PH-
Welcome to PHCorner Forums! Sign up for free to unlock full access and exclusive privileges, including:
- Asking questions about computer and mobile issues
- Discovering internet tips for your mobile network and computer
Rodante Marcoleta charged with Plunder, Bribery at Ombudsman
- Thread starter Meawii
- Start date
BayanPH
- Mass shooting sa Tacloban
- Thousands march in Philippines, demanding Marcos resign over fraud scandal
- Di tugma ang halaga sa SALN ni VP Sara Duterte vs. halaga ng mga transaksyon
- Anti Money Laundering Council flags (AMLC) Vice President Sara Duterte's suspicious transactions
- A Convo with DDS
- Ang isang utak ng DDS
KingSemreh
Established
As-is naman na straight topic lng siya. Definition nga paulit ulit pa kasi hindi satisfied sa palusot niya. Haha
Ayusin mo rin muna yung spell mo ng Difination bago makipag debate HAHHAHA
KingSemreh
Established
Spelling nanaman ang palusot niya. Troll talaga.
musicacc727
Established
Uy, you described the so-called evidences of the 18-ex marines perfectly
musicacc727
Established
Also, just to add to my response above, but is it really morally permissible for anyone to assume innocence or show support towards someone in the government, such as in this thread's case, Marcoleta, where evidences are more realistic than accusatory? True, the court would assume them innocent until proven guilty, but should that hold true for individuals? Afterall, just like you stated, the court would need to properly verify evidences regardless of how strong they are, but us as individuals ought not to hold this impartiality, should we? Afterall, support tends to instigate confidence to the accused. Now, before anything, this is a question of morality, not a matter of what you should and shouldn't believe.
Let me present you, as I did in this forum again and again, an example from history. Former president Estrada, charged with plunder, perjury, and graft, before he was removed from office and served a warrant, his case went through various loops first. There were evidences, lots of it, when he was being tried, yet, he wasn't impeached right away—this is impartiality, the evidence must be fully and objectively assessed first. Now, during his impeachment trial, an envelope containing possible proof of was presented as evidence, which the then-Impeachment court refused to open, eventually triggering the second EDSA revolution.
Let's recap: Were the people impartial? In this case, no. They revolted because they knew something was wrong WITHOUT the court actually releasing a guilty conviction. Did they do the right thing? Most people would say yes, as it imprisoned and impeached the greedy Erap. How about the senators, were they impartial? Not one bit, right? They stood by Erap despite his crimes, but their reasons would say otherwise, claiming that the envelope is outside the scope of the case, which seems reasonable, legally speaking, but would have freed Erap had it not been the people voicing out. So now, is it really morally permissible to just "let the court decide" when it comes to one's opinion?
KingSemreh
Established
Oh yeah... Does it being entertain at the moment or just going to be dismissed without continuing the investigation.Uy, you described the so-called evidences of the 18-ex marines perfectly
However it is not part or the priority of the administration. Passing the Waling-waling as the National Orchid is the first priority. E di wow.
musicacc727
Established
... but you do understand how discussions in the senate works, right? The waling-waling being passed as the National Orchid, which by the way was an initiative of Legarda and Padilla, is primarily because of the bill being at its last reading. Questionable as it may seem for this to be discussed amidst everything happening, it's a part of their obligations to approve bills, we can't question them for that.
I get your frustrations, I, too am frustrated that they can not and are not tackling the flood control issues as much as they should, especially now that Tulfo has yet to schedule any meeting nor any clear timeline of how the investigation will roll. But we can't simply question them for doing their other jobs, can't we?
Lastly, to add before anyone says anything about letting Marcoleta and his allies lead the investigation, the 18-ex marines had already shattered the integrity of that entirely. We want movement, but we also need credibility and integrity alongside that. Just like you said in your earlier post, evidence may be context-stripped, that not all evidences can just be assumed true, and when we identify evidences as such, should we still stand by them and believe? If we prosecute quickly yet in accurately, it's just as bad as letting the case go, isn't it? Perhaps even worse because it could be weaponized.
I do not write me responses here as support to the New Majority or its senators, they have their shortcomings. The case I discussed about Erap earlier, Sotto was among the Senators that said no, and that remains as one of my reasons to not support him ever. It's time that we apply impartiality not to people but the results, the effects of the action. If Marcoleta does something good, say he's able to fully reveal everything behind the Flood control issues backed with proper, verified evidence, we won't be angry for him doing so, but would rather be happy that justice is served, but does that mean that we should pardon him from him from his past cases? No, we won't. Now, if the New Majority passed the Waling-waling bill and had not touched the topic of flood control, will or should we be happy? Not really. If they started to function again after days of disarray in order to respond to the recent Mindanao earthquakes, will or should we be glad? Yes. But does that mean we will vote everyone in the Majority if they were to run again? No.
Notice the difference? Supporting results and accomplishments instead of supporting individuals. How about that?
musicacc727
Established
To address the edit, it is not being entertained, not just the 18-ex marines but the entire investigation. However, as I've said, a hearing with obviously fake evidences is just as bad as dismissing the case. Just read my previous post for my insights regarding the actions currently being taken by the New Majority ;p
KingSemreh
Established
I'm not going to insist the legitimacy of the so called 18 ex-marine, I don't even know one of them in real life. However, your pre-judged as fake evidences is also premature without proper investigation. How did you come out as fake evidences, let me know?
The Majority of the Senates at the moment are Pro Malacañang not Pro people.
musicacc727
Established
I'd give you that, my previous statements pre-judged their evidences. I'm wrong on that note, and I won't justify that the way I worded it is correct.
For that, however, let me pose my point in a different approach: do they have enough integrity for their evidences to hold? Because as per what I know, a picture inside a chopper posted on Facebook and a photo from a public event with public personalities being used as evidences don't make much sense to be true. Though my earlier structure is incorrect, it's also inferential, isn't it?
Also, you're commiting the very same mistake you called me out for. If we ought to stand by only what trial reflects to be absolute truth, then assuming that the Senate Majority is pro-Malacañan is also a pre-judgjement, isn't it? Afterall, no verified court-verified sources can be cited.
musicacc727
Established
Also, let me bring this back to the table. Are we really inclined to only form our concept of rightness based on finalized court proceedings? Or are the results instead supposed to complete the puzzle that we build in our minds during the case?
I'm not saying that we should just shut down the allegations of the 18-ex marines here, there's plenty of room for them to present every evidence they have, just like how they hosted a presscon recently, but it also doesn't follow that we should lean towards them, nor the people who brought them out, just because it's them that began earlier. Integrity matters quite a lot whennit comes to presenting evidences, doesn't it?
musicacc727
Established
Looking back before I sleep, but the previous arguments in this thread has just been a mere shithole. Honestly, I can't even blame these Dutertards for trying so hard to defend Duterte and his allies, because they're just too deep in.
Just a piece of advice to the Duterte supporters here, please read the reponses you've received throughout the discussions here sa PHC. From what I see, you all always go back to name-calling and accusing anti-Duterte to be trolls, when you yourselves fit the definition better. You have all been name-calling, ignoring factual information, and refusing to read arguments, forcing them to be longer, even if it's an obvious, inferential one.
Throughout the many administrations I experienced, the countries I've been to, and my years spent in the academe, never have I ever talked to people as ignorant and a leadership as unsuccessful as these past two administrations. Duterte failed the Filipino people, killing thousands in his drug wars, writing off innocent lives as collateral, while simultaneously not shutting down the drug trade, not ceasing any big shot drug lords.
This fact is perhaps one that you'd all call out again, but drug addiction isn't merely just a crime but also a mental disorder. Does it ever cross your mind why we have many rehabilitation facilities? It's because drug addiction, similar to gamb-ling or drinking addiction, is a habbit that had altered one's brain chemistry, just that it has more extreme psychological influences. You can't deny that drug causes crimes, but you could also say thw same for *******, which, alongside drugs, is also heavily linked with crime in the Philippines. Do we ever shoot drunkards? No, we don't. This is why the ICC stands firmly against prosecuting Duterte, because for a country with a supposedly functioning justice system, this should have never been the case, especially with innocent lives cut short due to the campaign. Fighting against drug isn't bad, drugs and drug abuse is bad, but there's no such law, no such section in our constitution that states that justice can be served through one bullet. In those thousands of victims killed, there are barely any with proofs that they fought against the police aside from some having loose firearms. Also, viewing the demographics, it's mostly the Urban poor brought down, not dealers with lavish lifestyles, not drug lords that have done thousands of times more crimes than drug users. And before you say I'm defending drug use, no, I'm not. I am merely presenting facts. Drug users are meant to be rehabilitated, because what else are our thousands of rehabilitation facilities for? The crimes some drug users committed are unforgiveable, but that's why we have courts, why we have jails. The reason why ICC is trying Duterte and Bato is the same reason that they didn't shoot them down when they had the chance, why they didn't kill Bato when he evaded arrest, dissimilar to how drug addicts would've been shot instantly the second they tried to run. The ICC believes in serving justice properly, not through rushed shootouts.
Next, to address Marcoleta, and the New Minority bloc and Majority bloc's cases, it's true that they all have their flaws, that most of them would probably be in jail, had they been properly investigated. But this is the beauty of our Republic: we have the right to vote. We can literally prosecute them by not voting for them, by making them loose their positions, yet most generalize them as blocs and not see the individual senators for who they are, for what they have done, for their credibility. Refusing to see the results or focusing solely on the human beats the purpose of being able to vote, because these two are intertwined. You can support a cause without supporting a person, but it's hard to support a person without supporting the cause. Why can't we do that? Instead of standing for all of Marcoleta's controversy, why not just say that you support Marcoleta's desire to unveal the Flood control *******? Instead of defending Sara from impeachment, why not show us what she's actually done? What notable accomplishments her office has to show for? If Adolf H. came nack to life and solved world hunger, would we be angry that world hunger is solved? No. But would it be justifiable to love the man and support everything about him? No. Politics does nit operate in two vacuum tubes. It's not just Marcos vs Duterte or Duterte vs Aquino, so stop treating every opposing comments to your posts as propaganda against your side, because evidences are always there for all of us to explore.
Just a piece of advice to the Duterte supporters here, please read the reponses you've received throughout the discussions here sa PHC. From what I see, you all always go back to name-calling and accusing anti-Duterte to be trolls, when you yourselves fit the definition better. You have all been name-calling, ignoring factual information, and refusing to read arguments, forcing them to be longer, even if it's an obvious, inferential one.
Throughout the many administrations I experienced, the countries I've been to, and my years spent in the academe, never have I ever talked to people as ignorant and a leadership as unsuccessful as these past two administrations. Duterte failed the Filipino people, killing thousands in his drug wars, writing off innocent lives as collateral, while simultaneously not shutting down the drug trade, not ceasing any big shot drug lords.
This fact is perhaps one that you'd all call out again, but drug addiction isn't merely just a crime but also a mental disorder. Does it ever cross your mind why we have many rehabilitation facilities? It's because drug addiction, similar to gamb-ling or drinking addiction, is a habbit that had altered one's brain chemistry, just that it has more extreme psychological influences. You can't deny that drug causes crimes, but you could also say thw same for *******, which, alongside drugs, is also heavily linked with crime in the Philippines. Do we ever shoot drunkards? No, we don't. This is why the ICC stands firmly against prosecuting Duterte, because for a country with a supposedly functioning justice system, this should have never been the case, especially with innocent lives cut short due to the campaign. Fighting against drug isn't bad, drugs and drug abuse is bad, but there's no such law, no such section in our constitution that states that justice can be served through one bullet. In those thousands of victims killed, there are barely any with proofs that they fought against the police aside from some having loose firearms. Also, viewing the demographics, it's mostly the Urban poor brought down, not dealers with lavish lifestyles, not drug lords that have done thousands of times more crimes than drug users. And before you say I'm defending drug use, no, I'm not. I am merely presenting facts. Drug users are meant to be rehabilitated, because what else are our thousands of rehabilitation facilities for? The crimes some drug users committed are unforgiveable, but that's why we have courts, why we have jails. The reason why ICC is trying Duterte and Bato is the same reason that they didn't shoot them down when they had the chance, why they didn't kill Bato when he evaded arrest, dissimilar to how drug addicts would've been shot instantly the second they tried to run. The ICC believes in serving justice properly, not through rushed shootouts.
Next, to address Marcoleta, and the New Minority bloc and Majority bloc's cases, it's true that they all have their flaws, that most of them would probably be in jail, had they been properly investigated. But this is the beauty of our Republic: we have the right to vote. We can literally prosecute them by not voting for them, by making them loose their positions, yet most generalize them as blocs and not see the individual senators for who they are, for what they have done, for their credibility. Refusing to see the results or focusing solely on the human beats the purpose of being able to vote, because these two are intertwined. You can support a cause without supporting a person, but it's hard to support a person without supporting the cause. Why can't we do that? Instead of standing for all of Marcoleta's controversy, why not just say that you support Marcoleta's desire to unveal the Flood control *******? Instead of defending Sara from impeachment, why not show us what she's actually done? What notable accomplishments her office has to show for? If Adolf H. came nack to life and solved world hunger, would we be angry that world hunger is solved? No. But would it be justifiable to love the man and support everything about him? No. Politics does nit operate in two vacuum tubes. It's not just Marcos vs Duterte or Duterte vs Aquino, so stop treating every opposing comments to your posts as propaganda against your side, because evidences are always there for all of us to explore.
KingSemreh
Established
Don't use Pilipino People for failed word. Only oligarch and drug addicts/users/pusher/dealer, include the revolutionary people (npa) are failed and not the majority Pilipino people. He is one of the best President in the Philippines ever.
What do you expect she can do after cut about 63% of her budget from 2024 every year till now?
Keep the other issue, let the court decide.