Sen Juan Ponce Enrile, out on bail on a plunder charge, is so desperate for a debate on Mamasapano he challenge anybody to go one on one with him.
“Again, I say to all of you listening now, whoever you may be, even if you’re the president of the Philippines, down to the lowest strata of society, all of you, if you wish to debate the Mamasapano case, just tell me when, and I’ll debate with you – especially if you’re the President,”
There is no truth to the rumor that Enrile was sighted at the Shaw Blvd underpass debating Mamasapano with a couple of rugby boys.
In Malaysia, PM Razak is embroiled in a gigantic corruption scandal. Like our VP Binay he has responded to the charges by saying it is part of a plot, nonsense etc etc.
Excerpts from Mahathir’s interview bear a striking resmblance with the way Binay is dismissing the corruption allegations against him.
Mahathir (Reacting to the official statement of PM Razak): ““It’s just the denial. Proof…you see the proof of the pudding is in the eating. You say you deny, let’s see the account…”
BBC interviewer (PM Razak says you are trying to verthrow a democratically elected leader): “And so you deny political sabotage..are you trying to topple him?
Mahathir: “No why doesn’t he answer the charges made against him? When people charge him over something he says it is a plot, this nonsense is not true. But proof, proof that it is not true. It is very easy for him to prove it is not true, it is very easy for him to prove that it is not true. He has this account in the bank all he has to do is say ‘you examine my accounts’. ‘look at it’.”
This morning, the colonel who holds the all-time world record in number of failed coup attempts and his mentor, the man who is out on bail because of old age and ill-health, spent hours berating professional soldiers on what they, the Laurel and Hardy of Warfare, thought was the AFP’s ignorance of true soldiering.
‘You had tanks, why didn’t you use them!?!’ raged the tireless old man.
‘Duh, because tanks don’t do too well underwater,’ replied the patient general.
‘You had artillery, why didn’t you fire!?!’ the old man on bail continued his harangue.
‘Duh, because first we need to know exactly where we are supposed to shoot and second we have to know how much separation there is between our troops and the enemy troops, and the civilians and the enemy troops’ explained the general who would not fire his cannons blindly.
And then the Filipino version of Gen Custer decided to toot his little big horn.
‘What were you using to communicate, your private cellphone or an official transmission device?’ he asked with all the gravitas he could muster.
‘My private cell phone, your honor’ replied the soldier with a ‘does- it-matter-if- I-use-smoke signals-as-long-as-we-can-communicate-efficiently’ look.
And yet the other half of the Laurel and Hardy art of warfare team thought he had something there.
‘So you used your private cell phone for official business. I think there’s a problem there.’
The disciplined soldier let it pass. He resisted the temptation to agree, ‘Well, you’re right your honor. I should have told the beleaguered ground commander to call me in a few hours when I’m back at the office.”
And on and on it went while the nation, waiting with bated breath, wondered when the hell was the old man going to present evidence for his eight points that will prove once and for all that Pres Aquino should be hanged for the mistakes of SAF Napeñas…
But seriously…. you cannot have an officer blaming other officers – specially a policeman blaming soldiers – when he loses men in a mission under his command; for the simple reason that enlisted men will lose faith in their officers if finger-pointing becomes the norm among officers. That’s why an officer and a gentlemen never turns on his fellow officers. Whether it’s his fault or someone else’s fault, he as the ground commander falls on his sword. Always.
But this morning you had that man and his bodyguard taking the side of a finger-pointing police officer against the AFP. Fuck the PNP, fuck the AFP, fuck morale in both services, we are on a mission to destroy Pres. Aquino and that is all that matters to us.
Helpful ALERTO from former MMDA Chair Francis Tolentino. Tama naman ang lahat except for Number Three (My capitalization).
Paano ka iiwas sa rush hour? E di na-late ka sa trabaho!!! Kaya nga rush-hour ang tawag kasi yun ang oras kung kelan lahat ay pumapasok sa trabaho!!!! Shit, gusto ko tuloy magpa-intravenous ng isang boteng vodka
Mga tips para makatipid pagco-commute:
2. Sumakay ng Tren
3. UMIWAS SA RUSH HOURS
4. Sumabay sa kakilalang may sasakyan
5. Umiwas mag taxi (mahal ang pamasahe)
6. Ihanda ang mga barya
Isang paalala po mula sa ALERTO Francis Tolentino.
Inquirer Headline : “Poe: Senate won’t compel Aquino to attend Mamasapano probe”
“Ang Pangulo ay mayroong immunity. Hindi naman natin siya pwedeng pilitin na dumalo sa ganitong pagdinig. (The president has immunity. We cannot compel him to attend such hearings.) explained Grace Poe.
Maybe someone should explain to Grace – a political science major in Boston College – our system of government. If her people won’t do it, I will.
Grace, in our system, Congress, the Executive, and the Supreme Court are separate and co-equal branches of government. Thus by definition, one co-equal cannot compel another co-equal to do anything.
Equals are equals. If one can compel another then they are not equals, they are in what is called a superior-subordinate relationship.
But what about the Supreme Court rulings that tie the hands of Congress and the Executive, does that not make the Supreme Court more equal?
No, my dear, when the Supreme Court issues those rulings it is merely acting as a tool of the Constitution which, as anybody who was not sleeping in her political science class would know, is above all and everything. Simply put, the Constitution is God, the Supreme Court is His medium of communication. So when the SC rules, it is doing so in the name of God and not in its own name.
To reiterate, the reason that you cannot compel President Aquino to attend your circus is because he is your equal. Immunity has nothing to do with it.
Please learn the basic principles of government before you present yourself as a candidate for the position of Chief Executive.
Beyond the legalities, the real question is where Grace Poe’s heart lies.
I’ve read the oath of naturalization that she took to become a US citizen. Mabigat ang oath. Many people I know who have been residents of the US for 20 years or more cannot bring themselves to “absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity” to the Philippines. They would rather put up with the inconvenience of remaining a green card holder than to renounce Inang Bayan.
For comparison, this is the UK’s oath of naturalization:
“I, A.B. [full name], do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that on becoming a , I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors, according to law.”
Sa UK hindi mo kailangan ITAKWIL ang iyong Inang Bayan. So one who has become a citizen of the UK and reacquired Filipino citizenship in order to run for public office does not have to go through as many contortions as Grace has done.
Grace abjured and renounced the Philippines and made a solemn oath of loyalty to the US. But in an interview she dismissed that solemn oath,
“Loyalty to the country does not end with territory. Sometimes you are elsewhere but your heart is really for the country,” she said in an interview.
That’s like explaining to an old boyfriend she reconciled with that she really really still loved him even if she had married someone else and vowed “I,Grace, take you, Neil, to be my lawfully wedded husband, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part.”
But that’s not all. Her lawyer, arguing her disqualification case before the Supreme Court, explained why she became a US citizenship.
“There was general suspicion against foreigners or permanent residents who refused to become citizens. Because of that situation it was even difficult for permanent residents to find jobs….She was a typical wife, she wanted to help her husband raise and finance a family, so she decided she had to take a job on her own. And the only way to do that was to become a naturalized US citizen.”
So back to her former boyfriend. He asks “but why did you have to marry him?”And she replies, “For convenience.”
Justice Carpio explains why we cannot have bilateral talks with China.
Meron tangang kandidato for president who said, “
Sabihin ko sa (I will tell) China, just stop your construction,” Duterte said. “Be courteous about this and we will just talk. We cannot go into war. We cannot afford it. “You have to listen to my declaration – whether you believe it or not, that’s something else – but if we talk, I’d say that the predicate of this talks is that what you are occupying now belongs to the Republic of the Philippines,” he said.
Eh 1995 pa pala sinubukan na yang bilateral talks ng gobyerno at ang sagot ng Tsina ay wala tayong pag-uusapan kasi sa amin ang buong karagatan. Kaya pala napilitan tayo dalhin ang kaso sa international tribunal.
Ngayon duma-dakdak si Duterte but he is obviously clueless about what transpired before, and has no idea what re-opening bilateral talks with China will do to our case in the international tribunal.
Talagang hindi pa pwede pang national at international si Dutirti. Hanggang pang Davao lang siya.
“Suffrage is one of the direct exercises, perhaps the only direct exercise, where people actually select their agents in terms of government. And therefore, should this Court apply the doctrine, in that we should first allow the people to decide and then we, the final arbiter, in case of contests?” Associate Justice Marvic Leonen
Such stirring words…heart-tugging to say the least. But WTF?
The question regarding Grace Poe is eligibility – “the state of having the right to do or obtain something through satisfaction of the appropriate conditions.”
Sa taglish, kailangan you must meet the requirements bago ka pwedeng kumandidato.
In inglis, you must be eligible in order to run for office.
But Leonen argues for the opposite. In effect, “Let her run and if she wins and someone contests her victory on the grounds that she is ineligible in the first place, then the Supreme Court will step in and decide whether she was eligible to run or not.”
Isn’t Leonen’s stirring argument actually a plea to do things ass-backwards?