Life in the Enchanted Kingdom

Corona’s statement:

The initial testimony of the Honorable Ombudsman is quite unfortunate, if not very malicious.

I don’t know how she came up with her own mathematical equation.

She made a hodgepodge out of the accounts, making her numbers chaotic.

The number of accounts alone is at best ridiculous.

Her PowerOoint diagram is a lantern of lies which only messed up her presentation, contrary to what some believe now as damning evidence.

Either she does not know what she is talking about, or is purposely misleading the Impeachment Court and the public.

Is she even privy to how the AMLC arrived at the bloated numbers?

We will debunk all her bloated numbers.

And once she is proven wrong, I urge her to immediately resign from her post for allowing herself to be used by this Administration and making a laughingstock of “government auditing.”

Indeed, this is another LRA hoax!

My guess is Corona will produce a medical certificate and back out of testifying…but he will insist that he really wanted to testify and will as soon as he gets clearance from his doctor…then he will go abroad for medical treatment of a life-threatening condition.

UPDATE

Corona’s lawye’s were not the only ones caught flatfooted by the Ombudsman’s testimony about Corona’s 82 dollar accounts. It seems Mrs. Corona did not know about them either:

Walang hiyang Rene yan ang dami palang dollars inutang pa yung perang galing sa pamilya ko.

US President Barack Obama endorsed same-sex marriage on the same day that North Carolina voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage solely as a union between man and woman. North Carolina becomes the 30th US state to ban same-sex marriage.

Over here same sex marriage is banned by the Family Code:

Article 1. “Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life…”.

Article 2. “No marriage shall be valid, unless these essential requisites are present: (1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female;”

The Family Code is the first hurdle that advocates of same sex marriage must overcome. They can introduce an amendment to the Family Code to expand the definition of marriage; or they can file a case citing the Code’s definition of marriage as unconstitutional because it discriminates against the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community and thus violates basic human rights and the equal protection clause.

It will be a tough uphill battle even though practically all Filipino families have at least one member who is an “l”,”g”, “b”, or “t”. Why many Filipinos will deprive their own family the right to live free of discrimination is beyond me. What surprised me even more is that the gay rights Ladlad Party’s entry in Wikipedia says “same-sex marriage is not part of the party’s platform.” What?

The issue of same-sex marriage cannot be left in the hands of politicians. They will have no qualms about sacrificing human rights for political expediency. They will not advocate a controversial issue where they have no guarantee of a political pay-off. But right is right and wrong is wrong and there is nothing more wrong in a democratic society than discrimination against any group, specially a minority and an unpopular one at that.

Religious beliefs and culture are often cited as the basis for opposing same-sex marriages. But cultures evolve and we now live in a secular, democratic, republic where many Filipinos are not members of any religious groups. During the Spanish occupation, government was the handmaiden of religion - priests called the shots - but today religion is the handmaiden of government. These days, churches cooperate and help government implement social, educational, and anti-poverty programs through schools, charity organizations, etc. and not the other way around. Strip away religious belief and the opposition to same-sex marriage is exposed as nothing more than homophobia.

I am heterosexual but I do not condone discrimination against those who are not like me. Those who do not share my sexual orientation have as much right as I do to enjoy the full benefits of all the rights and laws that I enjoy. If I can choose who I want to marry so can they. Same-sex marriage is not about culture, morality, or religion; it is about every human being able to enjoy civil and human rights to the fullest.

At the NAIA the other day, a celebrity couple and their friends ganged up on media personality Mon Tulfo…

And check out this hilarious video Hitler reacts to Tulfo-Santiago brawl

The Corona trial resumed after a six-week break. The defense presented witnesses whose testimonies were irrelevant and immaterial to the case prompting Sen. Jinggoy Estrada to speak out…

Sen. Enrile did not like the response of defense counsel Cuevas to Sen. Estrada.

A lot of attention and commentary was focused on US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s statement on the “€œevolving regional security situation”:

“We both share deep concerns about the developments on the Korean Peninsula and events in the South China Sea, including recent tensions surrounding the Scarborough Shoal. In this context, the United States has been clear and consistent. While we do not take sides on the competing sovereignty claims to land features in the South China Sea, as a Pacific power we have a national interest in freedom of navigation, the maintenance of peace and stability, respect for international law, and the unimpeded, lawful commerce across our sea lanes. The United States supports a collaborative diplomatic process by all those involved for resolving the various disputes that they encounter. We oppose the threat or use of force by any party to advance its claims. And we will remain in close contact with our ally, the Philippines.”

Some analysts highlighted Clinton’s reiteration of US neutrality in the South China Sea (SCS) dispute and interpreted it as unequivocal proof that the US was “abandoning” the Philippines and leaving it to “Beijing’s tender mercies.”

Some even concluded it made the Mutual Defense Treaty a useless scrap of paper and consequently called for its abrogation. That conclusion is un-nuanced and over the top because the US policy of neutrality applies not only to the Philippines but to all the countries with competing claims in the area. Clinton was not singling out the Philippines-China dispute; she was enunciating a universal policy.

The more telling part of Sec. Clinton’s remark and the one that directly affects our dispute with China is the one where she identifies the US “as a Pacific power” that has “a national interest in freedom of navigation, the maintenance of peace and stability, respect for international law, and the unimpeded, lawful commerce across our sea lanes.”

In effect, Clinton is saying that the US will not takes sides in a skirmish over rocks in the sea but it will go to war against anyone who will take control of the sea lanes without its consent. That should give comfort to the Philippines because it straddles sea lanes that the US deems vital to its national interest. Rest assured the Panatag Shoals will remain out of China’s hands because the US will not allow a rival power to exercise exclusive control over such a strategic economic and military area.

Mutuality of interests, sovereignty for us and projection of power for the US, glues the Philippine-US strategic alliance.

Clinton also expressed her support for internationalizing the settlement of the disputes - “a rules-based multilateral, peaceful approach in resolving competing claims in maritime areas within the framework of international law, including UNCLOS” - while implicitly warning China against the use of threats or force to get its way - “We oppose the threat or use of force by any party to advance its claims.” That bit about UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) is not as innocuous as it seems because China has been strongly and consistently against the Philippines bringing the Panatag dispute to UNCLOS. We have to thank Philippine officials for getting the Americans to explicitly side with us on that issue.

Finally, as a parting reminder to China about whose side the US is on, Clinton said, “And we will remain in close contact with our ally, the Philippines.”

The 2+2 meeting is a reaffirmation of the Manila Declaration signed by Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in November 2011 in commemoration of the 60th anniversary of the Philippines-US Mutual Defense Treaty.

The two secretaries signed the Manila Declaration on board the USS Fitzgerald, a counter-ballistic missile destroyer deployed with the US 7th Fleet. The symbolism cannot be ignored and neither can the declaration that said, “On this historic occasion, we reflect on the rich history of our alliance and the continuing relevance of the treaty for peace, security, and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region. We also reaffirm the treaty as the foundation of our relationship for the next 60 years and beyond.” So we have at least 60 years to make our defense capabilities strong enough to ward off Chinese mapmakers.

The meaning of the Spanish word simpatico is “of like mind or temperament; compatible.” Both Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile and Migz Zubiri have a colorful electoral history with the Pimentel family.

Some experts say that the US will not offend China by siding with the Philippines in the Panatag dispute because a lot of US products are made in China and more importantly because China holds about $4T in US debt notes. They say China could ask the US to settle its obligations if it becomes angered by the US.

Well, I don’t know. I think it’s the other way around. If the US is saddled by so much debt to China that it will find it very hard to pay then the best course of action is to pick a fight with China and refuse to honor its debt. Lalo na kung maraming kang pinagkakautangan, the temptation to renege on your largest creditor is tempting. And you can stay in the good graces of your other creditors by paying them off…with the money you saved from not paying China!

“In conjunction with Earth Day, the Dutch electronics company Philips released a revolutionary new light bulb designed to last 20 years. Do you think when the guy thought of this, a light bulb went off over his head?” – Jimmy Kimmel

Even Jose Maria Sison, founder of the Maoist Communist Party of the Philippines, calls Communist China’s claim to Panatag Shoal a historical absurdity:

“Chinese historical claims since ancient times amount to an absurdity as this would be like Italy claiming as its sovereign possession all areas previously occupied by the Roman Empire.”

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Chairman Joma Sison are of one mind on the issue.

In response to a self-serving position paper where the Red Chinese Embassy claimed “Huangyan Island (China’s name for Panatag Shoal) has been the traditional fishing area of Chinese fishermen for generations,” and “It is China that first discovered this island, gave it the name, incorporated it into its territory, and exercised juristiction over it”, the DFA said:

“Historical claims must be substantiated by a clear historic title. Fishing rights are not a mode of acquiring sovereignty. Neither could it be construed that the act of fishing by Chinese fishermen is a sovereign act of a State, nor can be considered as a display of State authority.”

Chairman Sison adds that if Red China can cite historical records then the Philippines can cite pre-historic records:

“Archaeological evidence shows that the islands, reefs and shoals at issue have been used by inhabitants of what is now the Philippines since pre-historic times.”

So there.

But Red China stands by a map with a nine-dash line that it presented to the UN on May 7, 2007, the day after Vietnam and Malaysia asserted sovereignty over their respective continental shelves. The nine-dash line is a u-shaped squiggle between the southeast asian landmass and the Philippine archipelago. Red China claims it owns everything inside that wavy doodle.

The issue then is the provenance of the map and the u-shaped nine-dash line. I asked a forensic expert to look into it as my own little pro bono contribution towards easing tensions between the Philippines and Red China.

The forensic report is hereby submitted for your perusal and evaluation:

“Sir:

Upon a careful examination of the aforesaid ancient map, I have reached the following conclusions;

First, the map is authentic. However, there is evidence that it was tampered. If, as the Chinese Embassy claims, the map was drawn by the famous Chinese Imperial cartographer Hao Shao centuries ago, then the lower left corner area of the map would have the chop of Fu Manchu and not the smiling face of Mao who only became China’s emperor in 1949;

Second, I was suspicious of the u-shaped nine-dash line because it did not look as old as the map itself. I applied chemicals to the line, to see if there was anything hidden beneath it. The test proved negative. However, the line moved after it came into contact with the chemicals. Suspecting that it was not actually a part of the map, I put a tweezer to it and I was able to lift the entire u-shaped object without any difficulty. Hence the wavy object is not an integral part of the map;

Third, laid flat and straight the u-shaped object measures about 10 inches. I snipped off a quarter inch from it and put that under an electron microscope. What I saw surprised me so I conducted additional tests on the object. The tests confirmed what I observed using the electron microscope. The object is a dried noodle string. Subsequent DNA and carbon testing suggests that the said noodle may have slipped from Mao’s chopsticks sometime in 1949;

Fourth, Mao was a sloppy noodle slurper.”

I presented the forensic report to Comrade Shu Li, the Embassy apparatchik who wrote the self-serving position paper on Panatag. Caught off-guard, he begged for time to consult with his ambassador, Her Excellency Madame Suzie Wong, before giving me a response. He called back two days later.

Below are excerpts from the transcript of my phone conversation with Comrade Shu Li:

Shu Li: “China not intelested in explolation and exploitation of oil on Huangyan Island. China only catching shak for shak fin soup and dumpling, you see?

MB: “But you have to ask for our permission, you have to abide by international law.”

Shu Li: “Communist China lespect intelnational law but hungly stomach know no law like youl plesiden Elap always say, okidoki?”

MB: “Is that it?”

Shu Li: “Ha? Ok, I undelstand. So solly, so solly. Ok, Chinese Embassy invite you to noodle soup.”

MB: “No thanks.”

Shu Li: “Ha? No eat shak fin? Ok, we eat Yang Chow flied lice, vely delicious also, okidoki?”

MB: “It’s FRIED RICE, you land-grabbing commie PLICK!”