Will Senator Antonio Trillanes defer to public opinion when deciding on Corona’s impeachment?

114 Shares

According to “Senator” Antonio Trillanes IV, public opinion will weigh heavily in his final decision with regard to the impeachment of Philippine Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona. In a speech delivered at a forum held at the UP National College of Public Administration and Governance, Diliman last week Trillanes said that he intends to “use political acceptability as the sole criterion to evaluate the projected outcomes of either policy alternative of conviction or acquittal.” Trillanes, who is not a lawyer, reportedly studied the “US version of impeachment” which, supposedly is where the Philippine version of the process is modeled. Here is an account of the outcome of Trillanes’s “research” on the subject…

“What I found out was, there is not a single book or reference I encountered that says that impeachment is a judicial trial solely based on evidence. To the contrary, all of these references defined or referred to impeachment as a political process.”

That seems to suit the “Senator” quite well considering he was once jailed for rebellion against the Philippine Government under the administration of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and then granted “amnesty” by President Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III.

One of the articles of that amnesty granted under Proclamation 50 issued in December of 2010 stipulated popularity as the basis for President Aquino’s ruling (the author’s boldface for emphasis)…

WHEREAS, there is a clamor from certain sectors of society urging the President to extend amnesty to said AFP personnel;

WHEREAS, Section 19, Article VII of the Constitution expressly vests the power to grant amnesty upon the President;

WHEREAS, in order to promote an atmosphere conducive to the attainment of a just, comprehensive and enduring peace and in line with the Government&rsquos peace and reconciliation initiatives, there is a need to declare amnesty in favor of the said active and former personnel of the AFP and their supporters; […]

In short, because the idea was popular and because Noynoy can, jailed “military adventurist” Antonio Trillanes now walks free and sits as a “senator” in the venerable legislature of this “fun” Republic.

It is hardly a surprise that “Senator” Trillanes is beholden to the nebulous notion of “the people’s will”. In his speech, he said that “it would help if the prosecutors and defense counsels would not to be too technical in their presentations. Ultimately, they would have to win the hearts and minds of the people.”

But Trillanes’s actions and/or involvement in the “July 27, 2003 Oakwood Mutiny, the February 2006 Marines Stand-Off and the November 29, 2007 Manila Pen Incident and related incidents [listed in Proclamation 50]” put civilian lives at risk. Furthermore, his “military adventurism” created an entire future of political instability and, with it, the ill perception of the Philippines coming from the global community. All that is ultimately detrimental to the ordinary Filipino schmoe who already struggles to find sustainable livelihood as it is. This highlights the irony of how said popular will is actually a disservice to the “people” who are supposedly its source.

So rely on the popular sentiment will he? The guiding questions, Mr “Senator”, are these:

Can the popular sentiment be relied upon to rule justly?

And even more fundamental than that:

Does the popularity of an idea — or a ruling — necessarily determine its validity?

Back in November of 2010, I wrote about why I believe that Antonio Trillanes, Danilo Lim, and their band of bandits deserve to rot in jail. It is because they once presumed to be the sole judges of whether what they perceived to be “good intentions” was worth risking ordinary Filipino lives for. It is typical of the Filipino condition that such a man now stands among a bunch of bozos who presume to judge a sitting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

But this is of course the Philippines, where the politics are more fun.

print

50 Comments on “Will Senator Antonio Trillanes defer to public opinion when deciding on Corona’s impeachment?”

  1. The Dude, Trillanes, never studied Law…I don’t accept the idea, that, if you have a crass course on Impeachment…you’ll be able to Judge Right.
    Trillanes is a political opportunist, like Lim and Honasan. The study of Law is very broad. It has many branches…it requires years and years of scholarship…
    Trillanes was freed by Noynoy Aquino…so this is just a Payback for him to do Noynoy Aquino’s will and the Hacienda Luisita Mafia’s biddings…I simply don’t have trust and confidence on Trillanes…He was trained as a soldier, not a lawyer…he was elected Senator, because of his political opportunism…The good question is: Would he had been elected Senator, without his Political Opportunism?

    1. Bobby dela Cruz

      I doubt if Trillanes really knows what is public opinion. To him it is the cry of the yellow mob, the opinion of the sipsip(lapdog)press like Inquirer and Philippine Star of the highly opinionated ABS-CBN and GMA newscasters,of the paid SWS pollsters, but not of the greater mass of Filipino populace. I will bet my bottom peso that he will vote for the conviction of CJ Corona.

      1. Trillanes should know what public opinion is. Let us teach him. The mirage known as public opinion is that mass(yellow, black and white, red, etc.) of people that supports the dictator Mr. Aquino. They follow him blindly(some with mercenary intent, others gullible and ignorant)even when he does the wrong thing.

        Trillanes should do some computations. Determine the number of the total Philippine population. Subtract the number who voted for the dictator. The result would be the silent majority, over and above the Aquino crowd.

        Does Trillanes know what popularity is? It is going against the dictator Aquino’s populist mainstream and standing for a just cause in doing the right thing. If he votes in a principled manner for democracy and freedom against the dictator he will be in a win-win situation. That is of course if he is not reduced to a mere puppy dog who follows his dictator blindly.

      2. Yes that’s true. And isn’t it a fact that the concept of “representation” is to streamline the democratic processes so that instead of a whole bunch of citizen engaging directly in politics, an elected representative of the people will directly engage in politics for them. Mr Trillanes seems to have forgotten that, or does he know this concept in the first place?

        Which begs the question: Why did people vote for him in the first place? Which leads to another question: Why should we let politically immature and irresponsible people vote in the first place?

        Universal suffrage is for a mature political audience. Even in Europe, the originator of democratic principles, universal suffrage came about after the Industrial Revolution. Must we think the same for our case?

    2. ay sus!ang daming may alam dito. you don’t even know what political process means. even legal experts like CJ Panganiban, Rene Saguisag, and Fr. Bernas have the same view that impeachment is a political process. basahin niyo para may alam naman kayo

  2. Pilipinas has found a way to become more efficient with delivering swift justice — by picking as persidente a daughter or son of former per-sidente then allowing said anointed ones to say “… wala kaming ebidensiya dahil itinantago ng mga kaaway namin, eh… pero talagang guilty. Hindi na kailangan ang ebidensiya … alam ko naman ay guilty dahil alam ko ang batas — Anak ako ng dating presidente, ano ba naman, alam ko ang batas!! Pekwa ang patago-tago ng ebidensiya, hindi kailangan ang ebidensiya — kalaboso ang mga iyan!!! O, ikaw, Tulfo! Ikaw, Walden!! Huwag mo ‘kong galitin!!”.

    Sa 2016, pagpilian si Marcos at si Estrada. Sa 2022– Arroyo at Roxas. Sa 2028 — Ramos at Estrada. Binay…. huwag ka ng umasa…. heh heh heh.

  3. susmaryosep…e ngayon pa lng ipinapako na sa kruz ng media si Corona at lumabas na sa tawas na demonyo ang Chief Justice… political process pala yan?…kasi ang politika sa Pinas…kung sino sikat or “popular” e di yun ang tama…e bakit pa mag Senate hearing?….e di husgahan na ng guilty or idaan na sa poll text yan ng abs cbn…sa inyong palagay dapat bang patalsikin si Corona…now na!!!!!!!???? result..80% ang yes…17% NO at 3% ang undecided…galing ni Trillanes…….dapat judge sya ng talent show para makaboto din ang televiewers…wahhhhhhhhh!

  4. I really not a fan of these person since the beginning of his televised career. what a unstable person he is.

    1. I’d rather vote for what you called political immature, BUT WILL WORK FOR THE PEOPLE,FIGHT FOR THE PEOPLE, FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION, rather than those who called themselves intelligent pero, MATATALINO DIN YAN GUMAWA NG KALOKOHAN.Matalino nga e. LOOK AT GLORIA ARROYO AND CORONA……..

      1. @magdala, naririnig mo ba ang sarili mo? Ito lang masasabi ko, pakibawasan ang panonood ng abscbn/soap operas/showbiz. Halatang di mo binasang mabuti yung artikulo.

  5. Very disturbing. In essence the senator is saying that a certain person is guilty because the public perception says so, not because of the law’s dictates. It seems that everyone is taking the populist path and it is disturbing. But hey it is still fun in the Philippines right?

    1. Speaking of Populism…German Nazi Fuhrer: Adolf Hitler and most of the Germans in Nazi Germany. Believed that the German Jews were the cause of all ills in Germany. So the Holocaust happened. Popular German Nazi belief was also: they were Master Race. Other races must serve them. So they invaded and occupied other countries…Trillanes is showing that path of thinking…along with his YellowTard Master: Noynoy Aquino and the rest of the YellowTards…The perceived “majority” is not always right. History proved it…Was the Spanish Inquisition right?

      1. the spanish inquisition to my mind proved the follies of torture but not of populism… “the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing…edmund burke”…that’s the case for nazi germany…

      2. Populism sucks. That is why we should change to a suffrage based on certain qualifications. Because of that, those people who really contribute to the society will be in charge (productive taxpayers and businessmen, anyone?). Universal suffrage can be reinstated once the country is prosperous.

  6. Benign0

    If “public opinion”–meaning majority rule–is to be relied on; then, Trillanes’ boss fell short of “the people’s will,” since Aquino was elected president in 2010 by a mere “simple plurality” and not by a “majority” of the total valid votes cast as were the winning candidates in presidential elections after EDSA:
    23.58% 1992 Ramos
    39.86% 1998 Estrada
    39.99% 2004 Arroyo
    42.06% 2010 Aquino

    Thus, a 57.4% “majority” of “the people’s will” (100% – 42.06%) in 2010 rejected Aquino; yet, he now sits as president, since the Constitution provides that it is “the person having the highest number of votes [who] shall be proclaimed elected.”

    But compare this data to previous “majority” elected presidents (except Garcia’s in 1957) prior to EDSA:
    54.94% 1946 Roxas
    50.93% 1949 Quirino
    68.90% 1953 Magsaysay
    41.28% 1957 Garcia
    55.00% 1961 Macapagal
    51.94% 1965 Marcos
    61.47% 1969 Marcos (2nd 4-year term)

    As to your query to Trillanes: “Can the popular sentiment be relied upon to rule justly?” Justice Jackson’s caveat in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) is instructive:

    “The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”

    1. @D Arong

      I may be wrong here. As for the US of A Bill Of Rights compared with ours, it will not be an apple to apple comparison. US of A is a republican form of government (rule of law) and ours is a democratic one (majority rules).

      Nevertheless, your POV has its merits.

      1. Trosp

        Allow me correct you there: The Declaration of Principles in Art. II, Sec. 1 of the current 1987 Constitution clearly provides that the Philippines claims to be both, “a democratic and republican State”:

        “Section 1. The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.”

        However, under the earlier 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, the Declaration of Principles merely provides that: “The Philippines is a republican state.”

    2. that is the whole point none of the rights of the chief justice was undermined…so this may go on…especially politically…because it is truly a political exercise…

    3. @ D Arong

      Very nice exploration into the populism dynamics. However, Trillanes’ actions/comments are beside the point. As an elected “representative”, he should well know that the essence of his election into office is to avoid the inefficiency of direct democratic processes (in this I mean citizens participating directly in political processes, for example, correct me if I’m wrong, the ones in the state of California).

      A representative, in essence, is elected to decide on political processes and situations in lieu of the “people”. Yes, it might be that he just wants to consult the “people” that elected him, but that’s counterproductive. Besides, how can you trust an elected official who can’t decide for himself on issues as important as an impeachment case?

      1. Sa aking palagay, hindi magbibigay ng ganung statement si Sen. Trillanes kung di nya alam ang mga sinasabi nya. Alam nyo bang the ordinary citizens are applauding Sen. Trillanes for being the representative of the people or voice of the people (our taxpayers) who are not capable in delivering their opinion about the impeachment? Tandaan nyong ang maituturing na matalino ay hindi lamang yaong magagaling sa batas,magagaling magsalita,but he who knows how to determine whats good and bad.

        1. Due process. Innocent until proven guilty. Korte ang magdedesisyo, hindi ang yellow mob. Saka puro hearsay lang ang evidence laban kay gma. Note, di ako bayaran ni GMA.

        2. How can you determine the “voice of the people”, btw? SWS? Pulse Asia?

          The only sure and fair thing is to conduct a plebiscite on the matter. That defeats the purpose of electing representatives like Mr Trillanes. You see the point?

    1. Trillanes should try the annual king of the mountain games and gladiator spectacle. The mob hysteria and fanaticism generated by the Black Nazarene should give him an adrenaline high.

      I hate it when the image of the Prince of Peace is used in this manner. Self-inflicted injury and death is not true faith.

    1. that’s better than the pharisees syndrome!!! who actually lobbied…hehehe..please put your faith and your history straight.

  7. In case you missed it, an article in the Manila Standard aptly called it right:

    ‘Legally political, politically legal’

    “…the country’s impeachment process swings more favorably—towards the likeness of a court of law as in a quasi-judicial undertaking or the court of public opinion in what is dominantly a political activity.”

    So Senator Trillanes decides to go with the court of public opinion…

    http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/insideOpinion.htm?f=2012/january/7/feature1.isx&d=2012/january/7

    1. He is an elected representative, he should think for himself regarding these issues. Any thought of deferring to public opinion makes him included on the long list of history’s crappy politicians.

      How can he determine what is public opinion, btw? That would require a plebiscite or referendum from citizens of voting age. Which begs the question: isn’t it more a waste of time and money a plebiscite or referendum is initiated? In which, we go back to the essence of work of Mr Trillanes: he is paid and elected to decide on important issues.

  8. I think anyone who believes in positive change for the country would not take the coup d’etat route. That is usually the path taken by the power hungry. Well, you could obviously see the result.

    Also, doesn’t he have a sentence to complete?

    1. You really have a lot of updating to do Mr. Phil Manila. I suggest you read first on matters before commenting and presenting your stand!

  9. it seems that everybody here are up against trillanes ah. may i enter your homogenous group? im neither a fan nor a distractor of trillanes. first, the fact that this is a political process means we need the public discourse. in a democracy whatever the circumstances are, public discourse is encourage, safeguarded and given importance. now, whether or not, public discourse is needed in this particular case, i say yes! why, basically this is a political process, those senator-judge are our reps, they must represent us, the majority of us.
    now, one may say is it really wrong to be ruled by these mob? let us first define who are the mob? or what is mob in the first place? as wikipedia defines, mob are the people. who are the people? is it us, it you, is it me? we belong to this mob. and you tell me, these reps should not listen to us? why, are we not part of this country, are we not stakeholders to begin with? you guys are annoying! really annoying!!

    1. So you prefer a mob rule, huh? A rule full of chaos and disorder just like in Libya after Gadafhi? Not only you’re annoying but you’re also stupid. 🙂

        1. stupid huh, well if that what it is. what i’m saying here is whether or not these senator-judges should put weigh on our opinions, and i say yes. i dont understand why dont you want to be heard. it’s everybody’s right anyway. this is a political process, and we are part of the political process. but then, the evidence to be presented by hor is still important because we, people of the philippines will see if indeed cj corona should be convicted or not.

          moreover, even if you look at the books of plato, socrates, and aristotle. they never denied that a democracy is rule of people. that is the beauty of our democracy, those officials shall listen to us. those officials are accountable to us.

          ergo, there’s is nothing wrong as regards to mob rule. our voice is important.

        2. First of all, how can Mr Trillanes know what is the opinion of the people? eh? Through SWS surveys? Through polls in GMA or ABS-CBN? Mind you, the only valid political process to know the opinion of the people is through plebiscite or the like.

          If plebiscite then, we have to set a schedule, a budget, rules, etc. That takes money and effort. It also defeats the purpose on why representatives are elected: and that is to decide on political matters in lieu of the people.

          You get it now? First, it’s problematic to know what really is the opinion of the people, other than through plebiscites and the like; and, an elected representative should be able to think for himself on important matters. To invoke the so-called opinion of the people is just plain stupid and is a dereliction of an elected official’s duty.

          PS: Read Plato’s the Republic. you’ll be surprised to know that he limited political decision-making to philosopher kings ONLY. I think you should be the one doing additional readings. 🙂 More of my reply on your post below.

    2. Mob rule is a public discourse and political process needs public discourse, eh? Well then, we should abolish this system of government and its officials. We don’t need a senator, or a president, or a congressman for that. Important decisions will be through plebiscite or referendum only. That’s what you want, right?

      Wake up Mr Lopez, he is an elected representative of the people, paid for c/o our (should I include you?) taxes, TO THINK and DECIDE on issues such as an impeachment. If he can’t fulfill his role, that is a dereliction of his duty.

      1. flax why cant you that these public officials in doing their role as our representative must listen to us. you dont want to be heard?

        dereliction of duty? first, we are sovereign filipino people. we are sovereign, we are more higher that them in the ideological sense. they are there to forward our interests, read the constitution.

        my gulay!

        1. So basically you’re saying that our officials must listen to us even if were wrong and mistaken about said issue?
          I repeat public opinion is not a basis of determining a person’s guilt or innocence.
          You should know that Hitler utilize populist methods and the majority of the public even thought he was a good thing to Germany, we all know the ending to that story.

        2. Let me enlighten you on the history of democratic processes.

          You noted above that the Greeks envision democracy as the rule of the people. Well hello Mr Lopez, the so-called democracy in Ancient Greeks is limited to the male citizenry (meaning: males that are free, excluding slaves).

          Moreover, the Greeks practice what we call “direct democracy”. In this system everyone who has the right to vote can vote on public issues (ala plebiscite style). No representatives, just pure and plain voting. It works well for them because a political unit in Ancient Greece is usually no more than a city-state. In essence, its manageable because of the small number of constituents.

          In contrast, what we have today is “indirect democracy”. It is a system where decision-making on political processes is made by elected representatives, like Mr Trillanes. What necessitates this system? Simple, it’s because a large political entity such as the Philippines will be too cumbersome and unwieldy to manage if direct democracy is applied.

          So, what you espouse on your posts above is incompatible with our current political system. You want a process that is suited to a direct democracy, not the indirect democracy that we have now. You get the point?

          Mind you, before there was universal suffrage, there were:

          —-In the beginning, all political decisions are made by the king, or a tribal leader.

          —-When progress and stability is attained, and a nation no longer needed the protection of a king or a tribal leader, the nobility demands their rights. In this stage we can apply the signing of the Magna Carta and the like.

          —-When more people prosper and merchants abound, they will demand participation on political matters. Hence, the beginnings of representatives.

          —-When common people are lifted above poverty through the Industrial Revolution, they will demand political participation as well. Hence, suffrage based on male voting population.

          —-When women’s movement gained ground through further progress in the economy and societal thinking, women will demand political participation. Hence, UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE.

          PS: Populism sucks, I think Mr Chimera gave you an example for that 🙂

  10. I don’t understand why the fact that someone who admits to rely heavily on public opinion with regard to his decision should receive this much hate. we should find out first how he intends to come up with finding public opinion then react on his methodologies if they are flawed.

    Also, though he was given amnesty by P-Noy, he does not base his decisions mainly on the dictates of Malacañang. Similar to the other Justices whom PNoy appointed to the SC who voted for the Hacienda Luisita distribution. PNoy doesn’t seem to expect the guys he appointed or given amnesty to “lick his ass”, unlike PGMA. 🙂

    Peace everyone.

    1. @Ka Loi

      Ruling for or against does not necessarily or automatically mean being in favor specific for someone.

      As you pointed out, PNOY’s justices voted for distribution of Luisita. And if they voted against it, you can simply say they were just doing what they believed was in line with the law. As such, why are the other justices viewed differently just because of who appointed them.

      You have already presumed guilt with only insinuations and no hard evidence. Ruling in favor or the TRO of the WLO (for me) does not count as evidence. For one, it was the government’s fault for issuing a TRO without any case.

      I’ll give you another what if (for the sake of argument). What if the PNOY justices are playing their role perfectly by showing the public they are not dictated by PNOY through their voting in the Luisita issue as it is still preliminary and not final as to how “Compensation” is going to be delivered to the respective parties.

      What if it was a show for the public so that they can hold on to the idea that their justices (from PNOY) were simply doing their job. Then in a year or two, once CJ is out and the rest of the Arroyo Justices have been given a hard lesson of not going against PNOY’s wishes, we get a PNOY SC Puppet that moves to his beck and call?

      What if, right?

      Just saying. You can not simply say they are not indebted as “utang na loob” is part of the Filipino culture, no matter how you want to flip the world. It is just that Utang na Loob has its limitations, although in most cases the parties involved in the reciprication of “utang na loob” or gratitude don’t know when to stop or when the line should be drawn.

      But again, what is the basis of the so-called “bias” of CJ to CGMA? When it is an SC Ruling and not a CJ ruling? Where a majority vote will determine what the SC Decision is?

      Remember you spoke of the CJ as he is THE SC. CJ is not the sole entity controlling the SC, unlike the presidency that rules over the whole executive and can manupilate the legislative. Think about that. =)

      Cheers and peace to you too! =)

    2. The problem is that public opinion is not always right and/or correct. So let’s say for example in a court trial a man was accused of murder, there was no eyewitness linking him to the crime, the physical evidence is at best questionable and unreliable. Now the judge presiding the case is an impartial person who is not influenced by bribes, threats or public opinion. The judge finds the accused not guilty because there was no eyewitness to the crime and the evidence really doubtful, in other words he judged the case by it’s merits. Now imagine this, the victim was a popular person liked by everyone for whatever reason and everyone thinks that the accused did murder the victim even if there is no proof that the accused did. Now suppose it was a different judge on the bench, he senses that the public wants the guy sentenced(because they think that he did it regardless of lack of evidence against the defendant) and if he finds the defendant not guilty the public will hate him for it(judge is worried about his standing in the community after all of this). So sensing public opinion this judge finds the defendant guilty of the murder(again regardless of lack of evidence against the defendant)and the defendant was sentenced to death.

      Adding a twist to the tale of the accused who was sentenced to death by a judge who deferred to public opinion, it was found out years later that someone else did the crime and there was overwhelming and conclusive evidence(eyewitness and physical)that linked this other guy to the crime, thus exonerating the executed defendant(though there is little consolation to his family considering that the guy won’t be comebacking from the grave).

      Excuse my lengthy narrative, but if you read it carefully the lesson is that the anyone who judges a person guilt or innocence must decide on the basis of the case’s merits not the opinion of the public. Said basis of populist judging is an injustice and Senator Trillanes more or less declared that he will find Corona guilty not because that the evidence(that either confirms or repudiate said guilt), but because the public says so.

      That is a really, really disturbing method of dispensing justice.

    3. As with my previous comments above, he is an elected “representative”. Representatives are supposed to decide for themselves in lieu of the people. True, he can consult the people for opinion but that complicates things as Mr Chimera has expounded. Besides, what good is a representative who can’t think for himself on important issues?

      But hey, he is paid to think for us (critically), the people, isn’t he? Eh kung ganoon, kaltasan na ng sahod yan, total tayo pa pala ang gustong pag-isipin tungkol sa mga bagay-bagay.

    4. “PNoy doesn’t seem to expect the guys he appointed or given amnesty to “lick his ass”, unlike PGMA.”

      – How can you be sure about that? Can you read his mind?

      1. The guy is giving too much credit to GMA. It’s as if GMA is using her Jedi mind trick into making people do what she wants them to do. Unbelievable logic.

  11. Nahuhuli tlga ang isda sa bibig ;D

    Sa Gandang gabi Vice:

    VICE GANDA: “Kung lalaki ka, sino ang pipiliin mo na maka-date? Si Sen. Miriam Santiago, si GMA o si Imelda?”

    KRIS: “Kailangan talaga pumili? Si Sen. Miriam. Kasi kailangan namin ang boto niya sa impeachment.”

    Ayan patunay n yan n si Pnoy ang nsa likod ng impeachment ;D

  12. For so long, I have been reading comments of yellowtards and anti GMA here in this blog. I still have to read a comment from them that makes sense.

    Even those in the congress who lead in impeaching Corona. Do they have the afterthought of what they’re doing?

    Oftentimes, I’ll be in the verge of throwing up every time I happen to see them being interviewed or in photo session in TV. What do they feel when they see themselves in TV?

    Their stupidity is boundless.

    “Malacañang to GMA: PNoy’s popularity is better than your economic growth rate”

    Sigh…

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.