the Plaintiffs’ witness, Dr. Palijon, were substantially lifted from scientific literatures. In fact, he studied the actual health of the subject trees, and assessed the mitigating measures based on the EPRMP as approved by the proper regulatory agency (TSN, 28 March 2011). The witness was consulted by SMPH to study the Benguet pin and ainus trees in Luneta Hill and has examined the 82 of the subject trees around two months prior March 28, 2012 (TSN, March 28, 2012, p. 11).  The witness, a duly qualified tree expert (TSN, March 28, 2012 p 5), admitted that there will, indeed be a reduction in the trees’ beneficial contributions to the environment, if removed.  He qualified, however that it is not substantial and that the removal of the trees will not, in fact, create any irreparable injury to the environment (TSN, March 28, 2012, p. 55).  He testified that there will be no hazardous effect on the health of the people of Baguio City if the subject trees are taken out of the particular area where SM City Baguio is located.  This is because the removal will be compensated by the green building that will be constructed, the 2,000 trees already planted in Busol Watershed and the 30,000 more trees that will be planted within the next three years (TSN, March 28, 2012 pp. 14 – 15).  Based on an article written by Nowak and Crane on oxygen production by urban trees in the United States published in the Arboriculture and Urban Forestry Journal (Exhibit 2), the witness testified that the diminution of Oxygen will not be substantial because of the removal of the 182 trees (TSN, March 28, 2012, p. 18)

From the afore-stated discussions, the Court accordingly rules that the cutting or earth-balling of the 182 trees within the vicinity of the Luneta Hill, Baguio City will NOT cause irreparable injury to the environment or the constituents cf the City of Baguio.

On issue number 1, which looks into the rather goofy use of EO 23 or the Total Log Ban and Article I (National Government and Local Government Units), Chapter III (Intergovernmental Relations) to prove that SM didn’t follow the right procedures in acquiring its permits from the DENR.

On EO 23, the court says:

Plaintiffs, however, failed to adduce a single piece of evidence to show that the 182 trees subject of these cases are part of a national and residual forest.  Likewise, the admission that the Expansion Project is classified as a commercial zone negates the claim that the site forms part of the area explicitly described in EO 23 (TSN, 23 August 2012; Exhibit 1-SMPH). Furthermore, it must be noted that the limitation of 30 trees as specified under Memorandum 2005-19 applies to cutting permits issued by the Regional Executive Director of the DENR-CAR and does not apply to cutting permits with the imprimatur of the Secretary of the DENR, as in these cases.  Defendants likewise presented proof of public consultation as a requirement under the Tree Cutting and Earth Balling Permit (TSN, September 25, 2012).

On the alleged necessity for SM to seek approval from the local gov

there was no showing that the endorsement by the City Mayor violated any law or procedure or that the DENR is required under the Local Government Code to consult the City Government including the City Council prior to its issuance of the ECC or the Tree-Cutting and Earth Balling Permit. The section invoked by the Plaintiffs under Article I (National Government and Local Government Units), Chapter III (Intergovernmental Relations) of the law, does not, however, find any application to these Environmental Cases.

Section 27 of said law explicity provides that:
“Prior Consultations Required. – No project or program shall be implemented by government authorities unless the consultations mentioned in Sections 2 (c) and 26 hereof are complied with, and prior approval of the sanggunian concerned is obtained: Provided, That occupants in areas where such projects are to be implemented shall not be evicted unless appropriate relocation sites have been provided, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution” (Emphasis supplied)

A reading of the above cited provision of law is clear, Section 27 does not apply to the Expansion Project, as it is pursued by a private corporation and not by the National Government. It is worth to stress that the DENR is not implementing the Expansion Project so as to require prior consultations with the local government. Its role is only to assess and grant, if appropriate, a private entity’s application for an ECC or for a Tree Cutting and Earth Balling permit.

Private Defendants were likewise able to present proof of compliance with the requirements for the issuance of the Tree Cutting and Earth Balling Permit from the application, to the correspondence between SM City Baguio and the DENR, to the satisfaction of conditions and procedure for approval of the application (TSN, September 25 and October 3-4, 2012).

I’d continue with the other issues and how the court decided on each one of these, but it’s just too long to cite all here.

I sure hope none of the Save 182 movers and supporters does anything stupid to protest the Court’s decision dismissing their case against SM Baguio.

print

Post Author: Paul Farol

Try not to take me too seriously.

Leave a Reply

43 Comments on "Court Dismisses Save 182’s Case Against SM Baguio"

Notify of
avatar
Sort by:   newest | oldest | most voted
jcc
Guest
In environmental cases, any citizen has a standing to sue under the premise that ecoological damage affects everyone. The direct injury to plaintiff required in ordinary cases has been relaxed in environmental cases. There is one case in Makati where a gas pipe leakage has been brought to court by residents nearby, and that dredging of Pasig river to contain pollution was instituted against DENR, Metro Manila Waste Management and against the City officials by residents as far as Malolos, Bulacan. You have to read the position paper/pleadings of the planintiffs too and do not limit yourself to the text… Read more »
Paul Farol
Guest

I don’t think you even understand the legal underpinnings of the case you cited and you’re saying judges can be bought.

Pinoy Dunung-dunungan much? Eh?

Trosp
Guest
I have a discussion with a comment poster here na nagdudunung-dunungan. Their MO is always a scare tactic and to label those they can’t convince as ignorant. “@ Richard, According to you – “While we appreciate your deviation, we also need you to research well before coming up with articles like this which expose your ignorance. One more thing, the trees which were cut/earthballed formerly stood in one of the remaining forest covers in the central business district. Planting trees elsewhere can never replace the oxygen production and carbon reduction those trees provide for people in the central business district,… Read more »
jcc
Guest
Oh, I understand the legal underpinnings of this case… It’s you who thinks that by reading one decision makes you a legal luminary already.. The proprietary title of SM over the area does not give it more right than the right of the citizenry at large for clean air and aesthetic appreciation. Environmental laws is an entirely new legal dimension that will finally catch up in a country whose thinking is that individual torrens title makes absolute the disposition, use and control thereof of the titleholder despite environmental hazards. The doctrine of parens patria and police power are concepts whose… Read more »
Trosp
Guest

Of course, once again, this abogado de patola is here again to display his “adeptness” in law.

I feel so inferior because I don’t know what parens patria (or is it patriae?) is.

And of course, he has this qualification for his parens patria, if you managed to refute him that this thing is not the fault of the respondent.

“Judges in RP can be bought.”

kurimaw
Guest

Ano ba yang si Cheryl Yangot, AMBOBO!

Paul Farol
Guest

Oh and who are you supposed to be?

MidwayHaven
Guest
Save 182, led by Atty. Daytec, are said to appeal the decision. Unfortunately, what credibility they have being so-called “environmentalists” has been thrown out the window due to recent events of Save 182’s own making. For example, Save 182 calls itself “apolitical.” Nothing could be further from the truth, for two reasons. Firstly, one of their loudest leaders is running for congressman of Baguio this 2013, with an endorsement. Secondly, evidence has come up that Save 182’s chief lawyer will be rooting for the incumbent mayor of Baguio–the SAME mayor that Save 182 wants to remove from office in the… Read more »
ChinoF
Member

There are a lot of pseudo-environmentalists around. And perhaps some of them don’t know that they are.

Again, there is an effort to distract proper attention on the issue by diverting it to corporate targets. People are deceived to think only big entities like SM are responsible for the denuding of Baguio’s pines, when in fact the residents themselves in many cases have been cutting down trees to make vegetable farms, new houses, and other things. Hence the saying, “May kasalanan din ang taong bayan.”

MidwayHaven
Guest

Save 182 has a holier-than-thou mentality; they blame everybody else except themselves for the court decision.

ChinoF
Member

Why can’t the Project 182 people instead make calls to Baguio residents to stop contributing to the denuding of trees? Even people in Baguio I’ve talked with admit that fellow residents are chopping down the trees. Then the groups can ask the sponsorship of SM in certain tree-saving projects. This would be a more useful and meaningful effort.

MidwayHaven
Guest

Sadly, everything SM does is seen by Save 182 as suspicious.

Proud Pinoy
Guest
You should get all sides of the story before reporting. There are reports that Manny Pacquiao was up all night before the fight coordinating with typhoon disaster workers. He was doing his job as an elected official, serving his constituency. It has been said that even hours before the fight, Manny Pacquiao’s mind was elsewhere, troubled by the massive typhoon casualties building up in Mindanao. This shows great character. At a time of great personal glory before him, he chose to care for the plight of others. Manny Pacquiao did not lose to Juan Manuel Marquez because Manny Pacquiao was… Read more »
MidwayHaven
Guest

All the more reason why Pacquiao should concentrate on only ONE field as opposed to the three he has today (boxer, congressman, entertainer). I know the article is somewhere here (can’t look for it at the moment), but it says that he’s now proven himself to just be mediocre in all three fields.

Proud Pinoy
Guest

As Pacquiao gets older and wiser it is self-evident that he would make a great politician. I am convinced that we will someday be our President and when that happens the world should watch out as this will be the beginning of Pax Filipinana.

MidwayHaven
Guest

Delusions of Empire, much?

The last time somebody proclaimed something of similar bent, the Philippines plunged into economic ruin.

Gogs
Member

Manny will get older. Wiser, not sure. Made so many wrong choices before. Plus how high is his formal education ? Does not strike me as wise . You sure can give a seminar in generating excuses PP .

Amir Al Bahr
Guest

Say Proud Pinoy,

Aren’t you Pastor Ernie too? The commenter whose repeated attempts at sarcasm often fall flat?

As-salaam alaykum.

ChinoF
Member

Wow, never saw something that lacked more common sense than a solar-powered flashlight. All that you could call bola-bolahan (in other words, PR) is embodied in this post.

Francis Rae G. Camtugan II
Guest
Judge Antonio Esteves made the right decision dismissing the case against SM. A TRUE VICTORY AGAINST IRRATIONALITY. The so-called “environmentalist group” is lead by fraudsters, socialists (with very communist tones), members of the Baguio elite – who are afraid of competition, real and fake environmentalists,blatant political opportunists and based on some reports, “EXPERT FUNDRAISERS”. PS 182 is pro-unemployment, anti-business, anti-productivity, and anti-mind. SM creates jobs and gives individuals opportunity to gain self-esteem – individuals get to earn money on their own without depending on others for handouts. PS 182 hates productivity because its members want to make all of Baguio… Read more »
PhoenixWild
Guest

Well said Francis, kudos to that comment! 🙂

MidwayHaven
Guest

Although I have to be fair here and say that SM only has a six-month contract for a majority of its employees, with no union benefits. Especially at SM Baguio, where only a few people from the Baguio-Benguet area are actually employed by the local SM management.

All in all, however, you’re right. Save 182 doesn’t have any viable alternative to SM’s employment problem. All they do is just say “there are options” when it comes to employment without actually saying what they are.

Proof that both SM and Save 182 are just two sides of the same cheap coin.

Trosp
Guest
About this Dr. Bengwayan according to the dude whom I have a discussion with – “Richard says: April 22, 2012 at 1:53 am @ Trosp https://www.facebook.com/groups/Atreeaday/doc/301296886606799/ https://www.facebook.com/groups/Atreeaday/doc/295963097140178/ I was mistaken. It’s 6 people not 66 Here are another note for more info. https://www.facebook.com/groups/Atreeaday/doc/298342850235536/ These notes are all from Dr. Michael Bengwayan, the proponent of the online petition which started it all. Here is the online petition. http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/stop-the-cutting-uprooting-of-trees-at-sm-baguio.html You can verify Dr. Michael Bengwayan’s qualifications online if you want. You can also check his FB profile. He is an expert on pine trees. You may also think that the lack of… Read more »
Sphynx
Guest
Save 182 is a joke if you really give it a hard look. I forgot the specific study but when it comes to producing oxygen, growing trees produce more than old trees. There is a scientific study supporting this. Also, other than earthballing, there is also tree planting. If sm complied with providing payment to have these seedlings planted then the remedy is simple enough, make sure the denr, who are paid to plant the seedlings, do plant them. Period. Lastly, if you want to save 182 trees because they are the last pine trees on the hill, then it… Read more »
kojak
Guest

Sus mio! Pustahan tayo, pinagkakitaan lang ni Yangot ang mga tao para kasuhan ang SM. Paano, pulpol na abugado, walang makuhang kliyente.

Drake
Guest

Hahaha give back fees my ass. You really are an “outside-looking-in” writer. The lawyers are pro-bono. Stupid.

ChinoF
Member

But going pro-bono for the wrong cause is just as bad.

Paul Farol
Guest

Really? Pro-bono?

One source up in Baguio says money was collected to support the group’s filing of the case and other expenses associated with the case.

Even Karlo Altomonte confirms this.

Aromin
Guest

Filing fees and other expenses are not Lawyer’s fees, so yes it is pro bono. If this was a “wrong cause” as ChinoF says for pro-bono work, then you assume 5000 Baguio residents are also going for the wrong cause! What about SM’s cause—to build a parking lot, where vital trees live. SM is so WRONG!!

Trosp
Guest

@Aromin

Your comment –

“If this was a “wrong cause” as ChinoF says for pro-bono work, then you assume 5000 Baguio residents are also going for the wrong cause!”

And Baguio’s resident population is about 320,000.

5000 is 1.6% of the population.

Are you happy with that data?

All you know is everybody is wrong if they do not conform with the narrative you want to have.

kurimaw
Guest

Ang sabi nung isa sa Boycott SM Baguio, “Vote for the right candidate this coming elections.”

Tapos may kinakalat na picture ng anak ni Save 182 lawyer Daytec-Yangot, si councilor Karminn Yangot.

Anong pro-bono? For the public good ba?

For all you know, kung ano ang ginagawa ngayon ni Domogan, baka mas malala pa si Daytec Yangot.

MidwayHaven
Guest

I’m more disturbed by the fact that news is spreading of the Daytec clan mobilizing themselves to re-elect the Domogan-Vergara tandem in 2013.

monk
Guest

Excellent points by jcc.

grace bandoy
Guest

they will appeal the case until the heavens, lets wait until the supreme court’s decision……i wonder how long it will take until all is exhausted?

kurimaw
Guest

Supreme Court? I don’t know if it’ll get there, duda ako really.

francis rae camtugan ll
Guest
francis rae camtugan ll

They will lose! Ps182 will continue to do yackity yackity for their so-called environmentalism. Mga peke mga yan — swindlers and communists are in their ranks

grace bandoy
Guest
sabi ko na kasi eh hehehe. my comment circa January 21 (right after the anti-SM rally), also when I was bashed to death after posting this comment hahaha: “where were all these “environmentalists” when gazillions of full-grown pine trees were cut to build slu and goshen’s condominium at bakakeng? when non-stop cutting of trees go on inside john hay? when cemented and tree-less subdivisions are sprawled all over and around our city? when mount sto. tomas is slowly but surely being filled with houses and the trees disappearing? yung iba hindi consistent, were they just there because of the massive… Read more »
MidwayHaven
Guest
Save 182 claims that it is being “bullied” by opinion writers. However, if you look closely, they are actually bigger bullies than they thought. For instance, Save 182 maintains a “Wall of Shame” page which lists the names and websites of public and PRIVATE individuals, leaving them open for public ridicule. How can Save 182 claim they’re being bullied when they themselves are setting the same precedent for these accusations? Also, a certain Crystalline leader of Save 182 posted a video of a moderately-opinionated person and twisted his words to make it look like he was against Save 182. THAT… Read more »
guy aliping
Guest

plant marijuana in sm…karlo kamote will be the first one to protect the plant

Elson T. Elizaga
Guest

“Gloria Abaeo, the CGN president, said they have decided to back out of a dialogue brokered by Interior Secretary Jesse Robredo and would instead rely on the decision of the court.” — http://tinyurl.com/afu7rpp

trackback

[…] this won’t be another 2,000 word entry just about Saving Manila Bay or Saving Baguio Pine Trees, I think people have had enough of that for […]

Anonymous
Guest

The “Boycott All SM Malls” movement must stop using the wrong language forever!

Why can’t that movement have their own protest messages translated correctly into Bân-lâm-gú language or whatever his/her native Chinese dialect[s] is/are?!

Why does that movement always have to pander to the Tangalogista Flipfags?!

Daniel Pilongo
Guest

this commentary is just stupid.

wpDiscuz