smoke

I write better when I smoke. Don’t ask me to reduce it to a science.

Gut feel?

A noted blogger ruminates on the latest Senate hearing on the NBN-ZTE deal. It’s a very interesting read – although one hopes he had chosen to sit in the front row to take the pictures (wink-wink).

He – seemingly a believer in oracular Lozada – clearly seeks to discredit non-belief in the man as being simply the product of the non-believer’s inability to see things from the oracle’s point of view. He postulates:

I’m willing to bet that those who remain skeptical of Jun Lozada’s motives and statements have never experienced the full panoply of official and social intimidation that comprises life for most of our countrymen. This is because the skeptics have always been in the position of being immune to intimidation or who blithely take it for granted as a kind of necessity to keep uppity underlings in line. Or who have lived such insulated lives that it frankly amazes them when someone claims they didn’t have options to explore in their self-defense.

In other words, their inability to fully grasp what Lozada’s gone through is a failure of the imagination. Of empathy.

While this may be so for some – maybe even a lot – of people, I wouldn’t go so far as to dismiss all “those who remain skeptical” as being the result of a lack of empathy. Skepticism is a healthy response, especially in the face of one who, in telling his story, “displays emotion, (and) runs the whole gamut of emotions from terror to anger.” My apologies to Shakespeare, but some people doth protest too much to be credible.

I can see what the noted blogger means when he says that, not having been exposed to government intimidation, some would be unable to believe that government is capable of such acts, whether overtly or in subtle ways. But this alone cannot explain away – or dismiss the validity of – skepticism.
I really cannot speak for the noted blogger’s social experience, but my own has led me to an apparently greater appreciation of skepticism. I once spent a summer volunteering for an NGO in a depressed community where people had “little to no privacy, (and knew) instantly what the rest of the family (was) doing, and what the neighbors (were) up to, from defecating to love making to quarreling and gossiping.”

There, I learned that these people had a tremendous capacity for suffering. When they thought that no one was looking, they literally took everything (garbage, abuse, intimidation and many other things) other people could throw at them and turned that into everything from a cause for merriment, cash, or simply a few hours of philosophical musings. They had a toughness born – I suppose – of the toughness of their lives.

But when they were aware of being observed, especially by those from whom they expected good things like groceries, cash, or even plain sympathy, they turned into the whiniest bunch of little old ladies you can imagine. It was clear that, as in quantum physics, the observer changes the behavior of the observed. Does this mean that they lied? Not exactly. But one always had to be aware of the possibility of being treated to a tall story.

Skepticism is what compensates for that possibility. And skepticism is not automatically the result of not having walked a mile in the others’ shoes. Which is why I am left shivering whenever the noted blogger says that “appeals to leave things to the courts leaves the public (including him, as he has often said) cold.”

He writes:

We are a story-telling culture, an aural and oral culture, sensitive to the nuances betrayed by one’s conversational style, constantly trying to situate people in our society’s landscape: we look for what a person’s accent betrays in terms of background, what one’s storytelling style tells about them, constantly forming and reforming a mental image of the story being told and whether it makes sense. Gut feel becomes a sort of scientific method. And in a society that profoundly distrusts all institutions, the arena in which contending forces clash, and public opinion is formed, and where the advantages of the powerful are blunted, is an instinctive form of checks-and-balances the public craves.

Gut feel becomes a sort of scientific method? Hardly. Gut feel will always be subjective even if the person feeling it has convinced himself that he knows the truth of things.

The glorification of our “story-telling culture,” and the implication that it is somehow unique to us is necessary to support the implied conclusion that the public spectacle of Senate hearings is a acceptable form of checks-and-balances. Unfortunately, it is false.

For one thing, the story-telling culture as he describes it, is not unique to Filipinos. It is human nature to seek cues in the behavior and demeanor of the others. As is the practice of judging a book by its cover. Secondly, the mere fact that this kind of approach to truth-seeking is instinctive does not make it right. Pricking your finger on the thorns of a rose gives rise to the instinctive reaction to suck on the injured finger. But what if you the thorn were poisoned and you didn’t know. The instinctive reaction then might prove to be fatal.

And third, he posits that the tendency to favor gut feel as a measure of truth is heightened “in a a society that profoundly distrusts all institutions.” This begs the question if a particular tendency is the result of an anomalous condition, why should that tendency not be considered anomalous itself?

That is what bothers me most about this noted blogger’s article: that it seems to espouse the belief that we should all think with our hearts – with our gut – instead of with our heads. A very dangerous proposition.

An entire third branch of government was conceived precisely to protect us from our own tendency to think with our hearts. The judiciary – the courts and the rules of evidence and procedure that govern them – are there in order to minimize if not completely eliminate gut feel as a factor in deciding matters such as these, especially during times such as we currently find ourselves in.

Naive legalism? I think not.  On balance, I think it is better to rely on institutions than on the uninformed judgment of the mob, no matter how passionate it may be. Think of it in reverse. What if I stood accused of an act I didn’t commit, and by dint of misfortune, found the awesome power of the Senate arrayed against me. What if public opinion were turned against me simply because those who spoke out against me evidenced all the necessary cues the noted blogger adverted to? What if the public truly believed that I was guilty? Would that erase my innocence?

The answer would be no. It might be difficult or even impossible to conceive of the accused in this case as innocent, but that’s really beside the point I’m making. Public opinion notwithstanding, they must still be found guilty by the institutions upon which we have laid the burden of determining guilt. The argument that these institutions are flawed may satisfy our sense of poetic justice, but to accept that argument is to weaken the way our society is ordered, just like people power has undermined democracy. We must think beyond the current times, and consider what sort of institutions we will be leaving behind. If the institutions fail to meet our expectations and find the accused innocent, the solution is not to bypass the institutions but to correct their flaws. By doing that, we make them stronger so that when the time comes that we find ourselves having to defend our innocence, we don’t have to stake our liberty on something as unreliable as the mob’s gut feel.

I think Lozada is telling the truth. But I still say that he has to prove me right.

Advertisements

Filed under: musings, politics, , , , , , ,

27 Responses

  1. cvj says:

    From your last sentence, I think you’re hedging your bets.

  2. rom says:

    cvj:oh, and a person can’t form an opinion but want it verified?

  3. cvj says:

    I don’t usually form an opinion until i have a basis for making it. Then, if contradictory facts emerge, then that’s the time i change my opinion.

  4. shiro says:

    cvj:

    it’s all a matter of what you’re comfortable with i guess. i’ve had the opinion from the get-go that Lozada promises much yet delivers little. and he still hasn’t proven me wrong.

  5. cvj says:

    Shiro, that’s well and good for you but Rom is beyond that stage of skepticism already.

    Rom, if i may ask, as far as degree of belief in the truthfulness of Lozada’s statements, under which category would you fall under?

    A. Surely True
    B. More Probable than Not
    C. As Probable as Not
    D. Less Probable than Not
    E. Surely False

  6. Jeg says:

    think it is better to rely on institutions than on the uninformed judgment of the mob, no matter how passionate it may be.

    Our democracy is based on the premise “government with the consent of the governed”. Politics therefore is a continuing debate on whether or not a government deserves our consent. The criteria for judging may not be as stringent as the scientific method, but in politics, it generally comes down to the collective will which is made up of individual judgements, some based on facts, some based on gut feel. You assume the uninformed judgement of the mob. I assume the wisdom of the mob. (By ‘mob’ of course I mean the collective will of all of us, and not some lynch mob.) These two in tension would tend to check each other.

    The courts are there to determine who is guilty or not guilty, the political arena is there to determine whether or not our leaders still deserve our consent. We are in the political arena, not in the legal one. Incompetence or a tendency to favor cronies after all is not a crime, but incompetence and cronyism is enough to withdraw consent.

  7. BrianB says:

    It is not Lozada’s responsibility to convince us he is telling the truth. You know that principle of motive and opportunity on investigating a suspect. What is Lozada’s motive to tell lies? Opportunity? He was in government hands, a government employee, close to the president’s men. How can he be an agent of the opposition he barely has time to think, much less plot with them?

    The reason why we’re hearing the truth now is due to the stupidity of his captors. Yes, even the all-powerful administration can make mistakes.

  8. rom says:

    cvj: we’ve often argued over what constitutes fact, uncle. and this is one of those times. it is human nature – not to mention scientific method – to formulate an opinion – or a hypothesis, if you wish – based on what is immediately apparent and then later to test that opinion,or hypothesis, against what can be proven or disproven. if you must ask, then i am at that stage of deciding how to take Lozada’s words where all i have is a preliminary opinion. according to your scale, that would put me right in the middle.

    brianb:nothing much to disagree with in what you wrote, except this: when i say consent of the governed, I believe that there are acceptable ways to express that consent which guarantee that it is a majority decision. people power has been argued to be an express withdrawal of consent by the governed; but has that withdrawal ever been a true decision of the majority? Or simply the conviction of a few who happened to have the guns of the military behind them? that is why I am leery of these dime-a-dozen movements we are seeing nowadays, and especially leery of those who play prophet or oracle to those movements. what you call wisdom may indeed be so, but a democracy isn’t always about wisdom, is it? It is, and should remain, about the will of the majority.

    I still think a determination of guilt is important for a lot of people before they go ahead and ‘withdraw their consent.’ Which to me, drops this whole ball into the judiciary’s court (get it? court? LOL!). You see, not everyone is willing topple a government at the drop of a hat … or a story. That’s what banana republics do.

    methinks, you’ve been watching too much CSI. hehe. but like i said, i think he’s telling the truth. i just need proof. even for gil grissom, simply nailing down the mean, motive, and opportunity doesn’t result in conviction. it still boils down to the evidence.

  9. cvj says:

    Rom, by ‘middle’ do you mean ‘C’?

  10. Jeg says:

    I still think a determination of guilt is important for a lot of people before they go ahead and ‘withdraw their consent.’

    If I remember correctly, we can only take her to court – determine guilt – after she’s out of office. So we’re in a Catch-22 thing: theyll withdraw consent (force her to resign) if the courts prove her guilty, but the courts can’t prove her guilty unless she resigns.

    what you call wisdom may indeed be so, but a democracy isn’t always about wisdom, is it? It is, and should remain, about the will of the majority.

    Since Im willing to assume the wisdom of the mob, I would have no problem with the will of the majority in giving or withholding consent. I am still holding out hope that there is still a semblance of a soul within Gloria Arroyo, and that she still believes in a higher power to whom she will one day give account, and so I still have hope that she will do the right thing and resign.

    But let me ask you: What if Neri grows a pair and decides to testify on his conversation with Arroyo about the NBN deal? Would that tip the scale for you or would you need proof?

  11. shiro says:

    jeg:

    they say the Senate will call the ZTE people to the stand. I’d like to hear what they have to say. if we’re all on the subject of motive and opportunity (CSI! whee!) here, then the only motive they would have really is to get back at the government for making them look bad.

    while this may colour their testimony, we’re talking about the people who coughed up the millions to get this deal through. and while the Chinese government (of which ZTE is still a part of right?) may not be the most aboveboard of entities… i would probably listen to them more than i would the bunch of jokers we have in the administration.

  12. BrianB says:

    JEQ, ROM,

    We do not have to convict her to remove her. That’s the reason why impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. The only problem is the lack of accountability of our politicians.

  13. […] those who continue to harbor doubts, ranges from Iniibig ko ang Pilipinas! (Feb. to smoke (Feb. 13; yes two citings in this entry: she’s been on a roll); (among columnists those […]

  14. kwentongwalangkwenta says:

    anong korte? hindi lang to usaping legal kundi pulitikal din. at kung sangkot ang pinakamatataas na lider ng bansa, mas mahalaga ang usaping pulitikal kesa sa ano pang isyung legal na maaaring lumabas. anong pagkumbinse pa ang kelangan mo? guilt beyond reasonable doubt? kahit pa mapatunayan yun ni lozada sayo, bibilang muna ng taon hanggang mawalan na ng relevance at impact ang isyu. ibig sabihin, napabayaan na ang higit na mahalagang bagay-political accountability ng pangulo sa buong bansa.
    tingin ko, substantial na ang mga ebidensyang inilabas ni lozada. sa ganoong lebel pa lang, nagkukumahog na ang malacanang para mapagtakpan, hindi pa nila magawa ng ayos. sapat na yun para sa pagkilos ng mga tao. huwag na nating hintaying umabot pa sa korte, dahil baka maghintay lang tayo sa wala. may kaso bang naisampa sa garci scandal?
    sa mga tao may responsibilidad si GMA, sa mga tao siya dapat humarap.

  15. rom says:

    kwentongwalangkwenta: welcome to the smoking room.

    you’re right when you call this a political issue and not a legal one. Absolutely. But a political issue needs a political solution, yes? There are two kinds of political solutions, I think. One is through elections; the other is through direct action by the body politic – EDSA anyone? A third would be Gloria resigning; that’s a political solution too.

    Now, the first solution will take too long according to those against Gloria. This leaves us with the last two. Let’s assume Gloria won’t resign. That leaves us with direct action.

    How now are you going to justify direct action? Because it felt right? That’s stupid. You justify it by showing that it is both subjectively right (your gut tels you so) to take action and objectively right to do so. Objective right takes you back out of the political sphere and into the sphere of what you can prove. And the surest way to prove an assertion (like Lozada’s) is to rely on objective rules. Herabouts, those rules are the legal rules embodied in documents like the rules of court, and in principles like due process.

    And like I said, you don’t even have to directly prove Gloria’s guilt. All you have to do is prove that she knew her people were corrupt and didn’t do anything about it. That gives you the right and proper casus belli.

    And if you’re impatient with the system, why not blame those grandstanding senators? They can file cases anytime against anyone. But so far, they’ve only filed cases against moves that they say tend to clip their powers. Now that a case has been filed in connection with ZTE, what do they do? They repudiate it and say that their investigations are better.

    What they should do is join the investigation and make sure that it doesn’t get whitewashed there. That way, they’ll have brought all this truths they’ve been spinning off left and right and placed it where it can do the most hurt: where it can actually be used to undercut this hated government LEGALLY.

  16. kwentongwalangkwenta says:

    sa tuwing magkakaroon ng mga ganitong isyu, kapansin-pansin na ang pagtawag ng due process, legal means to solve the crisis, at pagdala ng kaso sa korte ang palaging sagot ng administrasyon. at palaging hirit nila ay tigilan ang pamumulitika, kalimutan na ang edsa, etc. etc. bakit kaya?
    simple lang, dahil forte nila ang mga korte sa pilipinas. sino nga bang pangulo ang hindi katatakutan ng sarili niyang ombudsman, mga judges sa sandiganbayan o kahit ng mga nasa regional trial courts. ikalawa, sa dami ng abogado, legal tactics at anu-ano pang paraan na maaaring gamitin ng isang pangulo, tiyak na kung hindi madidismiss agad ang kaso pagkasampa pa lamang nito, bibilang ng taon bago ito madesisyunan at kung gayon baka matagal nang tapos ang panunugkulan ni GMA bago pa makuha ng mga tao ang hustisya. pangatlo, pag nagsampa ka ng kaso, puro henchmen lamang ang iyong matatamaan, pero hinding-hinde ang big boss nila spagkat ang pangulo ay immune from suits hanggat siya ay naka-upo sa malacanang. maari naman natin daanin sa impeachment. pero ano pang impeachment ang maisasampa mo kung naunahan ka na ng mga kaalyado mismo ni GMA na magsampa ng mahinang kaso pagbukas na pagbukas pa lang ng taong 2008, hence banned na ang oposisyon na magsampa kanilang sariling kaso.
    walang masama kung gagamit tayo ng due process. tama ka doon. pero kung ang kalaban mo ang nakaupo bilang pangulo, hindi siya ang dapat humingi ng due process kundi ikaw. dahil tiyak at malamang, gagamitin niya ang lahat ng paraan para sirain ang due process na tinatawag mo. hindi ba’t ginamit niya ang EO 464 para pigilan ang imbestigasyon ng senado sa mga tauhan ng malacanang? hindi ba’t siya na mismo ang gumagamit sa mga congressmen para madaan sa teknikalidad ang sustansya ng impeachment process. maging ang teknikalidad ay kanilang binaluktot sa maling paraan para magawa ito. halimbawa ay noong 3 sabay-sabay na complaints ang nasa harap ng kongreso sa pagbubukas ng sona noong 2005. technicaly, 3 complaints na pwedeng pagsama-samahin at hinde lalabag sa one complaint/year na patakaran ng kongreso. pero kinuha lang ng mga congressmen ni GMA ng pinaka-una at pinakamahinang complaint sa dahilang iyun daw ang pinaka-unang isinampa (nauna ng ilang minuto o oras lang yata) bagamat ang sinasabi ng rules on impeachment ay magsisimula lamang ang one-year ban kung ang isang isinampang complaint ay napag-aralan na at isinumite na ng nararapat na komite ng kongreso.
    bukod sa pagbaliktad ng teknikalidad, magagamit din ng pangulo ang lantarang pananakot, pangingidnap ng witnesses (kay lozada), o kung mamalasin pa ay pagpatay(mga lider-aktibista) o pambobomba para talunin ang tinatawag mong due process. sa madaling salita, hindi si GMA ang nangangailangan ng due process dito. tayong mga mamamayan ang dapat pa ngang manawagan para sa due process. malaya tayong magrali, manawagan ng resignation, magprotesta etc. etc. at hindi tayo lalabag sa due process dahil ginagarantiya ang mga ito ng konstitustyon. ang pagbabawal sa mga gawaing ito at paggamit ng mala-martial law na patakaran ang labag sa batas at makailang ulit nang pinagbawalan ng korte suprema dahil lumabag sa due process.

    “And the surest way to prove an assertion (like Lozada’s) is to rely on objective rules. Herabouts, those rules are the legal rules embodied in documents like the rules of court,…”

    hinde ko matatanggap na upang malaman ng mga tao kung kelan sila dapat pumunta sa edsa, kelangan munang dumaan sa korte ang isyu. Una, kelangan lang na makumbinse ang mga tao na substansyal ang ebidensya at paratang na napapanood nila sa tv, dyaryo, radyo etc. magagawa ito kahit sa simpleng pakikinig ng balita at pagmamasid sa nangyayari. kung palaging hihintayin na magkaroon ng kaso sa korte, ano pa ang silbi ng public opinion? paano pa gagawa ng sariling opinyon ang mga tao kung hihintayin palagi ang mabagal na usad ng kaso.
    ikalawa, hindi natin ipinakukulong si gloria kaya hindi na kelangang dumaan pa sa striktong pamantayan ng rules of court. sabi ko nga hindi na kelangan ng guilt beyond reasonable doubt na standard dahil wala siya sa kasong kriminal. walang personal at legal na karapatang matatapakan., kaya ang rules of court kabilang na ang pagsunod sa rights of the accused in a criminal procedure ay hindi ang tamang pamantayan. ang pinag-uusapan natin ay ang kanyang posisyong pulitikal (pagkapangulo) kung kaya substantial proof lang at pwede na para gumawa ng political actions..

    hindi nakasaad sa rules of court na may proseso pa na dapat na pagdaan upang manawagan ng resignation o magpatalsik ng pangulo. pero sa konstitusyon may nakasaad na malaya tayong magrali, kasama na doon ang pagtawag ng resignation. kung patalsikin man siya ng people power, ito ay prosesong pulitikal pa rin. nasa demokrasya tayo at kapag nagtagumpay ang mga tao, walang magagawa ang korte suprema kundi kilalanin ang naging pagpapatalsik kagaya ng ginawa nila noong edsa dos, at edsa 1 kung saan inamin mismo ng korte na nasa taumbayan ang kapangyarihang mamili ng gobyerno at walang legal na paraan na magagawa ang korte kung magpasya na ang mga mamamayan. dito, yumukod ang legal process sa political realism ng isang demokrasya– nasa tao ang kapangyarihan.

    “And like I said, you don’t even have to directly prove Gloria’s guilt. All you have to do is prove that she knew her people were corrupt and didn’t do anything about it. That gives you the right and proper casus belli.”

    yun naman pala hindi naman pala dapat patunayan pa hanggang sa kaduluduluhan na nagkasala nga si gloria . kontradiksyon ito sa sinabi mong kelangan pa ng rules of court at mag-invoke ng rights of the accused si GMA. “all you have to do is prove that she knew her people were corrupt and didn’t do anything about it.” sabi mo yan. hindi ba’t yan na nga ang ginagawa ngayon sa mga imbestigasyon sa senado, sa mga expose sa balita at sa mga rali sa lansangan. patunayan sa harap nating lahat na totoo nga ang ibinibintang. kung ang gagawin ng malacanang ay i-obstruct ang imbestigasyon gamit ang EO464 at technicalities sa halip na harapin at categorically defeat the accusation with clear and convincing evidences of its own, lalo lang tayong maniniwala na may kasalanan ngang itinatago ang malacanang.

    panghuli, kelangan pa ba ng link na si gloria nga ang may pakana o kundiman ay kasabwat sa ZTE deal? ano pa bang hahanapin natin eh pinirmahan niya ang deal, dumaan sa kanya at inaprubahan niya, imposibleng di niya nakita ang anomalya. o kung hindi man talaga, dapat pa rin siyang sisihin, command-responsibility ika nga o dahil mahina siyang pangulo, nalulusutan siya ng mga kurakot na tauhan at asawa. at saka, wla man itong ZTE deal, malakas pa rin ang argumento para patalsikin si GMA. andyan pa ang Garci scandal na wla pang “closure,” ang mga pagpaslang sa mga aktibista at journalist ng mga tauhang sundalo niya kasama na si national security adviser gonzales. ang north-railway project na di dumaan sa bidding at overpriced din, ang fertilizer fund at mga ginastos ni gma noong 2004 election at napakarami pang kurapsyon na kung ililista natin ay hindi matatapos.

    kelangan pa ba dumaan to sa korte? kung ipinakukulong na natin si GMA pagkatapos niyang mapatalsik, dapat talagang dumaan sa korte, pero habang pinatatalsik natin siya, hindi ang korte ang dapat na magpasya kundi ang mamamayan.

  17. kwentongwalangkwenta says:

    pasensya na sobrang haba, eto mas maikli na sagot pero mahaba pa rin at sabog pa rin ang ayos. sagot ko to sa isa pang blogger na kagaya mo din ang pinupunto, due process sa investigation–

    sori hehe. pero iyong sinabi mo na:”kailangang mapatunayang ang naghahabla at nag-aakusa ay may kaso nga. ang mga testigo ay kinakailangang suriing mabuti para mapatunayang sila ay karapatdapat paniwalaan. kung paiiralin natin ang panghuhusga kaagad sa mga tao, opisyal man o hindi, dahil lamang mukhang kaawa-awa ang taong naglalabas ng maakusang hintuturo, malamang hindi na tayo magkasya sa mga piitan. ”
    hindi ito applicable. kasi wala tayo sa legal na kaso. pulitikal ang isyu. hindi naman natin ipinapakulong si GMA ngayon (immune sya sa kahit anong kaso hanggat presidente siya sa malakanyang) kaya hindi nag-aaply ang striktong pagsunod sa rights of the accused at iba pang standards sa rules of court. siguro kapag napatlsik na si GMa at pinapakulong na siya, dun ako mismo ang mananawagan na sundin ang kanyang mga karapatan bilang akusado (bagamat di na siguro kelangan dahil tiyak madami siyang abogado.) kahit ang legal presumption na the accused is innocent until proven otherwise ay hindi magagamit dito, dahil ang presumption sa pulitika, the public official must always prove his/her worthiness to hold office until such time that he/she relinquishes it. ganun din ang presumption na the burden of proof is always on the plaintiff, hindi mag-aaply kasi wala tayo sa criminal procedure. political procedure ito– legislative inquiry on a government transaction wherein the bruden of proof is on the government to show that the transaction is legal and clear of irregularities. and even on that presumption, Lozada has carried his burden well. now it is up to malacanang to lift EO464 so that they may have their fair chance to be heard by the public.
    ikatlo, papanong mapapatunayan na mali o tama ang sinasabi ni lozada kung ayaw harapin ni GMA o ng malaknyang ang akusasyon. ginagamit ang EO 464 para di makaatend sa hearing ang mga tauhan niya. napakasimpleng bagay ng hinihingi natin sa kanila– magpadala lang kayo ng tetestigo sa hearing para sa inyong panig at ng marinig naman namin ang side ninyo. hindi naman namin sinabing aminin ninyo ang kasalanan ninyo kung meron man. mahirap b yun? kung may itinatago ka, siguro mahirap nga iyon. eto pa, may balak pang mangidnap ng witness (kung totoo man iyon). mag-aaply ba ang rights of the accused ek-ek sa ganitong sitwasyon kung pinakamakapangyarihang tao ang inaakusahan mo, at siya ang may kontrol sa gobyerno? hindi. kasi nga uulitin ko, wala tayo sa korte, tayo ay nasa harap ng publiko. kung walang itinatago ang pangulo, hindi niya gagamitin ang EO464 at iba pnag teknikalidad para taguan ang uaakusa sa kanya. haharapin niya iyon at tatapatan ng sariling ebidensya dahil yun ang pinakamabisang paraan para malinis ang pangalan niya. kung magtatago siya sa teknikalidad, aba mas kapani-paniwala nga si lozada at ang burden ngayon to prove innocence ay nasa kay GMA na (after all she must always prove her worthiness as a public official and the most powerful one at that.) and anyway, on his testimonies alone, substantial ang evidence niya. he sufficiently described the process na pinag-daanan ng ZTE deal para makapasa. tumugma pa sa testimony ni devenecia III. di pa ngayon mapabulaanan nina neri.

  18. rom says:

    kwk:

    yun naman pala hindi naman pala dapat patunayan pa hanggang sa kaduluduluhan na nagkasala nga si gloria . kontradiksyon ito sa sinabi mong kelangan pa ng rules of court at mag-invoke ng rights of the accused si GMA. “all you have to do is prove that she knew her people were corrupt and didn’t do anything about it.” sabi mo yan. hindi ba’t yan na nga ang ginagawa ngayon sa mga imbestigasyon sa senado, sa mga expose sa balita at sa mga rali sa lansangan. patunayan sa harap nating lahat na totoo nga ang ibinibintang. kung ang gagawin ng malacanang ay i-obstruct ang imbestigasyon gamit ang EO464 at technicalities sa halip na harapin at categorically defeat the accusation with clear and convincing evidences of its own, lalo lang tayong maniniwala na may kasalanan ngang itinatago ang malacanang.

    Slow down. That’s not a contradiction. It is possible to prove wrong-doing beyond reasonable doubt, just as it is possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone knew about the wrong-doing and did nothing.

    nearly your entire argument is based on the presumption that the legal process will be subverted anyway, so why bother with it? I don’t think that way. I also think beyond just getting gloria out. do you?

    seriously. if the process of kicking her out doesn’t include establishing beyond reasonable doubt how corruption worked, how can you root corruption out when she’s gone? You think the senate supah-stars now will still be as “open” to you when they’re in power? HAH! Look at Joker.

    And what will you do then? People power again? That’s bullshit.

  19. kwentongwalangkwenta says:

    eh yun nga ang problema, hindi guilt beyond reasonable doubt ang dapat na standard para magrally ang mga tao. napakataas na standard nun. kahit sa korte, ginagamit lang yun sa criminal cases. sa mga civil cases nga preponderance of evidence lang ang standard ng korte. halimbawa nga sa disbarment cases, basta may ebidensya kahit hindi beyond reasonable doubt, nananalo ang kaso. eh lalo na syempre sa public office at lalo na kung kung wala naman sa korte. public office is a public trust-yan ang sabi ng administrative code. sa harap ng publiko, mere betrayal of trust is a ground para patalsikin ang isang pangulo (ground to sa impeachment ni erap). ung simpleng ayaw niyang magsalita tungkol sa isang isyu para maliwanagan ang naguguluhang publiko, (halimbawa tungkol sa garci scandal) sapat na yung dahilan para manawagan ng pagpapatalsik niya kasi nawala na ang public trust sa kanya. ung objective basis to convict na sinasabi mo, which is establishment of guilt in court, saka lang yun papasok kapag nasa criminal trial na si GMA. (in any case if you’re looking for an objective sase against GMA, yung makakuha ng tape na kausap niya si garci at inuutusan niyang mandaya sa eleksyon, objective yun lalo na ng pinatunayan ng mga local and foriegn experts na boses nga niya at hindi spliced ang nasa tape. aba, scientific evidence un, kahit sa criminal case tiyak tatanggapin yun (kung walang wire-tapping law.. )
    eh ngayon, ano ba ang due process na inilalaan ng batas para maresolba ang ZTE? nangunguna ang legislative inquiry, nakasaad un sa konstitusyon. mag-iimbestiga ang kongreso/senado tungkol sa iregularidad ng isang government deal (ZTE deal). they will hold NEDA, DOTC, and other admin agencies accountable sa napapabalitang kurapsyon, they will demand these agencies’ answers during the investigation, and they have the constitutional power to do so because in the first place, ang kongreso ang lumikha ng mga admin agencies na ito.
    ngayon, kung hindi dadalo si neri at iba pang ipinatawag ng senado dahil sa EO 464, paano uusad ang due process? how will the ZTE controversy be resolved? how will we be able to prove or disprove the accusations of Lozada? sa kasong ito, wala kay lozada ang burden to proof kundi nasa kina neri, kasi public officals sila and they are eternally burdened (as long as they are in office and as long as the admin code is valid) to prove that their transactions are without irregularities. Utang ng mga tauhan ng malakayang na magpaliwanag sa publiko. kung hindi sila magpapaliwanag at magtatago sila, dapat kumilos ang taong bayan. that is enough basis to convict GMA and her men in the streets of mendiola and edsa. si lozada, hindi niya utang na magpaliwanag at klaruhin ang scandal sa atin dahil private citizen siya. utang pa nga ng sambayanan sa kanya na lumantad siya.

  20. kwentongwalangkwenta says:

    “if the process of kicking her out doesn’t include establishing beyond reasonable doubt how corruption worked, how can you root corruption out when she’s gone? ”
    kung ganito ang basis para magprotesta tayo sa mga kurakot na lider, aba, lalong hindi uusad ang laban sa kurapsyon. lalakas lalo loob nila na mangurakot. mantakin mo, matipid sa public opinion ang mga tao, parang noong panahon ng martial law. bago sila magrally o magcondemn ng pulitiko, guilt beyond reasonable doubt muna dapat. magfile muna ng criminal case, hintayin natin matapos bago kayo magrally.
    si presidente, immune na siya sa public opinion at public trust kasi walang kasong pwedeng isampa sa kanya dahil immune din siya from suits.

    “And what will you do then? People power again? That’s bullshit.”

    hindi ito dahilan para pabayaan ang isang public offical na mangurakot. palalampasin ba natin na magnakaw ng walang kaproble-problema si GMa o si Abalos dahil lang sa wala tayong ipapalit? kung ganito ang dahilan ng mga tao, eh di sana hindi na lang natin pinatalsik si marcos at pinabayaan na lang siyang magmartial-law habang buhay. bakit nga naman patatalsikin si marcos eh katulad din niya ang mga papalit.. then what will we do then? rally again? that’s bullshit. gago din naman si cory at si ramos, eh di si marcos na lang.

    tsaka di ako naniniwalang walang papalit sa kanila. 80million ang pilipino ngayon, madami dian na pwede. at kung kurakot pa rin talaga kahit ilang palitan pa ang maganap, siguro sistema na ang kailangang palitan at baguhin. at hindi mababago ang sistema hangga’t andiyan si GMA at mga kakampi niya.

    “I also think beyond just getting gloria out. do you?”

    yes i thnk beyond just getting gloria out. and what i think is kailangang pagdaanan ng pilipinas ang mga bagay na ito(edsa, rali, pagpapatalsik ng gobyerno, etc.)para may tunay na pagbabagong mangyari. sabi ko nga kung hindi makaya sa pagpapalit ng tao, siguro aabot tayo sa puntong magapalit naman tayo ng sistema. (medyo malayong sample na ito, pero para iyang sina bonifacio, mabini, at mga katipunero. lahat natatakot kung saan pupunta ang pilipinas kapag nawala ang mga kastila (kahit si rizal natatakot siyang umalis ang mga kastila, walang tiwala sa pilipino eh). pero natakot ba sina bonifacio? hindi, ang alam lang nila, kurakot nang sobra mga kastila kaya dapat nang patalsikin sa pilipinas.)

    what about you, do you really think beyond getting GMa OUT? or you can’t think hard enough that you entirely gave up thinking about getting GMA out? settle na lang ba sa status quo? ako ayaw ko, gusto ko may mangyari. ikaw?

  21. rom says:

    kwk: hurt ka naman agad. LOL! First off, I never said don’t rally. If you want to protest, go do that. If you want to take to the streets, go do that too. If you want to try to get her out, go ahead and try to your heart’s content. You, and everyone like you, seem to get these two things mixed up: the call for more substantial evidence before Lozada can be believed, and your godgiven right to rally. people can rally for any reason, my friend, but that doesn’t mean that you’re doing it for the right reasons.

    All I’m saying is I’m not ready – and I don’t think I’m the only one – to accept Lozada’s word simply on his say so.

    And yes, I think beyond getting Gloria out. That’s precisely the reason why I disagree with your methods. I think it is better to adhere to the institutions and processes already in place, because after personalities fade away, those institutions and processes will still be around. If you weaken them, what have you got left?

    People POwer – the first – gave people a taste for Presidential blood. But it was unconstitutional. It may have been the right thing to do, but it weakened institutional democracy to such an extent that people felt it was the right thing to do to oust Estrada. Again, we trampled on institutional processes, and gave in to the whim of a noisy minority. (I’m not counting the commies and lefties, of course, because they will always participate in anything that brings down a government where they are not top-dog.) And now, we’re doing it again.

    tsaka di ako naniniwalang walang papalit sa kanila. 80million ang pilipino ngayon, madami dian na pwede. at kung kurakot pa rin talaga kahit ilang palitan pa ang maganap, siguro sistema na ang kailangang palitan at baguhin. at hindi mababago ang sistema hangga’t andiyan si GMA at mga kakampi niya.

    that’s precisely it. Systemic change. And you cannot do that if you’re taking to the streets every two years. I don’t think systemic change is impossible with Gloria around. I think there are good men in government – like Karina David – who can clean up their own spheres in government. You say David complained of presidential abuses, yes, but what she didn’t tell you was that, more than the hundreds of political appointees she complained about, thousands of government managers were required to get eligibility. And those who didn’t were kicked out. That’s reform, and it may not be seen on teevee or it may not be accompanied by rallies and flaming red banners, but it was real and you are going to feel it’s effects (in terms of good governance) far longer than the effects of street protests and that stupid mass for truth.

  22. kwentongwalangkwenta says:

    “All I’m saying is I’m not ready – and I don’t think I’m the only one – to accept Lozada’s word simply on his say so.”

    tong tungkol kay lozada, wala na namang duda na may nangyaring mali eh. una, may isang government deal na muntik nang matuloy pero nasilip na may anomalya. walang makakatanggi kahit na ang nasa administrasyon na ang ZTE deal ay maanomalya (kaya nga binawi ng pangulo yung deal). walang public bidding, dun pa lang ilegal na ang kontrata. fact un at hindi pwedeng itanggi ng kahit na sino. dun pa lang may pananagutan na ang malakanyang at kelangan na nilang magpaliwanag sa legislative inquiry na isinasagawa.
    ang tanong na lang ay kung papaano ito ipapaliwanag ng malakanyang. bakit nakalusot ang deal? sino ang may pakana? sa tanong na ito nagkakatalo, kasi nga pumasok si Lozada at si JDvIII. sabi nila ganito nabuo ang deal, ito ang mga taong involved, ganito kalaki ang overpriced na pera. kahit pa hindi totoo ang sinabi ni lozada, at kahit pa binobola lang tayo ni JDVIII,may utang pa rin na paliwanag satin ang malakanyang. bakit nakalusot ang maanomalyang deal?bakit binawi nyo lang kung kelan may nagbunyag na nito sa senado?
    eh kaso hindi sumasagot ang malakanyang, may balita pa na binalak mangidnap ng witness, hindi pinapadalo ang mga opisyal na involved sa hearing, etc.etc. dun pa lang ba hindi ka na magdududa sa malakanyang? kung hindi ka pa rin nagdududa, iinvoke na natin ang right ng mga mamamayan sa transparent information sa mga government dealings. nasa konstitusyon ang right na yun. iinvoke pa natin ang admin code, public trust clause. ayaw pa rin magsalita ng malakanyang, nagtatago pa rin si neri sa EO464. anong tawag dun? the president is breaching public trust.
    totoo man o hindi ang sinabi ni lozada, hindi pa rin lusot ang malakanyang, may kailangan silang ipaliwanag, and their failure to do so is sufficient ground for removal from office.

    “I think it is better to adhere to the institutions and processes already in place, because after personalities fade away, those institutions and processes will still be around. If you weaken them, what have you got left?

    People POwer – the first – gave people a taste for Presidential blood. But it was unconstitutional. It may have been the right thing to do, but it weakened institutional democracy to such an extent that people felt it was the right thing to do to oust Estrada. Again, we trampled on institutional processes, and gave in to the whim of a noisy minority.”

    sino bang ayaw sumunod sa institutional processes ng gobyerno. diba’t kaya nga nagrarally, kasi ang gobyerno mismo ang hindi sumunod sa government procurement act which is an institutional safeguard against corruption. gusto lang namin sundin nila yun at igalang ang batas. nagrally din kami para sumunod ang malakanyang sa proseso ng legislative inquiry at congressional oversight process pero ayaw din nila. kami ba ang hindi gumagalang sa institusyon ng gobyerno o ang malakanyang? ah, siguro idaan na lang natin sa eleksyon na talaga namang supreme institutional remedy against bad leaders. eh kaso, heto at narinig mo, ginamit niya ang pondo ng gobyerno sa kampanya (fertilizer fund, patrabahong gloria, etc,) pero hindi pa siya nakuntento dun, si garci pala talaga ang trump card niya, at huling-huli silang nag-uusap sa authentic na tape record. biruin mo, pati institusyon ng eleksyon binalahura din nila. pero mabait pa rin tayo, idaan pa rin natin sa legal process. iimpeach na lng. kaso, pati yung teknikalidad ng impeachment binaluktot nila (pinaliwanag ko na to dati, yung tatlong technically sound complaints na pwedeng pagsamahin, isa lang ang kinuha nila tapos dinismiss din agad for lack of substance). langya tong mga gloria congressmen, pati impeachment binalahura na rin. ano na lang natitira sa taumbayan? ehdi magrally na talaga para megresign siya. eh ayaw naman niya, i am sorry na lang daw, makuntento na tayo dun. tapos ngayon di pa pala sila tapos, nangungurakot pa.
    ang tanong uli, sino ba talaga ang sumira ng institutional processes ng gobyerno, ang mga tao ba o si GMA mismo. sabi nga ni locke, ang governance ay isang social contract. pag sinira ng gobyerno ang contract niya sa tao at binabalewala ang batas ng mga lider mismo ng pamahalaan, karapatan din ng tao na bawiin ang kontrata niya. iyan ang pundasyon ng demokrasya.

    pag nag-edsa, pinahina ba talaga natin ang gobyerno? o baka naman iniligtas lamang natin ang gobyerno sa tuluyang pagkabulok nito sa kamay ng pangulong kurakot? humina ba ang intitusyon ng gobyernong ito ng mapatalsik si marcos? tingin ko hindi, kasi kung hindi napatalsik si marcos ng edsa, mapapatalsik din siya tiyak ng CPP-NPA, kasi sobrang dumadami sila noon. nailigtas pa nga ang gobyerno dahil sa edsa.

    eto ang halimbawa ko ng pagpapahina sa institusyon ng gobyerno, hal. noong inaprubahan ang 1973 constitution ni marcos, dapat iniharap ito sa mga tao through a plebiscite. pero ang nangyari, nagpatawag lang ng mga baranggay meetings sa buong bansa nakabantay pa mga sundalo tapos nagbotohan kung aaprubahan ba ang konstitusyon. ilegal yung nangyari pero may semblance nga naman ng legality. may pagkakataon ang supreme court na iinvalidate ang pseudo-plebiscite na yun pero natakot lang sila kay marcos kya sabi nila, labag nga sa proseso ang botohan pero moot and academic na kung iinvalidate pa nila kasi hawak na ni marcos ang kapangyarihan, operational na rin naman daw ang 1973 constitution, pabayaan na lang. yun ang magpapahina sa gobyerno, mga iregularidad na ginagawa ng mga kurakot na lider. iwinawasto lang ng edsa ang mga ganong bagay para magkaroon pa ng pagkakataong maisalba ang gobyerno. ito bang mga ganitong katitinding anomalya ay maiwawasto ng mga simpleng reporma ala-karina david(di ako galit kay karina)? hindi, ang supreme court nga walang nagawa eh (kasi nga alam ng korte kung ano ang ibig sabihin ng political power, especially kung diktador ang kalaban, alam nila kung hanggang san lang ang magagawa nila). ang kelangan para maiwasto ang ganon katitinding anomalya ay matitindi ding aksyon mula sa tao. labanan to ng political powers. one is out to ruin the government through corruption, the other is out to preserve the government by kicking the president out even if by force.
    anong pinagkaiba ng ginawa ni gloria na pandaraya sa eleksyon at panggugulang sa impeachment sa ginawa ni Marcos.? essentially walang pinagkaiba. she started to subvert the legal processes, then pwersahin na rin. kung yung papalit ay mga kurakot din lahat, siguro nga ay dadating tayo na sistema na ung mapapalitan. sabi ko nga kung kelangan, pagdadaanan talaga ng pilipinas yun.

  23. rom says:

    kwk:

    labanan to ng political powers. one is out to ruin the government through corruption, the other is out to preserve the government by kicking the president out even if by force.

    I’m sure all these “others” you talk about just love you to bits.

    did you hear about the flood? a flood cam and devastated a town, creating a river where the main street used to be. on that river floated a clay vase and an iron pot. the pot said to the vase, “come float near me. if any big debris float our way, i’ll be able to protect you because I’m strong iron and you’re weak clay.” the vase said, “thank you, pot. but if i float next to you, and the river gets rough, you and i might end up hitting each other and i’m going to be just as broken then as if a floating bit of debris did the job.”

    put your faith in these people who – because they are now strong – claim to be protecting you by ousting the prez, if you will. but you do so at your own risk.

  24. kwentongwalangkwenta says:

    “put your faith in these people who – because they are now strong – claim to be protecting you by ousting the prez, if you will. but you do so at your own risk.”

    bago ako maging kritikal sa mga taong bumabatikos sa malacanang, mas magiging kritikal muna ako kay GMA. sya naman may ginagawang kalokohan hindi naman iyong mga bumabatikos. o kung may kalokohan man sila, mas malala namang tiyak ang kalokohan ni GMA. syempre kung mag-eedsa ka, maimili ka din ng ipapalit o kung ano man ung pinaka-appealing sa appetite ng tao. ilalagay mo ba sa pwesto si JDV? syempre hindi, wala naman papayag. makakaupo ba sya sa piwesto, hindi rin kasi hindi siya ang gusto ng tao. mauupo yung pinaka-katanggap-tanggap.

    kung ako ang taumbayan, hindi ako mag-aalinlangan na parusahan si GMA dahil lang may duda ako sa mga kalaban niya. maling-mali para sa akin na magiging mas kritikal ako sa mga sinasabi ni lozada (bagamat gut feel kong totoo ang sinasabi niya at halata ko ding may pinagtatakpan ang malakanyang) sa kadahilanang natatakot akong mapatalsik si gMA at baka kurakot din ang papalit sa kanya.

    kung objective akong tumingin, di na muna ako titingin sa kung sino ang puwedeng pumalit, dahil dun pa lang magiging bias na agad ang judgment ko. titingnan ko lang ang ginagawa ni GMA ngayon at dun ako magdedesiyon kung dapat ba siyang panagutin sa mga kalokohan niya.

    may kwento din ako. kwento ng mangingisda na inabot ng bagyo sa dagat. malapit nang lumubog ang ang kanyang maliit na bangka nang may dumating na mas malaking lantsa at nag-alok sa kanya ng tulong. “lumipat ka na sa lantsa ko, pinapasok ng tubig yang bangka mo kaya baka lumubog yan.”

    pero dahil nagsususpetsa na may masamang balak ang tumutulong sa kanya, tumanggi ang mangingisda. “ayokong umalis sa bangka ko, dito na lang ako. baka pirata ka at holdapin mo lang ako.”

    nagpaiwan nga ang mangingisda. at pagdating ng malaking alon, lumubog ang maliit niyang bangka. patay ang mangingisda, pinagpiyestahan ng tuwang-tuwang mga pating sa dagat… ganda hehe

    tsaka yung “others” na sinasasabi mo ay hindi lamang mga personalidad. langya, pakialam ko kay lacson, JDV at lozada. ung “other dun ay ang mga tao. ng nanalo ang edsa 1, hindi yun tagumpay ni cory, tagumpay ng tao yun. ganun din sa edsa 2, mga tao ang “other” forces dun hindi si Gloria. mawala man sina lacson, at kung sino pa, di pa rin maitatanggi, galit ang tao kay GMA ngayon.

  25. rom says:

    kwk: at last something we can agree on. Yes, people hate GMA

  26. thewordwarlock says:

    i tend to agree with Kwentongwalangkwenta. the administration cannot deny that it approved an anomalous deal, if not for the exposes made in the Senate. GMA is now right inside the opposition’s net.
    whether or not Lozada is saying the truth is beside the point that Malacanang approved the deal. with that alone, the opposition already has a case to bring to the streets. Lozada and Jose de VEnecia 3rd can be useful as direct witnesses to prove all the circumstantial evidence, although their testimonies only end with FG and abalos.
    the case is similar to the Sigma Rho’s on the death of one of their neophytes. there are many exact comparisons. first: sigma rho members brought a dead body to a hospital and all autopsies point to grave physical punishment as the cause of death. on that point alone, the frat is caught red-handed as the culprit. on the other hand, the GMA administration came up with a deal involving ZTE, and all scrutinies point to the deal’s inability to comply with the LAw’s standard operating procedures on government transactions.
    second, the sigma rho case has a lot of circumstantial evidence saying that the dead neophyte was a recruit of a sigma rhoan (who was a popular college student leader in UP) and that the neophyte contacted his friends about a scheduled initiation rites with the frat. on the other hand, the existence of the ZTE deal itself is enough evidence to point that Malacanang was its source. then came lozada and company to prove what is already obvious.
    Third, in both cases, the accused chose to shut up and ignored public outrage. they did not participate in hearings and investigations, snubbed sub poenas, employed technicalities to avoid the issue.
    fourth, the whole public knows they did it, only they can’t prove the crimes because of the accused’s non-cooperation with the investigating bodies.

  27. kwentongwalangkwenta says:

    to thewordwarlock,
    salamat sa pagsang-ayon. tama ka, ang ZTE deal mismo ang pinakamalaking pruweba laban sa malacanang at hindi ang mga sinabi ni Lozada. hindi ko rin maintindihan ang mga taong nagsasabi na nagsisinungaling siya. para sa akin, pandagdag lang sa akusasyon ang mga tinuran niya, at magsinungaling man siya o hindi, may kelangan pa rin ipaliwanag ang malacanang. kumbaga, flavoring lang ang mga sinabi ni lozada-pampalasa-sa ZTE deal na siyang main dish sa iskandalong ito.

    Subalit hindi ako sang-ayon sa mga comparisons mo. “first: sigma rho members brought a dead body to a hospital and all autopsies point to grave physical punishment as the cause of death. on that point alone, the frat is caught red-handed as the culprit. on the other hand, the GMA administration came up with a deal involving ZTE, and all scrutinies point to the deal’s inability to comply with the LAw’s standard operating procedures on government transactions.”

    una, ang sigma rho case ay isang criminal case at hindi isyung pampulitika. hinde pwedeng magpadalos-dalos sa pagbibitiw ng statement dun sa kaso kasi wala pang napapatunayan sa korte. kung ang sigma rho man ang nagdala ng bangkay sa hospital ay kelangan pang mapatunayan sa isang hukuman. for the sake of argument, sabihin na nating sila nga ang nagdala, pero maraming paliwanag na pwedeng ibigay. halimbawa, sabihin nilang napulot lang nila ang bangkay o kaya ay tinulungan lang nila ang namatay na nakita nilang ginugulpi ng mga tambay sa tabi-tabi etc. maaaring nakakatawa ang alibi na ito para sa iyo pero hindi imposibleng mangyari.

    sa kaso ni GMA, ang pag-approve ng ZTE deal ay hindi pwedeng gawan ng alibi, i.e. “hindi ko alam na naaprove pala yan ng opisina ko, ” hindi ko nareview, basta pinirmahan ko na lang, busy kasi ako ng araw na yun,” “hindi sa malacanang nanggaling yan, province of tarlac ang nag-approve ng deal na yan.” ang kontrata ay sa malacanang lang talaga nanggaling, dahil ito ay may involved na foreign debt at presidente lang ang makakapag-approve. pangalawa, national ang scope ng project, national gov’t lang talaga ang panggagalingan. at lalong hindi pwedeng sabihin na negligence ni GMA ang dahilan kaya napirmahan niya. responsibilidad pa rin niya yun kung negligent siya.

    “the sigma rho case has a lot of circumstantial evidence saying that the dead neophyte was a recruit of a sigma rhoan (who was a popular college student leader in UP) and that the neophyte contacted his friends about a scheduled initiation rites with the frat. on the other hand, the existence of the ZTE deal itself is enough evidence to point that Malacanang was its source. then came lozada and company to prove what is already obvious.”

    Circumstantial evidence are useful but they cannot prove guilt in a criminal case. kahit pa sabihing may preponderance of evidence, guilt beyond reasonable doubt pa rin ang standard, kagaya nga ng sinabi ko na sa una kong mga comments. para maparusahan ang sigma rho, kelangan may direct witness na nagsabing sila nga gumawa. eh kasong walang direct witness o evidence(kaya nga hanggang ngayon walang naisasampang kaso kasi puro circumstantial ang evidence. sa piskal pa lang tiyak dismiss na agad ang kaso laban sa sigma rho for lack of evidence). the public may condemn the Sigma rho but they cannot be liable under the law based only on circumstantial evidence.
    on the other hand, circumstantial evidence is enough to make the public demand GMA’s resignation. as i said, nakay-GMA ang burden of proof to prove that the deal is clear of irregularities.

    “Third, in both cases, the accused chose to shut up and ignored public outrage. they did not participate in hearings and investigations, snubbed sub poenas, employed technicalities to avoid the issue.”

    the Sigma rho can remain silent as long as they want. they have the right as accused to remain silent and to avoid giving self-incriminatory statements. pwedeng-pwede nilang sabihin na “talk to our lawyers” (na balita ko ay mas malaki pa ang legal team nila sa kasong ito kesa sa legal team ni Erap noong impeachment, kasi, this frat is the exclusive frat sa UP college of law–puro bigating lawyers ang alumni nila) at hindi ako magtataas ng kilay. pero pag si GMa ang nagsabi noon, magtataas ako ng boses. kapal naman ng mukha niya, public office ang pinag-uusapan, di pwedeng talk to my lawyers lang isasagot niya.
    ang Sigma Rho, pwedeng isnabin ang subpoena ng NBI at mga pulis. ang korte lang naman ang may karapatang magsub-poena kapag may pagdinig na sa kaso (at ang kongreso pag may pagdinig tulad ng sa ZTE hearing). ang NBI nag-iimbestiga lang. trabaho ng NBI na mag-ipon ng ebidensya laban sa sigma rho. papadaliin pa ng sigma rho ang trabaho ng NBI pag dumalo sila sa imbestigasyon. hangga’t walang naisasampang kaso laban sa sigma rho at walang warrant of arrest mula sa korte, malayang-malaya ang mga fratmen na ito. pero sina neri, hindi ko alam kung bakit inisnab nila ang sub-poena ng senado. pwede silang macontempt at ikulong sa senado dahil dun.

    eto ang diperensya ng criminal case at isang isyung pulitikal. what applies for the sigma Rho (rights of the accused, legal presumptions on burden of proof and innocence) does not apply for the case of GMA who is now before a political scandal. sabi ko nga, kapag napatalsik na si GMA, at kinasuhan na siya sa hukuman, dun pa lang niya magagamit ang mga rights na sinasabi ko.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s



RSS Short Puffs

  • Re-election 31 December 2008
    Maceda sez Erap consulted Narvasa and others, and they told him that the 1987 Consti prohibits only the INCUMBENT prez from re-election. Former prezzies, by their definition, face no such prohibition. But in the same breath, Maceda also sez that they know an Erap candidacy will be the subject of a disqual case – but […]
  • Escalation 30 December 2008
    I still think the Pangandaman’s shouldn’t have retaliated even if dela Paz threw the first punch. But is anyone really surprised at the escalation in the story-telling on both sides? BTW, I think we can dispense with the age angle nao.
  • Etiquette 29 December 2008
    Unless you’re spoiling for a fight, assume that the writer has some basis for what she writes. Don’t make like a lawyer and ask retarded questions in an attempt to lay the foundation for whatever point you’re trying to make.
  • Anne 28 December 2008
    Anne Curtis won best actress? Against the likes of Marian Rivera and Diana Zubiri? So what?
  • Baler 28 December 2008
    Watching Baler tomorrow. Will it be worth it?





Locations of visitors to this page

Archived Maps:
Politics & Government - Top Blogs Philippines


My site is worth $119.
How much is yours worth?

%d bloggers like this: