Some people have taken to calling the recent INC rally Edsa 4.
Excuse me poh pero ang laking insulto naman yun dun sa milyun-milyon na sumali Edsa 1, 2, and 3.
Siguro it would be better if we give the recent INC rally a name that distinguishes it from the three earlier truly massive protests….
let’s refer to it as the Edsa Underpass 1.
That will describe not only the location but also gives a clear indication of how many people attended…kung ilang tao ang kumasya dun sa Edsa-Shaw underpass.
Baka naman hostage na rin si Ka Eddie Manalo…
Off-target na naman itong si Walden Bello.
He implies that the government may have cut a deal with the INC and as a result sacrificed public interest.
Well maybe the government is just saving the INC from embarrasment by not revealing that INC leaders backed down when the government informed them that the rule of law will be upheld when the rally permit from Mandaluyong expires.
Or maybe the government thought it wiser to allow the INC leadership to save face…
Pero bakit pa ididiin ang unconditional surrender, which seems to be what Bello wants, e ang importante peace and order and the rule of law prevailed at the end.
But there’s another thing Bello missed, something na yun mga malilikot ang utak na tulad ko always notices.
Napansin ba ninyo that INC leader Manalo never sat down in those meetings with the President?
So napa-isip ako, bakit hindi siya ang humarap sa Presidente? Ayaw ba niya o hindi siya pinayagan ng Sanggunian nila?
If you remember, Angel Manalo hinted earlier that there was a cordon sanitaire around his brother and neither he nor his mother to speak to Ka Erdie directly….So were those INC reps speaking on behalf of Ka Erdie or were they really speaking for themselves in the guise of speaking for Ka Erdie? Dapat siguro itanong din yan ni Bello ‘yan….Hindi nagpapa-interview si Manalo…laging mga spokesman lang niya ang humaharap sa publiko…baka naman hostage na rin siya, diba?
Perennial has-been, Kit Tatad – a has-been even way back during the Marcos days when he still believed he could become something someday except fate decided that his life would go from “could become” to “has-been” without going through the “is” stage – cannot let go of the thought that continuing the INC rally could produce a chance for people like him to run the country without being elected.
“But all is not lost. While the fire still burns and the crowds are still out there, the INC could enlarge its vision and objective and with the help of all other groups and sectors, transform its march for justice for the Iglesia into a march for justice and dignity for all. Then we could begin to consider whether or not we should now set up a caretaker government before we start talking of another election.”
Syet…Maybe we ought to have a law making it illegal for has-beens to jerk off on their wet dreams in public.
Imagined “morning after the disastrous weekend adventure” conversation among INC leadership…
“What made us believe that stopping traffic in Edsa would be the way to stop our internal conflict?”
“It’s not over yet…let’s go nationwide that way we will know who among our brethren is with us or against us”
“Are you sure we want to know?”
Sa milyun-milyong myembro ng INC, kakarampot lang ang nag rally, less than ten thousand ang sumipot, ibig sabihin ba nun ay hindi sang-ayon ang karamihan sa panawagan ng Sanggunian nila? Guni-guni nalang ba ang sanggunian, hating guni ba sila ngayon?
From blogger stuart santiago comes an interesting angle on the shooting of anthony taberna’s cafe
“this morning the big news was the strafing of anthony taberna’s coffee shop in qc…. at first i didn’t connect it with the INC protest rally just because taberna had refused to comment on the issue from the start, which i took to mean that his sympathies lay with the INC leadership. and then i saw inday’s fb status:
“Attacks on Tunying’s cafe. He has been receiving many, many threats and very angry socmed messages from INC members loyal to leadership — because he kept quiet. I know some people have questions about Tunying… but it hasn’t been easy for him and Gerry this last month.”
“ah so. complicating it is the fact that taberna and samson are blood relations pala, so his loyalty is under question. “
Illegal detention ang pinag-uusapan, hindi relihiyon kaya NA-DISAPPOINT AKO KAY GRACE POE
Isaias Samson Jr., a former INC minister, member of the INC Sanggunian, head of its foreign missions and editor in chief of its Pasugo magazine, said the INC Sanggunian placed him and his family under detention for 9 days “after he was accused of writing a blog exposing supposedly corrupt activities done by INC leaders and the alleged abductions of several INC ministers.”
Samson filed a complaint with the DOJ after he and his family managed to escape. Consequently, the DOJ placed them under government protection pending investigation of their complaint.
The INC leadership took this as an attack against their church and they issued a “tagubilin” to their followers:
“Ngunit ganito ang sagot ni Moises sa lipi ni Ruben at ni Gad, “Hahayaan ba ninyong makipaglaban ang inyong mga kapatid habang kayo’s nagpapasarap dito?” (Book of Numbers 32:6 GNT)
INC members took this as a call to arms and went to rally at the DOJ and Edsa.
But Samson’s lawyers pointed out,
“The complaint was filed on Tuesday 25 August, and no notices for hearings have been sent out. What are they complaining about?… They immediately call out the Department of Justice officials as being biased, based solely on their perception that the mere docketing of the case at the main office is already proof of said selective justice…They believe that a massing of people pressuring officials to rule in their favor is a strategy that gets them off the hook. They fail to see that they look like bullies at the gate demanding that the DOJ rule in a certain way – THEIR way. They fail to see that they aren’t demanding justice, they are demanding special privileges.” (ABS-CBNNEWS)
But not to VP Binay, Sen. Chiz Escudero, and Sen. Grace Poe who are telling the DOJ to lay off from investigating a kidnapping because kidnapping is an internal INC matter.
“the Iglesia cannot be faulted for resorting to mass action to protect the independence of the church “from a clear act of harassment and interference from the administration….Religious freedom is guaranteed by our Constitution. Yet the administration chose to trample on this sacred right. What we are seeing are people fighting for their faith” he said. (ABS-CBNNEWS)
“It may be prudent to first let the leadership of the INC resolve what appears to be a purely internal matter.” (ABS-CBNNEWS)
“Huwag nating mamaliitin ang importansya ng relihiyon …Para sa akin, ang mga tao na yan, ang dinedepensahan nila ay ang kanilang paniniwala. Nirerespeto natin ‘yan at kailangan ay pangalagaan din ang kanilang mga karapatan ” (ABS-CBNNEWS)
Binay and Escudero did not surprise me pero NA-DISAPPOINT AKO KAY GRACE POE.
Justice Bersamin said Justice Leonen “violated the confidentiality rule on court sessions, as stated in Section 2, Rule 10, of the Supreme Court’s internal rules, when he disclosed in his dissent how the decision was reached.”
Section 2 states: “Court sessions are executive in character, with only the members of the court present. Court deliberations are confidential and shall not be disclosed to outside parties, except as may be provided herein or as authorized by the court.”
What is the rationale for making SC deliberations secret?
Unlike deliberations in the Executive and Legislative Branches which necessarily involve political considerations, SC deliberations are supposed to be purely on points of law. No politics. Nothing personal. Just interpretaions of the law. No negotiations, no horsetrading, only argumentation. So why not let the sunshine in?
In fact, opening SC deliberations to the publice will be educational. The public become familiar with the law because they will hear the legal arguments pro and con and they will understand how decisions are reached. They will also know their justices.
Nag desisyon na ang Korte Suprema kaya mas mabuti na ang tignan na lang natin ay kung ano ang magiging consequences ng desisyon nila.
Pero para dun sa gusto maintindihan bakit naging ganun ang desisyon ng SC, you can read it here: SC DECISION ON ENRILE’S BAIL
Ang decision na “the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying Enrile’s Motion to Fix Bail” took 16 pdf pages to rationalize and justify.
But all the arguments and rationalizations and justifications flow from this one sentence at the end of the decision:
“With his solid reputation in both his public and his private lives, his long years of public service, and history’s judgment of him being at stake, he should be granted bail.”
Sa madaling salita, ang sinabi ng SC ay
“sa tingin namin dapat makapag-pyansa si Enrile kasi sa aming pananaw si Enrile ay isang solid citizen na may kahanga-hangang reputasyon. Idagdag pa natin na matanda na at may sakit pa siya.”
Below are some of the decision’s paragraphs that caught my eye:
“The strength of the prosecution’s case, albeit a good measure of the accused’s propensity for flight or for causing harm to the public, is subsidiary to the primary objective of bail, which is to ensure that the accused appears on trial
“It is worthy to note that bail is not granted to prevent the accused from committing additional crimes. The purpose of bail is to guranatee the appearance of the accused at the trial, or whenever so required by the trial court. The amount of bail should be high enough to assure the presence of the accused when so required, but it should be no higher than is reasonably calculated to fulfill this purpose.
“Bail may be granted as a matter of right or of discretion…
“The general rule is, therefore, that any person before being convicted of any criminal offense, shall be bailable, unless he is charged with a capital offense, or with an offense with reclusion perpetua or life , and the evidence of guilt is strong. Hence from the moment he is placed under arrest, or is detained or restrained by the officers of the law, he can claim the guarantee under the Bill of Rights, and he retains his right to bail unless he is charged with a capital offense, or with an offense punishable with reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, and the evidence of guilt is strong. Once it has been established that the evidence of guilt is strong, no right to bail shall be recognized.
“On the other hand the granting of bail is discretionary (1) upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, or (2) if the RTC has imposed a penalty of imprisonment exceeding six years, provided none of the circumstances enumerated under paragraph 3 of Section 5 Rule 114 is present…
“Enrile’s poor health justifies his admission to bail…..We first note that Enrile has averred in hie Motion to Fix Bail the presence of two mitigating circumstances that should be appreciated in his favor, namely: that he was already over 70 years at the time of the alleged commission of the offense, and that he voluntarily surrendered.
“Yet, we do not determine now the question of whether or not Enrile’s averment on the presence of the two mitigating could entitle him to bailsimply because the determination…is ideally to be made by the trial court.
“Nonetheless, in now granting Enrile’s petition for sertoriari, the Court is guided by the earlier mentioned purpose of bail, which is to guaranteed the appearance of the accused at the trial, or hwnever so required by the court. The Court is further mindful of the Philippines’ responsibility in the international community arising from the nationl commitment under the Universal Declaration of Human Rihhts….
“In our view, his social and political standing and his having immediately surrendered to the authorities upon his being charged in court indicate that the risk of his flight or escape from this jurisdcition is highly unlikely. His personal disposition from the onset of his indictment for plunder, formal or otherwise, has demonstrated his utter respect for the legal processes of this country….With his solid reputation in both his public and his private lives, his long years of public service, and history’s judgment of him being at stake, he should be granted bail.
“The currently fragile state of Enrile’s health presents another compelling justification for his admission to bail….granting provisional liberty to Enrile will then enable him to have his medical condition be properly addressed and better attended to by competent physicians in the hospitals of his choice. This will not only aid in his adequate preparation for his defense,but more importantly, will guarantee his apparance in court for the trial.
“Accordingly, we conclude that the Sandiganbayan arbitrarily ignored the objective of bail to ensure the appearance of the accused during trial; and unwarrantedly disregarded the clear showing of the fragile health and advanced age of Enrile. As such the Sandiganbayan gravely abused its discretion in denying Enrile’s Motion to Fix Bail.”
Napaisip lang ako…..
Anong ibig sabihin ng non-bailable offense? Maliban sa kung mahina ang ebidensya, ano ang pwedeng gamitin na dahilan para payagan mag-pyansa ang isang naka-detain under a non-bailable offense? Pwede bang nag pyansa dahil sa old age, sickness, flight risk, innocent until proven guilty?
Bakit si Andal Ampatuan Sr ng Maguindanao Massacre hindi pinayagan mag-pyansa kahit namamatay na siya sa cancer of the liver nung dinidinig pa ang kaso niya? Hindi ba mas compassionate kung piayagan na lang siyang makapiling ang mga mahal niya sa buhay bago siya namatay?
Bakit yun mga ibang Ampatuan hindi pwedeng mag-pyansa? Diba innocent until proven guilty?
Bakit si Delfin Lee na may kaso sa housing scam ay hindi makapag-pyansa?
Pag na convict ang suspek sa Regional Trial Court hindi pa tapos ang laban. Meron pa siyang pagasa sa Court of Appeals at sa Supreme Court.
Samakatuwid inosente pa ang sinuman habang hindi sinasabi ng Supreme Court na tapos na ang appeals at kailangan nang makulong ang may kaso.
Kung innocent until conviction with finality ang takbo ng hustisya natin, bakit ang dami diyan na nakakulong na habang yun appeals nila ay dinidinig pa ng matataas na korte? Diba dapat lang e palayin muna sila habang hindi pa tapos ang appeals nila?
Bakit pwedeng mag-pyansa kahit non-bailable ang kaso pag may pera, pero yung walang pera pang pyansa ay naka-detain during trial? Para sa mayaman lang ang pyansa?
Bakit hindi automatic at libre ang appeals para sa lahat? Hindi ba unfair sa mahirap na yun may pera lang ang meron kakayahan na mag appeal hanggang sa Supreme Court?
Doon naman sa flight risk? Sino ang mas madaling makatakas yung matandang o may sakit na maraming pera o yun matanda o may sakit na walang pera?
The case of the missing crystal ball
Dr Elenita Binay opposed the inclusion of whistle-blower Ernesto Mercado as a witness for the prosecution in the “P21.536 million overpricing of the P72-million contract for panel fabric partitions and connector brackets for the Makati city hall.”
Why? Because the prosecution failed to include Mercado in the pre-trial order of witnesses filed on Sept. 2013.
Her lawyers argued that including Mercado now as a witness “would in effect be another investigation during which the prosecution is free to discover evidence that they should have known in the first place…”
Sounds reasonable, right?
Except for the fact that Mercado only surfaced as a whistleblower about a year after the filing of the list of witnesses or around June 2014.
“To state the obvious,” said the prosecutors, “the prosecution could not have known that Vice Mayor Mercado was a viable witness at the time pre-trial was being conducted.”
But Binay’s lawyers insisted,
“(T)he prosecution should have known all of their potential witnesses and documents during the pre-trial. In fact… (t)he prosecution, at the time of the filing of the information should have already identified all of its witnesses and documents necessary in proving the allegations.”
In other words, it’s the prosecution’s fault and not Dra. Binay’s that the prosecution could not predict Mercado would become a whistleblower. It’s the prosecution’s fault and not Dra. Binay’s that the prosecution did not have enough sense to buy a crystal ball or consult Madame Auring.
Ridiculous argument, diba? Well, maybe to us normal human beings but not to lawyers.
So the judge will have to carefully consider Binay’s motion and the prosecution’s reply before he renders a decision on whether or not to allow Mercado to testify.
If Mercado is not allowed to testify, chances are the doktora will be found not guilty of stealing P21,536M from Makati’s coffers.
Blame it on the missing crystal ball if that happens.