DESTRUCTION EVERYWHEREThis day marks the liberation of Manila from the Japanese Imperial Army (1945). A month prior to that (03 Feb 1945), the battle started with a push of a combined US and Filipino troops towards the UST campus which had been turned into an internment camp for American and Filipino prisoners of war and political detainees. Capt. Manuel Colayco, a USAFFE guerrilla officer, became the first known casualty of the campaign that netted thousands of people from both sides dead from the fighting and massacre that happened within the period.
"Countless government buildings, universities and colleges, convents, monasteries and churches, and their accompanying treasures dating to the founding of the city, were decimated. The cultural patrimony (including art, literature, and especially architecture) of the Orient's first truly international melting pot - the confluence of Spanish, American and Asian cultures - was eviscerated. Manila, once touted as the "Pearl of the Orient" and famed as a living monument to the meeting of Asian and European cultures, was virtually wiped out."
Today, 63 years after that heroic day, the country is once again short of heroes. Corruption is the word of the day. The country is ranked as among the most corrupt in the world and the incumbent president is perceived as the most corrupt.
In desperate search for heroes, UST was probably duped in elevating into hero status, a man who's testimony in a big time corruption scandal, if properly analyzed, leaves much to be desired. Admitting to no wrongdoing but only a few (when cornered). He spends more than $10,000 a year in green fees alone (golf), spends a lot more in many luxuries, finances the hobnobbing of some of his kids with the elite few, but maintains several other (hidden) kids in the poor sections of the city.
They say that history is written by the victors. But with the information age at hand, let's see how history will judge Jun Lozada. Was the oldest school in Asia right in elevating this man into a hero? Or were they duped by a scheming and corrupt gangster who turned whistle blower when he failed to get his cut from both sides?
In desperate search for heroes, UST was probably duped in elevating into hero status, a man who's testimony in a big time corruption scandal, if properly analyzed, leaves much to be desired. Admitting to no wrongdoing but only a few (when cornered). He spends more than $10,000 a year in green fees alone (golf), spends a lot more in many luxuries, finances the hobnobbing of some of his kids with the elite few, but maintains several other (hidden) kids in the poor sections of the city.
They say that history is written by the victors. But with the information age at hand, let's see how history will judge Jun Lozada. Was the oldest school in Asia right in elevating this man into a hero? Or were they duped by a scheming and corrupt gangster who turned whistle blower when he failed to get his cut from both sides?
22 comments:
hey, the bruce lee economist is in your blog heheh!
i'm not a lawyer mahn, so i don't know what to say about lozada's allegations. but i think, regardless of the truth/untruth of his expose, malacanang and GMA still has to explain and account for signing the NBN deal.the deal did not follow protocols for government transactions such as the government procurement act provisions on public bidding. how could malacanang let that pass? and hiding her cabinet behind EO464 won't help in proving Lozada a liar. on the contrary, it would only make Lozada more credible. it is her duty to speak and to let her cabinet members obey due process by attending Senate hearings. or else, Malacanang would really be making a hero out of lozada
Hey, Bruce lee! Welcome to my shanty of a blog.
I agree that there's a lot of explaining to do. As for the venue, I am not sure if the senate is the best place to do it. they will just be harassed and threatened by people hiding under the cloak of parliamentary immunity. If it's in the courts, at least people will be careful with their statements due to the laws of perjury.
Sans any media coverage, I dont think the senators will even hear most of the witnesses statements, being so lacking in material proof and admissibility in court. Besides, if they wont file any case in court, which very often is what happens, they should not hold this hearing at all.
But if the courts say that the cabinet should appear, they have to obey.
As for Lozada, I maintain what I have always told you. In crying for fairness, one should always be fair.
Where's your blog, man?
you have a point about going to court, but the thing is, even the ombudsman stated she is not interested on filing a case. but in any case, kilosbayan and salonga already has a case going in the ombudsman.
about the senate inquiry, let's not forget that this controversy is not a pure legal issue. if you'd ask me, the political side of the story is even more important. the senate possesses jurisdiction as granted by the constitution to exercise its oversight powers over administrative agencies. in the senate, the burden of proof is on the government to prove that the deal is clear of irregularities. hence, the cabinet should attend hearings lest they want to look guilty--at least in the eyes of the public.
and in fairness to lozada, his testimonies rhymed with JDV III's and could be given weight even in a court proceeding.
With no real evidence being presented, the burden of proof is in the prosecution.
Rhyming testimonies are from people who know each other and have personal interests in this case. That's not difficult to understand.
That's why the ombudsman will not go to court. There's nothing real to prosecute at this point.
I maintain that sans any media coverage, the lawyer senators will not work their ass to hold the hearings.
testimony alone is evidence. even in criminal cases where the highest degree of evidence is required to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, a witness' testimony is given ample weight specially if it corroborates alot of other testimonies and factual circumstances. Lozada seems to know a lot about the deal, seems to know alot of malacanang officials whether involved or not in the NBN deal, and is able to corroborate other testimonies. moreover, he made a direct reference to persons involved and the circumstances surrounding the deal. therefore, the senate committee handling this issue may be right in finding probable cause against the public officers and agencies implicated. the ombudsman refusing to make a case out of this(despite the fact that the NBN deal not undergoing standard operating procedure requirements has already been established) is mind-boggling. the ombudsman may even face impeachment beacuse of this grave abuse of discretion.
in a senate oversight hearing, the presumption is not the same as in a criminal trial(laid down by the bill of rights) where a private right (of the defendant) is to be invaded by the public, threatening to impose penalty upon determination of guilt. the presumption in a senate hearing is laid down by the Admin code-public office is public trust. determination of probable cause (by the proper senate committee)is sufficient to put the burden of proof on the government so they may appear on the hearing and prove that the administrative transaction is legal and lawful. otherwise, the senate may impose sanctions such as additional legislation limiting the power of the admin agency, or reducing its budget come proper deliberations. in rare occassions, the public itself, if outraged may be the one giving sanctions (such as what we have seen in the two edsas though this sanction is admittedly extra-legal.)
legal presumptions are entirely different between legal-court procedures and political-public procedures.
Having just admitted to being a non lawyer, you proceeded to state as if its a matter of fact, that Lozada's testimony is credible. You also talk about the process as if it's biblical truth. My advice is for you to specialize in economics by going back to your books. Based on your comments elsewhere, you are yet to relearn what the implications or forex fluctuations are.
I have just mentioned that Lozada and the other supposed witnesses know each other and everything that they have said could easily have been fabricated. Without anything solid to back up any claim, everything is hearsay. That's the reason why this is yet to reach the court. There is nothing yet up to this point. Lozada may in fact be saying the truth but until now, he has noting to back up his claims and everything to show that he is a false witness. What he is doing is nothing beyond acts of self preservation.
GMA admitted the deal did not went through the regular process, isnt that enough for an investigation to be conducted and lend at least a benefit of a doubt on lozada's claims. if so, then the senate could continue with the investigation. you cannot question this process because the senate has all the proper jurisdiction to do so. this don't have to be the biblical truth because it is simply the mandate of law. they are making a political inquiry and in this inquiry it is the government's burden to convince the public that they have done nothing irregular.
i dont believe your claim that lozada has not shown anything to back up his claim. maybe what you meant is that he has not yet proven the claims to make a valid conclusion in court or even in the senate. but his claims are enough to establish probable cause for an investigation to be conducted. i dont have to be a lawyer to know this because it is the senate itself that found probable cause and is therefore conducting an investigation.
i don't know about about the ombudsman's reasons, but with a clear statement from the president that the deal was tainted with irregularity, shouldn't the ombudsman at least pay lip service on making an inquiry instead of dismissing outright the idea of making a case?
and if we follow your funny two-witnesses-probably-know-each-other-and-fabricating-stories-therefore-dismiss-the-case-logic, then more than a majority of criminal, civil, or even administrative cases would not prosper at all. that's the end of due process.
Mr feeling lawyer,
The burden of proof is always in the accuser. You now admit that Lozada probably has not proven his claims. How long has it been since he started talking? The way he is feeding the people bits of info at a time is nothing but media bait to keep people talking about him.
GMA may indeed by guilty but lining people who talk without evidence is just it.. talk. the lawyers in the senate know that its all that, otherwise, they would have filed a criminal case against the FG and the lesser people who can be arrested, unlike the president.
And yes, people talking without evidence does not a conviction make. That's the reason why it's hard to convict people. And yes, that's due process. Geesh, you really should not talk about law.
Imagine if three of your neighbors testify that you are doing your dog every midnight? Imagine if your ex girlfriend testifies that indeed, you have a small "junior" and that doing your dog will not cause any hemorrhage in its behind. Will that be enough to convict you? Will that transfer the burden of proof to you? Will that that require you to prove your innocence?
Stick to economics, man. You have a lot of back reading to do.
maybe its you who should stick to counting dollars and pesos. your comments say only one thing-- you dont know much about legal presumptions and procedures. i may not be a lawyer but i still remember what i read about the constitution and the law back in Fernando poe Jr. high school.
the presumption of burden of proof resting on the accuser is based on Article III of the constitution and is implemented strictly in criminal cases. that's why courts are given the power to issue warrants of arrest because without it, the court could not hear a case and therefore has no right to impose penalty against an absent accused despite the overwhelming evidence presented by the prosecution. however, the court has right to arrest and temporarily put to jail an accused upon determination of probable cause--initial examination of evidence AND TESTIMONIES as presented before a court even before the trial commences.
in CIVIL cases, there is no such thing as burden of proof resting on the plaintiff (the accuser, in case the term is alien to you haha). therefore, if the respondent (the accused) decides to boycott the hearing, the court could happily award the decision in favor of the plaintiff upon mere presentation of substantial evidence.
in hearings conducted by political bodies, such as oversight hearings, question hour, investigation in aid of legislations etc., the presumption is again different, a sui generis from other presumptions because public interest is always the utmost consideration. if the accused is the government, the administrative code comes into play and puts the burden of proof on the government to prove to the whole public that there is regularity in its functions. that is because the idea of our constitution is that government power emanates from the people and the government is supposed to be accountable always to the people. and the admin code puts it bluntly as public office is public trust. the public's constitutional right to know about things happening around the government cannot be saddled with government invoking criminal procedure phrases like "innocence before proven guilty". note that this only stands true in hearings conducted by political bodies prying upon administrative functions. if you would file a case against a government officer in court, that's where his criminal procedure rights comes into play. simply put, there is a big difference in procedures between hearings in political bodies and the court. (a good example is if an impeachment based on the garci tape scandal is filed against gloria in congress, the senate, being a political body can accept the tape as evidence regardless of the anti-wiretapping law provision by merely citing the public interest clause of the constitution. however if the case is filed in the ombudsman or any other court for that matter(asumming GMa is no longer president), the tape is easily inadmissible because of the law.) but the problem is we are not in a criminal case. the senate is the one holding investigation (called oversight hearing) thats why the government has the burden of explaining things. and just as i said a countless times, the senate found probable cause upon initial examination of evidence that's why you cannot entirely dismiss lozada, especially if you cannot even state a reason why it should be so.
the ombudsman not filing a case against FG is not a matter of the ombudsman finding Lozada and JDV as acquaintances collaborating each others' testimonies. it is a matter of FG and the Ombudsman being acquaintances and collaborating to protect the first family. and i will bet my last dollar on this.
your excuse (and funny at that) about him and jdv fabricating testimonies is a raw argument. essentially it is the investigating body that can determine whether they were fabricated or not. you cannot dismiss testimonies on mere assumptions, they must be heard and cross-examined first. if they do not stand the scrutiny of a cross examination, that's when it is right to say that the testimonies are not credible enough.
don't you even realize how a single testimony can win a rape case for a girl despite her not having any physical evidence to present (assuming that the act was committed years ago and she only has the courage to file a case after several years.)? or a witness seeing an act of murder committed but not having any document or picture to present except for his having witnessed the act? the answer is that they can win the case on testimony alone if they stand the scrutiny of court. and the court, as in many supreme court decisions, generally favors a direct accusation over alibi. read their decisions (they are compiled in SCRAs if you have ever seen one)and you might find out (to your great surprise) that in order to overcome a direct accusation, the accused must do more than denying and giving an alibi. in the visconde massacre case, hubert webb showing plane tickets to prove he was not in the country when the crime was committed was ruled by the trial court not sufficent to overcome the witness's direct accusation. simply, the court cannot outrightly dismiss witnesses' statements as what you have in your imagination.
the case is even stronger if TWO witnesses provide testimonies corroborating each other. if they stand the scrutiny of court, the case is very strong for them indeed. do you know that treason is one of the most difficult case to prosecute? why? because the penal code requires the two-witness rule in order to convict. that is saying, two witnesses providing corroborating statements is strong evidence.
now if your two neighbors testify that they saw you beating on your female dog from behind and files a case of alarms and scandals against you, you cannot just simply relax and tell the court to dismiss the evidence coming from your envious neighbors. what you must do is to hire a good lawyer to put their statements under strict scrutiny because you stand a good chance of being jailed. if case gets worst, you may even have to cut off your pole just to prove that you are incapable of humping a dog as what your neighbors saw. now forgive me for posting a long reply because its tough explaining simple legal concepts to a bank teller.
haha that was my post above. forgot to add my name
I need not count my money. I only need to check the increasing balance, from time to time.
I never pretended to be a lawyer but let me try to understand you..
"the presumption of burden of proof resting on the accuser is based on Article III of the constitution and is implemented strictly in criminal cases. that's why courts are given the power to issue warrants of arrest because without it, the court could not hear a case and therefore has no right to impose penalty against an absent accused despite the overwhelming evidence presented by the prosecution." <-- Huh? What are you trying to say? I tagalog mo kaya. Just like the Bb Pilipinas winner, I'd tell you that there's no disgrace in communicating in Tagalog. Or better yet, never talk about law. As we learned back in kindergarten, "A little knowledge is very dangerous". In 2nd grade bible study, we were also told "Even the devil can use the bible for his own benefit"
"if the respondent (the accused) decides to boycott the hearing, the court could happily award the decision in favor of the plaintiff upon mere presentation of substantial evidence."<-- Are you referring to the Amy Perez case, wherein the husband never attended a hearing but won it with finality in the Supreme Court? Amy speaks about continued physical trauma and yet...
"the ombudsman not filing a case against FG is not a matter of the ombudsman finding Lozada and JDV as acquaintances" <-- I said "the senate" not the ombudsman. - "is just it.. talk. the lawyers in the senate know that its all that, otherwise, they would have filed a criminal case against the FG and the lesser people who can be arrested" Now, why is the senate not filing any case in court, if they have found a one?
"the answer is that they can win the case on testimony alone if they stand the scrutiny of court." <-- Yes, and you also wrote that Lozada "has not yet proven the claims to make a valid conclusion in court or even in the senate. Now, that's the reason why this case is being tried in the senate and in the radio. Nothing is yet to hold water in court
"now if your two neighbors testify that they saw you ... what you must do is to hire a good lawyer.." <-- Hahaha, anything new? in every case, one needs a lawyer, a good one at that. Congratulations for stating what the people in barangay korokan knows"
"because you stand a good chance of being jailed." <-- of course not! The case will be dismissed at the Barangay courts on the first minute.
"Now forgive me for posting a long reply because its tough explaining simple legal concepts to a bank teller." <-- a bank teller who knows how to count is better than an economist who doesn't know the economics. ..also a lot better than a non lawyer talking about law. A bank teller who knows how to count will dispense the correct amount while a phony economist will bring the economy down. A false lawyer talking about law.. you know what happens
Geesh, take my advice. Hmmnn.. i'm sleepy
hahaha. its so daaamn simple. what you said about burdens of proof is not applicable in the oversight hearing conducted by senate.(you get it, the investigation is named oversight). accountability and public interest is the foremost consideration in that hearing that's why the table is turned against the government. Article 3 provisions on burden of proof cannot be invoked by the government because they were primarily safeguards by private citizens against the government, not the other way around.
Lozada's statements has not yet been proven in the senate because the investigation is not yet done and the senate has not given it's final recommendation/conclusion. however, his statements has already passed (with flying colors) during the initial examination of the senate committee (i don't know if its blue ribbon committee). otherwise, the senate would not have found probable cause against the admin agencies involved and the oversight hearing should not have taken place at all. jeebus, i dont know if the problem lies in my ability to explain or your ability to comprehend.
about the amy perez case? let me lecture you on what i learned from Marimar elementary school. cases regarding marriage are not simple civil cases. why? because the civil code or particularly the family code (which is compiled with the civil code, try to get a copy so you'll know what to do in case your wife accuses you of having psychological incapacity.) obligates the state to protect the institution of marriage. if your wife files for annulment, its not only your dumb lawyer that she'll have to face in court because the solicitor general from time to time intervenes in the case to do his job of protecting marriage.
now if your neighbor accuses you of a breach of contract,(lets say you failed to deliver the exact amount of peso for her dollars) and files a civil case. the burden of proof lies equally on both of you. if you decide to send your dog to court instead of your lawyer, chance is, you will just find your house ready for garnishment the following day.
now if your neighbor files a criminal case instead of a civil one, and the court finds probable cause, the case won't prosper until they are able to arrest you and forcefully bring you to court, with a dumb pro bono lawyer (if you decide to hide with all your precious dollars instead of voluntary appearing in court with a UP lawyer)because article 3 of the constitution entitles you to be heard and to deny the accusations before the court could decide if you are guilty or not beyond reasonable doubt.
i guess you finally understood the merits of witness testimonies and how they are given weight in court.
i dont know if baranggay courts exist in this country (the lowest is at the municipal level). what we have is a lupon ng baranggay which only purpose is to mediate and generate compromise. but then again, if your father is a baranggay tanod in your naighborhood at malakas kay chairman, baka nga naman di ka na mamroblema. but still, your neighbors are always entitled to file a case and to declare their testimonies in the proper courts regardless of what the lupon says.
why is the senate not filing a case? because their primary duty is to hold the oversight hearing. that hearing is not mandated in the constitution for nothing. whose duty is it to file a case against government officials? it is the ombudsman's, who sadly is a former counsel of malacanang and a close friend and classmate of FG. other citizens can file a case you may say. but those cases must still be approved and represented by the ombudsman because she is the official "piskal" when it comes to graft and corruption cases. that's why Salonga's case was filed first in the ombudsman's office and not directly to the sandiganbayan. kung hinde ba kelangan dumaan sa ombudsman eh di libo-libong kaso na sana ang nakasampa sa mga malacanang officials.
...."As we learned back in kindergarten, "A little knowledge is very dangerous". In 2nd grade bible study, we were also told "Even the devil can use the bible for his own benefit".....
it wont hurt for a substandard economist to learn about the law. as the civil code says, ignorance of the law is not excusable. let me add to that, ignorance of the law is plain ignorance. pag di talaga maintindihan, magbible-study na lang.
the presumption of burden of proof resting on the accuser is based on Article III of the constitution and is implemented strictly in criminal cases. that's why courts are given the power to issue warrants of arrest because without it, the court could not hear a case and therefore has no right to impose penalty against an absent accused despite the overwhelming evidence presented by the prosecution. -- ATTY PANELO, IS THAT YOU? :D
My family is very important to me... I come from the tuff ten!...
Hahahaha!
to anonymous, name's not moron. yeah, my family is very important to me too. you see i'm only 17 year old and they give me food and house. they are the most important person in my life. by the way okay, what's you're blog? can i comment it too like this what do we care? are u a gurl? can i have ur number too so we can textmate? gracious thanks yeah yeah.
Warlock pogi,
What’s worse than a non economist pretending to be one is a non lawyer writing a controversial treatise in law based on partial knowledge.
May I quote the famous “Tagubilin” that is being repeated in Anti GMA protests,
“Huwag makipagtalo sa bobo, at baka mapagkamalan ka na isa rin bobo.”
In the spirit of Easter, I will forgive your degrading of the holy bible to a level lower than your substandard understanding of the law.
You start by blatantly brandishing the badge of an economist in blogs. However, you have been proven to be so lacking and I’m glad that you have finally learned to accept it. Failing to be effective as such, you have now moved to arguing about the fine points of the law.
Wait a minute, have you just admitted to being a non lawyer? For an ignorant being, you talk too much.
Isn't plunder a criminal offense, aren't we talking about plunder? Therefore, isn't it but right for the accuser to prove beyond reasonable doubt… Your two sentences, as quoted sucks.. The ensuing explanation sucks further.
There is a saying in school that when people don't know what they are talking about; they rely on jargons to hide their incompetence.
I have already told you that a little knowledge is very dangerous. If you don't have any skill in it, don't talk as if you're an authority.
Your arguments in all the blogs stink of an unlearned creature. And now, you are arguing about the fine points of law.
You contradict yourself. You have also been several times guilty of moving to other topics in order to divert people's attention from heavy blows that you received also smells of poor debating skills and inferior lawyering. Well, you have admitted to not being a lawyer.. Wait, aren't you? Don't be ashamed to admit that you also suck in that category.
All your rebuttals ignored the fine points scored against you and you continue to talk as if nobody said anything about it.
Senyor, you have proven yourself to be substandard debater, stupid wannabee economist and unqualified to talk about the law.
So better catch up with your readings and prove yourself worthy of space here.
Lemme repeat..
So better catch up with your readings and prove yourself worthy of space here.
The comment again smells like Panelo wearing old spice... hihihi!
Your use of jargon to impress me simply underlines your ignorance. Bloghopping and loudly proclaiming yourself as an economist but with a mediocre analysis gives a people poor impression of the discipline.
Having failed miserably at that, you shift to law. Lawyers will kill you for making them appear as wastebaskets of fallen and wannabee economists. Dont make this blog to air ideas that gets beaten in school. Study a lot more.
Post a Comment