In his speech at a forum held at the UP National College of Public Administration and Governance, Diliman last week, Trillanes said, “… the over-arching policy issue in this whole impeachment episode is, whether the conviction or acquittal of Chief Justice Renato Corona would be good for our country.”
Unlike other senators who give hypocritical statements that they will decide solely on evidence presented, Trillanes said, “ My verdict should not be based solely on evidence as it (the impeachment trial)now becomes a matter of public policy.”
But it doesn’t mean, he said, that he will ignore the evidence that will be presented by the prosecution.
“Definitely not!, “he said adding that “the strength or weakness of the evidence, and how they are presented could very well affect the political acceptability of either policy alternative. “
A non-lawyer, Trillanes, formerly a military official and the youngest member of the Senate, said the past several weeks he researched on the true nature of impeachments to guide him on how he should make a decision on Corona’s case.
He said he focused on the US version of impeachment where the Philippine impeachment process is based.
“” True enough, “ he said. “What I found out was, there is not a single book or reference I encountered that says that impeachment is a judicial trial solely based on evidence. To the contrary, all of these references defined or referred to impeachment as a political process. “
Highlights of Trillanes’ speech:
“Having established that impeachment is a political process, therefore, my verdict should not be based solely on evidence as it now becomes a matter of public policy. And the over-arching policy issue in this whole impeachment episode is, whether the conviction or acquittal of Chief Justice Renato Corona would be good for our country? To resolve this, I intend to use political acceptability as the sole criterion to evaluate the projected outcomes of either policy alternative of conviction or acquittal. To determine political acceptability, I intend to use policy research tools such as quantitative and qualitative researches and stakeholder analysis. These, along with extensive consultations, could very well filter the noise of the mob and undue media influence from the true will of the people.
“One might ask, if we were representatives of the people and, therefore, entrusted with the authority to decide on our own what is in the best interest of the public, then why wouldn’t we just decide, based on our own personal and ideological values? If the decision was merely for ordinary pieces of legislation, then I would not hesitate to use that prerogative. But an impeachment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is not a daily occurrence and it has very serious short-term and long-term implications to our fragile Democracy. So, I believe, getting as many people involved in the decision-making process is very much warranted.
“Again, one might ask, as one of my colleagues did, why don’t we just conduct a referendum to resolve this dilemma? Well, the answer is quite simple – our country is not a direct democracy. We are, in fact, a representative democracy wherein the people indirectly govern their country through elected representatives. It is the representative’s discretion whether to consult his constituents or assume that he is omniscient. More importantly, referendum is not the procedure stated in our Constitution.
“This does not mean, however, that the evidence should be completely disregarded. Definitely not! Because the strength or weakness of the evidence, and how they are presented could very well affect the political acceptability of either policy alternative. Having said this, it would help if the prosecutors and defense counsels would not to be too technical in their presentations. Ultimately, they would have to win the hearts and minds of the people.
“As regards the appreciation of evidence, we have to bear in mind that the Constitution and the Senate Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials did not specify the quantum of evidence required to convict. Is it beyond reasonable doubt as what is used in criminal proceedings? Is it preponderance of evidence as what is used in civil cases? Or is it substantial evidence as what is used in administrative proceedings? Since it is not specified, therefore, a senator can just raise or lower the quantum of evidence required to suit his or her inclination.
“In the end, regardless how the impeachment trial ends, it will be one of the defining moments in our nation’s history as we would have shown the whole world that our Democracy works.”
In an earlier thread on Rocamora’s piece I submitted:
re #13 lucky number
“My verdict should not be based solely on evidence as it now becomes a matter of public policy, and the over-arching policy issue in this whole impeachment episode is whether the conviction or acquittal of Chief Justice Renato Corona would be good for our country,” he said.
——————–
Senator Trillanes had just put to public shame and made
laughing stock of all vocal Trapos in the Senate. No
amount of reasoning can put back their masks of clowns
shouting for strong and sufficient evidence and posturings
about the pseudo fairness of the Senate.
a clean, with public confidence and trust, competent court
activated to render justice NEED NO posturings and noises to make the public believe them. Shallow streams makes the strongest noise. Silent waters run deep. Trillanes speaks out to silence if nit gently admonished them.
addendum: the senator trapos should speak out their integrity, where they stand and not befuddle the public minds with their political gobbledegook.
“One might ask, if we were representatives of the people and, therefore, entrusted with the authority to decide on our own what is in the best interest of the public, then why wouldn’t we just decide, based on our own personal and ideological values? If the decision was merely for ordinary pieces of legislation, then I would not hesitate to use that prerogative. But an impeachment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is not a daily occurrence and it has very serious short-term and long-term implications to our fragile Democracy. So, I believe, getting as many people involved in the decision-making process is very much warranted.”
__
Very well said, Senator Trillanes! Thank you for this brilliant speech.
Thanks, Ellen, for posting the speech of Senator Trillanes.
Naiiba ang ating Senador, Mabuhay!
May be out of topic or context of back and forth comments . . .
In the ultimate analysis of political gobbledegook or journalistic envelopism, you can not demolish (demolition attack and control) where there are no weak structures and causes to demolish; you can not demonized the innocents where and when there are no semblance of the works of the devil. But bad people invoke them all the time and FAIL.
When it is public knowledge and umderstanding about public figures, Demonizing and demolition is not necessary. To invoke them is a form of desperate defense. Now think of Gloria Arroyo and Renato Corona, neither had claimed to be a victim of demolition or demonizing. Sychopants who had done it for them knew no better.
Demonizing adds no more evil to the devil.
Ellen,
Former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban’s article in his column With Due Respect entitled: “More political than legal” fully supports Sen. Trillanes’ position, including his conclusion that the primary criterion for voting on the impeachment case should be what is good for the country. Here is the link to the article:
http://opinion.inquirer.net/20707/more-political-than-legal
Even Atty. Rene Saguisag, in his published comment to Sen. Trillanes’ speech, agreed with him that, as a representative of the people, he should consider public opinion and consult the people when he votes. Here is the link to his letter:
http://www.interaksyon.com/article/21368/saguisag-trillanes-on-impeachment-and-evidence
Some Senator-Judges and lawyers insist the impeachment trial should be conducted as a strictly legal and judicial affair, following strict technical rules and procedure, excluding public debate and discourse in the process.
I believe that the upcoming impeachment trial is a political process, in which the views and opinion of the people, the true sovereign, are at least as important, if not more important than the technical rules of procedure and strict rules of evidence normally applied in court proceedings.
Indeed, the upcoming impeachment trial is just too important for us to just leave it the the Senator-Judges and lawyers of the parties.
the Speech of MPA Senator Trillanes is
a sample of STRAIGHT THINKING in public
policy making probably learned also
as a graduate of NCPAG. Straight thinking is
a quality of the mind NOT found among thieves.
In the Senate of yonder history, STRAIGHT THINKERS were
named CLARO (not Ralph)Recto. Tanada, Osias, Diokno, Primicias, and others of your choices.
Unlike in a Parliamentary system where the removal of the Justice of the SC is a simple majority votes of the members of the house of commons for Cause, the 2/3 required in the process as adopted from the US is purely political and can be subjected to abuse…A commanding majority in the house, and the assured 2/3 in the Senate is all one needs to kick any Justice the other branches do not want or dislike, evidence regardless…Now in the former, a judicial council, compose of permanent group of individuals picked from leaders of civil group, chief justices of Provincial SC and members of the Bars will first examine the evidence the evidence for sufficiency of evidence before referral to the House for their own deliberation and votes..the process is thorough and transparent and so far, no case has been referred to the House for removal of the SC Justice as of yet
But in the Case of Corona which is by all means should have not been in the CJ position in the First Place (his appointment is unconstitutional, he is NOT Impartial but Biased and Prejudiced and brought disrepute to the Judiciary and he should be removed by the unanimous vote, evidence and political tralala regardless…and not only Corona…there are still many of them wearing the robes that need the same treatment…most of them have enriched themselves tailoring their decisions and rulings to those who can pay, not in accordance with the so-called Rule of Law, which is many ways are just Lip Service…that ladies and gentlemen is the state of the Justice system prevailing the country where it’s more fun to be.
And this time, your honourable Senators and Reps will be again taking the nation for a long ride with their posturing, with their minds already made up…before the trial..
At ako ay may naisulat na isang tula na ang pamagat ay Koronang Tinik. Ito rin ay naka post na sa blog ko.
KORONANG TINIK
Ni: Arvin U. de la Peña
Sa tuwid na daan ikaw ang hadlang
Pagsulong sa magandang bukas tinik ka
Hangarin para sa mabuting pagbabago
Walang pag-asang makamit dahil sa iyo.
Kinalalagyan mo ay mataas
Mistula kang isang korona na nakalagay sa ulo
Subalit ikaw ay kakaibang korona
Nasasaktan ang ibang dapat tumitingala sa pagkatao mo.
Nagtalaga sa iyo sobra ang pagkampi mo
Ebidensya man ay sapat wala ring halaga
Marahil ay magkatulad kayo
Nagtatamasa ng pera mula pangungurakot.
Nais sa iyo ngayon na magbitiw pakinggan mo
Isipin mo mga taong may malasakit sa bayan
Sinumpaan mong tungkulin noon para sa bansa
Balikan mo sa iyong alaala.
Subject: Joker Arroyo
I had such admiration for the fiery Joker Arroyo then when he was battling the Marcos authoritarian regime and other worthy causes for the country. He was a brilliant man then, that’s why he was always first in the ballot for our family.
But alas, as fate would have it, he became silent when GMA sat as president, not a whimper came out of his mouth, even if CGMA faced so many intrigues, impeachment tries, and other attempts to unseat her, not a whimper, not even a whisper was heard.
But then came the PNoy presidency, Joker comes back alive as if shot with life-inducing drug. Why only now? Why did he not become consistent in his cadence?
Sad to say, I now see an old man, not a brilliant man, but an old man trying to get his footing back into the political fold, but for the wrong reasons.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but that’s my take on it. Whatever did this to Joker must have been very powerful to silence his fiery oratory.
#9. Whatever did this to Joker must have been very powerful to silence his fiery oratory.
Your guess is as good as mine to make himself a pathetic fool of the Pidals.
2 Corona defense lawyers back out
abs-cbnNEWS.com
Posted at 01/09/2012 8:36 PM
MANILA, Philippines (2nd UPDATE) – Two lawyers of Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona in his impeachment trial have withdrawn from his team.
ABS-CBN News sources identified them as Atty. Ernesto Francisco Jr. and former Court of Appeals Justice Hector Hofileña.
—
Aha! Nababagok na ulo nila, na-remember kung sino at ano si Corona!
Chi, may nagsabi sa akin, give up na rin iyong isa pa, nakalimutan ko lang ang ngalan, pero iyon iyong magaling na trial lawyer, back out na rin.
Hindi maganda ito, mukhang wala tayong mapapanood na drama sa senado. Baka susunod nang sumurender si Chief Justice mismo. Sayang.
@ #9 when Joker Arroyo was building up his professional and political carrier he has chosen to be idealistic as the step to achieve his goals..(remember Honasan and a few to follow him). It is the common denominator with ambitious pepple whose means is to do just about all to justify the end…and when the get there and knows that they have reach their limits..(senator JOker knew that he can not go up much higher)then they start to become practical..go where the money is..or get captured and try to defend that position…
I don’t know about Ernesto Francisco.
But former CA Justice Hector Hofileña is the father of Jimmy Hofileña, who is a partner of the Poblador Bautista law firm.
The name partner, Mario Bautista, is lead lawyer of the House, so ther is a conflict of interest.
Jimmy was the salutatorian of his class, which included Gibo. Gibo was number four in class, but number 1 in the bar exams.
The valedictorian of that class is the elder brother of Miro Quimbo, Rodrigo Lope Quimbo.
#12. Robert, hindi FUN sa Pinas kapag mag-resign si Corona. Ala e, maki-join sya sa rooster of big cowards in Pinas kapag nangyari na sumurender na lang sya basta after the initial braggadocio stand.
Maybe, evidences against Corona are overwhelmingly real that they could not cover them up so that defending the Coronang Tinik is not worth losing their names.
I recommend that the young Senator read the following link:
press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_5s9.html (Ilagay ito “http://” sa harap)
Impeachment is political, because the offenses upon which they are based are political (injury to the community), in the same way that rebellion (for which the Senator was once charged), is also a political offense.
It is also political, according to Alexander Hamilton, because the motivation for the charge is usually political – presented by political factions.
Here is an excerpt:
As early as two hundred thirty five years ago, Alexander Hamilton already foresaw what Tupas and company are doing.
Here is an interesting article on the Chief Prosecutors, Tupas and Quimbo.
Mayroon palang malaking Pag-Ibig si Quimbo.
businessmirror.com.ph/home/opinion/21749-poster-boys-of-hypocrisy (Ilagay ito sa harap “http://”)
Sax, good catch on that article pero i noticed a few things:
(1) Ed Javier was attacking the Tupas father. Not Tupas himself. Yes yes the son “may” have benefited from Daddy’s illegal (assumed) activities, pero he seems to come empty when it comes to Tupas.
(2) Si Quimbo nga isa sa mga Pag-ibig executives. I do wonder why Quimbo and like Noli, the Chairman, were not prosecuted.
* Di rin ako nagpapanggap, di naman santo mga congressman. I’ve always believed politics is dirty. So following that Jesus Christ saying, i’m assuming Ed expected our government to be electing saints?
(3) Ed Javier’s previous articles seems to be anti-Aquino. In one article he said: “And needless to say, once a judgment has been made, the High Court must stand squarely behind its decisions as one monolithic body. This is precisely why the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the law; nothing else supersedes it.” Pero Ed Javier seems to have forgotten that even the Supreme Court has changed its judgement many times.
He further insinuates that Aquino is immature, etc. He actually sounded like Joker and Teddy Boy, downplaying and comparing Aquino to his mom.
Its nice to be reminded about things being balanced, pero i haven’t seen Ed Javier actually criticizing the Supreme Court on their actions themselves.
In short, Ed is one-sided, the other side.
Co-host pala nya si Teddy Boy. Ok gets ko na bakit sya ganun.
More on the American Alexander Hamilton, he stated (in FEDERALIST PAPERS, Federalist No. 65):
Nevertheless, he enumerated the objections to the Senate as the proposed court for the trial of impeachments (FEDERALIST PAPERS, Federalist No. 66):
In the end, the advocates for the Senate as impeachment court had won. The framers of the U.S. Constitution may have regretted putting this decision in the hands of the legislature for fear that it would act on partisanship, but gave this power to the legislature BECAUSE THE PEOPLE MUST BE THE ULTIMATE DECISION-MAKERS (modified comment of T. Vincent, commonlawdotcom 2001).
Framers of our Constitution adapted this (part of the umbilical cord to the U.S. as some lawyers put it) and it goes:
Well, Senator Trillanes is just living up to expectations as part of the Impeachment Court and he, in fact, said:
In this Corona impeachment saga it may be said that “history will predict a Corona victory” as can be gathered here:
Bottomline here is that we are in the Philippines (#1 for fun to most netizens) and Senator Trillanes et al is expected to vote accordingly, i.e., Philippine-style.
@ 18
I do not give a hoot whether one is pro this or pro that. I usually only read the facts that are being presented. Then I make my own conclusions.
I read that Tiglao fellow as well, just to see if there are some facts not related by others.
I even read Emil Jurado, even when he was unabashedly pro Goyang. He does have his sources as well.
My problem with partisans, whether they are lawyers or computer programmers (proprietary versus open source) is that listening to them is like listening to the Noranians versus the Vilmanians. Their idol can do no wrong, while the other people’s idol can do nothing right.
Vilmanians: Gago kayo. Mas maganda ang amin.
Noranians: Kayo ang gago. Mas magaling kumanta ang amin.
Just change the dialogue, and it can apply to anything – Pro Noy versus Pro Goy(ang), Pro-life versus Pro-choice, Pro-tein (Scarsdale diet) versus pro-carbohydrates (Pritikin diet).
Trillanes will convict; because he owes Noy bigtime. He is human, and he is Pinoy. You cannot remove the human factor in any judgment. That is what Tupas is banking on.
Huwag na tayong magpa-tumpik-tumpik pa.
“Huwag na tayong magpa-tumpik-tumpik pa.”
Haha true that.
Huwag sanang banggitin yang gasgas na linyang “for the good of the country.”
The last time that somebody did what was good for the country, he cut the Bible with his good friend Temyong Mapanganib, and inflicted Goyang on the country.
It was also for the good of the country that the majority in the Senate voted for Parity Rights, right after the war. Lorenzo Tañada was only upholding his principle that sovereignty requires true equality, not what the Parity Rights provided.
The good of the country was also invoked by some Senators, including the president then, Cory, when they advocated for the retention of the US bases. (I never questioned their good intentions) The anti-bases were only going by principle, that sovereignty and the hosting of an alien country’s military are incompatible.
Guess which was the right response in both cases? The good of the country, or the response based on the upholding of a principle?
What is the principle I espouse here? Follow procedure. We bound our hands when we ratified the Constitution. We should not change the rules in the middle of the game, “for the good of the country.” We already defined what is good for the country in the Constitution, in terms of substance, and procedure.
Any attempt to invoke the majority must fail, because that is iffy. The only certainty here with respect to the majority is the actual votes cast when the Constitution was ratified. Those surveys conducted now or later are an illusion. We had a similar illusion when Goyang was installed.
As Einstein said, Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Galing na tayo diyan sa “good for the country” crap na yan. Matuto naman tayo.
Huwag sanang banggitin yang gasgas na linyang “for the good of the country.”—saxnviolins
Bakit naman, sax? Ano naman ang masama kung babanggitin natin iyan tungkol dito sa magiging resulta ng impeachment trial na ito. Alin ba ang “for the good of the country” kung maa-acquit si Chief Justice o kaya ma-convict? Ang gusto mo bang sabihin, naniniwala ka na “good for the country” kung maa-acquit ang Chief Justice?
Alam naman natin na mga ipokrito ang mga politikong iyan, pero, ako naniniwala na “good for the country” kung maalis si Corona as chief justice. Opinion ko lang.
Basahin mo ang buong post, hindi yung isang pangungusap lamang.
Acquit, convict, pareho yan sa akin. Ang pinahahalagahan ko ay ang proceso, at ang mga institution. Ang procesong tama, at ang Saligang Batas bilang institution, at definition ng makabubuti sa bansa. Ayaw ko ng ad hoc na mga batayan ng mabuti at masama.
Ang hijo de putang OJ Simpson, wife-killer talaga. Ngunit sinundan ng mga Kano ang proceso, at laya ang gago.
Ayon ako diyan, hindi sa pagkawala ng gago, kundi sa pagpapahalaga sa proceso; kahit minsan minsan may nakakawalang criminal. Kahit saang anggulo tingnan, mas may katarungan dito, kaysa sa bansa nating puro good intentions ang pinangangalandakan ng mga santong tulad ni Noy at Cory, at mga demonyong tulad nila Pidal.
Proceso ang gumagarantiya ng mabuti resulta, hindi good intentions.
Galing na tayo diyan, mula pa noong Parity Rights Act. Matuto naman tayo.
Paano nagagarantiya ng proceso ang magandang resulta kung pwedeng manepulahin ito o kung ang proceso? Kung proceso ang nasunod hanggang ngayon ang mga kalahi ni Obama alipon pa rin siguro.
Intention pa rin ang dapat manalo, pure intentions, for the good of the country and mankind. We do not serve the law, the law serves us.
Pwedeng namang baguhin ang proceso if it does not serve the good of everybody, kaya nga ang mga ninuno natin, simple lang, humble, alam nilang magkakamali tayo kaya ang saligang batas ay may puwang na pwedeng baguhin. Problema kasi minsan sa mga batikanh mambabatas akala nila sila lang ang magaling, lets be humble and accept the fact that we can make mistakes and we can improve, we can learn along the way.
————————–
“People are often unreasonable and self-centered. Forgive them anyway.
If you are kind, people may accuse you of ulterior motives. Be kind anyway.
If you are honest, people may cheat you. Be honest anyway.
If you find happiness, people may be jealous. Be happy anyway.
The good you do today may be forgotten tomorrow. Do good anyway.
Give the world the best you have and it may never be enough. Give your best anyway.
For you see, in the end, it is between you and God. It was never between you and them anyway.”
― Mother Teresa
Sentiment of the majority is what Sen ATIV wants to give weight in his decision and to top it all is the PAIN and INJUSTICE the whole nation had been and would still BE SUFFERRING since the government was governed for almost a decade by a grabbing liar if the crown of thorn she planted will not be taken away.
“……..Trillanes will convict; because he owes Noy bigtime. He is human, and he is Pinoy. You cannot remove the human factor in any judgment. That is what Tupas is banking on….”
trillanes will convict because owes Noy bigtime or the Pinoys his lifetime?
Re Chi’s #17 and #18
I posted this 4 days ago:
To Resign or Not to Resign (kurokuro dala ng hanging Habagat o Amihan)
Mas lamang na magresign. Bakit? Pag binulatlat na ang mga evidencia, kahit nahusgahang walang pagkakasala. Simot na ang Dangal ni CJ Corona. At kung guilty naman ,gago lang ang Colegio tatanggap na pagturuin siya ng batas. Siya at mga kamag anak niyang meron konsensiya, pang malagian na, walang hanggan uukilkilin ang isipan hanggang mga apo sa kuko tungkol sa kulapol sa kanilang pangalan.
Kailan dapat magresign? Bago magsimula ang trial. Pag nasimulan na ang trial at saka lang umatras at tumakbo maliwanag pa sa sikat ng araw GUILTY ang hatol ng sambayanan. That’s the best option for CJ Corona only in Christian Philippines which forgets and condones wrong doings in the name of biblical forgiveness and forgetfulness. Baka makalimutan pang kasuhan ng corruption, manahimik na lang, baka maging professor pa ng UST o Ateneo Institutes of Law. O kaya mag retire
na lang sa Amerika.
Within the provisions of Philippine Laws, HINDI dapat pa arreglo ang Malakanyang. BAKIT?
Heto pa recycle
Bakit nga ba hindi wasto ang arreglo ayon o labag man sa batas.
Katwiran nila giyera ito ng hudikatura laban sa ehecutivo (executive versus judicial branch of the government). Mali yata. Sa giyera walang takbuhan; sa civil war sa amerika talo ang mga maka slavery, walang resign o takbuhan. Sa Alamo tinalo ni General Sta Ana ng Mehico ang mga kano, patay sina Jim Bowie at si Davy Crocket (sina John Wayne, Richard Widmark at Alan Ladd). Parang walang halaga ang dahilan ng giyera compara sa karangalan at tapang ng naglalaban. Patay kung patay, walang takbuhan.
Pinalalabas na DUELO daw ito ni Noynoy at ni Corona; parang harapan laban ng pistola or kaya espada. Hindi seguro. Parehong kasing sobrang mag ingay. Talagang atat na atat magpadaloy ng dugo. Kaya hindi tamang duelo ito noong dalawa dahil pag naresign si CJ Corona bago ang trial parang hindi niya sinipot ang duelohan. Pag natalikuran na at humakbang bago magbarilan, o kaya ay sinimulan na ang eskrima, hindi na, huli na para tumakbo si CJ Corona. Kaya kung MISMO duelo ang trial, at nag resign si CJ Corona bago ito mag umpisa, parang niyang Inindiyan si Noynoy sa kanilang duelo. Sa mga balita sa Media at Blogs, parang pinalalabas ng mga kampi ni CJ Corona na ito ay giyera ng dalawang sangay ng gobierno at duelo ng Presidente at Chief justice. Parang bato itong ipinipokpok nila sa ulo ng manok nila.
Kung matutuloy o hindi ang impeachment trial ay siyang magbabadya, magiging sukatan ng buong mundo kung gaano kadalisay ang dangal ng pagkatao ng mga Kristiyanong Filipino. Sa giyera o duelo nakikilala ang himayhimay ng isang lahi.
Hindi sila perfecto pero tignan lang ang Amerika at Francia.
Dito Re from (mula) # 19 to (hanggang) # 28 pahapyaw na lang ang basa ko; para kasing Lumabas sa tuwid na daan, namamasyal, sumasagap ng mas malamig na hangin sa ibang bansa. Yun galing kay Snv hindi ko na binabasa pag tungkol sa kaso ni Corona, napupunta sa Amerika ang tuwid na daan.
Uy. You read that Raul Pangalangan article about how Abe Lincoln defied the Supreme Court which upheld the right to own slaves (Dred Scott case).
Factually incorrect.
Abe Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation under the martial law powers as Commander in Chief in the states that seceded, and were at war with the union. Lincoln did not defy the Supreme Court; because in the slave owning states which were not at war with the Union, the Emancipation Proclamation was not in effect.
Lincoln did not ask for impeachment of the justices. He worked for a Constitutional Amendment, which produced the Thirteenth Amendment.
Proceso pa rin.
We will agree to disagree. Mr. Good Intentions ka nga, That has been the consistent tenor of all your posts.
Sinasabi ko lang kay Robert, na sa ganang akin, ang tamang proceso ang nagdudulot ng kabutihan. Subok na yan sa ibang bansa. Subok na rin ang law of unintended consequences sa atin, na dulot ng good intentions.
Diyan nag-iiba si Trillanes at ang upperclassman niyang si Lacson. So far, Lacson has been a stickler for the rules. Sabi nga niya, kung hindi rin lang susundin ang Rules, either itapon ang rules, or itapon sa mukha ni Tupas.
Re #29 and #30 sa tingin ko lang sa mga sinabi ni MPRivera
Kita ang character niya, transparent, diretso. Sa huling banda Parang bang he knows where the side of his bread is buttered And he does not deny or hide it, in Batangas or outside Batangas.
If I may, Thanks for your opinions Mang (or Aleng) Rivera.
Rules? People who don’t play by the rules themselves have no right to invoke that other people should play by the rules. Manigas kayo. Noong panahon ni Goyang walang magawa ang taong bayan sa ‘rules’ nyo. Ngayon pa lang bumabawi, iyak na kayo agad? 🙂
Goyang na naman. Personalities ulit.
Ang issue ko lang ay ang trabaho. Puwede namang itama ang trabaho, lalo’t hawak ang majority.
Para yang pagsampa ng maling paratang kay Baboy (halimbawa, child molestation). Sige na, guilty, ikulong, kasi masamang tao naman. Nararapat lang na ikulong.
Totoong kurakot si Corona. Tuta siya. Pero dapat pa ring itama ang trabaho. So far, mali ang trabaho, so I would amend the articles of impeachment. Walang masama sa pulido. Doon din naman hahantong, at walang magiging puna na minadali.
Tulad ng sabi ni Lacson at Enrile. Kung di rin lang susundin ang Rules, huwag nang mag-trial. Magbotohan na lang, kung alin ang mabuti sa bayan.
Buti pa, tawagin ang PSG. Ihanay sa pader, at pagbabarilin na lang ang mga magnanakaw. Alam naman natin kung sino sila.
Tipid sa pera, tipid sa panahon.
#22. Bottomline here is that we are in the Philippines (#1 for fun to most netizens) and Senator Trillanes et al is expected to vote accordingly, i.e., Philippine-style.
Anofangaba! 🙂
humus, basta ayaw kong mag-resign si Corona ni Gloria. I want to see the FUN in the Senate, and opkors the pa-emote ni Koronang Tinik mismo. Talo-manalo, I’d like to see him undergo the process of impeachment, ‘for the good of the country’. 🙂
Anong silbi ng proceso kung ang intention ay masama. Kung sinundan ang tamang proceso na gaya ng gustong mangyari ni Chief Justice, nasaan na sana ngayon si GMA at Mike? Nandoon at humahalakhak sa ibang bansa, samantalang si Chief Justice ay ngiting aso pa rin at palihim na kinukutya ang gobierno at ang sambayanan na bumoto kay Noynoy. Ang gusto bang sabihin ni sax ay ok lang na tama ang proceso maski ang magiging resulta nito ay hindi maganda sa tinatawag na “for the good of the country”?
Lahat naman tayo dito iisa lang naman ang hangarin, na maalis ang lahat na mali na ginawa ni Gloria kasama na dun ang mga natitirang mga latak niya. Ngunit sangayon ako kay Sax. Lahat ay idaan sa tamang proseso, kung ano lang ang nakasaad sa batas ay yan ang dapat sundin. Ang mga mali at di pagsunod ni Gloria sa mga proseso, mga batas na kanyang nilabag ay ating pinuna at tayo’y nag ngitngit sa galit. huwag na sanang gayahin at ulitin. Kung yan pa rin ang pamamalakad ng kasalukuyang gobyerno, di rin pala ito naiiba sa rehimeng Gloria.
“People who don’t play by the rules themselves have no right to invoke that other people should play by the rules. Manigas kayo.” – Henry
Kung ganun lang naman ang mga pananaw, punitin nalang natin ang saligang batas at itapon sa basura. Wala ng batas batas. Matirang matibay. 😛
…”We should not change the rules in the middle of the game, “for the good of the country.” We already defined what is good for the country in the Constitution, in terms of substance, and procedure.” – saxsnviolins
Bravo! Very well said.
So much troublefor something so simple. Trillanes just said he did some research and he sees nothing in the books that limits impeachment to some evidence based process only, thats it.
Trillanes is probably one of the last romantics of our time, at the onset he gave Arroyo the benefit of the doubt, of course we all know what happened, he allowed himself to be incarcerated, even then he still stayed the course, believing that there is still room for idealism, that “for the good of the country” is not a bad word(s). He even risked pariah by going against tradition ie Reyes case. Among the group, with the likes of Honasan and Lacson, he is the only one who showed respect for “the” process. For heaven’s sake these guys talk of process now wheb they won’t even submit themselves to it?
Changes in society are not led by lawyers or lawyer wannabes, as these types abhor change, they don’t like to rock the boat, they’re so enamored by the law and themselves that they want everybody to believe and accept that they are the final arbiters of the law and the law says so. They would have us believe that only they can decide what is right and wrong, the truth doesn’t matter unless you can prove it. The guilty can go scott free because its more important to respect the process than the truth. Its a tragedy really, as this kind of mentality has proven to protect mostly the 1%, what about the other 99%?
I’m glad we have Trillanes in these challenging times, though I don’t envy his position. I’ve heard somewhere that politics has a shelf life but the brotherhood is forever, he just chose the road less travelled by people of his kind.
Good luck to him.
jug, ako na lang kausapin mo when it comes to Trillanes, you won’t be disappointed. 🙂
Napuntos mo, Trillanes submitted himself to process… hindi nagtago, hindi tumakas. 🙂
“Kung ganun lang naman ang mga pananaw, punitin nalang natin ang saligang batas at itapon sa basura. Wala ng batas batas. Matirang matibay.”—Mike
Pwede naman iyon, kung iyon ang dapat mangyari na makakabuti sa atin at sa bansa.
Pero hindi iyon ang gustong mangyari ng taong bayan sa pagkakataong ito tungkol sa impeachment. At mababaw lang naman ang kaligayahan ng taong bayan. Gusto lang natin na maalis si Corona bilang chief justice dahil ang kanyang layunin ay hindi para sa bayan at mamamayan kundi pagtakpan at ipagtanggol ang kanyang personal benefactor na si GMA. Iyon lang.
#45
Robert,
Tulad ng aking nabanggit at uulitin ko, lahat tayo dito sa blog ni Maam Ellen iisa lang ang gustong mangyari na makulong at maparusahan sina Gloria et al dahil sa mga kasalanan na ginawa nila nung sila ay nasa Malacanang pa. Wala tayong away dyan. Ang akin lang dapat sundin ang proseso.
Halimbawa nalang sa larong basketball, nanalo ang kalaban sa 1st half dahil sila ay nandaya. Ibig bang sabihin dapat mandaya rin tayo para makabawi at para manalo? Eh di pareho pala tayong mandaraya. Huwag nalang maglaro ng tama, pagalingan nalang mandaya at wala ng referee.
Mike,
Nandaya na nga ang kalaban, hawak pa nila ang referee. Anong gagawin mo?
Its like a video game designed to always win, some people just play it over and over again and see who loses best, but some think out of the box and make some code changes of the game and make it winnable.
Its a matter of being perenial victims or taking charge of our destiny. I don’t want to be a victim of ganyan talaga eh, how about you guys?
How do you win in video games ba? Di ba you go to this website, click the ps3 drop down menu (if you have ps3) and check out the walkthroughs? 🙂
#47 & 48 :
Jug,
So you mean okay lang maging katulad ng mga Arroyo na mandaraya? Kapag ang referee hawak ng kalaban, pwedeng iprotesta sa TAMANG pamamaraan at proseso. Di pwedeng ibraso ang mga madedesisyon sa protestang inihain sa kanila. Di pwedeng puro fastbreak nalang. 🙂
BTW, ang mga naala kong huling video games na nalaro ko nuon ay Super Mario, Space invader at tetris. Kaya di ko alam yung mga “cheats” na pwedeng idownload sa internet. Naku, nabuking tuloy ang aking edad. 😛
“Kapag ang referee hawak ng kalaban, pwedeng iprotesta sa TAMANG pamamaraan at proseso.”—Mike
Haay, naku, Mike, mahirap intindihin ang argumentong ito. Hawak nga ng kalaban ang referee. At ang referee ay ang Supreme Court, ang final arbiter ng mga paghahainan ng protesta ng pandaraya ng kalaban. At ang namumuno sa Supreme ay si Corona na hawak nga ng kalaban, ‘di ba? Wala tayong kapa-panalo sa ganyang situation. Unless, as jug said, we want to be perennial victims of such cheats. Kung gusto ninyo iyan bahala kayo. Kami ayaw namin.
Alisin muna ang chief ng mga referee, para maging patas ang laban sa protesto ng mga nadaya.
#46 from mike
#45
Robert,
Tulad ng aking nabanggit at uulitin ko, lahat tayo dito sa blog ni Maam Ellen iisa lang ang gustong mangyari na makulong at maparusahan sina Gloria et al dahil sa mga kasalanan na ginawa nila nung sila ay nasa Malacanang pa. Wala tayong away dyan. Ang akin lang dapat sundin ang proseso.
———-
Teka, teka muna, hindi seguro lahat. Meron tayong konsensiya at utang na loob. Si Gloria at Corona, sa tagal ng panahon maraming na ambunan, yung iba pa nga basang-basa ng grasya. Kahit itinatago, minsan sa kanilang komento o katwiran Nahahalata yan. Sa tagal na nitong Ellenville, yung ILAN na medio garapal (not you mike) laging nasusupalpal.
Sabi ng magaling na abogado, everybody should adhere to the the process and observe the rule of law. Well, Lacson and Enrile are not exactly my idea of the poster boy for rule of law. They would only subscribe to it if it suits them. Lahat ng ito ingay politika lang. Impeachment eh. Mind games is the name of the game.
“Kapag ang referee hawak ng kalaban, pwedeng iprotesta sa TAMANG pamamaraan at proseso.”—Mike
Saan tayo magpoprotesta kung chief referee na ang ipoprotesta? Ang Supreme Court na ang final arbiter. Eh kung Supreme Court ang kailangang iprotesta, gaya ng kasong ito, kanino tayo tatakbo?
Ang basketball ginamit na haligi ng argumento dito ay fiction, tulad ng tele nobela nating Pinoy na pinoy, hindi nangyayari sa tunay na buhay. Maski Hollywood film (Mission Impossible ni Tom Cruise) ganoon din, pang aliw lamang.
Sa PBA o sa NBA nakakita ba kayo o meron bang pinapayagan maglaro na dirty player: balyador, marami nang napinsala, angil sa referee at sa nanonood, siyang nagdidikta kung ano ang rules sa mga referee at scorers, pati announcers? Sa tunay na buhay pababayaan ba yan ng mga nanonood na siyang pinangagalingan ng ikinabubuhay ng dirty player at ng kaniyang pamilya?
Sa liga ng matinong basketball hindi pinapayagan maglaro ang dirty player, meron man o walang proceso.
Kapag ang referee hawak ng kalaban, maging lalo tayong resourceful para upakan ang referree para putulin ang ulo ng kanyang mga amo.
Sino bang luko-luko ang pumapayag na palagi na lang talunan?!
#53. “Kapag ang referee hawak ng kalaban, pwedeng iprotesta sa TAMANG pamamaraan at proseso.”—Mike
Saan tayo magpoprotesta kung chief referee na ang ipoprotesta? Ang Supreme Court na ang final arbiter. Eh kung Supreme Court ang kailangang iprotesta, gaya ng kasong ito, kanino tayo tatakbo?
___
Ka Enchong, ang madlang pipol ang huling arbiter kaya in line ako sa pahayag ni Sen. Sonny that “getting as many people involved in the decision-making process is very much warranted.”
Opinyon ng higit nakararami ang mamamayani sa buli, tayo pa rin!
Ang mga abogado ay sumusunod sa proceso ng korte para mapawalang sala ang may kasalanan, at makulong ang walang sala.
Merong proceso para magsinungaling at mag-diin sa walang kasalanan.
Kung sakali ngayon lang ako makakakita ng referee na maa – out of the court .’Yung iba kasi pag bias ang tawag sa play binubugbog ng naargabyadong partido ! ! !
Sax, paano mo nasiguro na guilty si OJ? Pero sabi mo ay pumalpak ang proceso.
Kung pato at panabla na ang nakataya para sa ikatitino ng bansa (lalo na ang hustisya)…hindi ka ba magninilay nilay na pakyuhin ang proceso?
Ang graft and corruption ay nakasaad nang tahasan sa Saligang Batas, ukol sa impeachment. Hindi ba yan din ang demanda laban kay Erap?
May ebidensya sila Tupas ukol sa yaman ni Corona na hindi kaya ng suweldo niya bilang Hukom.
Eh bakit pa nagdemanda ng kung anu-ano, na mahina ang dating, at maaari pang mapawalang bisa? Kesyo biased for Gloria, etc., bagay na nakita sa decision na pinagpasiyahan ng majority, hindi lang ni Corona.
Ngayon, labas litid silang nag-de-depensa ng palpak na demanda.
Ang ibig kong sabihin lang sa tamang proceso, di idemanda mo ng tama – graft and corruption.
Si Baboy Pidal, idedemanda mo ba ng child molestation kahit puro tungkol sa pagnanakaw ang ebidensya mo? Pulpol na demanda yan.
Ang demanda ni Tupas, hindi nag-sumite ng SALN si Corona. Kahit na pilipit man ang lusot ni Corona, may lusot pa rin, dahil gawa ng Korte Suprema (Narvasa) noong panahon ni Cory, hindi gawa niya yung resolution ukol sa SALN.
Kung graft and corruption and demanda, slam dunk sana.. Kapag yan ang demanda, puwedeng i-pa-subpoena ang SALN ni Corona sa Senado.
Tanga.
Ngayon, bangon puri, kahit pilipit, sasabihing may sustansya ang demanda nila. Wala baby, wala. Idemanda niyo ng tama (graft and corruption), para walang sablay.
Dahil sa maling demanda, kung ma-dismiss yan, hintay ang taumbayan ng isang taon. Yan marahil ang dahilan kung bakit full-court press sila Tupas, para di mapahiya.
Gunggong. Nag-full-court press ka sana sa pagsuri ng Articles of Impeachment mo, para pulido.
Ngayon, manalo man sila Tupas, tiyak na photo-finish.
Do it right. Bobo.
Bakit tanga, bakit bobo? Ako siguro ang tanga, kasi ang intindi ko, kasama ang graft and corruption sa articles of impeachment. Hindi ko siguro naintindihan, sorry.
The impeachment court is not a real trial court, the senator judges are not real judges. The lawyers are just making the whole thing their turf, its not, its a political activity. This is not the lawyers’ turf this is our turf, the people’s turf, so the senate must decide not solely on the basis of evidence and counter technicalities but they should answer the question “is Corona good for the country?”
Even if the president gets a blow job by his assistant and his assistant compalins, evidence and all, if the impeachment court will not impeach him he will stay.
Bottomline, the main consideration is “what is good for the country?” tama si Trillanes.
Everybody is following the process. Now what needs to be done is to make Corona so unacceptable to our current drive for good governance, make it a loud voice coming from the people, the senate being the representative of the people must reflect this outrage and not fiddle around with technicalities. Nagmamagaling lang mga yan, theri power comes from the people, not from their legends in their own minds mentality.
Tupas has achieved more than anyone of us can ever dream of, he’s not stupid. I dare anyone who says so to match his achievements with the guy. Its not what we say, its what we do.
This is a good time for our politicians to redeem themselves, to at least for 6 years be good people, do the right thing, just for a brief moment in their lives at least to right the wrong.
If asking them to be good for longer than that is too much at least for 6 years be decent, they can revert back to whatever nature after. Makatikim man lang tayo ng konti.
# 62
Heto. Itanong mo sa English major, hindi sa abogado, para hindi masabing gumagamit ng legalese.
Kahit na mapilipit ang discussion para sabihin ito ay paratang, mahina pa rin, dahil ang paratang ay nasa paliwanag lamang, hindi doon sa paratang mismo, ang Articles of Impeachment.
An English major (Hello Ellen) will tell you that the adjective is not the noun. Similarly, the explanatory note is not the accusation (Articles of Impeachment).
Ang babasahin lang nila Enrile diyan ay yung naka-all caps (Articles of Impeachment). The explanation is irrelevant.
Ah, maliwanag na, salamat, sax. Tuwa ko naman na hindi ikaw ang isa sa mga senador na huhusga. Dahil, base sa mga sinabi mo rito, malamang na ia-acquit mo si Chief Justice.
Sina Enrile at mga kasamahan niya, siempre hindi pa natin alam ang kanilang mga magiging decision. Salamat sa paliwanag mo.
“II. RESPONDENT COMMITTED CULPABLE VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND/OR BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST WHEN HE FAILED TO DISCLOSE….”
Pasensya na, sax, kasi hindi ako English Major, pero sa tingin ko ang parteng iyan ng articles of impeachment na nagsasabing “RESPONDENT COMMITTED CULPABLE VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION…..” ay ano? Hindi ba paratang iyon kay Corona? Kapag naipalabas ng senado ang SALN ni Corona at nakita doon na mali ang declaration ni Corona, did not Corona violated the constitution? Ikaw na nga rin ang nagsabi na may pahapyaw na banggit sa ill-gotten wealth. O, ano pa ba ang reklamo mo?
Alin ba ang MAS makabubuti para sa bayan at taongbayan, ang PANANATILI ni Corona bilang Punong Mahistrado ng Korte Suprema o ang PAGSIBAK dahil sa pagiging ILLEGAL na pagkakatalaga sa kanya ni gloria sa panahong mayroong appointment ban ilang araw bago siya (gloria) ay bumaba sa palasyo?
Alam ng lahat na PAWANG pabor kay gloria at mga kaalyado ang desisyon ni Corona sa kabila ng katotohanang alam niya (Corona) na WALANG ginawang naging kapakipakinabang sa bayan (maliban sa ilang nakapaligid sa kanya kabilang na MISMO si Corona) si gloria sa loob ng halos sampung taon niyang pananatili sa malakanyang, PRAKTIKAL pa bang palawigin bilang punong mahistrado hanggang sa kanyang retirement age si Corona?
Hindi ba kapag ang isang tao ay may terminal cancer at nakikita nating dumaranas ng paghihirap bunga ng kirot at sakit ay ipinagdarasal pang TAPUSIN na ng Diyos ang paghihirap hindi dahil ikatutuwa ang kanyang kamatayan kundi upang maibsan at matapos na ang pagdurusa?
Acquit Corona and see the COLLAPSE of hope of all Filipinos.
And death of justice in the Philippines!
# 68
Basahin mo yung post ng maigi.
Yung pahapyaw, nasa paliwanag (explanatory note), wala sa paratang (Articles).
Yun lang all-caps ang articles. Lahat ng iba ay tinatawag sa Ingles na verbiage, o sa Tagalog, ek-ek.
That is the problem of Noy’s saintliness. If there is guilt by association with evil people, in the case of Noy, there is virtue by association. People around him are enjoying the presumption of virtue, and even of competence, even if their output is not good job.
In this case, then, saintliness becomes its own curse. There will be the curse of incompetence because people do not exact high level performance from the people around the saint.
Parang si King Midas yan (not Marquez). Puro ginto ang nahahawakan. Ngunit noong yakapin niya ang anak niya, naging ginto rin. Hindi rin pala maganda ang nagiging ginto ang lahat ng nahahawakan.
Si Noy, lahat ng dumidikit, nahahawaan ng ningning. Ang akala ng lahat, malinis, pulido magtrabaho. Totoo ba?
Di ba’t may referral to the Ombudsman ukol sa malaking Pag-Ibig ni Quimbo? Di ba’t hindi rin nag-intrega ng SALN ang mga pumirma ng Articles? At ano ang palusot ni Tupas? Ibinibigay namin sa House sec, siya ang may pasyang mag-release o hindi. Di ba’t yan din ang depensa ni Cuevas?
Hindi como gusto ko ang team ay ibig sabihing papalakpak ako kahit bano ang manlalaro, at puro double dribble at traveling. Sisigaw akong dapat palitan ang manlalaro, sa ikabubuti ng koponan.
Naku, sax, naligaw na ako, nasaan na ba tayo? Noynoy? King Midas? Quimbo/Tupas…??? Nakakahilo ang usapan natin.
Sax, sa iyung pananaw lusot si Corona sa istilo ng mga current prosecutors?
Sabi nga pala ni Enrile, prosecutors could amend the article of impeachment in the middle of the trial, but would have to “bring it back to the House and vote upon it again.”
Hmmm, what happened here sax? Why all of a sudden the segway to cheapshots at the president when we were talking about Trillanes?
What I like about Trillanes is that he looks at the things at times the same way I do – bottomline. No nonsense, beating around the bush with too much information overload.
We can all agree that in all we do here we have the same goal right? “For the good of the country?”
Unless someone thinks thats nonsense.
Rethink your focus please, what is your purpose in life really?
The House of Senate as Judge in the Impeachment of CJ-Corona will show to the world, DEMOCRACY and “transparency is very much alive in the Philippines. People will also judge the Senators on which side they are(pro-people or pro CJ-Corona).
GOD Bless the House of Senate and the Philippines in cleansing the SC in making the Independent body, free from any doubts.If The CJ is acquitted or Impeach lets respect the results for the good of the country, and altogether, work for the betterment of the future government, especially the Youth,” Mga Pag-asa ng Bayan “..
siguro puwedeng isaisantabi muna ang legalidad KUNG ang NAKATAYA ay ang kapakanan ng buong bayan at interest ng mamamayan para naman makaahon tayo mula sa kumunoy ng panlilinlang ng KAISAISANG babaeng “hinirang” ng kanyang diyos (daw) upang pamunuan ang Pilipinas subalit nag-iwan ng isang malaking patibong sa huling sandali ng kanyang termino (inagaw na, ninakaw pa), ang ILLEGAL na appointment ni renato corona bilang CJ ng korte suprema upang siyang maging tagapagtanggol niya (babaeng “hinirang” daw) sa anumang kasong alam niyang isasampa laban sa kapag wala na siya sa malakanyang.
kaya nga tanong sa itaas: alin ba ang makabubuti sa bayan?