comments comments

Hi everyone! The template puts the comments on a link; that
format doesn’t publish it with the same prominence as the post; so in the meantime i’ll
just publish them this way, although the cool thing is the avatar of the
commenter appears at the head of my page, so that gives it prominence, but
that space accommodates only five avatars at a time; i’m using this template
because the all-black background makes the “light” on the paintings leap off
the page.

Most of the comments are on the post “Not disputed”. thanks all!!!
– marichu

“The Lawyer” by Giuseppe Arcimboldo, 1566. by oil on canvas. Statens Konstsamlingar, Gripsholm Slott, Stokholm, Sweden. from abcgallery.com

from baycas |

just another so-called LJ
from none other than GMA

Sep 26, 1:28 PM —
xxx

from lapsapan |

i wonder what GMA’s spin doctors will come up with regarding this issue of her not doing anything about Neri’s report of bribery.

i’m sure they will come up with something. magaling magpalusot ang malakanyang.

Sep 26, 4:00 PM —

xxxx

from Bencard |

neri’s exact testimony was that abalos said to him “you have 200 here”. where did you get the “200 million pesos”? are you trying to “clarify” his testimony, or you are mischaracterizing it to fit your spin?

i don’t think there was any testimony from neri as to what gma did after he mentioned the alleged “bribe to her. in fact, it is at this point that he invoked the president’s executive privilege under eo 464, as delineated by the sc in ermita. how do you know what action was taken or not taken by the president?

Sep 27, 2:11 AM —

xxxx

from perfectlyhuge |

Bencard, what gma did was tell neri not to accept it. she knew that it was a bribe, she did nothing but merely asked nerdi not to accept. of course, its 200 more to the pot.

Sep 27, 5:48 AM —

xxxx

from perfectlyhuge |

i dont buy it. neri said he nobody asked him about the bribe. this is ‘i have 2 tapes’ again to the rescue. and again he does it bad.

Sep 27, 5:53 AM —

xxxx

from Bencard |

perfectlyhuge, what have you got? a crystal ball or a witch’s brew or where you there yourself as eyewitness? how do you know gma’s esponse to neri was not “if you think he is bribing you, don’t accept it.” speculations masquerading as factual conclusions are dangerous.

Sep 28, 12:41 AM

xxxxx

from DJB Rizalist |

suggestion lang: please change your font. it’s illegible. but i like hieronymus bosch. He was psychedelic even before lsd.

Sep 28, 11:57 AM —

from marichulambino |

Ooops, i was in the process of finalizing when your comment was posted and didn’t want to get interrupted until it was done; then it was done and i read your comment. I changed the visuals because the first paragraph was about the government building and the government tv channel and people there were nice to me, and the visuals was about “gluttony and lust”, and i didn’t want to to put the two together, so i second-guessed and changed the visuals; Rembrandt’s “Moses Smashing the Tablets of the Law”, then i had second thoughts again because the visuals might be too self-righteous, etc.; but the evening was late, so i didn’t change it anymore; then i read your comment. Anyway. I changed all magneto fonts (in three posts) to baskerville. more legible. thanks!

Sep 28, 1:00 PM —

xxxx

#

from marichulambino |

ok, i changed the visuals again.

Sep 28, 1:21 PM —

from Bencard |

res gestae may be admissible hearsay but they are not conclusive. they are just like any other admitted evidence. the court can believe or reject it. to be convincing, it needs corroboration or support by other admitted evidence. standing alone, without more, is not sufficient to convict beyond reasonable doubt, i think.

Sep 28, 11:24 PM —

xxxx

#

from DJB Rizalist |

i once got advice like i just gave you early in my blogging experience. no disrespect meant, of course, but i remember following it and immediately tripled readership. (from 2 to six, hehe).

Marichu, I think there are many blawgers out there (and amateurs like me) waiting for someone to nucleate a good site for legal discussions. There are so many fundamental issues that need clarification. One that is hot on my own mind right now is the whole area of the limits of Supreme Court power. Lots of people think they are omnipotent, but don’t appreciate the basic fact that on the matter of Public Accountability of Constitutional officers (impeachment), the Court has NO jurisdiction whatsoever, not even judicial review. They usurped the Senates powers in 2001, and now I believe they are usurping the Executive’s commander and chief powers and the legislative mandates of the Congress. it is I believe a serious breach being done with good intentions (solving extrajudicial killings). But if you read the stuff on habeas data, for example, what you have is scarcy knife that can cut lots of ways, including freedom of speech.

Hope you study this topic and blog on it. It is crucial to democracy, separation of powers. thanks.

Sep 29, 11:19 AM —

xxxx

DJB Rizalist |

Here is the latest post on this matter:
http://philippinecommentary.blogspot.com/2007/09/activist-supreme-court-usurping.html

Sep 29, 11:21 AM

xxxx

DJB Rizalist |

Yesterday I did something fun.

I got the transcript of CJ RBP’s speech at Silliman University yesterday and recorded myself reading it out loud, like a piece of English Composition, you know?
Chief Justice Reynato B. Puno on Human Rights

Have you read it?

Someone (a female) should read and record a ponencia of Ynares Santiago, eh?.

Sep 29, 11:59 AM —

xxxx

DJB Rizalist |

Ooops, darn WordPress, here’s that MP3:

Sep 29, 12:01 PM —

xxxxx

DJB Rizalist |

Well your comment thread seems to be working good!

But are you mainly a “DARK” mooded person?
[that’s a technical software-type question, of course!]

Sep 29, 12:05 PM —

xxxx