finished a 60-pager without exhaling and will not be viable for the next few years, I’m outta here.
Just got a text from the guest coordinator of The Explainer, MLQ III’s show (Manolo Quezon); the guest coordinator invited a person with my name (because the text referred to me in the third person) to a discussion on Edsa 2 next week where the person with my name will defend the legality of Edsa 2 and Dean Jorge Bocobo will oppose it. I sent thanks for the invite and regrets for not being available for such a debate.
Anyway.
Edsa Dos was a proud moment; i don’t regret any day of that entire year except one night of it; that night when we were getting information that the trapos of Gloria were negotiating with the trapo camp of Erap in Malacanang on the transfer of power to Gloria; regret for that night because for the entire year the movement and the agreements were founded on a leadership made up of people’s organizations and civil society; and when our group (PILC lawyers and human rights organizations; we made a formation in front of the POEA to proceed to Malacanang), was going to move out to go to the Palace to stop the trapos from parcelling the country, we were restrained from breaking away; there were negotiations. We marched to Espana and got there at 3:00 am or 4:00 am, at the Welcome Rotonda, we waited at the gas station, then at the break of day, we marched to the palace. At mid-morning about 30,000 marchers met us on a bridge. And we ousted Erap; but his leaving had been the subject of negotiations before we got to the palace and those negotiations would not have been possible without the people’s marches.
Gloria betrayed Edsa Dos.
my right shoulder muscle is sore and stiff; i’m outta here, goodbye bunot!
Discover more from marichulambino.com
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
would you be able to recommend someone to guest?
LikeLike
Well you can escape the show, but not your own blog Marichu.
“A proud moment” huh?
It does not appear to me that the vast audience of history will agree with you about Edsa Dos.
The Decisions Estrada v. Arroyo cannot be taught in the law schools without destroying the logical and moral integrity of the Constitution.
Far greater disdain for the law will result thereby, far greater than even the now less-infamous Javellana v. Executive Secretary, which the great Justice Fred Castro said was predictive of what the Supreme Court would do in the future.
How terribly, terribly right he was!
LikeLike
The simple thesis that diehard Edsa Dos defenders can only hide behind the Supreme Court for is that Erap Estrada was denied DUE PROCESS of the LAW. As such, he has lost the presumption of innocence and cannot be tried fairly and impartially. Which is the real reason his case has not even reached the Supreme Court in six years. They are just waiting for him to die.
That is how low the Justice System has come. It is atrocious that our professoriat are blind to this simple truth.
LikeLike
I too was victimized by these trapos. Little did we know that they had been planning this for years. Now that the elections are coming up, they are resurrecting the idea of giving Erap his freedom. Erap’s case is in the courts, let it take its course. There should be no political considerations, let the court finish the case.
LikeLike
The blinders have to do with thinking that only Erap Estrada violated his oath of office. But what in the world was Chief Justice Davide doing in front of a religious shrine in Quezon City and swearing in the Vice President. Maybe he was wearing the costume of the Chief Justice, in his black robes of Impartiality, but surely you do not claim that on Saturday 20 January 2001, Hilario Davide had some official business at the Edsa Shrine. Why did he not simply reconvene the Impeachment Trial of Erap, as was his Constitutional duty? Why did he chuck out the Constitution. (Realize this has nothing to do with March, 2001, when the Supreme Court decisions that justified and exculpated Davide of any wrongdoing or dereliction of duty was handed down.)
I claim the Emperor has no clothes. You are still at “a proud moment”!
LikeLike
There are five and exactly five conditions by which a Presidency ends under the 1987 charter: (1) he or she dies; (2) he or she is permanently disabled; (3) he or she resigns; (4) he or she is impeached AND convicted; or (5) he completes the six year term.
But on Saturday, 20 January 2001, it was mode (4) that was within the imaginable purview of Chief Justice Hilario Davide, as presiding judge of the Senate Impeachment Trial. Permanent disablity was a LIE, so Estrada v. Arroyo had to invent constructed, err, constructive resignation.
Why did he not rule on the admissibility of the First Envelope and Clarissa Ocampo after three long weeks, thus precipitating the Craven Eleven vote?
Why did he not rule on the admissibility of the Second Envelope? Perhaps he knew, as the public later discovered, that it actually contained evidence favorable to Erap, being a claim by Jaime Dichavez for the Jose Velarde accounts?
And why did Davide swear in GMA?
Surely, he had not yet “construed” the resignation of Erap at that point one fine Saturday morning six years ago?
Justice is not prescient.
Yet now he is our permanent rep at the U.N.
Methinks the robes of dignity and national sovereignty overfit us!
LikeLike
The passage of time only makes clearer that at least three other persons violated their sworn oaths of office on 20 January 2001:
(1) Chief Justice Hilario Davide, for not upholding the explicit provisions of the Constitution on Presidential succession;
(2) Chief of Staff Angelo Reyes, for breaking the chain of command and committing mutiny and treason against the Presidency.
(3) Vice President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo for engineering an illegal swearing in ceremony that is immortalized on the 200 peso bill.
They destroyed Democracy you know and the ongoing destruction of society is the plain result, while some like you grin foolishly…
LikeLike
Anyway, Happy New Year, Marichu!
LikeLike
I would like to commend the program Kapuso Mo, Jessica Soho for its episode on Saturday, August 18. This particular episode showcased a story entitled “Batang Sugarol” featuring children who, in such a young age, are already involved in gambling.
The episode interviewed a 12-year child who regularly bets in cockfights. He was greatly influenced by his father who even approves of his son’s habit as he is also a cockfight enthusiast. The child’s father was interviewed by the show but his face was never shown for if he will be recognizable, his child might be recognized by others as well. The program also featured other children involved in gambling such as a 10-year old boy who works as a bet collector in their community to support his studies, a teenager who collects bets for big-time gambling in campuses, and another minor who is now in juvenile detention as he once became addicted to gambling which pushed him to commit crimes such as robbery.
The faces of children featured and interviewed in the program were not entirely shown so as to protect their rights and reputation. Camera shots only showed the lower part of the interviewees’ faces and in no way are they recognizable. Moreover, the real names of the children were not revealed and they were only given nicknames.
The show also interviewed an expert, a child psychologist, to explain why children are attracted to gambling. The psychologist emphasized that parents have a great impact on children as a child may imitate a parent who is into gambling. He cited the case of the 12-year old child and his father interviewed in the earlier part of the episode. The psychologist also pointed out that children need constant guidance from parents so that they may not be attracted to unpleasant and improper habits and that parents should serve as good examples for their children.
Kapuso Mo, Jessica Soho abided with KBP’s general program standard that says, “Gambling shall never be presented as a good habit, nor shall the public be encouraged to engage in it.” The show made a clear message that gambling is a socially undesirable and unacceptable habit, not just for any person of proper age but especially for children or minors. The feature story ended with Jessica Soho saying “Ang hindi alam ng mga batang ito, nang dahil sa sugal, inilalagay nila sa alanganin maging ang kanilang sariling kinabukasan.”
LikeLike
Our Practice Involves Accuracy
The front page of the August 23, 2007 issue of The Philippine Star carries the headline “Palace, Senate Gird for War”, written by Paolo Romero. The story chronicles President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s response to Senator Panfilo Lacson’s revival of the “Hello Garci” issue in Senate. A quote from the President is published with the article: “I embrace work and leave just to the pythons of hate to have a monopoly on the politics of destruction.”
The front page of The Philippine Daily Inquirer carries a story entitled “I have a peace to win” by Juliet Labog-Javellana and Gil C. Cabacungan on the same story. The difference, however, is that the quote from the President reads as “Titans of hate”, as opposed to The Philippine Star’s “Pythons of hate”.
At this point, whoever was right or wrong in quoting the President is immaterial. Needless to say that in the journalism practice, it is of importance to quote sources, interviewees and subjects with utmost care, as comments and quotes inevitably affect the presentation of the story to the reading public. While a story may be well-written (as both stories are, in this case) discrepancies in the actual terms used by the subject being quoted affects not only the story itself but the credibility of the writers and the publication as well. Misquoting subjects also has legal implications and could be used as grounds for legal action.
In this case, though either newspaper could have committed an honest mistake in quoting the President, given that both are major broadsheets in the Philippines, the responsibility of accurately delivering the news to the reading public is given more attention than other newspapers. A vast majority of the country depend on these newspapers for news and updates. If the readers are given erroneous information, and are singularly depending upon the newspaper for information, the effect is more than obvious: misinformation. Although it was just on word, the impact of the word upon the statement (i.e. “pythons” referring to people has different insinuations compared to “titans”, and vice versa) would carry severe implications on the message the subject is trying to deliver.
LikeLike