💡 Trivia Alam nyo ba na normalize nalang sa mga BBM supporter ang mag share ng fake news without Fact Checking?

bakit po ganun mga bbm supporter?
bakit po sarado utak nila? bakit mas gusto nila ang fake news? meron naman silang isip kaso hindi gamit. please enlighten me..

 

[Ko Munyeong]

Saang korte yan? haha gawa kwento

Marami. Ikaw na magsearch. Nagbubulag-bulagan ka kapag wala pa rin. Korte na mismo nagsabi nito.

Sandiganbayan:

Further action/Notes
Court	Sandiganbayan
Case Type	Criminal
Case No.	17287
Date Filed	December 18, 1991
Offense/Petition	Vio. of RA 3019, 3(h)
Disposal	Convicted
Date Disposed	11/09/18
Respondent	Marcos, Imelda
Further action/Notes
Court	Sandiganbayan
Case Type	Criminal
Case No.	17288
Date Filed	December 18, 1991
Offense/Petition	Vio. of RA 3019, 3(h)
Disposal	Convicted
Date Disposed	11/09/18
Respondent	Marcos, Imelda

Further action/Notes
Court	Sandiganbayan
Case Type	Criminal
Case No.	17289
Date Filed	December 18, 1991
Offense/Petition	Vio. of RA 3019, 3(h)
Disposal	Convicted
Date Disposed	11/09/18
Respondent	Marcos, Imelda
Further action/Notes
Court	Sandiganbayan
Case Type	Criminal
Case No.	17290
Date Filed	December 18, 1991
Offense/Petition	Vio. of RA 3019, 3(h)
Disposal	Convicted
Date Disposed	11/09/18
Respondent	Marcos, Imelda
Further action/Notes
Court	Sandiganbayan
Case Type	Criminal
Case No.	22867
Date Filed	May 9, 1995
Offense/Petition	Vio. of RA 3019, 3(h)
Disposal	Convicted
Date Disposed	11/09/18
Respondent	Marcos, Imelda
Further action/Notes
Court	Sandiganbayan
Case Type	Criminal
Case No.	22868
Date Filed	May 9, 1995
Offense/Petition	Vio. of RA 3019, 3(h)
Disposal	Convicted
Date Disposed	11/09/18
Respondent	Marcos, Imelda
Further action/Notes
Court	Sandiganbayan
Case Type	Criminal
Case No.	22869
Date Filed	May 9, 1995
Offense/Petition	Vio. of RA 3019, 3(h)
Disposal	Convicted
Date Disposed	11/09/18
Respondent	Marcos, Imelda

Court	Sandiganbayan
Case Type	Civil
Case No.	0141
Date Filed	December 17, 1991
Offense/Petition	Petition for Forfeiture
Disposal	Pending
Date Disposed
Respondent	Marcos, Imelda and family
Further action/Notes	(see summary judgments)
Court	Sandiganbayan
Case Type	Civil - Summary Judgment
Case No.	0141
Date Filed	March 10, 2000
Offense/Petition	Petition for Forfeiture (Swiss funds)
Disposal	Granted
Date Disposed	09/19/00
Respondent	Marcos, Imelda and family
Further action/Notes	Reversed by Sandiganbayan on 01/31/02. Reversal set aside by SC in GR No. 152154 on 07/15/03.
Court	Sandiganbayan
Case Type	Civil - Partial Summary Judgment
Case No.	0141
Date Filed	July 16, 2004
Offense/Petition	Petition for Forfeiture (Arelma assets)
Disposal	Granted
Date Disposed	04/02/09
Respondent	Marcos, Imelda and family
Further action/Notes	Affirmed by SC in GR No. 189434 on 04/25/12
Court	Sandiganbayan
Case Type	Civil - Partial Summary Judgment
Case No.	0141
Date Filed	June 24, 2009
Offense/Petition	Petition for Forfeiture (Malacañang Jewelry Collection)
Disposal	Granted
Date Disposed	01/13/14
Respondent	Marcos, Imelda and family
Further action/Notes	Affirmed by SC in GR No. 213027 on 01/18/07

Further action/Notes
Court	US - New York and New Jersey courts
Case Type	Civil
Case No.	-
Date Filed	-
Offense/Petition	Forfeiture of properties in New York and New Jersey
Disposal	Granted
Date Disposed	1986
Respondent	Marcos family

 

[T H E O]

Di ko ata nakita yung pangalan ni BBM diyan. Teka kuha ako eye-glasses.

 

[Ko Munyeong]

Di ko ata nakita yung pangalan ni BBM diyan. Teka kuha ako eye-glasses.

Pero nakinabang siya sa nakaw na yaman. Hindi ba harap harapang panggagago yan? Yung ninakaw na pero sa'yo yung gamit niya sa pangangampanya ngayon?

May nabawi kaya May ninakaw. Ganon lang kasimple.

 

[-M I A Z H E R-]

Marami. Ikaw na magsearch. Nagbubulag-bulagan ka kapag wala pa rin. Korte na mismo nagsabi nito.

Sandiganbayan:

Further action/Notes
Court	Sandiganbayan
Case Type	Criminal
Case No.	17287
Date Filed	December 18, 1991
Offense/Petition	Vio. of RA 3019, 3(h)
Disposal	Convicted
Date Disposed	11/09/18
Respondent	Marcos, Imelda
Further action/Notes
Court	Sandiganbayan
Case Type	Criminal
Case No.	17288
Date Filed	December 18, 1991
Offense/Petition	Vio. of RA 3019, 3(h)
Disposal	Convicted
Date Disposed	11/09/18
Respondent	Marcos, Imelda

Further action/Notes
Court	Sandiganbayan
Case Type	Criminal
Case No.	17289
Date Filed	December 18, 1991
Offense/Petition	Vio. of RA 3019, 3(h)
Disposal	Convicted
Date Disposed	11/09/18
Respondent	Marcos, Imelda
Further action/Notes
Court	Sandiganbayan
Case Type	Criminal
Case No.	17290
Date Filed	December 18, 1991
Offense/Petition	Vio. of RA 3019, 3(h)
Disposal	Convicted
Date Disposed	11/09/18
Respondent	Marcos, Imelda
Further action/Notes
Court	Sandiganbayan
Case Type	Criminal
Case No.	22867
Date Filed	May 9, 1995
Offense/Petition	Vio. of RA 3019, 3(h)
Disposal	Convicted
Date Disposed	11/09/18
Respondent	Marcos, Imelda
Further action/Notes
Court	Sandiganbayan
Case Type	Criminal
Case No.	22868
Date Filed	May 9, 1995
Offense/Petition	Vio. of RA 3019, 3(h)
Disposal	Convicted
Date Disposed	11/09/18
Respondent	Marcos, Imelda
Further action/Notes
Court	Sandiganbayan
Case Type	Criminal
Case No.	22869
Date Filed	May 9, 1995
Offense/Petition	Vio. of RA 3019, 3(h)
Disposal	Convicted
Date Disposed	11/09/18
Respondent	Marcos, Imelda

Court	Sandiganbayan
Case Type	Civil
Case No.	0141
Date Filed	December 17, 1991
Offense/Petition	Petition for Forfeiture
Disposal	Pending
Date Disposed
Respondent	Marcos, Imelda and family
Further action/Notes	(see summary judgments)
Court	Sandiganbayan
Case Type	Civil - Summary Judgment
Case No.	0141
Date Filed	March 10, 2000
Offense/Petition	Petition for Forfeiture (Swiss funds)
Disposal	Granted
Date Disposed	09/19/00
Respondent	Marcos, Imelda and family
Further action/Notes	Reversed by Sandiganbayan on 01/31/02. Reversal set aside by SC in GR No. 152154 on 07/15/03.
Court	Sandiganbayan
Case Type	Civil - Partial Summary Judgment
Case No.	0141
Date Filed	July 16, 2004
Offense/Petition	Petition for Forfeiture (Arelma assets)
Disposal	Granted
Date Disposed	04/02/09
Respondent	Marcos, Imelda and family
Further action/Notes	Affirmed by SC in GR No. 189434 on 04/25/12
Court	Sandiganbayan
Case Type	Civil - Partial Summary Judgment
Case No.	0141
Date Filed	June 24, 2009
Offense/Petition	Petition for Forfeiture (Malacañang Jewelry Collection)
Disposal	Granted
Date Disposed	01/13/14
Respondent	Marcos, Imelda and family
Further action/Notes	Affirmed by SC in GR No. 213027 on 01/18/07

Further action/Notes
Court	US - New York and New Jersey courts
Case Type	Civil
Case No.	-
Date Filed	-
Offense/Petition	Forfeiture of properties in New York and New Jersey
Disposal	Granted
Date Disposed	1986
Respondent	Marcos family

Ferdinand Imelda Marcos Jr. hahahahaha okay kalang po? sabi mo si BBM ang convicted nag research kapa

 

[Ko Munyeong]

Ferdinand Imelda Marcos Jr. hahahahaha okay kalang po? sabi mo si BBM ang convicted nag research kapa

"And family"

Hindi ko nilagay lahat. Katulad nung estate tax. Kahit anong facts talaga ilatag, fake pa rin sa mga mata

 

[-M I A Z H E R-]

"And family"

Hindi ko nilagay lahat. Katulad nung estate tax. Kahit anong facts talaga ilatag, fake pa rin sa mga mata

Hahahaha dito naman tayo sa estate tax.

magbabayad ka po ba pag wala pa sayo yung properties? nandoon pa sa PCGG yung mga properties ng mga Marcos freeze and sequestered kasi ILL GOTTEN WEALTH kuno bat hinahabol sa estate tax?

 

[Ko Munyeong]

Hahahaha dito naman tayo sa estate tax.

magbabayad ka po ba pag wala pa sayo yung properties? nandoon pa sa PCGG yung mga properties ng mga Marcos freeze and sequestered kasi ILL GOTTEN WEALTH kuno bat hinahabol sa estate tax?

Magbabayad ka kasi May desisyon ang korte. Wala na sa usapan kung hawak mo o hindi. Ganon lang kasimple.

Kaya nga hindi ko sinama yung estate tax eh. Pero ayan yung ilan sa mga kaso na convicted ang pamilya nila. Ayaw mo lang talaga tanggapin na convicted sila

 

[dorkvaderxxx]

Magbabayad ka kasi May desisyon ang korte. Wala na sa usapan kung hawak mo o hindi. Ganon lang kasimple.

Kaya nga hindi ko sinama yung estate tax eh. Pero ayan yung ilan sa mga kaso na convicted ang pamilya nila. Ayaw mo lang talaga tanggapin na convicted sila

anung kabobohan yan mgbabayad ka ng tax sa property na nka freeze??? utak mo nasa paa

 

[Ko Munyeong]

anung kabobohan yan mgbabayad ka ng tax sa property na nka freeze??? utak mo nasa paa

Mas magaling ka pa ba sa desisyon ng korte? May magagawa ka ba sa desisyon ng korte? Pero tingnan mo, hindi pa rin sila nakakulong. Patunay na sila ay mga elitista at untouchable. Kahit convicted na ng korte, hindi masingil ng BIR. Ganon kalakas ang kapangyarihan ng mga Marcos (at tigas ng mukha). Harap harapang binabastos ang batas.

 

[dorkvaderxxx]

Mas magaling ka pa ba sa desisyon ng korte? May magagawa ka ba sa desisyon ng korte? Pero tingnan mo, hindi pa rin sila nakakulong. Patunay na sila ay mga elitista at untouchable. Kahit convicted na ng korte, hindi masingil ng BIR. Ganon kalakas ang kapangyarihan ng mga Marcos (at tigas ng mukha). Harap harapang binabastos ang batas.

convicted ang pota tapos epipindown na naman sa marcos na untouchable daw at elitista so kasalanan na naman ng supreme court yan bat di mapakulong ..dami mo pala alam..bat di mo epakulong...mas magaling ka ata sa supreme court

 

[Ko Munyeong]

convicted ang pota tapos epipindown na naman sa marcos na untouchable daw at elitista so kasalanan na naman ng supreme court yan bat di mapakulong ..dami mo pala alam..bat di mo epakulong...mas magaling ka ata sa supreme court

May mga kasong bailable. May mga hearing na puwedeng ireset nang ireset. May pera ang mga Marcos para bayaran lahat ng yan.

May warrant of arrest ang ilan sa mga kaso, katulad kay Imelda. Pero may pang piyansa sila. Paano mo maipapakulong?

 

[-M I A Z H E R-]

Magbabayad ka kasi May desisyon ang korte. Wala na sa usapan kung hawak mo o hindi. Ganon lang kasimple.

Kaya nga hindi ko sinama yung estate tax eh. Pero ayan yung ilan sa mga kaso na convicted ang pamilya nila. Ayaw mo lang talaga tanggapin na convicted sila

Hahahahah pag ikaw ang atty talo ang kliyente mo sa sagot mo. Anong properties ng mga Marcos na babayaran ng tax na galing kay Marcos Sr.?

The issue here is the fact that when Marcos Sr. died in 1989, practically all his estate was sequestered for possible forfeiture on the ground that they were ill-gotten. By virtue of Section 6 of RA 1379, anything that exceeded the legally justifiable income would be deemed ill-gotten. In fact, in GR 152154, the court established that the legally justifiable income of the Marcos couple, and not just of Marcos Sr., was only $304,372.73. It is therefore implied that anything in excess of these would be deemed ill-gotten and should be forfeited, some of which had in fact already been forfeited.

As such, those would be assets, whether money or property, that would no longer be owned by the Marcoses and would have to be forfeited in favor of the state. They could also not be inherited since Marcos Sr. would not own them. Therefore, behooves us to ask how such assets can yield an estate tax worth P23.29 billion, unless even those deemed by law as ill-gotten would have been included in the calculations. Indeed, according to the BIR, an estate tax is levied "based on the laws in force at the time of death notwithstanding the postponement of the actual possession or enjoyment of the estate by the beneficiary." But this assumes that the said estate will eventually be inherited by the heirs, which in the case of seized and forfeited assets is no longer possible.

I have always been for fairness in the recounting of events in our history, whether distant or recent, and it is indeed the height of negative revisionism to claim that there is an absence of legally or judicially determined truth that establishes the existence of ill-gotten wealth attributed to the Marcos family. However, it is equally important to clarify and to demand logic on allegations about tax obligations, when the very fact of having ill-gotten wealth could contradict the basis for such tax obligation.

Arguing that former senator Ferdinand Marcos Jr. may not be directly responsible for these is not the point, although it must be clearly stated that he would have most probably benefited, as a legal heir. In fact, in some of these cases, Marcos Jr. was impleaded or was a petitioner himself. It is therefore a fact that he has some manageable interest in the issue. And now that he is running for office, and is in fact the frontrunner, and has a very good chance of winning, it is important that these facts be stated. It is up to the voters to consider whether to hold him accountable or not as they exercise their right on May 9. After all, the duty to elect the president has always been reposed on the electorate, and not the courts.

 

[dorkvaderxxx]

May mga kasong bailable. May mga hearing na puwedeng ireset nang ireset. May pera ang mga Marcos para bayaran lahat ng yan.

May warrant of arrest ang ilan sa mga kaso, katulad kay Imelda. Pero may pang piyansa sila. Paano mo maipapakulong?

asus drama mo...eh anu ngayon kung may pera so para mo na rin sinabi mahina ang supreme court ganun??at mahina ang batas??ay kung confident ka sa talino mo..mgchief justice ka.. dami mong alam...

 

[Ko Munyeong]

asus drama mo...eh anu ngayon kung may pera so para mo na rin sinabi mahina ang supreme court ganun??at mahina ang batas??ay kung confident ka sa talino mo..mgchief justice ka.. dami mong alam...

Smart shaming.

Nabago ba ng argumento mo na May ninakaw sila kaya May sinauli sila?

 

[dorkvaderxxx]

nagbayad nanga si BBM so **** si BBM?

ngbayad ng ESTAte tax??? obob lang??

Smart shaming.

Nabago ba ng argumento mo na May ninakaw sila kaya May sinauli sila?

wala namn talagang magbabago..kahit anu pa...nakasulat na yan sa kasaysayan na gawa ng mga dilaw...

 

[shirokunkun]

Hahahahah pag ikaw ang atty talo ang kliyente mo sa sagot mo. Anong properties ng mga Marcos na babayaran ng tax na galing kay Marcos Sr.?

The issue here is the fact that when Marcos Sr. died in 1989, practically all his estate was sequestered for possible forfeiture on the ground that they were ill-gotten. By virtue of Section 6 of RA 1379, anything that exceeded the legally justifiable income would be deemed ill-gotten. In fact, in GR 152154, the court established that the legally justifiable income of the Marcos couple, and not just of Marcos Sr., was only $304,372.73. It is therefore implied that anything in excess of these would be deemed ill-gotten and should be forfeited, some of which had in fact already been forfeited.

As such, those would be assets, whether money or property, that would no longer be owned by the Marcoses and would have to be forfeited in favor of the state. They could also not be inherited since Marcos Sr. would not own them. Therefore, behooves us to ask how such assets can yield an estate tax worth P23.29 billion, unless even those deemed by law as ill-gotten would have been included in the calculations. Indeed, according to the BIR, an estate tax is levied "based on the laws in force at the time of death notwithstanding the postponement of the actual possession or enjoyment of the estate by the beneficiary." But this assumes that the said estate will eventually be inherited by the heirs, which in the case of seized and forfeited assets is no longer possible.

I have always been for fairness in the recounting of events in our history, whether distant or recent, and it is indeed the height of negative revisionism to claim that there is an absence of legally or judicially determined truth that establishes the existence of ill-gotten wealth attributed to the Marcos family. However, it is equally important to clarify and to demand logic on allegations about tax obligations, when the very fact of having ill-gotten wealth could contradict the basis for such tax obligation.

Arguing that former senator Ferdinand Marcos Jr. may not be directly responsible for these is not the point, although it must be clearly stated that he would have most probably benefited, as a legal heir. In fact, in some of these cases, Marcos Jr. was impleaded or was a petitioner himself. It is therefore a fact that he has some manageable interest in the issue. And now that he is running for office, and is in fact the frontrunner, and has a very good chance of winning, it is important that these facts be stated. It is up to the voters to consider whether to hold him accountable or not as they exercise their right on May 9. After all, the duty to elect the president has always been reposed on the electorate, and not the courts.

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

although it must be clearly stated that he would have most probably benefited, as a legal heir.

Cutie, nagcite ng source yung bbm supporter na nagsabeng ginamit ni jr nakaw na yaman ahahahahahhaha.

 

[Ko Munyeong]

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
Cutie, nagcite ng source yung bbm supporter na nagsabeng ginamit ni jr nakaw na yaman ahahahahahhaha.

Wala ngang proper citation eh. Pati ba naman article ng iba Minarcos.

You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.
Cutie, nagcite ng source yung bbm supporter na nagsabeng ginamit ni jr nakaw na yaman ahahahahahhaha.

At si Antonio Contreras pa ang nagsulat na alam naman nating panatiko ni Marcos.

 

[MAurelius]

Wag na kayo maglapagan ng source dahil parehas din naman kayong hindi mag a-agree sa nilalapag nyong source.

Pag abs, gma etc at pro leni yung nagsulat eh biased para sa mga supporters nung kabila.

Pag naman website ng kandidato, pro bbm nagsulat etc eh not reliable source para sa kabila.

Syempre dun kayo a-agree sa bias sainyong kandidato kaya wala na sense mga nilalapag nyong source. Hahaha

 

[JayaRimen]

Baliktad ata trivia tanong mo ts.... Dapat ganito un eh...
bakit po ganun mga lenlen supporter?
bakit po sarado utak nila? bakit mas gusto nila ang fake news? meron naman silang isip kaso hindi gamit. please enlighten me..

Beket genen?

 

[Ko Munyeong]

Wag na kayo maglapagan ng source dahil parehas din naman kayong hindi mag a-agree sa nilalapag nyong source.

Pag abs, gma etc at ρrø leni yung nagsulat eh biased para sa mga supporters nung kabila.

Pag naman website ng kandidato, ρrø bbm nagsulat etc eh not reliable source para sa kabila.

Syempre dun kayo a-agree sa bias sainyong kandidato kaya wala na sense mga nilalapag nyong source. Hahaha

May pinagkaiba.

Imposibleng nagsabwatan lahat ng media companies sa buong mundo para i single out ang mga Marcos. Meaning imposibleng biased lahat.

Ang source ng mga BBM fanatics na website ni BBM ay gawa mismo ng kampo nila. Bakit sila magsusulat nang ikasisira nila doon? Nagdadagdag pa nga sila ng kasinungalingan eh. Buti na lang May independent fact checkers.

Alin ba ang mas credible? Balita sa Website na ikaw mismo gumawa o yung balita na galing sa credible organizations worldwide?