I’ve nothing to write about today — What is the difference between the PDAF being struck down as unconstitutional and the DAP being dealt a legal fatal blow?
PDAF is an act of Congress; DAP was
created by the hand of the President.
From where the President sits, a lethal attack on the DAP has more serious legal consequences on the presidency – maybe not political because his people keep reminding us he still has the numbers —
but who is to say what outcomes legal blows may bring.
Therefore, from this point of view, he had to, and has to put up a fight for DAP — from where he sits, he cannot have it undone, having it undone wholesale might weaken the case of Malacañang before the Supreme Court.
It’s almost like…i hate to say this… being indicted in a criminal case or being an accused in a criminal case — legally, your only options are to stay silent — or to fight back (actively present defenses). You cannot do any act that would be construed as admissions that you were wrong — you cannot confess. It’s almost like … i’m sorry i’m going to say this… it’s almost like —ikaw ang nasasakdal. Sorry i had to say that; but this allows an understanding of why he has to do what he is doing.
That’s the difference between the attack on the PDAF and the onslaught on the DAP. DAP is made up of his overt acts.
His “advisers” thought the best form was the unprecedented primetime all- TV -network -broadcast. And since his trust rating was slipping as well, instead of confining themselves to legal arguments, they thought they might as well throw in the “i-am-not-a-thief” theme.
There are however some questions about the logic displayed in the speech itself or the content, in the context of the “scrap-pork” calls.
The call, supported by overwhelming numbers according to the empirical data of the social scientists, is:
People vs. Janet Lim Napoles, et al for for serious illegal detention: As of posting time, the first prosecution witness, the NBI agent who came to the aid of BenHur Luy, is being crossed on the following: whether or not he was armed with a search warrant when he entered the premises; and accused’s lawyer tried to show a CCTV footage of BenHur Luy walking on the corridor etc but was not not allowed by the Court at this time.
The prosecution needs to prove that: BenHur Luy was detained or deprived of liberty, for more than five days by the accused, to constitute the crime of serious illegal detention. Based on jurisprudence, serious illegal detention is not limited to locking up a person but includes all forms of deprivation of liberty, as follows:
“Revised Penal Code. Art. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. – Any private individual who shall kidnap or detain another or in any manner deprive him of his liberty shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death:
“1.If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than five days.
“2.If it shall have been committed simulating public authority.
“3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained; or if threats to kill him shall have been made.
”4.If the person kidnapped shall be a minor, female, or public officer.
“The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person, even if none of the circumstances abovementioned were present in the commission of the offense.”
“Art. 267 was taken from… the old Penal Code. The Spanish version uses the terms “lock up” (“encerrar”) rather than “kidnap” (“sequestrar or raprar). Locking up is included in the broader term of detention, which refers not only to the placing of a person in an enclosure which he cannot leave, but also to any other deprivation of liberty which does not involve locking up” (Justice Ramon Aquino, Revised Penal Code, citing Groizard and Cuello Calon cited in Marasigan and Robles, CA 55 O.G. 8297)
