When you condemn Tolentino and Agarao and call them perverts and sleazes for that controversial show you are also calling those dancers sleazes. Be fair to those dancers.
Naghahanap buhay sila based on their gift for dancing. Kung masama si Tolentino at si Agarao ibig sabihin ba nun masama na rin yun mga dancer? Mga kalapating mababang lipad ba ang tingin ninyo sa kanila?
Naghahanap buhay sila ng legal pero dahil diyan sa trip ninyong sumakay sa moral high-horse mawawalan sila ng booking.
Let us not be too judgmental, let us not presume na tayo lang ang tama. HIndi illegal ang entertainment na ginagawa nung mga dancer. Kung ayaw ninyo ang style nila e di wag kayo pero wag naman ninyo i-impose ang inyong gusto hanggang sa mawalan ng hanap-buhay yung mga batang yun.
Kawawa naman. Baka tumutulong pa yan magsustento ng pamilya, baka ginagamit pang tuition ang kinikita…hindi natin sila kilala at hindi natin alam ang kalagayan nila pero ang bilis natin humusga.
Remember two years ago when MNLF fighters loyal to Nur Misuari attacked Zamboanga City and VP Jojo Binay claimed he had negotiated a ceasefire with their leader Nur Misuari?
At the height of the fighting, Binay told the press,
“What is important is that this evening, the agreement between the two parties is a ceasefire tonight and I will arrive there in Zamboanga tomorrow morning to talk about the mechanics of a peaceful settlement. Let’s disseminate the information. Mag-ceasefire muna.”
“Hopefully I’ll try to bring [the two sides] together in order to finalize the peaceful settlement, but there’s already an agreement on peaceful settlement, it’s more of the methodology. I’ll have to see to it that everything will be in good faith.”
Sa madaling salita, “Naayus ko na.”
But as it turned out Binay was lying.
First, he did not consult nor inform the President, Mar Roxas, Sec Voltaire Gazmin about his peace initiative. More importantly, he had not come to any kind of agreement with Misuari.
But in fairness to BInay, it was not for lack of trying. He did try to contact Misuari to open negotiations, as shown by a text message that happened to fall on my lap.
Binay: Good evening, Chairman Nur. May I call you to talk about a ceasefire?
Misuari: Hu dis pls?
An argument for full transparency of the investigation into the illegal detention complaint against certain INC leaders
I am 100 percent sure that whatever decision the DOJ reaches on the illegal detention charges against INC leaders will become sala sa lamig, sala sa init.
(1) Because if the DOJ dismisses the case, then the complainant and his lawyers, and those who will ride on anything negative against the administration, will say that it was because the administration gave in to INC pressure.
(2) On the other hand, if the DOJ finds prima facie evidence to bring the case to court, then the INC and also the opposition will once again claim that the administration is targetting the INC or, as the INC spokesman said, “tinatrabaho kami”. In addition, they will raise the bogus question, why did you prioritize this case when there are other more important cases pending? And they will throw SAF 44, PDAF and DAP, MRT, and whatever else they can shake a stick at into the mix.
And so, what to do?
Maybe the DOJ should make the investigation fully transparent.
It can publish the complaint, the counter-affidavits, transcripts of the questioning of witnesses etc. so that the public will see how the DOJ arrived at a decision, whatever that decision may be.
Now lawyers will probably point out that there are legal obstacles to full transparency of investigations. Well maybe. But I don’t see an investigation being compromised if both parties to the case agree to have the investigation conducted in full view of the public.
As far as I’m concerned the one who insists on keeping the investigation away from the public eye has some explaining to do.
Why would any of the parties in the case – the complainant, the INC leaders, or the DOJ – want to keep the proceedings secret? Do any of them have anything to hide?
Bottomline is this: In the rule of law scheme of things, the credibility of the process is a necessary ingredient to public acceptance of the legitimacy of whatever decision is reached. Simply put, the public has to see due process at work.
That’s the problem with Supreme Court decisions – all we get to see are decisions, we are not allowed to see the deliberations, the debate among justices over points of law, so we have no idea how decisions were reached. And that’s why so many SC decisions become controversial, that’s why so many suspicions about ill motives and backroom deals are attributed to certain justices. Because those who prefer to work in the dark are always suspect.
Para hindi maging sala sa lamig, sala sa init ang anumang magiging desisyon ng DOJ, kailangan makita ng taumbayan ang proceso. Ganun ka-simple lang yun. Do it in the open, not behind closed doors.
Ngayon sino sa mga involved sa kaso – the complainant, the INC officials or the DOJ – ang mag-kukumplika ng usapan at tututol sa transparency? Sino sa kanila ang mas gustong mag trabaho sa dilim?
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.