Recent reports narrated Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales’s outrage over respondent Chief Justice Renato Corona’s statement regarding her allegiance; that she might be in cahoots with the Aquino administration.
“I was never ever used by Malacañang,†Carpio-Morales told reporters in a press conference.
“Hindi ako magpapagamit. I have been trying to be impartial. I have been trying to be fair. I have been trying to be impervious to influence and I’d like to believe I succeeded,†she said.
Carpio-Morales said she felt “maligned†by Corona’s statements against her, adding that she will let the public judge who between them is telling the truth.
(Source: Link)
But then, recall that Corona was only compelled to answer senator-judge Jinggoy Estrada’s question; a question about the possible reasons for the alleged distrust between the respondent and the Ombudsman in the good ol’ Supreme Court days. Furthermore, it was not as accusatory as it seems; in effect, Corona was merely expressing his suspicions in response to a senator-judge’s question.
| SUPPORT INDEPENDENT SOCIAL COMMENTARY! Subscribe to our Substack community GRP Insider to receive by email our in-depth free weekly newsletter. Opt into a paid subscription and you'll get premium insider briefs and insights from us. Subscribe to our Substack newsletter, GRP Insider! Learn more |
(Transcript in English)
Estrada: Do you know of any other reason why she [Morales] would testify against you? Aside from the things you’ve mentioned.
Corona: Very well. I think—I’m sorry, I really apologize to this court to have to say it, but Senator Jinggoy Estrada asked a question… I think the Ombudsman let herself be used by the Malacanang.
Estrada: What makes you say that, Chief Justice?
Corona: Well, because, she waved around a document which is supposedly or allegedly coming from the AMLC. It’s just not right because the document is not even authenticated. I didn’t even know that I’m guilty of a predicate crime. What I knew is that I wasn’t being investigated. There was no court order. There was neither this nor that. And yet she disclosed an alleged AMLC report and used Powerpoint Presentation to show it here. There is one other thing I wonder about regarding that event. This is because she sent me a letter, ordering me to reply within 72 hours. Now, emblazoned on the top of her paper in bold, black letters, was “strictly confidential.†When my office received the letter from Ombudsman Morales, the envelope was sealed; thick-brown envelope. And we were in Baguio because we’re having a summer session. When we arrived at Manila, it was only then that I got ahold of the documents from Ombudsman Morales which were still sealed. It means, they weren’t opened yet by any member of my staff in Manila. What bothers me is that it’s “strictly confidential†but Philippine Daily Inquirer has a copy…
Note that Corona did not express his theories in a conclusive, matter-of-factly way. At the same time however, he was also able to reveal another fishy fact about PDI’s possession of the supposedly “strictly confidential†document.
As to Corona’s allegation that his rejection of Morales’s request for a bigger retirement fee being the cause for her animosity with the respondent, the Ombudsman expressed her contempt:
Carpio-Morales, however, said she never requested for Corona to increase her retirement benefits.
“It’s not true. I did not ask for it. I suffered in silence. I never asked for his consideration, bahala siya,†she said.
Also, she denied that she was the one who leaked the supposedly confidential documents:
She also denied that she was the one who leaked the “confidential†document to the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
Of course, whether Corona’s answer is completely true is beyond our powers (and I will openly express my contempt should it be proven he’s lying), but in the midst of all this, it would be very timely to ask the Ombudsman this question: how does it feel?
How does it feel that your credibility is being called into question, unable to personally deny it in court, having to put up with these allegations through press conferences, knowing that searching eyes peer maliciously into your carefully cultivated reputation? How does it feel that there might be people who are unconvinced of your sincerity no matter what you say? In short, how does it feel to have a dose of your own medicine?
After all, it was the Ombudsman who submitted the dubious AMLC documents in court, with the groundbreaking claim that not only Corona has 82 bank accounts, but he also has 12 million dollars in tow, which is, amusingly, exaggerated. By Corona’s admission, he only had 4 dollar accounts and 3 peso accounts, and only 2.4 million dollars in his dollar accounts. But despite this revelation, the moral damage cannot be undone; Corona still took verbal blows from many Filipinos.
The medicine administration doesn’t stop here, what with Corona’s historic dare to his persecutors to also sign their waivers, so that the public will also know of their financial statuses. It seems the respondent has this intriguing ability of getting back at the ones who put him on tough times. I wonder if he can do the same to his vindictive persecutors out there…
But then, he can’t, although he was able to show (perhaps unwittingly) how some Filipinos tend to don the “rule of law†mask when their anti-Corona sentiment is compromised.
Still, I have a personal manifestation for those vindictive Filipinos out there; they could really try putting themselves in Corona’s shoes. It’s fun.
Imagine yourself in the same situation as Corona’s. You’re on trial, everyone’s watching. Now, let’s assume you’re innocent—no, please don’t get back at me with stuff like “but Corona is guilty,†because the verdict hasn’t even been given yet. Innocent until proven guilty, standard procedure. Deal with it.
Now, how would you feel if you know, deep inside, that you’re innocent, and yet people don’t seem to care and they bombard you with expletives and insults? In the process, even your loved ones are pulled into the fray and get their share of condemnation from your fellowmen. And now your whole family is being barraged with cuss words and baseless accusations and mindless rants just because they’re already convinced you’re guilty no matter what; how would it feel? How would it feel to get a dose of your medicine by putting yourself on the respondent’s shoes?
Perhaps this is one crucial step to realizing how we are supposed to tackle important issues like this impeachment trial. This trial has brought out the worst in many Filipinos; vindictiveness. Perhaps we should take steps (even baby ones) to change what we have become as a society. The solution’s pretty straightforward; critical thinking.
Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.
(Source: Link)
In layman’s terms, critical thinking is relying on facts for your reasoning, linking them together with logic, and not jumping into conclusions. Clearly, it does not involve mudslinging and unfairly ruining one’s reputation with black propaganda, among other stuff. When unreasonably vindictive Filipinos start practicing critical thinking, they’ll realize it has benefits:
1. It gives you multiple perspectives to work on, enhancing your analytical abilities. When you stop considering only one haphazardly formulated conclusion and start considering other possibilities, you gain more insight regarding an issue. You are able to tackle it in different angles, improving the precision of your observations. And then you can synthesize them at the end of your musings, eliminating contradictions and whatnot, until you’re left with a more refined conclusion, which can then be refined even more, bringing you closer and closer to the truth.
2. It gives you access to a healthy, intellectual debate. When you’ve honestly and rationally arrived at a conclusion that is not really in good terms with the conclusion of others, that’s perfectly okay. Intellectual debates exist for a reason; they exist so that people can exchange ideas with one another in an orderly fashion, learning from each other’s insight in the process. By thinking critically, one can incite a civilized conversation rather than a chaotic mudslinging war.
Critical thinking in issues like the impeachment trial is a win-win situation. You become more rational, you gain intellectual friends and you sin less (if you’re Christian).
The impeachment trial gave us lessons about our own society, the most important of which is the call for us to uphold critical thinking as a nation. If we truly uphold justice and aim to be a just society, then it’s high time we drop the vindictiveness card and start thinking outside the box, so that we may prevent more unnecessary moral damage to those people who were accused, being accused, and will be accused by the present and future administrations.
it seems to me that you really believe corona is innocent.. Isn’t it very obvious now that he failed to submit his real SALN and violated the SALN law which is provided in the constitution? Remember, we are talking about the chief justice of the SC and yet he seems to make a fool out of all of us by saying that he was not required by the SALN law to submit his assets, liabilities and net worth? Isn’t that very unbecoming of a CJ and a supposed man of the law to make such a ridiculous claim?
Read the article further and take off your Yellow glasses, trollfag.
“Innocent until proven guilty.” Yeah. Works like a charm.
nicomax
1. constitutional guarantee— presumption of innocence.
2. SALN Law plus constitution. statutory construction please so u will understand
Specifically, what did he violate in SALN that would make it an impeachable offense?
Am I too technical?
He didnt declare his P80M and $2.5M in his SALN which must be declared.
non-declaration of assets in SALN = non-impeachable offense
Just review the facts.
Article 11, Section 17 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states that:
A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth. In the case of the President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional offices, and officers of the armed forces with general or flag rank, the declaration shall be disclosed to the public IN THE MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW.
Now that the letters of law has clearly defined in Section 8 of Republic Act 6426 or the Foreign Currency Deposit Act that all foreign currency deposits must have ABSOLUTE CONFIDENTIALITY and that in NO INSTANCE shall foreign currency deposits BE EXAMINED, INQUIRED or LOOKED INTO by any PERSON, GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL, BUREAU or OFFICE whether JUDICIAL or ADMINISTRATIVE or LEGISLATIVE,or any other entity whether public or private.
The constitution itself has provided that the DECLARATION of assets, liabilities and net worth of the President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the SUPREME COURT, the Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional offices, and officers of the armed forces with general or flag rank shall be disclosed to the public IN THE MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW and that the law itself provides that foreign currency deposits enjoy ABSOLUTE CONFIDENTIALITY, CHIEF JUSTICE RENATO CORONA SHOULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR NOT DECLARING HIS DOLLAR-DENOMINATED DEPOSITS.
In fact, as Estrella Martinez, a CPA-lawyer and SALN examiner who served in the BIR for the last 32 years declared that she have never encountered a government official declare his dollar deposits in his SALN. Now is it safe to say that not one public official in her 32 years of work in BIR possessed dollar accounts?
The FCDA, which guarantees the confidentiality of dollar accounts, bars the banks, NOT the depositors, from disclosing information on those accounts.
And you forget the total bungling of Government and banking employee’s so far and all branches do not work well together they pull teeth and beat chests and brow beat each other along with getting simple information it becomes another trial to do this bringing in other bungling government employee’s that don’t seem to qualified in any way for their tasks and apparently they have large staffs, hidden wealth not seen in most countries other than Columbia, Switzerland now provides deposit information to all countries in question, what about the Senator’s that judge they acquire such vast wealth, nobody actually knows how much they have, I never remember movie stars having that kind of money here, in fact they traveled in some shoddy cars back in the 80’s, think about that.
it’s not only the vindictiveness of certain quarters that was highlighted during the impeachment trials.. .the filipinos’ penchant for crab mentality, gullibilty and envy for those who have achieved a certain level of success in their field, likewise, came into play.. .i believe that it is the combination of all these negative traits that contributed to the ridiculous mob mentality that prevailed during the proceedings.. .if we develop critical thinking, in- depth analysis and better synthesis of facts.. .then perhaps we can be on our way to becoming better filipinos.
AGREE…it seems like it’s impossible to get rich the way CJ had become thru being wise with investments and being simple and frugal….one HAS TO BE CORRUPT with getting the kind of money CJ Corona truly has.
For our society, it seems that when it comes to amassing a large amount of money here, it seems that you either win LOTTO or do something illegal or corrupt…which is seriously flawed.
wait a minute…CJ’s wealth (the way he declared it), ISN’T even that much when you compare it to Drilon, et al…but I hope you get the message.
@Ismelina
So how much money and property does Corona has?
Definitely, the alleged USD 12 M bank deposit is false, 45 properties is false, and his peso bank deposit, how much it is to be so as not to be labeled as corrupt?
Nowadays most of the filipinos were just relying their trust on media commentaries; They don’t want to think outside of the box or the other side of the coin. Although we still have kababayans who had this principles and critical thinking to analyze the situation before they conclude. Sad fate of most of us was been brainwashed/duped of so called Democracy of Aquino for their own interest. Media like rappler, ABS-CBN, PDI et’al should not be patrozined.
Karen Davila is the most trusted for me because she receives many tweets every trial day, so your wrong for not patronizing a multi awarded ABSCBN
The internet is a huge “place.” You can try looking at other angles or other sources.
Teka, bakit ka ba andito sa GRP? Andito na ba si Karen Davila?
And I can smell guano and burning denim from here, Fishball.
You lost your credibility when you mention Karen Davilla. I say that because ABS-CBN is BIASED.
seriously dude? “Karen Davila is the most trusted for me because she receives MANY TWEETS every trial day” the kardashians get as many tweets in the same day or more even. that just killed it for me, no need to finish reading the comment.
People read opinion pieces to help them form opinions. There’s nothing wrong with that. That’s the same as forming your opinion based on the slant/ opinions found here on GRP. Not everyone is equipped to analyze a political process like the impeachment.
1. Morales in a press-con even called her assistant to speak how the confidential letter to CJ was transmitted – not sealed in an envelop as CJ claimed in the Senate. So if CJ is to be believed, then naturally something must have happened to the letter while in transit…
2. Morales pointed out that she is not salivating to be CJ of SC implying that Corona is. But it is a widely known fact that her cousin Carpio is obsessed to get the position.
3. Sen. Estrada was out of the line asking those questions to the CJ. The answer the CJ gave is of tiniest value if at all.
4. Na-sopla si Pangilinan.
Corona is the one who is impeached. Question him about not declaring his bank accounts in his SALN and his scripted walk out and testimony. And Morales clearly answers that she was not used by Malacañang so stop demonizing our Ombudsman.
No need to be touchy. Some people here are just for discussing plausable scenarios and theorizing. We are not privy on what really what happened because we weren’t simply there. These side issues for me, are also important because it reflects on governemnt (and its people) as a whole, not just one office or institution. If that what she felt and he felt, we can’t do anything against it since it was their opinion. Ad last time I checked, it’s free.
Let us take a look on our government. Extortion of the officers in MMDA, PNP and LTO. Extortion in business permits and licenses. Criminals extorting police to be released. Various red tapes and under the table in different government agencies. Overpriced projects of some congressman. Pabaon sa General. Those are whats happening and its all Glorias fault especially the intriguing ZTE NBN deal. Thats why im taking the current administration to solve these big crimes.
You know what? It’s really insulting to know that a Filipino like you actually exists. Even a taxi driver with no internet access knows more than you do.
Those kotongeros, they’ve been around for ages. Kailan ka ba pinanganak? Kahapon? Bakit di mo alam na sobrang tagal na may corruption sa Pinas? Bago pa kay GMA may corrupt na.
and a simple impeachment trial and conviction will solve all these problems.
Take note that the Cory administration did nothing against corruption since it was also rampant during that time, you know that. 🙂
You can watch the trial held last Friday again on ANC, GMA or Youtube. Corona answered your questions clearly.
You should follow your own advice and stop demonizing Corona.
Im not demonizing Corona because I only say the truth about him.
And you know the truth because?
What truth? Anything to back up your claims except what the yellow propaganda says?
What TRUTH is that? If you know the truth about him, then why not testify in court? 😛
That ‘truth’ of yours is based on your feelings; something that will make yourself feel better.
Lesson learned:
Deposit your stolen money in USD currency to avoid investigation for corruption!
Wow. Failed logic.
Just because there is a dollar secrecy law, it doesn’t mean you have a license to steal.
This Fishball has the knack on oversimplifying. Just like these other Corona bashers.
They can’t think independently and analyze the situation(critical and linear thinking).
Corona is being accused of corruption and he has a million of pesos and dollar deposits, therefore, he is corrupt!
I call these people specially Fishball suckers.
“Deposit your stolen money in USD currency to avoid investigation for corruption!”
In fairness,that is one derivative from the premise of absolute confidentiality of USD bank accounts, and factually, it is not a failed logic.
Truth be told, it is actually the most logical derivative that comes to mind. That does not mean though that everyone will take advantage of it.
Trosps nails it with “oversimplification”.
However, the statement
“Corona is being accused of corruption and he has a million of pesos and dollar deposits, therefore, he is corrupt!”
is misleading if not outright erroneous. The statement in contention should be
“Corona is being accused of corruption and he has UNDECLARED millions of pesos and dollar deposits therefore, he is corrupt.”
@crude
““Corona is being accused of corruption and he has UNDECLARED millions of pesos and dollar deposits therefore, he is corrupt.â€
Corona is within the bound of the law not to declare his dollar deposits.
Care to prove his corruption on that issue?
@ Trosp
First off, I was trying to rectify the logic of the statement you made.
“Corona is being accused of corruption and he has a million of pesos and dollar deposits, therefore, he is corrupt!”
If that is the case, it is as bright as day that logically, you do not have something to argue about with other posters. The Zobel-Ayalas, the Sy’s, the Tan-Caktiong’s, and their leagues are peacefully sleeping because this is one premise they can “take to the bank”.
The operative word though is “undeclared”, to be used as an adjective modifying millions…. That word alone makes for a worthy discussion and appreciation of the facts. To make your statement more factual and engaging though, this should be better, (please indulge me with some alterations to push your view through}:
……
They can’t think independently and analyze the situation(critical and linear thinking).
Corona, just because he is the chief justice and he has millions of undeclared pesos and dollar deposits, is corrupt?!
@crude
———————————–
“Corona is being accused of corruption and he has a million of pesos and dollar deposits, therefore, he is corrupt!â€
———————————–
That is the logic I’ve squeezed from commenters who are labelling Corona as corrupt in this blog.
Otherwise, please direct me to a commenter here who has used that phrase “UNDECLARED millions of pesos and dollar deposits”.
———————————–
“If that is the case, it is as bright as day that logically, you do not have something to argue about with other posters.”
———————————–
I won’t have an argument anymore if not declaring ones dollar deposit is a corruption if not a crime. Is it a crime if it will be based on our law? The way I interpret your comment, it’s a crime.
You are also telling us that Corona does not have the capability to posses those he claimed as his assets and bank deposit.
If that is the case, I ask you, how many properties and how much bank deposits should he have in order not to be labeled as corrupt?
You should know the answer because you’re labeling him as corrupt.
By this time, I think my comment will be moot and academic. The verdict is guilty, 20 : 3 guilty-acquitted ratio.
That is around 87% of the total senators agreeing.
Corona himself answered that question when he voted (prior to the impeachment) a guilty verdict to a lower ranking judiciary employee who did not include in her SALN the stall she had at a flea market. Only this time though, Corona thinks that the same yardstick he used does not apply to him.
It’s a pity some people, say more or less 13% still looks in the other direction.
Lesson learned:
Vincenzo Arellano has spawned a Fishball!
….that cracked me up.
Before you even say “stolen money” dude, explain to us how he “stole” the money and present evidence.
I second the motion.
You really have no idea because you never had a dollar account in your whole life.
Fact is your brainwashed by the Yellow media. 😛
Arche, there is apparently no cure yet for Foot In Mouth disease, which the prosecutors, Drilon, PNoy, and Morales are all seemingly afflicted with, is there?
And yup, how does it feel for Omb. Morales to be on the defensive, indeed. She didn’t feel she was being used; either she was a useful idiot, or a willing lapdog. Either way, she got screwed, and she didn’t even feel a thing.
Rhetorical question: how does one practice critical thinking in a society where blind obedience is valued above everything else?
“Arche, there is apparently no cure yet for Foot In Mouth disease, which the prosecutors, Drilon, PNoy, and Morales are all seemingly afflicted with, is there?”
Haha, I guess not. 😛
Interesting way to put it regarding the Ombudsman. I just wonder that if she is really independent from PNoy’s administration, shouldn’t she express her contempt for the AMLC that sent her a faulty document, tainting her reputation? Shouldn’t she at least exert an effort into how the AMLC exactly worked during the trial? After all, she has the power to do so. That is, of course, unless she does harbor a grudge against the Chief Justice, or she has an incentive to be complacent from some invisible hand. I welcome alternative explanations though.
As to your rhetorical question, well, I can’t lose anything by trying to remind the majority of our fellowmen. I do my best to keep this flame of hope alive. 🙂
Ombudsman Carpio Morales, let herself be used by the Aquino and the Cojuangco families…this is is the truth…why would she lie…I don’t believe you lie for nothing…maybe in return for a favor or cash. The professional intrigue between Justice Corona and her; is not enough for this woman, to sell her reputation. There is more involved, other than this…
Carpio Morales is apparently into double standards. When the dark master calls… she listens and obeys. She cannot or deliberately does not do her job when the KKKK is involved.
Remember the tip of the iceberg? Neil Tupas(PHP50 million mansion under construction), P. Ochoa(PHP60 million mansion under construction) and the other congressmen/cronies who were exposed by the press as building or owning expensive mansions?
What about the expensive, excessive lifestyles of these congressmen? The bottom line is there was no investigation of these crocodiles. The crocodile hunter must therefore be a crocodile too. Are we to believe the sleeping president that there is no more corruption in his administration?
Just as we cannot prove eyt whether Corona is a thief, we cannot do that on Tupas and his cronies either.
But yeah, of course I suspect them, like you. Where did they get that money? If they acquired it as legit as Corona did when he was a private citizen, I’ll leave them alone.
The timing of the Impeachment and the discovery speaks for itself. Do not forget the Alpha Grand View condo of Mr. Tupas. No investigation from Morales? Deduction and common sense smells sweet. So does the statement: “Elementary my dear Watson.” 🙂
Resign Conchita! Your fanatic loyalty to your master has been noted. You are a groupie of the sleeping president.
I just observed:
May pagka-palengkera pala si Madam Ombudsman Morales ano?!
@ Arche
“How does it feel that your credibility is being called into question…â€
Corona and Morales were both subjected to tests of credibility by defense and prosecution lawyers and Senator-judges since they were both the accused and hostile witness in the impeachment court, respectively. They simply had no choice. But there is definitely a difference on how each of them should “feelâ€. An honest person would demonstrate more courage while a liar would show more fear. Since they’re testimonies were in contradiction, it means one of them was telling the truth and the other one was lying. So the question is – WHO’S TRUTHFUL AND WHO’S DECEITFUL?
“After all, it was the Ombudsman who submitted the dubious AMLC documents in court, with the groundbreaking claim that not only Corona has 82 bank accounts, but he also has 12 million dollars in tow, which is, amusingly, exaggerated.â€
May I ask how did you know they’re “dubious†and “exaggerated� Have you examined those documents yourself or just based your opinion from powerpoint presentation?
“By Corona’s admission, he only had 4 dollar accounts and 3 peso accounts, and only 2.4 million dollars in his dollar accounts.â€
Corona only CLAIMED he had “4 dollar accounts and 3 peso accounts, and only 2.4 million dollars in his dollar accountsâ€. But no bank officer had supported his claim and he did NOT even show any authenticated bank document to verify them. So how can any critical thinking person just take Corona’s word?
“…he was able to show (perhaps unwittingly) how some Filipinos tend to don the “rule of law†mask when their anti-Corona sentiment is compromised.â€
If Corona can “unwittingly” say that anti-Corona supporters “don the rule of law maskâ€, then his accusers can also do the same to PRO-CORONA FANATICS?
“This trial has brought out the worst in many Filipinos; vindictiveness.â€
Is there any LEGITIMATE STUDY that shows most Filipinos have shown “vindictiveness†as far as the impeachment trial is concerned? Never heard of that before.
“In layman’s terms, critical thinking is relying on facts for your reasoning, linking them together with logic, and not jumping into conclusions.â€
By the way, I had a few personal encounters here (so far) with posters (if they’re really just posters) who were ignorant of “facts†and have the chronic habit of “jumping into conclusions.†Just for the record.
“The impeachment trial gave us lessons about our own society, the most important of which is the call for us to uphold critical thinking as a nation.â€
Before “nationâ€, why not start here in this blog? If most posters and writers here can only eliminate the habit of “jumping into conclusionâ€, eradicate the practice of “name-callingâ€, and promote the art of genuine argumentation, only then this blog can begin to “uphold critical thinkingâ€. Just my sincerest suggestion. 🙂
Hey there!
“They simply had no choice. But there is definitely a difference on how each of them should “feelâ€. An honest person would demonstrate more courage while a liar would show more fear.”
I wonder; who are you to dictate what they would feel, just because what you think they should feel? What if the Ombudsman is FRUSTRATED because there might be people who won’t believe her no matters what she says (regardless of whether she’s being truthful or not)? But I can’t answer that and nor could you, which is why I posed that point in the form of a question. 🙂
“So the question is – WHO’S TRUTHFUL AND WHO’S DECEITFUL?”
Who knows?
“May I ask how did you know they’re “dubious†and “exaggeratedâ€? Have you examined those documents yourself or just based your opinion from powerpoint presentation?”
Dubious, because I’ve yet to see them authenticated. Furthermore, I know a bit about accounting myself, and I have reasons to suspect over-counting on behalf of AMLC (e.g., counting bank accounts which are already closed, counting bank accounts where the money simply passed through and are therefore not Corona’s)
As to exaggerated, well, that would be because of Corona’s testimony.
“Corona only CLAIMED he had “4 dollar accounts and 3 peso accounts, and only 2.4 million dollars in his dollar accountsâ€. But no bank officer had supported his claim and he did NOT even show any authenticated bank document to verify them. So how can any critical thinking person just take Corona’s word?”
But Corona has already signed a waiver authorizing government agencies to check his bank accounts. Their reports will substantiate his claims. Also, it was the Senate who saw no need for subpoenaing bank officials to verify Corona’s testimony, and so everyone who thinks critically regarding Corona’s acquittal, I believe, should fine-tune their mindset to the setup the jury has established.
“If Corona can “unwittingly†say that anti-Corona supporters “don the rule of law maskâ€, then his accusers can also do the same to PRO-CORONA FANATICS?”
Note that I used the quantifier “some.” The principle goes both ways. Anyway, they are free to do so; it’s a free country (more or less). But that’s it; no corollaries whatsoever can be established. 😛
“Is there any LEGITIMATE STUDY that shows most Filipinos have shown “vindictiveness†as far as the impeachment trial is concerned? Never heard of that before.”
Oh no, typical credentialist angst. Oh, and I smell political surveys again. Those classic, ever-reliable surveys. 😀
“By the way, I had a few personal encounters here (so far) with posters (if they’re really just posters) who were ignorant of “facts†and have the chronic habit of “jumping into conclusions.†Just for the record.”
Okay, but it is up to them to rebut you on this. I cannot speak on their behalf, after all.
“Before “nationâ€, why not start here in this blog? If most posters and writers here can only eliminate the habit of “jumping into conclusionâ€, eradicate the practice of “name-callingâ€, and promote the art of genuine argumentation, only then this blog can begin to “uphold critical thinkingâ€. Just my sincerest suggestion.”
The same could be said to this statement of yours. Have fun at GRP! 🙂
Just to be clear on this, if you have a row with the other posters, settle things out with THEM. Don’t invoke their personages in other discussions, not when you know that the one you’re talking to cannot speak on their behalf. Thanks for your input!
Correction:
…won’t believe her no MATTER what she says…
More correction:
…just because OF what you think they should feel?
/grammarnazi
@Arche
Careful with her. She might get hysterical again. In her last comment in our argument – http://getrealphilippines.com/2012/05/ombudsman-morales-testimony-muddles-rather-than-substantiates-prosecution-claims-of-corona-dollar-holdings/
“@ Trosp
“May I ask how your name-calling should be treated?â€
Still stuck on that “name-calling†issue triggered by benignO’s MAN-VOICE name-calling? LOL
“Do I have to read between the lines or is it a common sense thing again?â€
So you still haven’t figured that out? LOL
(Up to now, she can tell the comment readers what are those between the lines.)
“So I showed you the figure. Now what? Show you who they are?â€
Who cares? LOL
(She asked me to give her numbers and I gave her numbers…he he he…now who cares heh…)
“Please stick around otherwise I’ll be banned here…â€
Again, who cares? LOL
Now I understand why some posters here stop visiting this blog. They got sick of your redundancy; drowned by your prolixity; and eventually suffered from terminal boredom.”
Am I redundant?
I’m just not quitting till I get a plausible answer.
Bottom line, as I’ve told you, those commenters that I mentioned that are not commenting here anymore is because they were simply refuted.
It’s very obvious that by just reading your above reposted comment shows that you’re resorting to emotion instead of being objective.
Thanks for the heads-up, Trosp! I too observe her behavior in other articles, and I can say that I’m prepared should something happen. ^^
correction –
(Up to now, she can tell the comment readers what are those between the lines.)
should rad –
(Up to now, she CAN’T tell the comment readers what are those between the lines.)
@ Arche
“I wonder; who are you to dictate what they would feel?â€
I wasn’t dictating at all. But does the word “demeanor†rings a bell? FYI, there’s a correlation between feeling and demeanor. What’s happening internally reflects the external. It’s simple psychology.
“I have reasons to suspect over-counting on behalf of AMLC (e.g., counting bank accounts which are already closed, counting bank accounts where the money simply passed through and are therefore not Corona’s)â€
Corona just CLAIMED he had 4 dollar bank accounts in his testimony WITHOUT bank documents to support them so he did NOT disprove the AMLC report at all. Just for the record.
“But Corona has already signed a waiver authorizing government agencies to check his bank accounts.â€
His waiver was IRRELEVANT – not even a supporting bank document. And it turned to be just “conditionalâ€. Then after a few days, he changed his mind and submitted it without condition. Talking about flip-flopping. But the Presiding Officer said the impeachment court could NOT “act on itâ€. So Corona’s waiver was USELESS.
“Oh no, typical credentialist angst. Oh, and I smell political surveys again. Those classic, ever-reliable surveys.â€
NO, not survey. Was there any survey that shows how many Filipinos manifest vindictiveness as far impeachment trial is concerned? None, I believe. So I reiterate that I was referring to “legitimate studyâ€. If there’s none, then your correlation theory is just imaginary at best.
Arche: “So the question is – WHO’S TRUTHFUL AND WHO’S DECEITFUL?â€
PrincesaUrduja: Who knows?
After finally reaching the verdict days ago, NOW WE KNOW who’s DECEITFUL. 🙂
Erratum:
PrincesaUrduja: “So the question is – WHO’S TRUTHFUL AND WHO’S DECEITFUL?â€
Arche: Who knows?
After finally reaching the verdict days ago, NOW WE KNOW who’s DECEITFUL. 🙂
Oh, hello again! Sorry if I took so long. Oh well, you can never be too late. 🙂
“I wasn’t dictating at all. But does the word “demeanor†rings a bell? FYI, there’s a correlation between feeling and demeanor. What’s happening internally reflects the external. It’s simple psychology.”
Correlation does not imply causation. You can’t just conclude that a person’s behavior is caused by an emotion SOLELY on the basis of a “correlation.” Oh, are you going to replace it with “causation” now? 🙂
“Corona just CLAIMED he had 4 dollar bank accounts in his testimony WITHOUT bank documents to support them so he did NOT disprove the AMLC report at all. Just for the record.”
Remember this statement of mine?
“Also, it was the Senate who saw no need for subpoenaing bank officials to verify Corona’s testimony, and so everyone who thinks critically regarding Corona’s acquittal, I believe, should fine-tune their mindset to the setup the jury has established.”
So what do you want Corona to do? The defense was okay with the prosecution cross-examining Corona, which can trigger the submission of the crucial bank documents. Don’t let this out on the respondent; blame the prosecution. 🙂
“His waiver was IRRELEVANT – not even a supporting bank document. And it turned to be just “conditionalâ€. Then after a few days, he changed his mind and submitted it without condition. Talking about flip-flopping. But the Presiding Officer said the impeachment court could NOT “act on itâ€. So Corona’s waiver was USELESS.”
In the end, however, government agencies still obtained the authority to look into his accounts. As what I’ve already said, the responsibility for the absence of bank documents in the trial falls on the Senate for not subpoenaing the bank officials, and the prosecution for not cross-examining Corona. You’re barking up the wrong tree. 🙂
“NO, not survey. Was there any survey that shows how many Filipinos manifest vindictiveness as far impeachment trial is concerned? None, I believe. So I reiterate that I was referring to “legitimate studyâ€. If there’s none, then your correlation theory is just imaginary at best.”
Yes, because when no one knew about Mt. Everest, Mt. Everest did not exist. 🙂
Absence of study about a certain object/concept does not negate the existence of that object/concept. This is why credentialist arguments are so unstable.
“After finally reaching the verdict days ago, NOW WE KNOW who’s DECEITFUL.”
But Corona didn’t lie; the basis of the verdict was based on whether SALN inaccuracy was an impeachable offense or not. So I don’t know what you’re talking about. 😛
Try harder, darling.
Confirmation:
“Absence of study about a certain object/concept does not NECESSARILY negate the existence of that object/concept. This is why credentialist arguments are so unstable.”
Which is why you can’t conclude right away that my theory is imaginary. You’re arguing in the basis of “absence,” the truth of which is not tautological, but contingent.
And when you read GRP articles that substantiate via testimony that vindictive Filipinos in the course of Corona’s trial do exist, we’ll know who has the better case. 😛
Of course you’re free to hold your opinion that those who blindly slandered Corona are actually good guys, but that’s it. You can’t claim that my theory is “imaginary,” simply because you have no firm basis to do so. 🙂
Have a nice day.
Sigh, paging PrincesaUrduja… 😛
Arche,
I wish sometime I’m arguing with you. A lot of things I still have to know.
As for that madam who labels herself princesa, shame is the operative word.
But give her some slack.
Haven’t I’ve been very nice to her? (Jeez, I’m the thug in this blog’s commenting board!)
What I specifically like with her is, according to her, when you refute somebody – it is “blaming”!
Heh…
“Absence of study about a certain object/concept does not NECESSARILY negate the existence of that object/concept. This is why credentialist arguments are so unstable.â€
For me it is the the same as –
“Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.”
My 2 cents.
“Absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.â€
Supposing this statement is absolutely true brings us to a dilemma, since mankind itself began from having no evidence to prove things. We as a civilization didn’t start as omniscient. If the above statement is true, then we shouldn’t have discovered anything because we didn’t have evidence within our reach: absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
But the contrary is true; from having no evidence, we gained evidence and discovered things. This is because a third option is ignored: “which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false.”
This “absence of evidence” thing is an example of argumentum ad ignorantiam, which you can read at Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Of course, Russell’s teapot demonstrates the contingency of “argument from ignorance,” but if we’re talking about things like Mt. Everest, or even Filipino vindictiveness, such an argument is well within the “false” side of the contingent sphere. 🙂
Is it the thing we call “inference”?
Well, if we take the process of “gathering evidence” into account, a more broad term is in order.
I guess this can be called “induction,” or its systematic counterpart, “scientific method.” 🙂
@ Arche
“Correlation does not imply causation.â€
Did Corona’s suppressed feelings that led to his arrogant walk-out at the impeachment court turned hypoglycemic wheel-chair acting implied correlation or causation? LOL Does it matter anymore? Nah, because Corona’s chief-justice-unbecoming “demeanor†certainly did cast doubt. And the verdict says it all. 🙂
“Also, it was the Senate who saw no need for subpoenaing bank officials to verify Corona’s testimony…â€
The senator-judges were not interested to subpoena the bank officials because they were already SATISFIED with Corona’s admission of owning 2.4 MILLION DOLLARS and 80 MILLION PESOS which were apparently NOT declared on his SALNs. And what’s the verdict again? 🙂
“The defense was okay with the prosecution cross-examining Corona, which can trigger the submission of the crucial bank documents.â€
And the Prosecution had the choice NOT to cross-examine anymore. It’s called STRATEGY. And a smart one, too. Does the numbers 20-3 ring a bell? 🙂
“You’re barking up the wrong tree.â€
Am I really? Or you’re just BIASED? The self-proclaimed ANTI-PNOY “Gogs†admitted it already. So why can’t you? 🙂
“Absence of study about a certain object/concept does not negate the existence of that object/concept. This is why credentialist arguments are so unstable.â€
In other words, you have NO IDEA whether your â€Filipino vindictiveness†theory had a correlation to or was the causation of the 20-3 verdict? I thought so, too. 🙂
“But Corona didn’t lie.â€
Say whaaaat? According to Corona camp, the respondent’s SALN inaccuracies were “not intentionalâ€. And how did the Senator-judges respond? GUILTY! LOL
“Try harder, darling.â€
But have you even tried? LOL This time, TRY using a brain cell. 🙂
“Did Corona’s suppressed feelings that led to his arrogant walk-out at the impeachment court turned hypoglycemic wheel-chair acting implied correlation or causation? LOL Does it matter anymore? Nah, because Corona’s chief-justice-unbecoming “demeanor†certainly did cast doubt. And the verdict says it all.”
Well, I can’t blame you for sidetracking the topic when cornered. It was YOU who raised the issue, after all. Oh, and impeachment trials ideally judge on objective grounds, not on how the respondent “acted,” which is open to multiply interpretations. 🙂
“The senator-judges were not interested to subpoena the bank officials because they were already SATISFIED with Corona’s admission of owning 2.4 MILLION DOLLARS and 80 MILLION PESOS which were apparently NOT declared on his SALNs. And what’s the verdict again?”
So what were you yapping about with Corona’s “failure to support his claims”?
“Am I really? Or you’re just BIASED? The self-proclaimed ANTI-PNOY “Gogs†admitted it already. So why can’t you?”
Because I’m not biased. 😛
“In other words, you have NO IDEA whether your â€Filipino vindictiveness†theory had a correlation to or was the causation of the 20-3 verdict? I thought so, too.”
Nope, that certainly does not follow from my statements. This topic no longer concerned correlation/causation, but the absence of evidence or legitimate study, which YOU raised. Suffice to say that you don’t make sense. 🙂
“Say whaaaat? According to Corona camp, the respondent’s SALN inaccuracies were “not intentionalâ€. And how did the Senator-judges respond? GUILTY! LOL”
He was pronounced guilty NOT because he lied. Didn’t he ADMIT his finances? You yourself said it. He was pronounced guilty because the judges thought that his offense was impeachable. Were you even paying attention? 🙁
“But have you even tried? LOL This time, TRY using a brain cell.”
Heh heh, so cuuuuute. 😛
Summing up your “points,” you have hardly addressed anything in my arguments. You instead resorted to suggesting that I try using my brain cells, when I have done my best to respond to your objections. You know what this means? It means you have nothing to fight back with. 😛
The problem with your assertions is your repeated usage of Corona’s “guilty” verdict to justify your position. Justice is blind; it does not see the morality of a human being. Corona was judged not because he lied, or because he’s rude, but because the judges thought that his offense was impeachable.
Now what about “moral ascendancy”? It is strictly confined to a person’s moral capability TO HOLD OFFICE, not his entire personage. The law cannot judge a person purely on moral grounds. This is why your arguments easily break down. 😛
I shall say this again: try harder. Actually, no. I think this is your best already. 🙂
Unfortunately, I’m not the kind of person that gets pissed of when people like you resort to childish tactics like flaming. Sorry to disappoint. 😛
Correction:
“I’m not the kind of person that gets pissed OFF…”
By the way, you really like dragging other people into the conversation, no? Haven’t I told you this: “if you have a row with the other posters, settle things out with THEM.”
Seriously, this does not help your case at all. Have some spine, darling. 😛
More correction:
“which is open to MULTIPLE interpretations.”
Sorry if I’m quite clumsy with the keyboard. ^^
@ Arche
“Well I can’t blame you from sidetracking the topic when cornered?”
Did I really sidetrack or I just nailed it? I said it didn’t matter whether it’s correlation or causation because Corona’s “demeanor†was used as one of the significant factors for Senator-judges to convict him. Enrile even specifically mentioned that Corona’s dramatic WALK-OUT caused more Senator-judges to convict him. So who’s really “corneredâ€? 🙂
“So what are you yapping about with Corona’s failure to support his claims?”
Save your broken record rhetoric. Without bank documents, Corona’s testimony is still doubtful. 🙂
“Because I’m not biased.”
So with all those BIASED articles published in this blog whose writers and other fanatics or sock puppets support this ANTI-PNOY advocacy, only Gogs has the balls to admit he’s biased? Wow, can you define HYPOCRISY? 🙂
“This topic no longer concerned correlation/causation but the absence of evidence or legitimate study, which you raised.”
Exactly! So far, you have NOT given any “evidence” that will prove your Filipino vindictiveness theory. 🙂
“He was pronounced guilty NOT because he lied.”
So when Corona said on national TV, “Wala akong kasalanan…blah blah blah, you believed him without question that he’s absolutely honest??? LOL I’m sorry. I can’t help myself but ROTFL hahaha :))
“Justice is blind; it does not see the morality of a human being.”
FYI, one of the issues against Corona was the question of his being “morally fit“. So let me rephrase your line to be more specific. Corona fanatics a.k.a. PNoy haters are blind; they do not consider the morality of Corona as far as the Impeachment Trial is concerned. And again, how did the Impeachment court respond? You know the drill. 🙂
“Unfortunately, I’m not the kind of person that get pissed of when people like you resort to childish tactics like flaming.”
You tried to ridicule me first (Try harder, darling) so I just returned the favor (But have you even tried? LOL This time, TRY using a brain cell). You have the boldness to say you don’t get “pissed of†but still you continued your flaming antics? LOL And now you have the NERVE to tell everyone that I resorted to “flaming†and you didn’t? LOL You’re already caught red handed and still denying it? Wow, Corona is certainly your IDOL. LOL
By the way, Corona signed his SALN forms that specifically states, “I hereby certify to the best of my knowledge and information that these are TRUE statements of my assets, liabilities, net worth, business interests and financial connections…” So after unraveling his undeclared, misdeclared, delayed, and undervalued entries; omissions; and other inaccuracies in his SALNs, you can still say without shame that HE DIDN’T LIE??? LOL 🙂
So how can any critical thinking person argue with a hypocrite Corona fanatic? The answer – USELESS. 🙂
“Did I really sidetrack or I just nailed it? I said it didn’t matter whether it’s correlation or causation because Corona’s “demeanor†was used as one of the significant factors for Senator-judges to convict him. Enrile even specifically mentioned that Corona’s dramatic WALK-OUT caused more Senator-judges to convict him. So who’s really “corneredâ€?”
Um, no. You didn’t nail anything. If correlation/causation didn’t matter to begin with, why did you even bring them up in the first place? You are sidetracking a topic that YOU created. And then it’s on me? Please be principled. 😛
So who’s really cornered, you ask? It’s you.
“Save your broken record rhetoric. Without bank documents, Corona’s testimony is still doubtful.”
It’s not broken, as I only said it twice. Besides, you haven’t even addressed my question: what were you yapping about Corona’s “failure to substantiate his claims,” when you yourself said that he ADMITTED his finances? You accept the jury’s verdict which was based primarily on his testimony, and yet you find Corona’s testimony doubtful. You’re contradicting yourself. 🙂
“So with all those BIASED articles published in this blog whose writers and other fanatics or sock puppets support this ANTI-PNOY advocacy, only Gogs has the balls to admit he’s biased? Wow, can you define HYPOCRISY?”
There you go again, dragging other people’s names into the fray. Can’t you stand your ground on your own? That’s cowardice. 🙂
I can define hypocrisy alright: it’s when you tell somebody to use his brain cells when you’re not using your own. 😛
“Exactly! So far, you have NOT given any “evidence†that will prove your Filipino vindictiveness theory.”
Of course countless documented evidences which were shown in this website (in the form of articles) won’t satisfy you one bit. 😛
“So when Corona said on national TV, “Wala akong kasalanan…blah blah blah, you believed him without question that he’s absolutely honest??? LOL I’m sorry. I can’t help myself but ROTFL hahaha )”
Sigh… you’re a hopeless case. 🙁
Corona was convicted NOT because he lied. But that doesn’t entail the notion that Corona never lied. Corona was pronounced guilty of an offense which is NOT lying. That’s it. How you came up with this ridiculous statement is beyond me, as far as rationality is concerned.
I also can’t help myself but ROTFL, considering how funny you are. 😛
“FYI, one of the issues against Corona was the question of his being “morally fit“. So let me rephrase your line to be more specific. Corona fanatics a.k.a. PNoy haters are blind; they do not consider the morality of Corona as far as the Impeachment Trial is concerned. And again, how did the Impeachment court respond? You know the drill.”
“Now what about “moral ascendancyâ€? It is strictly confined to a person’s moral capability TO HOLD OFFICE, not his entire personage. The law cannot judge a person purely on moral grounds. This is why your arguments easily break down.”
Oh, now what? Broken record rhetoric again? Use something else, darling. You’re not close to answering my pressing questions.
“You tried to ridicule me first (Try harder, darling) so I just returned the favor (But have you even tried? LOL This time, TRY using a brain cell). You have the boldness to say you don’t get “pissed of†but still you continued your flaming antics? LOL And now you have the NERVE to tell everyone that I resorted to “flaming†and you didn’t? LOL You’re already caught red handed and still denying it? Wow, Corona is certainly your IDOL. LOL”
So my way of speaking is already “flaming” to you? I didn’t know you were this… onion-skinned. Very Filipino if you ask me. 🙂
And I said that I’m not pissed off, simply because I really am NOT pissed off. On the contrary, you seem to be breaking down, as shown by your increasingly questionable line of reasoning.
“By the way, Corona signed his SALN forms that specifically states, “I hereby certify to the best of my knowledge and information that these are TRUE statements of my assets, liabilities, net worth, business interests and financial connections…†So after unraveling his undeclared, misdeclared, delayed, and undervalued entries; omissions; and other inaccuracies in his SALNs, you can still say without shame that HE DIDN’T LIE??? LOL”
Sigh… you can try reading his reasoning regarding the Foreign Currency Deposits Act. The violation he committed “as seen by the jury” was not willful. Also, you yourself said that he ADMITTED everything. And then you call him a liar? Make up your mind, darling. 🙂
“So how can any critical thinking person argue with a hypocrite Corona fanatic? The answer – USELESS.”
Posts like yours should really end with an ineffectual, childish insult, no? Does it feel good? 🙂
Still, you have my sincerest sympathies. Have a good day. ^^
@ Arche
“Still, you have my sincerest sympathies.”
Same here. And I’m not “flaming”. 🙂
Okay, if you say so. Well, it’s been really nice talking to you. I assure you; I mean no sarcasm. Have a nice day! 😀
@ Arche
“If correlation/causation didn’t matter to begin with, why did you even bring them up in the first place?”
Pardon me. But YOU brought up the “correlation/causation” argument and I didn`t even bother because it`s IRRELEVANT. I only hinted there was a “correlation” between his ill suppressed “emotions” to his dramatically staged WALK OUT that clearly showed the PSYCHOLOGY of his DEMEANOR. And this “demeanor” was used as one of the basis for Corona’s conviction. 🙂
“I can define hypocrisy alright; it’s when you tell somebody to use his brain cells when you’re not using them.”
Oh, I have a better definition. Hypocrisy is the act of PRETENSE as openly expressing your irrational HATRED to PNOY, and to some posters who happen to have a different view in this NOT-so-Get-Real-Philippines blog by NAME-CALLING and/or FLAMING, and yet you’re desperately trying to justify your ARROGANCE and HOSTILITY by hiding under the cloak of FALSE LOGIC to conceal your BIAS. 🙂
“Of course countless documented evidences which were shown in this website (in the form of articles) won’t satisfy you a bit.”
And were this so-called “documented evidences” on this blog (which you wittingly or unwittingly have NOT specified up to this very moment) that you frantically keep holding on to have ever proven your FILIPINO VINDICTIVENESS THEORY? If NOT, then just DROP IT before you suffer from first, second or third degree BURN. 🙂
“Corona was convicted not because he lied.”
LOL Please, don’t convince me. You can NOT even say he’s absolutely “honest”, right? So why don’t you just tell this opinion of yours to the 20 Senator-judges who convicted Corona. Oh, I forgot. The verdict of the impeachment court is final and executory. So I suggest you just discuss this with other Corona fanatics at a postpartum depression party, or just write it down to your Corona: My Idol journal, or just keep it to the innermost recesses of your Corona-on-my-mind, and then finally, move on. 🙂
“Now about the moral ascendancy? It is strictly confined to a person’s moral capability to
hold office…”
Precisely. If a lowly court employee who failed to declare a much lesser asset on her SALN was convicted and ousted from employment, do you think Corona still has the “moral capability to hold office” when he as the Chief Justice of the Republic of the Philippines intentionally forgot or completely ignored to declare his humongous 2.4 MILLION DOLLARS & whopping 80 MILLION PESOS on his inaccurate SALNs? A simple Yes or No answer will suffice. But do you really have to answer the OBVIOUS? 🙂
“So my way of speaking is already flaming to you? I didn’t know you were this…onion-skinned.”
Oh, I don’t have a flaky layered skin like that of the edible bulb. My complexion is an external protective membrane consisting of dermis and epidermis. LOL Seriously, when someone notices your ridicule, you label him as onion-skinned. When someone ridicules you, you accuse him of flaming. And when you ridicule someone, you’re not flaming? Right. LOL This reminds me of Corona’s flip-flopping decisions. Typical double-standard that this blog has been adopting to consistently. Smart move but still OBVIOUS. Is there a seminar or workshop for perfecting the art of “fashionably subtle form of” flaming? Just curious. 🙂
“You can try reading his reasoning regarding the Foreign Currency Deposits Act. The violation he committed `as seen by the jury’ was not willful.”
FYI, the FCDA only prohibits the bank or other third party from revealing the details of someone’s bank account/s, and NOT the depositor. So Corona had NO REASON not to declare his 2.4 MIILLION DOLLARS (IF that’s the REAL total amount) on his SALNs. And same goes to his “co-mingled funds” peso bank accounts. Even if it’s true that it`s not all his money (and that`s a big IF), he still had to declare his share of the 80 MILLION PESOS. But of course, he failed to do so. And that’s why the 20-3 verdict is history. 🙂
“Also, you yourself said he admitted everything.”
Everything? Where – in The Twilight Zone? LOL For the record, Corona only admitted SOME of his finances, SOME of his real properties, and SOME of his liabilities. NOT ALL. The TCTs, Deeds of Sale, BIR documents, bank documents, AMLC report, & other documentary and testimonial evidences presented and admitted at the impeachment court showed Corona had MORE. His own lawyers already admitted in public that their client had INACCURACIES in his SALNs. And moreover, Corona had NO bank document to support his claims. So my basis for being “doubtful” at Corona’s testimony was FACTUAL.:)
“On the contrary, you seem to be breaking down, as shown by your increasingly questionable line of reasoning.”
Let’s see. Your correlation/causation argument was IRRELEVANT. Your Filipino vindictiveness theory still has NO EVIDENCE. Your flaming antics rule was obviously DOUBLE-STANDARD. And your opinion that Corona didn’t lie was DEBUNKED. So what’s your point again? LOL
My point is, justify your own reasoning first before you question someone’s argument. For me, using relevant FACTS as premises to arrive at acceptable CONCLUSIONS is the right method for LOGICAL THINKING. Just my sincerest thought. 🙂
Oh, hello there. Looks like we still have some issues to resolve. 🙂
“Pardon me. But YOU brought up the “correlation/causation†argument and I didn`t even bother because it`s IRRELEVANT. I only hinted there was a “correlation†between his ill suppressed “emotions†to his dramatically staged WALK OUT that clearly showed the PSYCHOLOGY of his DEMEANOR. And this “demeanor†was used as one of the basis for Corona’s conviction.”
The fact that you hinted at a “correlation” of some sort is an admission that you did start the topic, no? And then you’ll blame me for responding to the “correlation” topic that you raised, while arguing that it is irrelevant? 🙁
“Oh, I have a better definition. Hypocrisy is the act of PRETENSE as openly expressing your irrational HATRED to PNOY, and to some posters who happen to have a different view in this NOT-so-Get-Real-Philippines blog by NAME-CALLING and/or FLAMING, and yet you’re desperately trying to justify your ARROGANCE and HOSTILITY by hiding under the cloak of FALSE LOGIC to conceal your BIAS.”
Awwww… did I touch a nerve? 😛
“And were this so-called “documented evidences†on this blog (which you wittingly or unwittingly have NOT specified up to this very moment) that you frantically keep holding on to have ever proven your FILIPINO VINDICTIVENESS THEORY? If NOT, then just DROP IT before you suffer from first, second or third degree BURN.”
Goodness, do I have the obligation to link you to the actual articles? Aren’t you the demanding type. You have the entire website at your disposal. Peruse at your own pleasure. 🙂
“LOL Please, don’t convince me. You can NOT even say he’s absolutely “honestâ€, right? So why don’t you just tell this opinion of yours to the 20 Senator-judges who convicted Corona. Oh, I forgot. The verdict of the impeachment court is final and executory. So I suggest you just discuss this with other Corona fanatics at a postpartum depression party, or just write it down to your Corona: My Idol journal, or just keep it to the innermost recesses of your Corona-on-my-mind, and then finally, move on.”
So why are you still talking to me, then? I thought you were “moving on”? Aren’t you already satisfied with the jury’s verdict on the respondent? So why bug me with your increasingly mediocre reasoning? 🙂
“Precisely. If a lowly court employee who failed to declare a much lesser asset on her SALN was convicted and ousted from employment, do you think Corona still has the “moral capability to hold office†when he as the Chief Justice of the Republic of the Philippines intentionally forgot or completely ignored to declare his humongous 2.4 MILLION DOLLARS & whopping 80 MILLION PESOS on his inaccurate SALNs? A simple Yes or No answer will suffice. But do you really have to answer the OBVIOUS?”
You don’t get my point. Does that automatically define his entire character? Can the law objectively define a man’s character and judge him solely on that ground? Do you really have to answer the OBVIOUS?
Still, to help you, the answer is no. 🙂
“Oh, I don’t have a flaky layered skin like that of the edible bulb. My complexion is an external protective membrane consisting of dermis and epidermis. LOL Seriously, when someone notices your ridicule, you label him as onion-skinned. When someone ridicules you, you accuse him of flaming. And when you ridicule someone, you’re not flaming? Right. LOL This reminds me of Corona’s flip-flopping decisions. Typical double-standard that this blog has been adopting to consistently. Smart move but still OBVIOUS. Is there a seminar or workshop for perfecting the art of “fashionably subtle form of†flaming? Just curious.”
So why don’t you just drop the issue if you’re not onion-skinned? Why do you have to raise this issue again and again, when I have clearly no interest in discussing your emotional issues? 🙂
For your sake, I shall end this particular topic right here. I’m quite sure you’ll come up with an insult after reading this to satisfy yourself. Consider it my gift. 🙂
“FYI, the FCDA only prohibits the bank or other third party from revealing the details of someone’s bank account/s, and NOT the depositor. So Corona had NO REASON not to declare his 2.4 MIILLION DOLLARS (IF that’s the REAL total amount) on his SALNs. And same goes to his “co-mingled funds†peso bank accounts. Even if it’s true that it`s not all his money (and that`s a big IF), he still had to declare his share of the 80 MILLION PESOS. But of course, he failed to do so. And that’s why the 20-3 verdict is history.”
But the written permission is NOT mandatory. That alone technically gives Corona the option NOT to declare his dollar accounts strictly in the context of FCDA. In the context of the FCDA, he did not violate anything.
Now, in the context of SALN non-declaration, it was only a matter of whether the offense (as seen by the jury) was impeachable or not. The jury thought it was impeachable, despite the provision that mistakes in SALN can be corrected.
Corona was convicted, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that he was morally guilty. You can’t automatically condemn a man on moral grounds for having a CHOICE, in which neither option will cause moral damage.
In not declaring his dollars, he follows FCDA. In declaring his dollars, he upholds the SALN law. Which is wrong; following the law or following the law?
“Everything? Where – in The Twilight Zone? LOL For the record, Corona only admitted SOME of his finances, SOME of his real properties, and SOME of his liabilities. NOT ALL. The TCTs, Deeds of Sale, BIR documents, bank documents, AMLC report, & other documentary and testimonial evidences presented and admitted at the impeachment court showed Corona had MORE. His own lawyers already admitted in public that their client had INACCURACIES in his SALNs. And moreover, Corona had NO bank document to support his claims. So my basis for being “doubtful†at Corona’s testimony was FACTUAL.:)”
So why are you satisfied with the verdict in the first place? You yourself admitted that there is a terra incognita in Corona’s case; absence of crucial bank documents, properties that could have shed light on some unanswered questions. And yet the Senate chose not to discuss these issues. The prosecution refused to cross-examine Corona. You found his testimonies doubtful, you found the evidences lacking. And yet, somehow, you’re okay with the guilty verdict. 😛
“Let’s see. Your correlation/causation argument was IRRELEVANT. Your Filipino vindictiveness theory still has NO EVIDENCE. Your flaming antics rule was obviously DOUBLE-STANDARD. And your opinion that Corona didn’t lie was DEBUNKED. So what’s your point again? LOL”
Allow me to reply. You unarguably started the “correlation” topic regarding Corona’s demeanor, which you later dropped out, you expect me to spoon-feed you with info about Filipino vindictiveness when you’re in the website where these info are published, you’re inflating the significance of your hurt ego, and I didn’t even claim that Corona didn’t lie.
“Corona was convicted NOT because he lied. But that doesn’t entail the notion that Corona never lied. Corona was pronounced guilty of an offense which is NOT lying. That’s it. How you came up with this ridiculous statement is beyond me, as far as rationality is concerned.”
So what’s your point again? LOL
“My point is, justify your own reasoning first before you question someone’s argument. For me, using relevant FACTS as premises to arrive at acceptable CONCLUSIONS is the right method for LOGICAL THINKING. Just my sincerest thought.”
Oh, but I have already justified them, and I have rebutted every single argument of yours by addressing ALL your replies, point by point. On the contrary, I have shown every single error you’ve made in your arguments, and you just casually ignored them.
And now you have the gall to say things like “relevant facts as premises” yadda, yadda. Truly, what a sad person you are. 🙁
I feel so sorry for you. Really, darling. If only I could do something to make you feel better. 🙁
My advice to you? The same advice you try to give to me; move on. The trial is over, and you’re providing me entertainment at your own expense.
The ruling of the Senate is indeed final and irreversible. Congratulations! 🙂
But at the same time, you can’t beat me. 😛
I’m so sorry, but you might have to find a new form of activity rather than spazzing out on a debate you can’t win at. 😉
And then what are you gonna do after reading my reply?
1. Accuse me of flaming and hurting your feelings?
2. Repeat your broken arguments which I’ve already addressed a while back?
3. Use Caps Lock/Shift more often?
4. Insist that I said Corona never lied, when I never did?
5. Insist that I raised the correlation/causation topic, when you are really the one who raised it?
6. Avoid my question about your contentment with the jury’s verdict despite your doubts on Corona’s testimony on which the jury’s verdict was based?
7. Drag more names into the fray in your accusation that I’m biased?
8. Bug me into sending you links to GRP articles, when you’re in the GRP website to begin with?
9. Instruct me to “use my brain cell” or “define hypocrisy”?
10. Keep on saying that “the senate’s verdict is final” when you’re just merely stating the obvious and nothing else?
Old, formulaic parlor tricks, darling. Have a good day. 🙂
Sorry Ms “PrincesaUrduja”, the trajectory of your line of commentary will no longer be tolerated pursuant to Section 2.2.6 of our Terms of Service i.e. the clause on quibbling which in this case has become counterproductive to the overall dynamic of this forum.
Further commentary from you will be dealt with erring on the side of summary deletion.
Thank you. 😀
This princesaurduja does not know when to quit.
The way I see it, she would rather continue defending an illogical argument than being refuted.
If Arche has a grammar problem, that will be her excuse of quitting the argument.
But then, I still hope you did not delete her comment.
Her comments are documentations of how these hypocrites minds work. Those must be preserved.
@ benignO
“Sorry Ms “PrincesaUrdujaâ€, the trajectory of your line of commentary will no longer be tolerated…â€
I have tolerated the “trajectory†of this blog’s BIAS, HYPOCRISY, NAME-CALLING and FLAMING for some time now and yet no one seems to care. Not even the blog administrator who is supposed to mediate. Now if these contemptuous acts practiced by writers, posters and sockpuppets will not be tolerated anymore by this blog (and that’s a big IF), then I have no words but – Congratulations! And you know what? It’s about TIME. 🙂
@ benignO
“…pursuant to Section 2.2.6 of our Terms of Service i.e. the clause on quibbling…â€
So you have RULES now? LOL And since when? Since I accurately defined “hypocrisyâ€? Since I positively discovered the DOUBLE STANDARD on “flamingâ€? Or since I specifically identified your MAN-VOICE “name-callingâ€? 🙂
@ benignO
“…which in this case has become counterproductive to the overall dynamic of this forum.â€
I hope you have also considered this blog’s bias, hypocrisy, name-calling and flaming as “counterproductiveâ€. 🙂
@ benignO
“Further commentary from you will be dealt with erring on the side of summary deletion.â€
Since day one, I have posted comments that are relevant to the topic and even responded to writers and posters with facts and rationality. But it seems most people here are biased, ignorant or “onion-skinnedâ€, and even resorted to name-calling and flaming instead.
And FYI, this blog already DELETED one of my posts here without any notice or warning. I’m sure you’re aware of this as the WEBMASTER. So reminding me (or threatening me) with “summary deletion†is OLD NEWS. 🙂
@ benignO
Hey, benignO! Finally, you responded. Since you seem to be the “leader†of this blog, I’d rather converse with you instead of sockpuppets…
By the way…
1. An anonymous writer with an anime pic FAILED to negate any of my arguments and yet has THE NERVE to say I “can’t winâ€. LOL So if winning is the goal here, does he/she/it mean this blog is just a CONTEST? I thought this blog is a PUBLIC FORUM. LOL And so if this is a “contestâ€, and he/she/it is the “judgeâ€, then count me out. No commonsensical participant would ever think of winning in this BIASED contest. LOL 🙂
2. A redundant poster said a month ago that he would be banned here but up to now he’s still here continually REACTING even when NO ONE CARES. So why don’t you reassure him that he’s “safe†from elimination in this NOT-so-Get-Real blog. 🙂
3. I commented a couple of times on your articles. But you seemed “busy†and you’d just let your friends or sockpuppets react. So why respond now? 🙂