New definition of PATRIOTISM

The use of "patriotic" is incorrect because the gathering specifically supports the Duterte family, not the broader nation of the Philippines, and is tied to a controversial figure facing ICC charges for alleged crimes against humanity during his drug war campaign.

Supporting a political figure, especially one accused of human rights violations, does not align with the traditional definition of patriotism, which prioritizes the country’s well-being over individual leaders.

Patriotism typically refers to love and devotion to one’s country, often involving actions that promote national unity, welfare, or independence.

 

[plhbg1]

Sabi mo makikita sa “Necessity of Arrest” section ng application na PH suggested idaan sa Interpol, pero since redacted yung document, wala kang proof na sinabi talaga yun. Kung talagang meron, i-quote mo nang maayos—kung hindi, speculation mo lang talaga, hehe.

obviously hindi mo binasa, or else nalaman mo sana na hindi yun na-remove kahit sa redacted version

Mali pa rin yung pagkakaunawa mo—state referral automatic yung preliminary exam, hindi kailangan ng authorization to “not proceed”. Pero communication from a citizen (tulad kay Trillanes) hindi “activates” motu proprio—kailangan pa rin ng desisyon ng prosecutor to act proprio motu, then authorization from Pre-Trial Chamber to proceed.

yes tama ka automatic pag state but if prosecutor decided to not proceed he will still need authorization from pre-trial chamber not to proceed, basahin mo maigi

State: Authorization for not proceeding
Citizen: Authorization for proceeding

 

[BicycleHorse]

obviously hindi mo binasa, or else nalaman mo sana na hindi yun na-remove kahit sa redacted version

Sabi mo makikita sa “Necessity of Arrest” section ng redacted application na PH suggested idaan sa Interpol, pero wala kang proof na hindi yun na-remove—kailangan mo i-quote nang maayos, kasi wala sa reports yung claim mo. Standard process lang yun, hindi strategy, kaya mali ka ulit. Kung talagang meron, bakit di mo maipakita nang malinaw?

yes tama ka automatic pag state but if prosecutor decided to not proceed he will still need authorization from pre-trial chamber not to proceed, basahin mo maigi

State: Authorization for not proceeding
Citizen: Authorization for proceeding

Grabe, mali na naman! State referral automatic yung preliminary exam, pero WALANG requirement na kailangan ng Pre-Trial Chamber authorization to “not proceed”—discretion lang yun ng prosecutor. Para sa citizen communication (tulad kay Trillanes), hindi “activates” motu proprio—kailangan ng desisyon ng prosecutor to act proprio motu, then authorization from Pre-Trial Chamber to proceed to formal investigation, hindi yung “authorization for proceeding” na sinabi mo. Basahin mo ulit nang maigi kasi mali pa rin interpretation mo.

 

[plhbg1]

Sabi mo makikita sa “Necessity of Arrest” section ng redacted application na PH suggested idaan sa Interpol, pero wala kang proof na hindi yun na-remove—kailangan mo i-quote nang maayos, kasi wala sa reports yung claim mo. Standard process lang yun, hindi strategy, kaya mali ka ulit. Kung talagang meron, bakit di mo maipakita nang malinaw?

haha ikaw lang din di marunong magbasa so negligible ka ulet, i won't quote it for you, i don't serve you

Grabe, mali na naman! State referral automatic yung preliminary exam, pero WALANG requirement na kailangan ng Pre-Trial Chamber authorization to “not proceed”—discretion lang yun ng prosecutor. Para sa citizen communication (tulad kay Trillanes), hindi “activates” motu proprio—kailangan ng desisyon ng prosecutor to act proprio motu, then authorization from Pre-Trial Chamber to proceed to formal investigation, hindi yung “authorization for proceeding” na sinabi mo. Basahin mo ulit nang maigi kasi mali pa rin interpretation mo.

haha hindi nga automatic, may discretion pa rin si prosecutor to not proceed as long as may basbas ng pre-trial chamber, basahin mo kasi yung part na may "subject for review" na phrase

 

[BicycleHorse]

haha ikaw lang din di marunong magbasa so negligible ka ulet, i won't quote it for you, i don't serve you

Mali yung claim mo na sinabi sa section na yan na PH yung nagsuggest na idaan sa Interpol yung arrest ni Duterte. Ang sabi lang dun, kailangan i-arrest si Duterte para siguradong makaharap siya sa ICC at pigilan yung plano niyang “double” killings kung babalik siya as Mayor ng Davao.

Walang binanggit na Interpol o suggestion ng PH—strategy daw, pero wala talaga! standard process lang yung diffusion notice sa Interpol, at sabi ni Imee Marcos, galing sa ICC email yung notice, hindi official Interpol channels. Mali ka talaga—walang basis yung sinasabi mo.

haha hindi nga automatic, may discretion pa rin si prosecutor to not proceed as long as may basbas ng pre-trial chamber, basahin mo kasi yung part na may "subject for review" na phrase

Mali yung sinabi mo na hindi automatic yung state referral kasi pwede daw mag-decide yung prosecutor na hindi mag-proceed, pero kailangan daw ng “basbas” ng Pre-Trial Chamber.

Sabi ng ICC Policy Paper [Paragraph 27], automatic talaga yung preliminary exam pag state referral. Pwede nga mag-decide yung prosecutor na hindi mag-proceed based sa complementarity, gravity, o interests of justice [Paragraph 29], pero hindi kailangan ng mandatory authorization—kung gusto ng state, pwede nila i-request yung review under Article 53(3)(a), pero hindi yun required na “basbas.”

Mali ka kasi yung “subject for review” na sinasabi mo, review lang yun if the state requests, hindi mandatory step. Basahin mo nang maigi yung rules!

 

[plhbg1]

Mali yung claim mo na sinabi sa section na yan na PH yung nagsuggest na idaan sa Interpol yung arrest ni Duterte. Ang sabi lang dun, kailangan i-arrest si Duterte para siguradong makaharap siya sa ICC at pigilan yung plano niyang “double” killings kung babalik siya as Mayor ng Davao.

Walang binanggit na Interpol o suggestion ng PH—strategy daw, pero wala talaga! standard process lang yung diffusion notice sa Interpol, at sabi ni Imee Marcos, galing sa ICC email yung notice, hindi official Interpol channels. Mali ka talaga—walang basis yung sinasabi mo.

yang sinasabi mo is second paragraph na so it means you skipped, or intentionally skipped para kunwari wala

Mali yung sinabi mo na hindi automatic yung state referral kasi pwede daw mag-decide yung prosecutor na hindi mag-proceed, pero kailangan daw ng “basbas” ng Pre-Trial Chamber.

Sabi ng ICC Policy Paper [Paragraph 27], automatic talaga yung preliminary exam pag state referral. Pwede nga mag-decide yung prosecutor na hindi mag-proceed based sa complementarity, gravity, o interests of justice [Paragraph 29], pero hindi kailangan ng mandatory authorization—kung gusto ng state, pwede nila i-request yung review under Article 53(3)(a), pero hindi yun required na “basbas.”

Mali ka kasi yung “subject for review” na sinasabi mo, review lang yun if the state requests, hindi mandatory step. Basahin mo nang maigi yung rules!

haha walang nakalagay na if the state requests review bossing, talaga hindi makaka tanggi ang prosecutor sa investigation without the approval of pre-Trial chamber, need talaga niya mag investigate but if ayaw niya he really needs to convince the chamber

 

[BicycleHorse]

yang sinasabi mo is second paragraph na so it means you skipped, or intentionally skipped para kunwari wala

yung “Necessity of Arrest” section, wala talagang sinabi na PH suggested idaan sa Interpol—binasa ko parehong paragraphs, at puro threats ni Duterte at plans to double killings yung laman, walang Interpol o strategy. Mali ka talaga, at yung “skipped or intentionally skipped” mo, wala kang proof—ikaw yung mali, hindi ako.

haha walang nakalagay na if the state requests review bossing, talaga hindi makaka tanggi ang prosecutor sa investigation without the approval of pre-Trial chamber, need talaga niya mag investigate but if ayaw niya he really needs to convince the chamber

mali ka rin sa ICC process—state referral automatic yung preliminary exam, pero kung di mag-proceed yung prosecutor, discretion lang yun, at review lang ng Pre-Trial Chamber kung hihingi yung state. Walang “need talaga mag-investigate” o “convince the chamber” na mandatory—mali ka talaga, at obvious na hindi mo binasa nang maayos yung rules.

Hanggang kailan ka magmamalaki kahit wala kang tamang facts?

 

[plhbg1]

yung “Necessity of Arrest” section, wala talagang sinabi na PH suggested idaan sa Interpol—binasa ko parehong paragraphs, at puro threats ni Duterte at plans to double killings yung laman, walang Interpol o strategy. Mali ka talaga, at yung “skipped or intentionally skipped” mo, wala kang proof—ikaw yung mali, hindi ako.

mali nga ako bossing, nasa "REQUEST FOR URGENT CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATION" pala

mali ka rin sa ICC process—state referral automatic yung preliminary exam, pero kung di mag-proceed yung prosecutor, discretion lang yun, at review lang ng Pre-Trial Chamber kung hihingi yung state. Walang “need talaga mag-investigate” o “convince the chamber” na mandatory—mali ka talaga, at obvious na hindi mo binasa nang maayos yung rules.

Hanggang kailan ka magmamalaki kahit wala kang tamang facts?

hehe wala namang nakalagay na "if the state requests" bossing, yang "convince" own words ko yan pero ang nakalagay dun is chamber reviews not proceeding but it will not review if he proceeds

 

[Lerold]

kung magagawa ng walang pag patay why not, pero ang totoo eh, di naman yun talaga basta basta, kaya nga may mass bombing mga european na kasama icc, kasi faster and effective approach yun. kung kailangan ilitis siya, gawin sa pinas at ng walang unrest. minadali at halatang political persecution lang not sure baka request ng us.

 

[BicycleHorse]

mali nga ako bossing, nasa "REQUEST FOR URGENT CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATION" pala

Yung “Request for Urgent Consideration” [Paragraphs 112–113], wala talagang sinabi na PH “suggested” idaan sa Interpol bilang strategy—sabi lang dun, PH stated they’d execute an ICC warrant if requested through Interpol [Paragraph 112]. Standard process lang yun bilang Interpol member, walang “strategy” dito, public statement lang ng PH yun, hindi suggestion!

hehe wala namang nakalagay na "if the state requests" bossing, yang "convince" own words ko yan pero ang nakalagay dun is chamber reviews not proceeding but it will not review if he proceeds

mali ka rin sa ICC process—sabi mo walang “if the state requests,” pero mali ka! Article 53(3)(a) malinaw na sinabi na Pre-Trial Chamber review ng “not to proceed” after state referral happens “at the request of the State”.

Eto ang liunk para malinaw sa iyo: You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

Hindi automatic yung review, kailangan humingi yung state—state referral automatic lang yung preliminary exam [Policy Paper, Paragraph 27], pero discretion ng prosecutor kung di mag-proceed [Paragraph 29]. Mali ka talaga, at mali yung interpretation mo ng process

 

[plhbg1]

Yung “Request for Urgent Consideration” [Paragraphs 112–113], wala talagang sinabi na PH “suggested” idaan sa Interpol bilang strategy—sabi lang dun, PH stated they’d execute an ICC warrant if requested through Interpol [Paragraph 112]. Standard process lang yun bilang Interpol member, walang “strategy” dito, public statement lang ng PH yun, hindi suggestion!

nagbibigay nga ng hint, hinintay lang na magbago ang tone ni bangag jr. from announcing no jurisdiction into announcing execution of arrest bossing, bangag admin mismo nag invite kay icc

mali ka rin sa ICC process—sabi mo walang “if the state requests,” pero mali ka! Article 53(3)(a) malinaw na sinabi na Pre-Trial Chamber review ng “not to proceed” after state referral happens “at the request of the State”.

Eto ang liunk para malinaw sa iyo: You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.

Hindi automatic yung review, kailangan humingi yung state—state referral automatic lang yung preliminary exam [Policy Paper, Paragraph 27], pero discretion ng prosecutor kung di mag-proceed [Paragraph 29]. Mali ka talaga, at mali yung interpretation mo ng process

discretion niya not to proceed but subject for review ng chamber bossing

 

[Lerold]

Aruy bagsak mga cabinet members, ano kaya nangyare kay boying, nadale ata ng sakit niya. Di na

 

[plhbg1]

Aruy bagsak mga cabinet members, ano kaya nangyare kay boying, nadale ata ng sakit niya. Di na
View attachment 3636573
View attachment 3636580View attachment 3636583View attachment 3636584View attachment 3636585

ayaw na nila mag attend sa next baka daw humaba pa yan hehe

 

[BicycleHorse]

nagbibigay nga ng hint, hinintay lang na magbago ang tone ni bangag jr. from announcing no jurisdiction into announcing execution of arrest bossing, bangag admin mismo nag invite kay icc

Ayan naman tayo, you mischaracterize the government actions as an “invitation” or “hint,” when it was a procedural compliance with Interpol obligations, not a strategic or voluntary act of invitation. Pati SC Ruling bina-bypass mo.

discretion niya not to proceed but subject for review ng chamber bossing

Minamali mo pa rin young process ng ng iCC. Hindi automatic yung “subject for review” ng Pre-Trial Chamber! Article 53(3)(a) malinaw na sinabi na review lang yun “at the request of the State” kung di mag-proceed yung prosecutor. Discretion lang yun ng prosecutor [Policy Paper, Paragraph 29], hindi mandatory yung review.

 

[Lerold]

ayaw na nila mag attend sa next baka daw humaba pa yan hehe

Wala na sila masasabi. Sino kaya mastermind bbm o cabinet members

 

[plhbg1]

Ayan naman tayo, you mischaracterize the government actions as an “invitation” or “hint,” when it was a procedural compliance with Interpol obligations, not a strategic or voluntary act of invitation. Pati SC Ruling bina-bypass mo.

lol the sudden change of tone is obviously not a compliance move, no one is requiring bangag jr. to change tone

Minamali mo pa rin young process ng ng iCC. Hindi automatic yung “subject for review” ng Pre-Trial Chamber! Article 53(3)(a) malinaw na sinabi na review lang yun “at the request of the State” kung di mag-proceed yung prosecutor. Discretion lang yun ng prosecutor [Policy Paper, Paragraph 29], hindi mandatory yung review.

saan diyan yung "at the request of state" bossing?

 

[BicycleHorse]

lol the sudden change of tone is obviously not a compliance move, no one is requiring bangag jr. to change tone

So you are admitting that you avoid directly addressing the Supreme Court ruling and Interpol obligation, instead focusing on the “change of tone” as a voluntary act? LOL

PH stated they’d execute if requested through Interpol—standard process lang yun, hindi voluntary “hint” o “invite” tulad ng drama mo. Hindi yan tone na walang pressure, legal obligation yan.

saan diyan yung "at the request of state" bossing?

Yung “at the request of the State” nasa Article 53(3)(a) mismo: “At the request of the State making a referral… You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.”. Hindi automatic yung review, kailangan humingi yung state—state referral automatic lang yung preliminary exam [Policy Paper, Paragraph 27], pero discretion ng prosecutor kung di mag-proceed [Paragraph 29]. Mali yung interpretation mo.

 

[plhbg1]

So you are admitting that you avoid directly addressing the Supreme Court ruling and Interpol obligation, instead focusing on the “change of tone” as a voluntary act? LOL

PH stated they’d execute if requested through Interpol—standard process lang yun, hindi voluntary “hint” o “invite” tulad ng drama mo. Hindi yan tone na walang pressure, legal obligation yan.

yang interpol compliance is drama na lang yan, yung prosecutor na mismo nagsabi kung saan siya humugot ng motivation to investigate, it clearly state the favorable circumstances here in the philippines at isa na doon ang biglang liko ni bangag

Yung “at the request of the State” nasa Article 53(3)(a) mismo: “At the request of the State making a referral… You do not have permission to view the full content of this post. Log in or register now.”. Hindi automatic yung review, kailangan humingi yung state—state referral automatic lang yung preliminary exam [Policy Paper, Paragraph 27], pero discretion ng prosecutor kung di mag-proceed [Paragraph 29]. Mali yung interpretation mo.

wala namang nakalagay sa link na binigay mo bossing, "at the stat request" cannot be found pa rin

 

[BicycleHorse]

yang interpol compliance is drama na lang yan, yung prosecutor na mismo nagsabi kung saan siya humugot ng motivation to investigate, it clearly state the favorable circumstances here in the philippines at isa na doon ang biglang liko ni bangag

Mali ka pa rin—hindi mo talaga kailangan magmalaki ng mali at gawa-gawang “motivation”.

Mali yung sinasabi mong prosecutor’s motivation to investigate came from Marcos’s “biglang liko”! Paragraph 112 malinaw na sinabi na yung “favorable circumstances” ay para sa arrest opportunity, hindi sa investigation—yung investigation nagsimula 2018 pa, dahil kay Trillanes, hindi kay Marcos. At yung Interpol compliance, hindi drama—legal obligation yun ng PH, plus pressured sila ng 2021 Supreme Court ruling. Mali ka talaga—hindi yan “liko” na walang dahilan, legal pressure yan.

wala namang nakalagay sa link na binigay mo bossing, "at the stat request" cannot be found pa rin

mali ka rin sa ICC process—yung “at the request of the State” nasa Article 53(3)(a) mismo: “At the request of the State making a referral… the Pre-Trial Chamber may review a decision… not to proceed”. Yung link na binigay ko refers to Article 53, kaya kasama yun—hindi automatic yung review, kailangan humingi yung state! Mali ka talaga, at mali yung pagkakaintindi mo!

Since mali ka na naman at ayaw mo makinig sa facts, mukhang wala nang patutunguhan ‘to—sayang lang oras natin. Pero para sa iba na nakakabasa, malinaw na mali ka.