It has come to this.
Dela Rosa to 1,500 drug "surrenderees" in Bacolod: Drug lords have been making themselves rich, while you suffer pic.twitter.com/Hipw0pObsc
— Bea Cupin (@beacupin) August 25, 2016
“Philippine National Police chief Dir. Gen. Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa on Thursday urged former drug users and pushers in Bacolod City who surrendered to the police to kill drug lords and burn their houses down to prevent syndicates from enjoying their luxurious lifestyle.”
“Nag-eenjoy sila sa pera na galing sa inyo, pera na nakakasira sa inyong utak habang sumasaya sila. Kilala niyo sino ang drug lord dito. Gusto niyong patayin? Patayin niyo. Pwede kayong pumatay dahil kayo ang biktima,” De la Rosa said. (They are enjoying the money you had brought them, but they are ruining you while they are enjoying. You know who the drug lords here are. You want to kill them? Kill them. You can kill because you are the victims.)
“Kilala niyo naman ang mga drug lord dito. Puntahan niyo ang bahay, buhusan niyo ng gasolina, sigaan ninyo. Ipakita niyong galit kayo sa kanila,” he said. (You know who the drug lords here are. Go to their house, douse it in gasoline and set it on fire. Show them your rage.)
Alan Peter Cayetano dati, Alan Peter Kahitano ngayon. Because kahit ano na lang ang ginagamit niya to spin the truth in the direction he wants it to go.
Alan, the issue is more than 1, 000 drug-related killings by police and vigilantes over a little over two months.
That’s why your argument – that “administration critics, the media, and human rights advocates might be using the term ”extra-judicial killings” loosely because “the Administrative Order issued by former President Aquino, said that ”killings related to common criminals and/or perpetration of their crimes” shall not be considered an extra-judicial killing” – does not fly.
You are a lawyer and you should know the legal definition of extra-judicial killings is:
“a deliberated killing not authorized by a previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Such term, however, does not include any such killing that, under international law, is lawfully carried out under the authority of a foreign nation.”
Sa madaling salita, extra-judicial killings are carried out by the state while vigilante killings are carried out by private or non-state entities.
Again the issue is more than 1,000 drug-related killings in a little over two months and how to prevent more from happening
It started as idle talk in a coffee shop.
He said, “We can have a country where trains run on time, traffic flows smoothly, and the internet is fast; where drugs and petty crime are not a problem; where everyone who wants to work gets work and is paid decently; where social safety nets are sturdy and education and health care are free; where streets are clean and public officials are for the most part efficient and honest. But it will take a long time to get there if you keep on insisting on democracy, due process, and human rights.”
“Too much democracy is the problem,” he added. “We will go farther faster with less democracy and a strong, decisive leader.”
“You want a dictator?” I asked.
“NO! I want a strong, patriotic, and incorruptible leader,” he replied. “One who will not be afraid to do what needs doing, one who will not let due process, human rights, and all the other inconveniences of democracy like checks and balances get in the way of turning our country into a paradise on earth.”
“But that’s a dictator,” I said.
“It’s temporary,” he assured me. “Only until we get to the land of milk and honey.”
“We will have democracy back afterwards?”
“Yes, of course democracy will be restored.”
“But you said democracy is the problem.”
“NO! I said TOO MUCH democracy is the problem.”
“So the dictator or, if you prefer, the strong, patriotic, and incorruptible leader, will decide for us how much democracy we can have?”
“Yes, it’s for your own good,” he said.
“I see. We will have a sugar-coated dictatorship,” I said. “Sugar is not healthy, you know.”
“Putaningina mo, yellow ka ano? Sana ma-rape ang anak mo! Adik, elitista, oligarch!”
It started as idle talk in a coffee shop.
I’ve been saying we shouldn’t go to China because we are the aggrieved party. But the decision has been made to send former president, Fidel Ramos.So now I’ll add this to my original objection.
Du30 chose the wrong Ramos. If he really feels we have to talk to China, he should have picked he only experienced diplomat in the Ramos family, Ambassador Leticia Ramos-Shahani, to represent the country.
There is a concerted effort in social media to label outrage over drug-related killings hypocritical. The question asked is why is there no equal outrage over other killings and heinous crimes that are not drug-related?
Underneath that seemingly straightforward question is a sly innuendo – those outraged by drug-related killings must value the lives of pushers more than they value the lives of cops and the lives of victims of non-drug related heinous crimes.
That tactic is straight out of the All Lives Matter playbook.
Black Lives Matter came about because of a need to call special attention to the alarming rate of blacks being killed by cops.
All Lives Matter undermined BLM by making it appear that BLM’s message is “black lives matter more than other lives”. Cops are also being killed, innocent civilians of all colors are also being killed, why is BLM looking only at black victims?
And so instead of focus being on cops killing blacks, attention shifted to the BLM. The movement was asked to explain why it is BLM and not ALM.
Same thing is being attempted here. Instead of the administration being made to explain why there is no palpable official concern over drug-related killings, concerned citizens are the ones being asked to explain why they are not equally outraged by non-drug related heinous crimes.
It’s all about killing the messenger by innuendo – those outraged by the incredible number of drug-related killings must value the life of pushers more than all other lives.
It’s “I, Donald” vs “We, Hillary”. Normally Hillary’s “We” would make her a shoo-in. But these are not normal times.
These are times when authoritarian demagoguery is cheered wildly, when fear and intimidation is preferred to trust and consent, when a clenched fist rather than joined hands symbolizes unity and nation-building.
We are not immune to the authoritarian epidemic sweeping the globe. Human rights advocacy which Trump dismisses as “political correctness” and our current president scorns as “drama” is now seen by millions of Filipinos as an obstacle to progress, the same millions that chose the candidate who personified “Ako ang boss niyo” over the candidate who promised to continue “Kayo ang boss ko”.
The outcome of presidential and parliamentary elections in other countries generally do not affect our values in a major way. But not so with US presidential elections. The US casts such a big shadow over us their election this November will have an influence on whether or not we continue to be hurtled down the authoritarian road.
Sadly we have no influence over American politics. We can only pray they do not forget that democracy rests on self-evident human rights and it is not to be trifled with.
Why rush talks with China? We don’t have to talk to China, we won. Let’s talk to our allies first.
China can wait. We can also wait. Because there is no expiry date on the Hague decision China will always be a squatter. That means we will always have the right to kick them out.
But right now wala tayong magagawa, not until we’re good and ready. China knows it, we know it. So China will do what it wants for as long as it can.
So what’s the use of holdng talks with China about the Hague decision? Talking to China now will only result in watering down the Hague decision.
Lastly so what if China promises to build us railroads? That’s gifting us a necktie so we’re forced to buy a suit from them kasi ano yung tren walang maintenance, walang upgrade, walang replacement? So ano tayo natives exchanging our EEZ for a toy train? O maski ano pa. This and future govts are only stewards of our EEZ. Their duty is to ensure it benefits the nation for as long as possible not to barter it away for chinese trinkets
Sobra naman kayong mga yellow army! Konting pasyensya lang po. Pinapaservice pa yun jet ski #partnersforchangetards
Yey! Now get on your jet ski and plant the flag!
On one level, there is nothing wrong with having separate inaugurations.
But on another level I can also see why separate inaugurations are not healthy.
Our presidential elections are always very heated and divisive exercises and on top of that our presidents and vice presidents with the exception of GMA and Noli come from opposing camps.
So a joint inauguration serves as a symbol of healing and national unity after a hard-fought election. It is a symbolic call to the people to accept the popular mandate and to unite behind it.
In fairness to the du30 camp, their spokesman explained that the Rizal Hall in Malacañan fits only 500 guests. He added that with the diplomatic corps, the members of Congress, the military and police officials, and other government officials only 190 seats will be left for du30′s personal guests so there is simply not enough room to accommodate Leni and her crowd. In other words, the Rizal room just does not have any room for any symbolism of healing and national unity.
Of course that begs the question, why not hold the inauguration in a larger place?
Is one man’s idea of simplicity more important than sounding a call for healing and national unity?