Corona’s day in court: dignity versus bastusan

107 Shares

The whole country is awaiting the highly anticipated appearance of Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona in his own impeachment trial. There is not a day that goes by that the prosecution does not fail to ask the defense team when they will call Corona to the witness stand. And so do some of the Senator Judges. They keep insisting that only the chief magistrate alone can shed light into allegations against him. Never mind that they will never believe a word he is saying without the corroboration of other witnesses anyway.

Those who insist that Corona’s appearance will speed up the trial are wrong and are missing the point. Due to their biases against Corona, they cannot appreciate the fact that part of the defense’s strategy is to highlight the flaws in the way evidence was obtained by the prosecution and other hostile witnesses and, likewise, to establish the real motivation of the person who authorised the gathering of the evidence. So far the testimonies provided by defense’ hostile witness, Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales has been inconsistent.

SUPPORT INDEPENDENT SOCIAL COMMENTARY!
Subscribe to our Substack community GRP Insider to receive by email our in-depth free weekly newsletter. Opt into a paid subscription and you'll get premium insider briefs and insights from us daily.
Subscribe to our Substack newsletter, GRP Insider!
Learn more

When asked in what capacity she applied herself in looking into Corona’s accounts, she said that when Corona submitted his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN), he technically gave the ombudsman a waiver to look into his accounts. Her statement actually contradicts one of the charges against Corona. We recall that part of the articles of impeachment complaint against Corona is his failure to disclose his SALN. Since the ombudsman already had his SALN, then the charges should have been dropped. Another inconsistency as pointed out by Senator Chiz Escudero is that her Power Point presentation showing Corona’s alleged dollar account includes 2012 transactions. However, Corona has yet to file his 2012 SALN. This means that any waiver issued by default to the ombudsman should not include 2012. This also means she went beyond her capacity to look into Corona’s alleged dollar accounts.

It was seemingly obvious that Ombudsman Morales is another witness who struggled to justify her motives in defying the law. She stammered through her responses to Senators who questioned the legality of her actions in prying open Corona’s alleged dollar accounts. The Foreign Currency Deposits Act should have guaranteed the secrecy of anyone’s foreign currency deposits including Corona’s. It seems like the anti-Corona mob have found a way to go around the trial court’s decision to uphold that law by using Ombudsman Morales’s claim that the Ombudsman Act of 1989 allowed her “to request assistance from agencies in connection with the discharge of my mandate.”

It was Senator Miriam Santiago, a constitutional expert, who pointed out that the ombudsman might have stepped way beyond her capacity:

She specifically cited Republic Act 9160 or the Anti-Money Laundering Act and Republic Act 6426 or the Foreign Currency Deposit Act. She explained that under the AMLA, the AMLC should first find probable cause then file a complaint before the Department of Justice or the Ombudsman who shall then conduct a preliminary investigation of the case.

She likewise cited section 8 of RA 6426 which state: “All foreign currency deposits… are hereby declared as and considered of an absolutely confidential nature and, except upon the written permission of the depositor, in no instance shall foreign currency deposits be examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official, bureau or office whether judicial or administrative or legislative, or any other entity whether public or private.”

Santiago said that Morales seems to take the position that the power of the Ombudsman under the Constitution to request the AMLC for assistance and information should prevail over the procedure provided in the AMLA and even over the decision of the Supreme Court.

The senators realised that this could be the very first time the agency AMLC appeared to have willingly cooperated in an investigation. And the question is: What is the difference this time? Senator Alan Peter Cayetano “recalled that when he was investigating alleged irregularities committed under the Arroyo administration as Senate blue ribbon committee chair, he had difficulty convincing AMLC executive director Vicente Aquino to cooperate.” There are also conflicting reports that say “the defense counsels received information that AMLC executive director Vicente Aquino denied investigating the so-called Corona accounts” and “that the report from the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) is unsigned and unauthenticated”. The information in the last few days of the trial is certainly all very confusing for the general public.

The people are taken for a ride.

The evidence presented by Ombudsman Morales was very damning, indeed. At this point it is hard to determine who is telling the truth. It’s hard to know which side is taking the people for a ride. The allegation that Corona has over 10 million dollars in various accounts is incredible. It is hard to understand why the anti-money laundering agency did not call the attention of the office of the Ombudsman or Department of Justice a decade ago when they first noticed the irregularities in his alleged dollar accounts. More questions remain unanswered. Did the agency not do their job properly? Or could it be that the Office of the Ombudsman got their facts wrong? Like I said before, the timing of both the ombudsman’s and the AMLC’s participation in Corona’s prosecution is quite suspect. People should begin to ask, how many more public servants are getting away with hiding funds but are only investigated on when they become the enemy of the incumbent president?

It would be disappointing to say the least if the allegations made by the Ombudsman turn out to be true. A lot of people took Corona at face value when he said that he is innocent of the charges filed by the prosecution. In fact, a lot of people are still rallying behind him. If proven true, the damage his dollar accounts can inflict on the people who trusted him would be too devastating and could result in low morale descending upon his supporters and those who are upholding the rule of law.

When he finally takes the witness stand, my advice to Corona is to remain calm and collected. Judging from the way private and House prosecutors have behaved throughout the trial, the experience is likely to be quite testing for him. Rabid prosecutors and Senators allied with President Noynoy Aquino will try to break him on the stand by humiliating him, I’m sure. So the trick is for Corona to be the better person. His supporters came to like him because he acted with dignity throughout his ordeal. It is close to the home stretch and it would be a mistake on his part if he started acting like his detractors by stooping down to their level.

While Corona’s supporters were taken aback and felt disgusted at how PNoy repeatedly bullied Corona in public by emphasizing that he was a “midnight appointee” and questioned the legality of his appointment by former President and Congresswoman Gloria Arroyo (GMA) again and again, Corona took things in stride and acted like a gentleman. It was something that most Filipinos do not get to see very often in a public servant.

Yes, some of Corona’s detractors feel a strong sense of schandenfreude or pleasure at seeing their perceived opponents suffer. They will try to humiliate and vilify Corona at the witness stand as soon as they hear the word “Go!” They are probably salivating at the thought of doing so right now. Let’s just hope Corona disappoints them by acting like a real man all the way.

170 Replies to “Corona’s day in court: dignity versus bastusan”

    1. It cannot. And I also believe that Corona must appear in court to speed up the trial and prove his innocence. And in that time, the public will know that he and his team is lying from the start.

      1. And the public will know that it was PNoy and his minions who are lying at the start; proving that he is exacting revenge against the CJ.

        Am I right, Yellow Zombie who loves to kill innocent people?

      2. The burden of proof shall always be on the accuser, not on the accused. It’s not the defense fault why this impeachment went this long.

    2. @Masterful Deceit

      Because most Filipinos still think that our views are too radical. It’s just common sense, really.

        1. Meaning ulyanin na. Hindi na alam ang pinagsasabi.

          San ba ang blog ng yellowtard senior citizens?

          May wala sa sarili dito, pakisalo.

  1. Ilda, I believe in the end this will all be another hoax, a tactical move by Abnoy! I not so veiled warning to the Senate Judges, to toe the line, Maybe, maybe not!

    1. It’s true that Corona has wealth up to P677M. That is the prize of loyalty to Arroyo. His strategy now is to keep it away from forfeiture. He can always run to his colleagues for a TRO.

      1. It’s true that Corona has wealth up to P677M

        It’s true?!? How do you know this? Does that mean Corona doesn’t need to go on the witness stand because you already know this for sure? Wow.

        1. Hi Ilda, I used to be disgusted, now I am merely amused! Dissenting views are not tolerated soooo, I just be quiet and read and read and read!

        2. I don’t know what you mean. This thread alone is littered with dissenting views. We would have deleted them all or put them in the spam folder if we didn’t tolerate it. I hope you don’t equate responding to dissenting views as being intolerant.

          We do have a commenting guideline, which states that spamming, foul language and excessive ad hominem is not tolerated.

  2. Chief Justice Corona doesn’t have any choice except to confront his accusers personally. This was after all the goal of PNOY and the PNOY bunch, if they can’t get him to resign, humiliate him so he will be forced to testify so that they can make a public spectacle of humiliating him.

    But CJ Corona is a gentleman and a real man to the core. Calm and collected, wise as serpent, slow to speak, if the prosecution thinks they got him, they better think again. Evil can never win over good. Not in this instance, not ever.

    1. I hope the Chief Justice doesn’t end up like the late Angelo Reyes. Thanks to the no-good senators who tore him apart, the poor general committed suicide. I know Corona can learn a lesson or two from him.

  3. We all know the tendencies of the bow well movement 188. Its human assets in the prosecution have a track record of unethical behavior. Never before in the history of the Philippine Senate has such acts been demonstrated during the course of the ongoing impeachment trial.

    It is public knowledge that this bow well movement 188 prosecution people have engaged in hate-think, demonization of character and reputation by way of black propaganda and trial by publicity. The entire machinery of state is used against the perceived enemies of the dictator wannabe.

    Chief Justice Corona knows the score. He has studied his enemies and he knows that the only way to defeat fabrication, falsification, lies and slurs against him and is family is to directly take the bull by the horns. The CJ will never resort to ad hominem and fallacies.

    He will not be cowed by verbal harassment, insults and provocations intended to arouse his emotions. Stay cool sir. The only way to beat the prosecution is not to be swayed by their under the belt techniques. May God defend the right!

  4. Quite honestly, I was a bit disappointed with the performance of the defense especially for not being able to highlight the inconsistencies identified by Sen. Escudero. I mean, how many were they in the panel?

    Also I am not sure if I missed but I was wondering why the Ombudsman was not asked why she made the people believe through her media statements last week that her only bases for asking CJ Corona to explain USD10M bank deposits were MEDIA reports. Either she got hold of AMLC reports after such letter was written OR she deliberately lied so the defense will not be prepared for her revelations. If it is the latter, it speaks well that she is part of the circle working so hard to remove CJ Corona.

  5. Dignity Versus Bastusan?! Do you actually mean all the crap related to Corona : (1) Midnight appointment, (2) BasaGuidote issue (3) Impeachment Issue (4) Humungous dollar accounts (4) lack of delicadeza – non-inhibition/ enjoying perks from PAL (5) Kapit-Tuko in his position and a host of other vomiting acts are mere fabrication if not coincidental at best?

    Do you really have such low standard that people wanting at least a modicum of decency from their government can meet with you halfway?

    1. 1) As it turns out, the appointment of Corona as CJ was constitutional. Even JBC says so:

      Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) that “unanimously” agreed to start nominations prior to the 2010 elections for the replacement of the country’s outgoing Chief Justice Reynato Puno. And they did so citing Section 4(1), Article 8 of the constitution – which mandates that a Supreme Court vacancy should be filled within 90 days once the position remains vacant.

      and this:

      GMA was even compelled to pick a new judge by the JBC out of an urgent need to do so because “historical events dictated the post should be vacant no more than a day”. Here’s what the SC had to say about the controversy at that time:

      The SC said there is no provision in the Constitution providing for designation of a temporary chief justice during the vacancy because the post is crucial during election period since the high court acts as the final arbiter under the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET).

      2) BasaGuidote case is irrelevant to his impeachment trial.

      3) Impeachment was railroaded and some of the 188 congressmen who signed the impeachment complaints were just blackmailed into doing so.

      4) Dollar account will be explained in due time. Also, prosecutors violated dollar secrecy law when they pried into his alleged account without his consent.

      5) Your “lack of delicadeza” cannot be proven in court. The “PAL perks” you are talking about is available to everyone with a credit card linked to the frequent flyer program of the airline.

      6) Your “kapit-tuko” doesn’t mean anything. Why should he resign just because PNoy says so? That’s just crazy.

      1. All your answers are either rationalizations or palusot. These are canned answers from stereotypical lawyers, the kind that screws justice and milks their client for a living.

        Taken collectively, it unmistakably points to one damning character which you so unfortunately refuse to see. But again of course, we just have to agree to disagree: You see nothing wrong in this person who is to interpret the supposedly noble Rule of Law while I see 180 degrees.

        1. @scarletpro

          The simple concept of rule of law is something a lot of Filipinos cannot and refuse to understand. No wonder the country remains one of the world’s laggard.

        2. TROLL.

          You’re just vindictive and malicious, that’s why. Stop that nonsense, Yellow Zombie.

        3. @ Scarletpro:

          Translation:

          You do not have a mind of your own. You have not heard of the principle “amendment” of existing laws or impeachment of erring officials (read: Interpreters of Law). You follow as automaton because you can not differentiate what is right and wrong. What is shove down to your throat you blindly follow because you believe blindly in the “Rule of Law” when in fact the “the Rule of Law” becomes the “Rule of Thieves” when the “Interpreters of Law” manipulates it’s supposedly noble meaning to their own selfish ends.

        4. @dikonamasikmura

          You follow as automaton because you can not differentiate what is right and wrong

          Is violating the law right to you?

          The prosecution keeps saying that Corona was the one who violated the law but they are violating the law in their desperate attempts to point it.

          You simply can’t right a wrong with another wrong. If they want to prove they are better than Corona, then they need to follow the law.

        5. @ Daido Katsumi

          Typical narrow argument you got there. Resorting to namecalling if you do not have a sensible rebuttal. Your standards are way down sea level.

        6. @dikonamasikmura:

          Those who have vindictive and malicious whims have very low standards so why is mine in below sea level? Are you trying to say “Let’s break all rules to get to the truth!” Flawed logic you got there. 😛

          Well, do you agree on Noynoy’s childish whining by slamming the judiciary which he said: “The law has become an exclusive privilege of the few.”? That’s stupidity.

          Ninez Cacho-Olivares of The Daily Tribune chided: “Noynoy, Noynoy, Noynoy. It’s like this. The Constitution says that it is the Supreme Court that has been given the mandate by the people to be the sole interpreter of the law, not you, not your allies, not the yellows, and not even your justice secretary…That’s what the Constitution says, and no honorary degree can change that!”

          And now I’m going to say that to you. Because you are mostly fed by ABS-CBN nonsense. In short, misled by media. Nothing else.

        7. @dikonamasikmura

          All your answers are either rationalizations or palusot

          So in your mind, when someone is responding to the charges filed against him, he’s just “nag-papalusot”?

          It seems you don’t even want to bother understanding the responses to the points you yourself raised. You remind me of the prosecution’s style – just present the charges and then ignore the rebuttal given by the defense. Tsk tsk

        8. Go apply some preparation H to your hemorrhaging bunghole.

          “The law applies to all; if not, to none at all.” – Alfredo Lim

        9. @ Teabag

          “Go apply some preparation H to your hemorrhaging bunghole.”

          Practice being civilized. You deserve Corona’s kind of Chief Justice. Most Filipinos don’t.

        10. @dikonamasikmura

          Quit your bellyaching. You pretend to have arguments, but the bottom line is you don’t respect the Rule of Law. You’d rather have a country that applies justice by violating justice. When Ilda gave you a straight answer to your questions, you just shrugged it off as rationalizations or palusot. You’re a typical close-minded Pinoy who would rather use emotions than the reason.

          And the question that hasn’t been answered by your lot yet: Will the average Filipino’s life be better if Corona got booted out? Will poverty-stricken Filipinos have food on their tables once GMA is convicted? I dare you to answer that with a well-thought out, constructed and valid argument, instead of harping the same bullshit as Pnoy and his followers.

        11. @dikonamasikmura: You won’t even listen so you’ve decided to dogde the question since you can never have a good answer.

          PNoy supporters are shameless.

        12. Seems like giving a well-thought out, constructed and valid argument is a tall order for Pnoy supporters. I shouldn’t have expected much.

          But hey, guess this is a good example of “birds of the same feather, flock together”.

        13. Well I guess you are used to kilometric, voluminous, wordy yet lackluster responses and associate it with intelligence.

          You never heard of words like “succinct” and “one-liners”.

          That’s your problem.

        14. A Yellow zombie talking about intelligence. This is rich.

          By the way, your one liner didn’t answer my question.

        15. @ Teabag

          Tagalugin ko na lang kaya baka ma-gets mo. But then again, parang nag-explain na lang ako ng punchline nun. Alam mo yun, yung kailangan mo pang i-explain yung punchline….. tsk. tsk.

        16. So feeling mo matalino ka na pag may one-liner answer ka? Ambabaw mo naman. Papalakpakan na kita nang matuwa ka pa lalo.

        17. @ Teabag Deluxe

          “A Yellow zombie talking about intelligence. This is rich”

          Look who’s talking?

        18. @dikonamasikmura and JCC

          True, the justice system and the officials manning it are far from perfect. The problem is, as Ilda and others have said, sorting this issue out of extralegal means, however noble (or is it?) the intentions are, exacerbates the problem in the system. It sets a bad precedent.

        19. Yeah right and you just love to break the rules in order to seek justice. That’s not a good idea.

          You can’t even deny the fact that you are malicious and vindictive, as seen in your posts.

        1. Mr JCC

          If only this witch hunt will result in the crafting of better laws, then I would appreciate it. As it is, no one is even taking notes about what loophole to plug. So no, this circus is just all for show.

          The best solution would be to call for a mistrial because what is happening in the court is setting a dangerous precedent and you can say goodbye to real democracy if the senators let the prosecution and ombudsman get away with what they did.

      2. Seems to me all your comments are hinged on technicalities but lacks moral dimension.

        Again my point: the Rule of Law is not the problem. The interpreters of the Law are. That is why there is such a thing as amendments of existing laws or impeachment of the Interpreters or Enforcers of the Law. Hence, this exercise.

        On one hand there is a self-serving anti-dollar deposit bank secrecy law.

        On the other, there is a provision in the SALN that states (and Corona signed this)that the person accomplishing the form is giving the Office of the Ombudsman the authority to inspect…….hence….. (I do not think it can be said any clearer unless Corona does not know how to read, moreso, add)

        Now to serve himself, Corona will of course use the the former. Now he interprets the law (I hope I need not explain why the provision on SALN as a law need not be explained)that saves his hide.

        Read:

        “Even the devil can quote the scriptures.”

        1. All of your comments are pure trolling.

          Vindictiveness and maliciousness equals immorality. It seems you are as childish as PNoy, since they all started this mess. I was right all along.

          Still missing the point.

        2. No you are the vindictive and malicious lot.

          You can not frame your argument. You always equate it as being pro or anti-Pnoy when in fact we are discussing Corona here. Read the title.

          What is Pnoy’s character got to do with Corona’s being fit to be Chief Justice? If you can see pass through that immature point of view of yours, then I will engage you further.

        3. Contradictory. I even disapprove all the vilifying and badmouthing made by the prosecution against the accused. You even approved it, right? Yes, even their way of presenting evidence.

          You should know the fact that it was the president himself who is the instigator of this impeachment. And since you’re accusing me of having immature POV, no wonder why Yellow Nuts are like that.

        4. See, are you hearing (reading) yourself?

          If you can show me just an iota of evidence that I said ” I approve the villifying and badmouthing of Corona by the prosecution”, then shame on me.

          The problem with your one-track-mindedness is just that: one-track-mindedness. So who is practicing “Rule of Law” now?

        5. Your so-called statement is like this: “Even the Law can be manipulated for their own selfish ends.” It’s just the same as PNoy said that “The law is now a privilege to the few.”

          Even the president himself and his minions have very low standards and they’ve vehemently refused to follow the Rule of Law for their own ends. Yellow minds have very low standards and it doesn’t equal intelligence. Being misled by media, isn’t that right?

        6. First and foremost, can you define Media?

          Where do you get your so-called facts?
          In your dreams? In a tablet of stone from Mt. Somewhere?

        7. Also, do you want me to interpret in the vernacular for you what is meant by “The law is now a privilege to the few.”

          You do not have to take that literally. We have good laws but bad interpreters and enforcers…or you’re telling me that our judicial systems are at the zenith of glory? Where have you been?!

        8. Why should I define it for you? Isn’t that obvious? Thanks to media pundits like ABS-CBN, Inquirer and even surveys which they favor the Aquinos and their oligarch allies, they manipulated the minds of masses and they have demonized personalities who are against them; GMA and Corona are included.

          I get facts from unbiased sources and never got it from anonymous sources or “facts” based on hearsays, rhetoricsL and conspiracy theories and crap, most were seen from Yellow Media like the ones I have mentioned. You just want to vilify the accused and as vindictive as PNoy, right?

        9. Your pure trolling doesn’t work for an enlightened Filipino like myself.

          Let me say this to you: one PNoy chided: “Noynoy, Noynoy, Noynoy. It’s like this. The Constitution says that it is the Supreme Court that has been given by the mandate of the people to be the sole interpreter of the law, not you, not your allies, not the yellows, and not your justice secretary. That is what the Constitution says and no honorary degree can change that!”

          Take note: even Filipinos can’t even progress without follwing simple guidelines. It seems you want MOB RULE instead.

        10. Even you’ll be happy that Corona will be ousted if he’s guilty, lemme remind you that a PNoy-appointed CJ will have a conflict of interest. Mag-isip naman ang iba dyan. Tsk tsk.

          Unless if you’re a sadist who loves to kill innocnet people…

        11. Why can’t this JCC, allegedly a lawyer but a legal researcher, put up his comment here? Why one has to go to his blog?

        12. For those of you, who are newbies in GRP, might be wondering why I’m labelling this JCC an alleged lawyer or an abogado de patola.

          To my mind, lawyers a should know their ethics. This JCC, the abogado de patola keeps maligning Corona, the accused, while the hearing has not been concluded.

          Read on –

          From http://www.tribuneonline.org/headlines/20120204hed6.html

          (This is for specially for JCC. I’ve commented this before in this blog.)

          “Justice Secretary Leila de Lima is now backing down on her incendiary remarks against Chief Justice Renato Corona who De Lima in one instance has described as a lawless “tyrant.”

          De Lima and another outspoken lawyer in the Aquino administration, presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda, have been directed to answer a petition seeking their disbarment or suspension as LAWYERS FOR MAKING CONTEMPTUOUS REMARKS AGAINST THE CHIEF MAGISTRATE IN VIOLATION OF THEIR LAWYER’S OATH.

          “It’s called free expression, a constitutional right the Chief Justice himself has publicly exercised in at least two occasions before an assembly of court sympathizers,” De Lima told reporters in reply to a Supreme Court resolution last Tuesday requiring the two government officials to submit comment on the disbarment case filed against them.

          A private lawyer Agustin Sundiam filed the complaint which De Lima and Lacierda are required to answer within 10 days.

          Sundiam had asked the high tribunal to take disciplinary action against De Lima and Lacierda for their “utterances and remarks on national television which were bannered by all newspapers” in support of President Aquino’s criticism of Corona during a criminal justice summit last Dec. 5.

          During the event, Aquino slammed Corona for being a “midnight appointee” and for supposedly being a roadblock in his reform agenda.

          The lawyer said the two secretaries violated their oath as lawyers, the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Rules of Court which require all lawyers to “observe and maintain the respect and dignity due to the courts of justice and judicial officers.”

          He cited De Lima’s strongly worded statement last December where she described Corona “a tyrant who holds himself above justice and accountability.”

          The petitioner alleged that the same remarks made by De Lima and Lacierda against Corona also constitute indirect contempt defined and punishable under the Revised Rules on Civil Procedure.

          “There is no gainsaying that the subject remarks were calculated precisely to degrade or tend to degrade the administration of justice, and erode and undermine the people’s confidence in this Honorable Supreme Court and the judicial officers,” read the petition obtained from a source.

          Sundiam asked the high tribunal to start appropriate proceedings “for the disbarment and/or suspension of respondents from practice of law” and other disciplinary action against the two.

          “These contemptuous remarks of the respondents are violative fo the Lawyer’s Oath, the Code of Professional Responsibility and Section 20(b), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court which direct the respondents-lawyers to observe and maintain the respect and dignity due to the courts of justice and judicial officers,” Sundiam stressed.”

          I’m concluding that JCC is lawyer-vegetarian or abogado de patola.

          No ethics!

          Walang kahihiyan in our lingo.

    2. “modicum of decency” requires the official and the institution involved to abide by the rules, not through channels that are invalid and can be twisted by vested interest, like the yellow journalists in the media outlets.

  6. Corona could gain allot more support if he just comes right out and starts naming names and pointing fingers at the people prosecuting him to start show their hidden funds and ill-gotten wealth and to make it clear that laws need to be amended within government and the banking industry to make it a much more transparent government.

  7. i believe this is just a waste of time…a waste of the peoples’s tax money. Someone should remove this evil and wicked President. He is destroying our country…

  8. The process defense used is necessary since they need to establish that the allegations are false. Evidences presented by the prosecution needs to be debunked prior to presenting the alleged CJ.
    For those saying that CJ needs to be put on the stand immediately to expedite the proceeding need to ask themselves, “would his word be enough for me to not persecute him after the trial by publicity done by the prosecution?” Everyone needs to remember that “evidences” were presented by the prosecution which overwhelmed the nation. Even I wanted the evidences to be presented and battled out in court to verify the veracity of it. But in reality what it did was instead of applying logical thought and process, some have immediately concluded that the evidences are real–only to find out in the next few weeks that data presented are false.
    We, as citizen, need to respect CJ’s right and his lawyers in trying to prove his innocence. Everyone is entitled to it.
    The authors here in GRP are simply providing another perspective–which unfortunately follows logical thought–allowing many of its “followers” (not exactly the term i’d like to us, please do not misquote me on this)–to think from this angle and that.
    As an ordinary citizen of this unfortunate and sad country, it saddens me to say that I am fearful that if they can do or use anonymous, unverified data to hurt a high ranking official, they easily do it to us. This should concern us because the process should the lack of respect for the rights of others, and some ordinary citizens are willing for those rights/laws/policies to be violated just to hear the “truth”. A truth ingrained by the media without proper basis. We all want the truth. But the question is, can you handle the truth if it goes against your belief or what was ingrained in us?

    1. “We all want the truth. But the question is, can you handle the truth if it goes against your belief or what was ingrained in us?”

      That is a question for all of us.

      “As an ordinary citizen of this unfortunate and sad country, it saddens me to say that I am fearful that if they can do or use anonymous, unverified data to hurt a high ranking official, they easily do it to us”

      Wake up!!!!Were you born yesterday? Is it not happening eons ago? The difference this time is it is happening to the Chief Justice; one of the elite few who think they have the world in their hands…Now they get to be hold accountable… That is progress.

      1. This is where your disregard for the Rule of Law is painfully obvious. How would you feel if one day you got arrested because an anonymous source tagged you as a suspect in a crime? Don’t give us the bullshit answer of “if I didn’t do anything wrong I have nothing to fear”. Your reputation is already damaged or destroyed. Your family and relatives are already affected.

        There is a reason why anonymous sources are not allowed as evidence. Because anybody and everybody can make shit up.

        1. @ Teabag Deluxe

          Why lookie here Mr. Painfully Obvious. You need not remind me that it could happen to me because it could happen to all of us. It is indeed happening as we speak. What is painfully obvious though is your heartfelt reaction when it is done to the likes of Corona. The bright side is that since it happened this time to their kind, they will act on it this time…you get the drift?

          And best of all…(for the slow)… we get to find the truth. We get our cake and eat it too.

        2. @dikonamasikmura

          You need not remind me that it could happen to me because it could happen to all of us. It is indeed happening as we speak.

          Then why do you want the practice to continue? We have a golden opportunity to fix it right now. Let’s not waste it.

          The law is there to protect every individual including the accused. Everyone has a right to due process. Hopefully now that Harvey Keh was admonished for using ill-gotten documents in filing a case against Corona, this will not happen again.

          I can see where the problem is. You seem to think that Corona is already guilty and therefore think that all the violations committed by the prosecution, ombudsman and other complainants like Keh is justified. Well, you are wrong. Each camp will always insist that they are right. The constitution is supposed to be the referee between the two. It is supposed to tell the people who is right. It is supposed to be the voice of reason amidst the sea of idiocracy. Unfortunately, the constitution is being tossed outside the courtroom just to satisfy one camp.

        3. Yay! False dichotomy rears its ugly head once again! Coming from a yellow zombie no less.

          In case you haven’t noticed, I’m neither pro-Pnoy or pro-Corona. All I want is for the Rule of Law to reign. If Corona is found guilty, the appropriate punishment should be meted out. However, achieving this verdict through railroading, shortcuts, anonymous sources, violation of impeachment proceedings, etc. is not the way to do it.

        4. @ Teabag

          Then go back to the cave where you came from where life is status quo.

        5. So your idea of change is tossing the Rule of Law aside and instating Mob Rule? Yep, good luck with that.

        6. ilda,

          there are already good laws in the country. the problem is interpretation: midnight appointment is constitutional; ombudsman has no power without court order; lucio tan isnot a tax evader; danding is entitled to his coco-levy funds; palea are not entitled to reinstatement, etc.

          for once please read t. jefferson who said that inthe hands of the judiciary the constitution is like a wax it can shape in the form it wants.

          as regards rule of law: please read my link.

          http://jcc34.wordpress.com/2012/02/29/we-masquerade-our-dysfunction-as-a-quest-for-due-process/

        7. @JCC

          So you want me to believe you instead of the likes of constitutional experts like Senator Santiago or members of the JBC or the SC? Are you saying that your interpretation of our “good” laws is better?

        8. @ Ilda

          I think the problem is I have an issue about a chief justice who is inundated with “not-so-inspiring coincidences” and yet has the chance on the first day to defend himself in his own turf but refused to do so because….and it boggles me to no end….he may not be protected by his lawyers. Aggghhh.

          It’s like a regular guy asking Pacquiao to a one-on-one fight on the ring and Pacquiao refuses because he is afraid the former might hurt him.

        9. @dikonamasikmura

          I think the problem is I have an issue about a chief justice who is inundated with “not-so-inspiring coincidences”

          That is because you accept the dubious presentation of evidence by the prosecution hook, line and sinker. You don’t seem to have the ability to give other people the benefit of the doubt. I am beginning to think that it is a condition affecting many Filipinos. Most believe incredible accusations so easily and ignore explanations even if it makes sense.

          I don’t think you guys are after the truth. You just want him out as soon as possible. Never mind due process and individual rights as long as you are happy. Sorry, but that’s just lack of foresight. You can’t even see that this precedent will cause more problems for the average Filipino later on. If someone like Corona who has dozens of lawyers working for him can be persecuted by his political enemies just like that, poor Juan doesn’t even stand a chance.

          and yet has the chance on the first day to defend himself in his own turf but refused to do so because…

          Unfortunately, you refuse to accept that there is a process and that involves the meticulous introduction of evidence and witnesses by the defense to counter the prosecution. And like I’ve said in my article, people like you will never believe a word he is saying without the corroboration of other witnesses anyway.

        10. @dikonamasikmura:

          That’s not the case. The very reason on why Corona refused to testify in the first place because he will be HUMILIATED even further. You wanted that to happen, right?

        11. @ Ilda

          Again, do not act like these irregularities and injustices (…If someone like Corona who has dozens of lawyers working for him can be persecuted by his political enemies just like that, poor Juan doesn’t even stand a chance….)are only happening now.

          What is happening now is a person (a chief justice at that), not just an ordinary Pedro, the kind who do not have the means like Corona to defend himself, who unlike Corona will only be banned from public office as opposed to being jailed,is being impeached.

          This is the first time (hopefully) that we will be impeaching (a supposedly “infallible” yet inept Chief Justice) an official to its completion. I said inept because of the dismal performance of his Supreme Court.

          And since it is the first time, it would not be perfect. But there are reasonable provisions cited by both parties as to their adherence with the Law, and both are debatable. If you will notice, both have lawyers on their side and I think your beloved Sen. Santiago gave BOTH parties a mouthful.

          The silver lining in this episode though is that we will have the chance to know the truth. I want to know the truth about the allegations against the Chief Justice and if indeed the address “Your Honor” still applies to him.

          Now when hides behind that cloak of untouchability in a weave of interpretations he tailored just so he can evade telling the truth, in an arena that is supposedly his domain, I find those action very “uninnocent like”.

          Now that’s a mouthful.

        12. I want to know the truth about the allegations against the Chief Justice and if indeed the address “Your Honor” still applies to him.

          I find your statement so hard to believe considering you have been spewing venom against the man who you do not even know. You are not even a first hand witness to any of the “irregularities” you keep harping about. It seems you did not learn anything from Harvey Keh’s experience yesterday. He was admonished because he was wrong in filing a complaint against Corona using illegally obtained documents. He didn’t even have the right to file a complaint because he was not a witness to any of the allegations.

          So, easy ka lang dyan. Your self-righteousness is weighing you down.

          I don’t know about you but I have a life outside of the Net. So good night!

      2. Ironically, we are living in your status quo, where everyone had the mindset of the unrealistic “eradicating corruption leads to progress” and your “let’s all break the rules and lie all the time to get the truth.”

        True progress is like this; I ask this question: So you prefer a government whored by media, telling you that ‘everything is OK’ and never look forward for progress as a society but a part of a MEDIOCRITY?

        Choke back on your tears.

        1. “The Constitution says that it is the Supreme Court that has been given by the mandate of the people to be the sole interpreter of the law, not you, not your allies, not the yellows, and not your justice secretary. That is what the Constitution says and no honorary degree can change that!”

          Wow!!! The Supreme Court sure do suck interpreting the Law. They can take like eons deciding a case and then another eon to tell us that they were wrong and yet another eon to tell us that they were freaking incompetent enough to hand the decision making to a party of theirs that is not supposed to decide on it.

          What do you call a professional, a supposedly licensed at that (with the garbs and all, took almost a decade to study, who made wrong decision three times in a span of a decade and yet they are still honorable and supreme?

          In other professions we call them BOBO, plain and simple. Sa school nyo ano’ng tawag dun?

        2. Ah you do not need to answer that. I think that answering that will take a serious toll on your mental health.

          I understand you hate mediocrity which is a notch higher than BOBO.

        3. Playing dirty in games is an unprofessional act. Bending the rules on your favor is also unprofessional. The prosecution showed their unprofessionalism due to their incompetence

          You’re trying to convince everyone with your EMONESS that the CJ is guilty and he should be jailed. So kabobohan din iyon. And truthfully speaking:

          “Dumb people talk about PEOPLE. Average people talk about EVENTS. Intelligent people talk about IDEAS.” -Eleanor Roosvelt

        4. Nah. PNoy is already the definiton of BOBO and has more mentail health issues than mine.

          Since you’re favoring the incompetent nutjob, I guess you’re also one as well.

        5. Nah. PNoy is already the definiton of BOBO and has more mental health issues than mine.

          Since you’re favoring the incompetent nutjob, I guess you’re also one as well.

        6. Engaging you on a supposedly cerebral exercise is a futile one. You keep injecting Pnoy when he has nothing to do with the topic.

          Now you’re talking EMO.

          I guess I am engaging a kid on the other line. My bad. Not so bad views for a kid your age.

        7. “Nah. PNoy is already the definiton of BOBO and has more mental health issues than mine.”

          Hahahaha. What a dead give-away.

        8. I keep on bringing PNoy in this discussion is because from the start, the president himself is the chief instigator of this circus. And they will do everything to get what they want.

          Oh yeah, so does the troll who wants to give props to the prosecution who act like little kids in the first place. Even Ombudsman Morales is acting like a little kid by confusing eveyone on a powerpoint presentation. After all, she is also PNoy’s minion and she even organized a rally against the accused. And even PNoy himself acting like a little kid. ALL THE TIME.

      3. First of, do not tell me to wake up and no I was not born yesterday. Do not misquote me for my opinion. My father was a victim of such trial in publicity in his semi-private office inside the AFP. I am not siding on anyone. You seem to be so caught up with the idea that those who wishes to verify the data presented in court at CJ’s trial are pro-Corona.
        Do not bring your closed minded ideals with people who simply wanna have a better grasp of what is happening.
        The main concern I am stating is due process. Why hate the defense if they simply are doing that?
        Ang labo mo naman, teh.

    2. @ilda;

      all i want you to do is open up your mind. read t.jefferson who said that the interpretation of the constitution could not be left to the supreme court whose members have like others have political affiliations.

      that other jurisdictions have their parliaments interpret the constitution. it is not the sole prerogative of the SC to interpret the law/constitution.

      in fact congress members and the executive by swearing into office affirm that they will defend and implement the constitution gave basis to the proposition that they too understand and can interpret the constitution.

      1. Mr JCC

        You seem to be forgetting that in the Philippines, congressmen and senators are composed of has been actors and comedians. You can hardly find someone in there who actually know the constitution by heart except for Enrile and Santiago. Now you are saying that members of the Supreme Court who took up law and who have years of practice in court are not superior to these actors and comedians?!? You’ve got to be kidding me!

        1. @ilda;

          determination what constitutes moral and legal wrong is not the prerogative of lawyers. this is the basis of jury trial in the U.S.
          the common sense of ordinary people is beyond the sophistication of a lawyer.

        2. And now you are saying that the average Pinoy has more common sense than a lawyer. C’mon, JCC! Your argument will not fly considering that the average Pinoy is being fed with all kinds of malicious lies by the anti-Corona camp. Unfortunately, the people are also swallowing it hook, line and sinker!

          What makes you think that your camp has the moral high ground anyway? If you have witnessed the irregularities personally, I suggest you file a complaint against Corona or apply as a witness for the prosecution. Otherwise, all you have is hearsay and your personal bias against a perceived GMA ally.

        3. ilda,

          you simply refused to see that these ordinary people sitting before two contending advocates professing their own concept of truth are incapable of appreciating the half-truths. but this practice had endured for centuries in countries more developed and powerful than us. these ordinary people have no business interests, political ambition and are not career bureaucrats – their perception of events are not colored by the majesty of their offices because they have none and by their economic interests because these are ordinary people of limited means. the very reason why they are so competent to render moral and legal judgment on people being processed for their malfeasance.

        4. Mr JCC

          Please Get Real. You want to throw the rule book out of the window just because you think the people do not like Corona anymore. Are you sure you are a lawyer? Ask yourself why there are people like you who hate Corona. It’s simple. You just believe everything PNoy and his minions are saying about him.

          Do you really think that removing him will improve our country? On the contrary, this impeachment trial that Congress initiated is already putting a strain on Filipinos financially and emotionally.

          Your “ordinary people” are just dancing to the tune of the yellows. They are not thinking straight. They have been fed propaganda. Unfortunately, you are one of them. Your opinion has been tainted by your bias against GMA. Just because Corona served under her, in your mind, he is already bad.

        5. tunnelized vision —

          you consider those who consider corona not fit to be chief justice as being captives of propaganda and those who consider him ‘immaculate’ have the better handle of things.

          but that is not even my point. the jury systems in america and england have endured for hundred of years because the commoners have better handle of what is legally and morally right. jurists and politicians sell their souls.

        6. Manong JCC

          Naman,naman…jury members are educated members of society. They also take instructions from the judge who interprets the law for them and who decides if the evidence or witness will be admitted in court.

          FYI, the jury system is not perfect. Even if we add a jury in our justice system, they won’t be participants in an impeachment court. You are talking about something else, obviously.

          There have also been reported cases of jury members being biased for and against the plaintiff.

        7. “but that is not even my point. the jury systems in america and england have endured for hundred of years because the commoners have better handle of what is legally and morally right. jurists and politicians sell their souls.”

          You mean those times when the jury member sympathizes with the suspect because they are of the same race/color? Or those times that a non-white got sent to prison because he was unlucky enough to get a predominantly white jury? Or how about the jury that is easily fooled by a wise-talking lawyer because they barely have any background on law and how it is supposed to operate?

        8. no system is perfect. what we are advocating for is a system with less screw-ups.

          that because there were occasions that jurors were influenced by factors other than the search for the truth does not demolish the basic premise that ‘ordinary people’ have no business interests,and no political career to think about, and are not government bureaucrats, therefore they are less susceptible to tailor their actions toward protecting those interests. their duty is limited to that one case they had been called to adjudge.

          judges have their patrons to please, businessmen have their licenses and taxes monitored by the State; politicians need money comes elections time.

          the ordinary people just a meal to think about.

          the foregoing thread should be read only as an attempt to debunk ilda’s position that we should leave the matter of determining of what is legally and morally wrong to lawyers. moral fitness is an issue that is within the capacity of the ordinary man on the street to resolve.

          to claim that he is a captive of propaganda and that the lawyer is not a captive of his own ambition to further his career and the windfall he gets if his client gets to stay in the Supreme Court, that to me is patently dishonest!

    3. JPE: Do you think the prosecution did not establish prima facie evidence against the Chief Justice?”

      Cuevas: No your honor!

      JPE: Then you have a problem! We are all lawyers here.

  9. @dikonamasikmura

    “All your answers are either rationalizations or palusot. These are canned answers from stereotypical lawyers, the kind that screws justice and milks their client for a living.

    Taken collectively, it unmistakably points to one damning character which you so unfortunately refuse to see. But again of course, we just have to agree to disagree: You see nothing wrong in this person who is to interpret the supposedly noble Rule of Law while I see 180 degrees” — its not palusot, the author just argued her points which she thinks the general public should understand given that they should heard the other side of the fence too, also I’m not really buying the “damning character” reference of the CJ, because I don’t know him personally that I can judge his character, but if you know him that closed, at least you are entitled to your first hand observation/experience…

    1. @dikonamasikmura

      Your resort to fallacy and illogical reasoning reminds me of our favorite troll. I tagged him as Nutzi Vincenzo. He is gone now. Completely banned by the moderators. I suggest you either take Maalox or Diatabs to take care of your upset digestive system. Please Ilda, ban the guy when he steps over the line. Give him 3 strikes as they do in baseball.

      1. “I suggest you either take Maalox or Diatabs to take care of your upset digestive system. Please Ilda, ban the guy when he steps over the line. Give him 3 strikes as they do in baseball.”

        What can I say… I guess, you are you. The article is Corona’s Day in Court: Dignity or Bastusan. I guess you represent the latter.

    2. @ Michael Yap

      Well then, I guess what is your current take on Hitler? Or what is your recent views on Jose Rizal? Have not made your mind yet?

      1. Really? you know this two people have in common? they are both in the history books, and both are dead already, one died against tyranny and oppression of the truth by a theocratic bureaucracy, the other died with his mistress at his side and died not surrendering his belief that his race is supreme above other else, like Pinoys think nowadays…

    3. @ Michael Yap

      Maybe you should ask the Basa’s. I think they have a lot of “good words” for Corona. I think that will satisfy your requirement:

      “…also I’m not really buying the “damning character” reference of the CJ, because I don’t know him personally that I can judge his character, but if you know him that closed, at least you are entitled to your first hand observation/experience…”

      1. Oh common! what powered your brain cells, Pentium I? As if that family feud is really relevant to the impeachment case, your not even competent to judge others personality because you stereotyping others…

        1. “because I don’t know him personally that I can judge his character, but if you know him that closed, at least you are entitled to your first hand observation/experience…”

          You were answered on the context of your standard and then you say

          “As if that family feud is really relevant to the impeachment case, your not even competent to judge others personality because you stereotyping others…”

          Is that how people make counterarguments today, by contradicting themselves?

          You better change your batteries, it’s leaking.

    1. Both sides are playing these games, Its just that our President is somehow more obvious in his intentions. I hate what he is doing, suppression of the SC’s independence (through the Corona trial) is unethical and deceiving but I cannot say that Corona is a saint either. Aquino and his colleagues and Corona(Arroyo appointed CJ) are fighting over political power(probably at their own interest at best). I would rather see a PUBLIC SERVANT not a POLITICIAN.

      I will still incline a more on Corona at the moment but overall, I’m just gonna be neutral at best.

      P.S thanks for the link.

      1. To be fair, there are still a few columnists in Inquirer that have not bowed to the yellow overlords, like Tiglao. Personally, I can’t believe how the Inquirer keeps on publishing his “dissident” (to the yellow crowd) articles. Maybe it’s their way to seem “unbiased”.

        1. Personally, I think Doronila and Tiglao are Inquirer’s Only Sane Men.

          BUT I DIGRESS.

          I’ve also noticed the posts published by Inquirer responding to the opinions written by the two usually censure, excoriate, and outright denounce the two columnists as men without a cause or lackeys of CGMA.

  10. To tell you the truth, I want both sides of the arena (MSM and alternative media like Get Real)be on a national footing when it comes to giving opinions and news.(gotta agree with the first commenter) and concerning the trial I’m now more in neutral stance. Both parties have interests that are still unknown and there is no full closure yet as both sides are still trying to “bash” at each other. I only hope the judges will judge in justice and not in lobbying or advancing another political agenda.

  11. DO NOT PUBLISH – JUST CORRECT SPELLING
    It is “Schadenfreude” in German – “Schaden” meaning damage or, in this sense, misfortune, and “Freude” meaning happiness or mirth. It describes someones happiness about a misfortune happening to someone else. The word “Schande” means disgrace but the word “Schandenfreude” does not exist in German.

  12. See, the problem with you is that you do not know what you are talking about when you generalize.

    When you say “Filipinos are stupid” you are saying all Filipinos are stupid.

    When you say “Media is biased” you are saying ALL media are biased, including your source.

    That’s logic 101 for you; no charge.

    1. Flawed logic you got there. I’m not saying that all Filipinos are stupid; it’s most of them and the majority are the masses.

      Not all media are biased. Good thing there were GMA-7, STAR, Tribune, Malaya and even the Manila Times. ABS-CBN and Inquirer are very powerful since they have the oligarchy on their side.

      It seems logic never exists in Yellow Peeps, right?

        1. Nah, I have no mental issues since I’m not an idiot who vilify and humiliate an individual, even he was the accused.

          It’s cool to be vindictive, right? 😛 Look who’s talking.

        2. And also, those who have mental issues are those, as Ilda quoted, who are spewing venom against a man that they don’t know. It seems you never learned from Harvey Keh’s experience.

        3. @ Daido Katsumi

          Sir, do you know Pnoy personally? Do you know Vincenzo personally?

          I mean, two can play that game, can they?

          Maybe we posters and them bloggers need to reflect on our arguments if they might ricochet in our faces.

        4. @dikonamasikmura

          Calling the attention of the moderators… Please take a long hard look at this pesky troll. He reminds me of Nutzi Vincenzo. He is a nuisance with nothing to contribute to the discussion.

        5. GIve me yor IP address, and in no time you will be buying a new PC after someone hacked it…

    2. “See, the problem with you is that you do not know what you are talking about when you generalize.”

      At least the peeps here lay the basis first when setting up an argument. They do that:

      1. through past articles, GRP and what not, that were also laid on a present a fact – present the other side’s point – then debunk style.

      2. through an arguments that are devoid of emotions, in order to present a case, then to conclude with scathing (although, most of the time, true) remarks that engage the readers.

      That sir, is, technically, not generalizing. I suggest you read through their previous articles in order to know what they stand for.

      P.S: i am reading the comments from the regular peeps here, and, I must say, they are pretty consistent with their line of reasoning. Yours, on the other hand, while dabbled in fine words, are quite inconsistent. You espouse breaking the conventions of the rule of law on “moral” grounds, while at the same time, invoking readers that attack your comments for strict logical consistency. So, kindly tell us why it is right to break formal rules on conventions on one end and follow strictly on the other. My old man reminds me time and again to be consistent with my reasoning, be it on politics or on love life.

      1. @ flax

        I do not find inconsistency in the man’s reasoning. Being legal does not necessarily translate to being moral. You do not see logic, I think you ought to read again.

        You were spot on though when you said that the stand of most posters here are consistent. That is often referred to as “group think”. That’s not giving enough cranial space to grow gray matter if you continue to subscribe to the idea of injecting irrelevant topics on a completely different issue, like Pnoys character cropping up regularly which has nothing to do with Corona being fit to stay in office.

        May I ask you sir, through an analogy: When an accused is put on trial for killing 45 people and it was established as fact that he “only killed 5”, in your hearts of hearts, do you find him less of a killer or probably not guilty at all?

        Do you set him scott free because, oh well, the lawyers on the other side bungled the case. God forbid, the victims are close to you, do you see the “infallible” wisdom of Supreme Court or any court for that matter at its finest best if they acquit the killer of “only five”? Will you feel the “Rule of Law” under these “Interpreters of Law” doing you justice?

        1. Just because most of the commenters arrive at the same conclusion doesn’t mean they are engaging in group think. On the contrary, the people who have the courage to think outside the square are drawn to this site. Majority of those who do not use their critical analysis go to sites that tend to echo the mainstream media.

          May I ask you sir, through an analogy: When an accused is put on trial for killing 45 people and it was established as fact that he “only killed 5″, in your hearts of hearts, do you find him less of a killer or probably not guilty at all?

          You simply cannot equate murder with alleged discrepancies in the SALN. The latter is not even an impeachable offense if proven that irregularity is a minor one or unintentional according to the court rules.

          I find it funny that Harvey Keh’s experience at the court room hasn’t made a dent on your way of thinking. The lesson of the day not to be too overzealous in persecuting the accused without any solid evidence simply flew over your head.

        2. @ ilda

          Really now? Are they not both crimes. Then replace murderer with thief and the appropriate wording from there, does that make the criminal less of a thief?

          What I do not understand is it is a fact that when people look for household help or yaya, they set standards as “mapagkakatiwalaan” on top of their list. They of course do not need to personally make a background check of the applicant and it is quite understandable that they will not consider someone who has a reputation, hearsay or documented, that go against “mapagkakatiwalaan”. Now here is a chief justice, his relatives has the worst recollection of him on top of the gargantuan pile of allegations that inundate his character, and yet your standards are below sealevel.

          I can not reconcile moreso find a shred of commonsense in that.

        3. Now here is a chief justice, his relatives has the worst recollection of him on top of the gargantuan pile of allegations that inundate his character, and yet your standards are below sealevel.

          That’s because you believe them completely. Besides, they’re not really Corona’s blood relatives. They are in-laws. They may have a reason to hate him or they may not. But what’s your reason for hating him? Did you witness the crimes he allegedly committed? If not, I do not understand the hate you feel for him.

          You mean you really think that irregularities in someone’s SALN is the same as murder? Haha!

        4. And please Ilda, stop the “you made the judgment on Corona already line of reasoning”.

          You made the judgments on everybody who persecuted GMA already without the benefit of a “trial” so why make Corona a holy cow. The guise of “Rule of Law” you so wanted to but miserably fail to champion went down the drain the moment you categorize every posters who go against your “group think” line of thinking to either retards or idiots.

        5. Please check your facts. When did I call you a retard or an idiot?

          If you don’t want to end up in the spam folder, you should quit the ad hominem.

        6. I can not argue with your standards. It’s yours and I hope it’s not that infectious 🙂

      1. “dikomasimura could pass for crude but crude could not pass for dikomasimura.” Is my logic flawed, Mr. Trosp?

        1. @ Michael Yap

          Please review your Logic in College.
          Am sure you will react with the statement:

          GRP posters are anti-Corona.

          In the same way that I will react with the statement:

          GRP posters are pro-Corona.

      2. @ Trosp

        Maybe what you were trying to say is:

        All dog are animals but NOT all animals are dogs.

        There is a world of difference with

        “All dogs are animals but ALL ANIMALS are NOT DOGS.”

        The sentence is simply illogical.

        This came from the premise:

        Dogs (meaning all kinds of dogs) are animals.
        Cats (meaning all kinds of cats) are animals.
        Ergo,

        All dogs are animals but not all animals are dogs (because there are other species of animals that do not belong to the canine class, one of which are cats, which belongs to the feline class)

        I hope I made myself clear when I corrected the sentence:

        Filipinos are stupid.

        Sometimes, there is a growing tendency to tolerate the use of absolute statements hence leniency usually when these are utilized for headlines or catchphrases for that added impact or sound bite.

        But to pepper the whole body of the articles with absolutes, it either suggests that there is certain flaw with the authors command or comprehension of the language or that the author firmly believes that, in the case of the sample “Filipinos are Stupid”, he/she (if he/she is a Filipino)is included (i.e. he/she is also stupid).

        If he/she is stupid then, the articles written loses credibility since no self-respecting self-proclaimed intelligent individual will take the word of a confessed stupid.

        1. My bad. “All dog are animals but NOT all animals are dogs.”

          should be ” All dogs are animals but NOT all animals are dogs.”

  13. @ Ilda

    Ma’am, I can not help but butt in to you and the other guy’s exchanges. You were right when you told him that you never called him a retard or an idiot.I understand you to be the author of the article and I am asking that you expound on some ideas you threw for my enlightenment:

    (1)”Did you witness the crimes he allegedly committed?”
    Is this a prerequisite to pass judgment, specifically in a Court of Law. So what happens when there are no witnesses?

    I am also afraid, lawyers or justices, who knows the strengths and weaknesses of the laws they interpret, can easily use them to cover their own or their colleagues’ tracks because to them, there are people who will take everything they say at face value; that they are gullible enough and will in fact rally for them.

    (2)I understand to make some statements safe or politically correct, some people use euphemisms or other figures of speech. In this sense, is the phrase “irregularities in someone’s SALN” another word for terminalogical inexactitude in declaring someone’s SALN?

    1. 1) If there are no witnesses, then there was no crime/case (as far as the court is concerned).

      2) Irregularity means a breach of a convention or normal procedure. You could have Googled that you know.

      As to your other “fears”, well you just have to use your common sense and you’ll be fine.

      1. Another classic sample of lawyer’s intellect:

        “The defense panel on Friday said the number of dollar accounts being attributed to impeached Chief Justice Renato Corona should only be three, not 82 as reported by Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales when she testified early this week before the Senate impeachment court.”

        “Asked if his comments constitute an admission that Corona is indeed the owner of those accounts, Salvador said, “We don’t say that they exist. We don’t deny or admit anything.”

        If the in-your-face idiocy of this statement escapes you…..tsk.tsk.

        1. A little warning, MSacras:

          If you don’t quit the ad hominem, your comments will be sent to the spam folder. I have been polite to you guys but you just keep spewing all kinds of hate on this site. That’s just a sign that you are getting desperate now that the violations of the anti-Corona camp are starting to become painfully obvious.

      2. @MSacras

        Well, how about this train of thought for purposes of mental exercise.

        Assuming among the 82 so-called Corona accounts, he did have 3 among all the 82 or an entirely different set of accounts not in any of the 82 accounts tagged by the AMLC.

        The SALN is basically a declaration of your current value as of December 31 per year correct?

        If at any one time, in the past, he had an account in year 1, year 5, and year 8, then the AMLC could have tagged each one of those correct?

        But then, if those accounts were closed or emptied prior to the end of the year then he does not need to declare them.

        As such, they no longer exist but did exist. But admit or denying anything just muddles up the discussion more so better just avoid it for the meantime until the time CJ will be on the stand.

        Is that at least a good sample of why they had to go about the question in that manner?

        Again, I still reserve my judgement for the proceeding pending the completion of presentation by the defense.

    2. @ustestude

      I will like to join in if I may.

      Well, not really just a witness I think. But at least evidence, valid and verifiable evidence.
      If you have pieces of “evidence” which have not been verified or checked, then they need to be verified or checked first.

      If there is no witness and no evidence, then we really cannot prosecute or convict right? I mean do you want to exist in a world where people just go with gut feeling on your “guilt” and sentence/convict you based on that?

      I understand there could be some instances where evidences may be difficult to come by, but that is where witnesses can come in to corroborate the claims right? If both do not exist then I believe there really is no case.

      That is me.

      About your number 2, the law on SALN is still vague as this maybe the biggest case that revolves around it as it is connected to an impeachable officer. (I can be corrected on this)

      Now, the SALN clearly has stated corrections can be made to the SALN should the errors or faults be found. If you recall MDS’s question, (I think it was framed like this), what amount in the SALN can you call it wrong? Is it a fixed peso value? A percentage of his supposed networth? There is still vagueness I think even in the IRR, because if there were definite facts, then they would have raised it already.

      If this would lead to amending the IRR for the SALN law to be more defined or definite, then that’s ok. But if this doesn’t change anything with regards to the SALN law, then it was a connected issue that was repeatedly passed but the opportunity to address it would be wasted.

      1. “Well, not really just a witness I think. But at least evidence, valid and verifiable evidence.

        If you have pieces of “evidence” which have not been verified or checked, then they need to be verified or checked first.”

        Well, not all witnesses are “eyewitnesses.”

        In criminal cases, a crime scene may be established even in the absence of a credible eyewitness through police investigation. Any evidence found in the crime scene will be under the protection of the police. The records may then be presented in court, to be disclosed by a “witness” under a subpoena duces tecum.

        Below are the requirements for a subpoena duces tecum to be issued:

        “Well-settled is the rule that before a subpoena duces tecum may issue, the court must first be satisfied that the following requisites are present: (1) the books, documents or other things requested must appear prima facie relevant to the issue subject of the controversy (test of relevancy); and (2) such books must be reasonably described by the parties to be readily identified (test of definiteness).”

        Source: http://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/definition-nature-and-prerequisited-in-the-issuance-of-subpoena/

        To legal minds out there, feel free to correct me if I missed something.

        I agree with the SALN part. There is a certain aura of ambiguity in the laws surrounding it. Complicating things more is the existence of a minor offense in SALN disclosure (offenses that are not sufficient grounds for impeachment), which can be resolved by correcting the SALN. What objectively constitutes a minor and an impeachable offense?

        1. Yup. I agree that not all witnesses are eyewitness.

          My point wanted to emphasize that it is an either-or scenario or you have both the witness and the verified and valid evidence.

          I just couldn’t grasp why the Ombudsman presented her presentation without first verifying that it is in fact on the person she is investigating or tagging. I think she should’ve postponed the presentation until she had done her homework.

          That’s me though.

        2. I understand. 🙂

          Heh heh, Ombudsman Morales’ little presentation. There’s a good chance it will be debunked though, given the fact that bankers are poking holes around her work.

          Oh dear, the shame of inadvertently showing the country your ineptitude in accounting. 🙁

  14. “…how many more public servants are getting away with hiding funds but are only investigated on when they become the enemy of the incumbent president?” —- nagkataon lang na ang nakaupong pangulo ngayon ayaw gusto ng baguhin o gamutin ang sakit ng lipunan na naguugat sa mga pinuno ng pamahalaan.

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.