Waah vs Pweeh

Update: Senate decided not to detain Aguirre

Waah vs Pweeh (Thanks to Inquirer for photo)

The Corona impeachment trial has lived up to the expectation of many as another telenovela that would distract the people from the depressing reality of deteriorating peace and order, rising unemployment , unabated corruption and many more.

The Miriam Santiago-Vitaliano Aguirre fight was a fitting scene to end the prosecution’s presentation. Defense will start its presentation of witnesses on March 12.

Presiding Judge Juan Ponce-Enrile said they will discuss Tuesday next week the punishment that they would impose on Aguirre, one of the prosecution’s private lawyers, after he was cited for contempt for covering his ears while Santiago was berating the prosecution.

Enrile said the fine for contempt of court ranges from P2,000 or ten days confinement.

But Sen. Tito Sotto said that two of his colleagues, Panfilo Lacson and Francis Escudero had suggested that “Aguirre (be put) in a room in front of a television set playing the videotape of one of Miriam’s privilege speeches.”

Reactions from my blog regulars and Facebook friends:

Parasabayan: “OMG pakikinggan ni Aguirre and boses ni Brenda for a while as punishment? Magpakulong na lang sa bilibid si Aguirre baka mas mainam pa.”

Robert Young Jr.: “Letting Atty Aguirre listen to Miriam’s tirades will be the worst penalty. It’s like facing a firing squad.”

Teddy Alejandria: “What is this, viewing of Miriam’s brouhahas in video would be mental torture to Atty. Aguirre who has already damaged ears.”

Many of the online denizens are concerned about the healh condition of Aquirre’s ears. Bro Martin D. Francisco said, “Mabuhay ka Atty Aguirre. You have the right to protect your eardrum.”

Chi said: “E ano nga naman magagawa ni Aguirre kung nabibingi sya sa noise pollution emanating from Miriam’s mouth? Sa totoo lang ay meron talagang mga tao na madaling maapektuhan ang pandinig lalo sigurado sa patuloy na walang pakundangan pagmumura ni Miriam. “

But Santiago is not without defenders. Acibig said: “I think the point of Miriam is you should read and brush up and make sure you know the law. True naman na frustrating ang makipag talo sa bobo, this is not classroom, it’s the real court. Worst bobo ka na, ayaw mo pa aminin na mali ka, kahit ako, will be ballistic.

“Remember there is only one interpretation of the law, besides bakit sasakit ang tenga nya, di ba lawyer sya ng Alabang boys na napalaya?”

Someone has started an Aguirre fans club. Tedanz has christened Santiago, “Lady Gaga ” to which Phil Cruz seconded: “I like that monicker ‘Lady Gaga’. Lady Gaga met her match in Atty. Aguirre. She called them gago, he covered his ears and she went gaga.

Santiago chided the prosecution team for dropping five of their eight original charges against Supreme Court Justice Renato Corona. She said, “Ang yayabang nyo, gago naman.”

Ilocos Norte Rep. Rudy Fariñas asked that “gago” be stricken from the record. Santiago readily consented.

To Miriam’s “Waaah”, Tedanz snorted, “Pweeh”.

Anne de Bretagne said she is laughing out loud.”What burlesque show!”

***

I was just thinking, last Wednesday, when Miriam was repeatedly saying “Waah”, how did the TV sign language interpreter translate it?

March 2, 2012 9:36 am  Tags: ,   Posted in: Supreme Court

134 Responses

  1. Phil Cruz - March 2, 2012 9:58 am

    Ellen, ‘yun ang bagong protest sign. The Aguirre sign.

    So apt for protesting against disrespectful senators and judges.

  2. Phil Cruz - March 2, 2012 10:03 am

    So what do we call this? The “Pweeh” sign?

    Tedanz, may copyright ka ba niyan?

  3. vic - March 2, 2012 10:58 am

    And Mirriam herself doesn’t even know her law… By insinuating that the act of Atty Aguierre is Criminal in nature just show her Ignorance of the Law.

  4. antony - March 2, 2012 12:18 pm

    Harsher punishment: Aguirre in a room with the real Senator Gaga for 5 minutes.

  5. manuelbuencamino - March 2, 2012 2:00 pm

    “I no longer know what universe I’m in,” Miriam told the press after the hearing.

  6. Nathan - March 2, 2012 3:19 pm

    Yong “GAGO” na words ni Miriam nasaan na????? Brain damage yang Miriam na yan! Halata naman eh… na pro Corona yan!!!

    Go go go Aguirre!!!!

    http://www.abante.com.ph/issue/mar0212/news02.htm

  7. vic - March 2, 2012 3:55 pm

    But on the other hand , Miriam may had endorsed the Candidacy of atty. Aguierre in the Next Electiion for the Senate. Oh…what a Pnoy coincidence of good lucks.

  8. chi - March 2, 2012 9:43 pm

    Sa ICJ gawin ni Miriam ang kabubusa, straightjacket katapat nya!

    Sinasaid ni Miriam ang media coverage at the expense ng prosecution team, wala kasi nyan sa ICJ. Dun hindi sya magiging bida, walang mga taong gaya ng Cayetano siblings na magbebeso-beso sa kanilang tita Gaga.

    Ewan ko sa inyo, pero sa akin ay napaka-flat ang dating ni Pia at Alan, parang walang ilalabas maliban sa nakita na sa kanilang below average performance sa Senate. Ang ginagawa nilang pagsisipsip kay Miriam ay katunayan na pareho silang bobo and they wanted to be like their tita Gaga na super impress sa sariling intellectual and artistic performance.

  9. dtranscriber - March 2, 2012 10:25 pm

    Hmm… just a side note from this episode, I think there is a grander big picture view on this, why did the prosecution team cut the other complaints?

    I think it’s fairly easy to answer, their hands were now tied by the Supreme Court’s resolution on judicial privilege.

    Wala bang nakakatanda ng executive privilege ni GMA nun, where it derailed the various investigations sa alleged anomalies nya?

    Same kind of tactics na walang nagchachalenge in court or in the Senate, wonder why?

  10. rabbit - March 2, 2012 10:39 pm

    @#8..isama na yan si jingoy …nagpapakitang gilas,, wala namn alam..trying to smart,,,wla namn sense

  11. chi - March 2, 2012 11:03 pm

    #9. Agree! Kaya walang challenger sa SC judicial privilege kasi they’ve already surrendered the inferiority of the Senate impeachment court contrary to their claim that it is superior than any courts, or dahil sa koneks at perks din na tulad ni Corona ay nakukuha rin nila. Who knows what’s playing?!

    #10. Smirky Unggoy, :)

  12. dtranscriber - March 2, 2012 11:44 pm

    Thanks Chi. Same sentiment here.

  13. ningcho - March 3, 2012 12:08 am

    feeling ni mirriam shes the most brilliant person alive kya naging bastos na. kng bkt naman kc kinukunsinte ng mga kasamahan nyang senators. d pa nakuntento sa isang wahhh kasi naman tumawa pa mga kasamahan nya kya inulit pa twice. kya gusto nya cya ang unang magsalita pag start ng trial para masermunan kaagad ang prosecution at dun na yata kumukuha ng cue ang mga kasamahan nya how they will proceed for the day.

  14. phil - March 3, 2012 1:37 am

    #8 chi, tama, di talaga niya magagawa yong pagbubusa sa ICJ kaya sinasagad na sa atin. Kasi palagay niya, bidang-bida siya lagi, wala kasing kumokontra. Nagtakip lang ng tenga si Aguirre hayan nabaliw na naman sa galit. Eh dapat nga siya ang putulin ang masamang dila. Kailangan talaga kalusin na ang Brendang iyan, paano kaya? Any suggestions?

  15. parasabayan - March 3, 2012 3:34 am

    Off topic: Ang Supeme ourt eh alam lahat ang pasikotsikot sa “constitution”. Walang mananalo sa kanila pagdating ng pinakamaliit na butas ng mga “laws”. Kaya sa technicalities, wala talagang panalo kahit na sinong magaling na judge, kahit na si Brenda. Ang labanan na lang dyan ay yung sentimento ng mga tao. If there are at least 8 senator judges na hindi na mag-run for the 2013 senatorial elections, lusot si Corona at lusot si pandak, ang asawa niya at ang mga alipores nilang puro magnanakaw! Kaya nga tinatanong ko ni Ellen in a previous thread kung sino sino sa palagay ng mga kababayan natin ang mag-run for the 2013 elections.

  16. kawawang_bansa - March 3, 2012 5:20 am

    aguirre was demanding respect from santiago…shouldn’t he have paused and considered whether he and the other prosecutors have shown respect to “due process,” the presumption of innocence, respecting the impeachment process, etc? instead, what do they do? proclaim outside the impeachment court that corona is already guilty

    btw, if after corona is given the chance to defend himself and is found guilty, by all means, he should go.

  17. Nathan - March 3, 2012 10:12 am

    Sana umalis nalang yang Miriam na yan going to IC of J para hindi makaboto sa Senate because I’m sure isa yan na boboto pabor ni CJ Corona. Sisigaw yan ng Aquital of CJ Corona!!!
    Kung sakaling makaboto sya nmg Aquital of Corona……. atakihin sana sya sa PUSO!!!

    Corona should be convicted!!!

    http://www.abante.com.ph/issue/mar0312/news12.htm

  18. acibig - March 3, 2012 10:23 am

    unlikely na magwala si miriam sa international court kasi , with high probability , matalino at marunong sa law ang kasamahan nya, eh sa prosecution, they dont know the law , bottomline, one can only tolerate so much ignorance , kahit ako , i have a threshold sa mga taong low IQ and that is not being derogatory

  19. ningcho - March 3, 2012 10:35 am

    #18 being smart is not a ticket para maging bastos lalo na kng ang tawag sau ay your honor.

  20. Nathan - March 3, 2012 1:36 pm

    acibig!

    You mean, pareha kayo ni Miriam? Tama ang punto pero MALI ang ASAL???

    Bigyan kita ng example: Sabihin na natin na mali ang pagkuha ng ebedinsya ng mga prosecutor with regards to the Bank deposit of CJ Corona, so ngayon kahit alam mo na NAKAW yon ok lang ba????

    acibig #18: ano ang TAMA? Alin sa dalawa? Ang Magnanakaw with more than 30,000,000.00 milyon hindi pa kasam ang $$$Dollar accounts….. o ang nangangalap ng mga ebidensya the Prosecution Team?????????????????????

    Saan ka sa dalawa???

  21. MPRivera - March 3, 2012 5:54 pm

    alin ba ang MAS kabastusan?

    ‘yung pagtatakip ng tenga ni aguirre sa gitna ng pagtutungayaw na insulto’t lektyur kuno ni sisang tililing, o kung ‘yung dapat na LUMABAS na lamang nang walang sabi sabi si aguirre ayon kay unggoy, este jinggoy estrada?

  22. MPRivera - March 3, 2012 5:58 pm

    “……I was just thinking, last Wednesday, when Miriam was repeatedly saying “Waah”, how did the TV sign language interpreter translate it?”

    WALANG kahit sinong nagmaster ng sign language ang puwedeng makapag-interpret niyang “Waah” KUNDI ang baliw na katulad ni Miriam!

  23. MPRivera - March 3, 2012 6:01 pm

    kaya, ellen, rest and sleep well. huwag mong i-torture ang sarili mo sa gustong idagdag na salita ni miriam sa ating talasalitaan. masikip na ang mental hospital.

    dyok! dyok! dyok!

    hweee hwe hwe hweeeeh!

  24. phil - March 3, 2012 6:22 pm

    If we can’t do anything to Brenda legally, at least a priest said she deserves the ‘fires of hell’:
    http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/155525/priest-says-sen-santiago-deserves-the-%E2%80%98fires-of-hell%E2%80%99

  25. MPRivera - March 3, 2012 6:31 pm

    No malice in Corona’s SALN omissions, says Cuevas

    http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/-depth/03/01/12/no-malice-coronas-saln-omissions-says-cuevas

    aysusnagalistingyawangauy!

  26. phil - March 3, 2012 9:21 pm

    And let’s go back to history…In Dec 2005 when Brenda was disqualified for the position of Chief Justice, she made an insulting, vile privilege speech at the Senate; parts:

    “…I am not angry. I am irate. I am foaming in the mouth. I am homicidal. I am suicidal. I am humiliated, debased, degraded.

    “And I am not only that, I feel like throwing up to be living my middle years in a country of this nature. I am nauseated. I spit on the face of Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and his cohorts in the Supreme Court, I am no longer interested in the position [of Chief Justice] if I was to be surrounded by idiots. I would rather be in another environment but not in the Supreme Court of idiots…”

    When a case against her was filed in the Supreme Court, it was dismissed on the ground of parliamentary immunity. However, the court hastened “to express its deep concern about the language Senator Santiago, a member of the Bar, used in her speech and its effect on the administration of justice… the lady senator has undoubtedly crossed the limits of decency and good professional conduct.

    “To be sure, Senator Santiago could have given vent to her anger without indulging in insulting rhetoric and offensive personalities.”

    A rather timid response from the SC, in my opinion. Now, that SC of idiots is the one she’s siding on. And she even insulted her own country; indeed, if she honestly ‘feel like throwing up to be living…in a country of this nature…”, she should have left the country long time ago and spared us of her histrionics.

  27. chi - March 3, 2012 9:36 pm

    #14. Phil, sa takip-tenga ni Aquirre tinamaan ng mag-asawang sampal ang super-ego ni Brenda kaya lalong nagwala. It seems that like Corona, she has no idea of what a noble person is. Dapat sila ang simbolo nun sa Pinas being a senator and a chief justice of SC, respectively.

    Walang magagawa sa pang-aabuso ni Brenda sa tao, she has the wrong view that by bullying people she becomes a stronger person. Hindi nya alam it only shows her weakness and character flaws. Now I am thankful that she did not become president, baka gunaw na ang Pinas nalubog sa taas ng accumulated laway nya.

    #24 post mo, hahaha! Naku baka si Fr. Arevalo naman ang abusuhin ni Miriam.

  28. chi - March 3, 2012 9:58 pm

    Ernesto Maceda says: (www.abs-cbnnews.com)

    “Hindi ko dinedepensahan si Sen. Miriam. Ang masasabi ko lang, nakasama ko na ‘yan ng anim na taon, ‘yong boses ni Miriam, ‘yong style ng pagsasalita nyan, ‘yan ay natural nya.

    “Maski kaming mga senador, ‘di na namin sya pinapansin o kino-correct.”

    __

    What a bull! Hindi sila ang sinasabighan ng “gago” dahil kapantay silang senador?

    “Natural nya” does not justify her pang-aabuso ng kapwa na hindi naman sya sinasaktan. Maliban sa tinamaan ang kanyang pinakamalaking weakness… ang super ego, which reminds me that action is louder than words. :)

  29. chi - March 3, 2012 11:22 pm

    (oppsie)… action speaks louder than words.

  30. jawo - March 3, 2012 11:43 pm

    <<<<acibig – March 3, 2012 10:23 am

    How does one define “low IQ”……..or……… “so much ignorance” ? Ignorance in what ? Low IQ in what ? There are a lot of things in today’s world for any man to fully grasp. Depending on training (not necessarily academic) or experience, each of us possess knowledge which the other person doesn’t. Just because one, like Miriam, avers she knows law, doesn’t mean she knows what lasers and black holes are. So where does the low IQ and ignorance fall ?

  31. baycas2 - March 4, 2012 5:03 am

    phil,

    tutal Sunday ngayon, mga paalala ang ating basahin…

    para kay atty. aguirre:

    Better to bear shame for a short time than to endure “everlasting contempt” (Dan. 12:2).

    - “Sticks And Stones,” July 18, 2011 — by David H. Roper (Our Daily Bread)

    —–

    para sa ating lahat na may paniniwala…

    “Maging maingat sa kung ano’ng iniisip, maaaring bigla-bigla natin itong masasabi.”

    I didn’t enjoy what went into my mouth on that embarrassing occasion. But Scripture teaches that it’s more important to guard what comes out of our mouths. When the writer of Proverbs 15 said that “the mouth of fools pours forth foolishness” (v.2), the word translated pours forth literally means “explodes out.” Rash accusations, angry words, and verbal abuse can do immeasurable and lifelong harm. The apostle Paul spoke bluntly about this: “Let no corrupt word proceed out of your mouth” (Eph. 4:29)—no dirty talk. He also said to “[put] away lying” and to “speak truth” (v.25)—no lies. And later, “Let all bitterness, wrath, anger, clamor, and evil speaking be put away from you” (v.31)—no character assassination. What comes out of our mouths should be wholesome and uplifting.

    - “Mouth Guard,” November 2, 2011 — by David C. Egner (Our Daily Bread)

    “The tongue of the wise uses knowledge rightly, but the mouth of fools pours forth foolishness.”

    — Proverbs 15:2

  32. juggernaut - March 4, 2012 9:44 am

    Amen.

  33. phil - March 4, 2012 1:42 pm

    #27-chi, tama ka. Re Fr. Arevalo, posibleng ma-tongue lashing din siya ni Brenda; alam mo naman yan, wala nang ginagalang, sinto-sinto na talaga.
    #31 baycas2, thanks sa Sunday reminders. Wish ko lang sana nagbabasa si Brenda ng blog ni Ellen.

  34. phil - March 4, 2012 4:45 pm

    Glad to read today’s column of Randy David in Inquirer; portions:

    “No one perhaps has projected political arrogance more virulently than Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago. Seeing and hearing her berate the prosecution panel the other day, as if she was scolding schoolchildren, I was moved to ask a former justice of the Supreme Court if that was normal behavior inside our courts. “That’s judicial abuse,” he said. That kind of language, he assured me, is not acceptable even when a judge needs to lecture a bungling lawyer. He referred me to the Code of Judicial Conduct of 1989, which may be more familiar to senior judges than the 2004 version. Canon 3, Rule 3.04 of the old code might well have been written for judges afflicted with Senator Santiago’s temperament. It states: “A judge should be patient, attentive, and courteous to lawyers, especially the inexperienced, to litigants, witnesses, and others appearing before the court. A judge should avoid unconsciously falling into the attitude of mind that the litigants are made for the courts, instead of the courts for the litigants.”
    Time and again, in various rulings, the Supreme Court has warned judges to show great care in their conduct inside the court. In Conde v. City Judge Superable Jr., the high court reminds judges: “Perhaps to no government official is the truism that a public office is a public trust more applicable. He dispenses justice for the community. He is its instrument to assure that everyone be given his due. He speaks and acts for the state, not for himself. His personal feelings must not get the better of him.”

    “Judges are not common men and women, whose errors men and women forgive and time forgets,” the high court intones in Office of the Court Administrator v. Bartolome. “Judges sit as the embodiment of the people’s sense of justice, their last recourse where all other institutions have failed. As such they bring stability to society, especially where society is under stress. They should prove that the system, after all, works even if the system has its built-in weaknesses.”

    More pointedly, the Supreme Court in Juan de la Cruz v. Carretas warns that “a judge who is inconsiderate, discourteous or uncivil to lawyers who appear in his sala commits an impropriety and fails in his duty to reaffirm the people’s faith in the judiciary … that it is reprehensible for a judge to humiliate a lawyer, … that a judge must at all times be temperate in his language…. And that equanimity and judiciousness should be the constant marks of a dispenser of justice.” A judge “descends to the level of a sharp-tongued, ill-mannered petty tyrant when he utters harsh words.”

    Hello Brenda, you should go back to law school.

  35. phil - March 4, 2012 4:49 pm

    Glad to read today’s column of Randy David in Inquirer; portions:

    “No one perhaps has projected political arrogance more virulently than Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago. Seeing and hearing her berate the prosecution panel the other day, as if she was scolding schoolchildren, I was moved to ask a former justice of the Supreme Court if that was normal behavior inside our courts. “That’s judicial abuse,” he said. That kind of language, he assured me, is not acceptable even when a judge needs to lecture a bungling lawyer. He referred me to the Code of Judicial Conduct of 1989, which may be more familiar to senior judges than the 2004 version. Canon 3, Rule 3.04 of the old code might well have been written for judges afflicted with Senator Santiago’s temperament. It states: “A judge should be patient, attentive, and courteous to lawyers, especially the inexperienced, to litigants, witnesses, and others appearing before the court. A judge should avoid unconsciously falling into the attitude of mind that the litigants are made for the courts, instead of the courts for the litigants.”

    Time and again, in various rulings, the Supreme Court has warned judges to show great care in their conduct inside the court. In Conde v. City Judge Superable Jr., the high court reminds judges: “Perhaps to no government official is the truism that a public office is a public trust more applicable. He dispenses justice for the community. He is its instrument to assure that everyone be given his due. He speaks and acts for the state, not for himself. His personal feelings must not get the better of him.”

    “Judges are not common men and women, whose errors men and women forgive and time forgets,” the high court intones in Office of the Court Administrator v. Bartolome. “Judges sit as the embodiment of the people’s sense of justice, their last recourse where all other institutions have failed. As such they bring stability to society, especially where society is under stress. They should prove that the system, after all, works even if the system has its built-in weaknesses.”

    More pointedly, the Supreme Court in Juan de la Cruz v. Carretas warns that “a judge who is inconsiderate, discourteous or uncivil to lawyers who appear in his sala commits an impropriety and fails in his duty to reaffirm the people’s faith in the judiciary … that it is reprehensible for a judge to humiliate a lawyer, … that a judge must at all times be temperate in his language…. And that equanimity and judiciousness should be the constant marks of a dispenser of justice.” A judge “descends to the level of a sharp-tongued, ill-mannered petty tyrant when he utters harsh words.”

    x x x

    Hello Brenda, you should go back to law school. And a refresher course in GMRC (in my elementary days, Sibika in the current curriculum).

  36. MPRivera - March 4, 2012 6:32 pm

    brenda’s trending!

    http://professionalheckler.wordpress.com/

  37. Phil Cruz - March 5, 2012 6:33 am

    phil,

    re your #26:….“And I am not only that, I feel like throwing up to be living my middle years in a country of this nature.”

    She hates this country, she is a weird alien from I don’t know which planet, and should therefore be deported as an undesirable alien.

    Plain and simple, this creature is DERANGED and supremely BASTOS”.

  38. joeseg - March 5, 2012 9:18 am

    Medyo nahuli na itong video pero maganda ring panoorin:
    http://youtu.be/-J57ioNEH94

  39. phil - March 5, 2012 12:56 pm

    #37 Phil Cruz – Indeed, you accurately described Brenda – DERANGED and BASTOS, . Unfortunately, nobody, not even his colleagues in the Senate, could do anything to discipline – or cure – this deranged woman. How I wish we have the power to confine her for life in the NCMH in Mandaluyong!

  40. TonGuE-tWisTeD - March 6, 2012 1:00 am

    #37 Phil Cruz – Indeed, you accurately described Brenda – DERANGED and BASTOS, . Unfortunately, nobody, not even his colleagues in the Senate, could do anything to discipline – or cure – this deranged woman. How I wish we have the power to confine her for life in the NCMH in Mandaluyong!

    Lacson doesn’t disappoint.

    Following the court drama last week, Senator Panfilo Lacson hit fellow Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago for her “excessive” behavior in the court.

    Full story on Yahoo http://ph.news.yahoo.com/lacson-hits-santiago-s-behavior.html

  41. saxnviolins - March 6, 2012 4:04 am

    The prosecution says that the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine applies only to searches and seizures, and not to subpoenas.

    They apparently are not aware of an en banc decision rendered in 1933. In the case of Jose Sy Jong Chuy GR No. L-38375. the Supreme Court, en banc, through Justice Malcolm, stated that subpoenas and searches are substantially the same. Constraints on searches, therefore, are applicable to subpoenas.

    Quoting the US Supreme Court in Hale v. Henkel, our Supreme Court, en banc, stated:

    We are also of opinion that an order for the production of books and papers may constitute an unreasonable search and seizure within the Fourth Amendment. While a search ordinarily implies a quest by an officer of the law, and a seizure contemplates a forcible dispossession of the owner, still, as was held in the Boyd case, the substance of the offense is the compulsory production of private papers, whether under a search warrant or a subpoena duces tecum, against which the person, be he individual or corporation, is entitled to protection.

    There is the constant refrain that goes like: “So what, kung illegal, the truth was uncovered anyway. What is important is the truth.” This is where we part company with the Americans, whose system we have copied on paper.

    While many opine that the truth should have higher value than “technicalities”, the Americans value fair play as being on equal footing with the truth. So the truth may only be uncovered while playing fairly. Any shortcut diminishes the truth. So in Brady v. Maryland, it was held that:

    Society wins not only when the guilty are convicted but when criminal trials are fair; our system of the administration of justice suffers when any accused is treated unfairly.

    it is true, that the quote refers to criminal cases. But the notion of fair play is pervasive in the American system. As a practitioner [Charles W.B. Fels (former State and Federal District Attorney] opined

    No matter how guilty the perpetrator, no matter how hideous the act, if the process by which we Americans convict one of our own people seems to be unfair, the result is not justice. It is merely a conviction.

    So since searches and seizures and subpoenas are of the same substance, the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine would also apply to the Senate subpoena. This is also made applicable by the fact that the Constitution provides:

    (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this (section on privacy) or the preceding section (section on seizures) shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

    Article III, Section 3 (2)

    The truth may set us free, but the truth itself does not come free. It is purchased at the price of fair play; that is what the Constitution requires.

  42. saxnviolins - March 6, 2012 4:06 am

    I’m sure Lacson will appreciate the above. After all, the “turth” about Lacson was obtained from Mancao, in play that definitely is not fair.

  43. TonGuE-tWisTeD - March 6, 2012 7:14 am

    Eureka! My two Japanese friends have just perfected their invention an this will be very handy in the Senate every time Bong, Joker, and most especially Miriam goes to the rostrum to speak.

    Kazutaka Kurihara of the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, and Koji Tsukada of Ochanomizu University, developed a portable “SpeechJammer” gun that can silence people more than 30 meters away.

    The device works by recording its target’s speech then firing their words back at them with a 0.2-second delay, which affects the brain’s cognitive processes and causes speakers to stutter before silencing them completely.

    Describing the device in a research paper published Feb. 28 at arXiv.org, Kurihara and Tsukada wrote, “In general, human speech is jammed by giving back to the speakers their own utterances at a delay of a few hundred milliseconds. This effect can disturb people without any physical discomfort, and disappears immediately by stopping speaking.”

    They found that the device works better on people who were reading aloud than engaged in “spontaneous speech” and it cannot stop people making meaningless sounds, such as “ahhh,” that are uttered over a long time period.

    Kurihara and Tsukada suggested the speech-jamming gun could be used to hush noisy speakers in public libraries or to silence people in group discussions who interrupt other people’s speeches.

    “There are still many cases in which the negative aspects of speech become a barrier to the peaceful resolution of conflicts,” the authors said.

    In another website, a video demonstrating the device was tried upon volunteers. Read and watch here: http://goo.gl/etYQq

  44. juggernaut - March 6, 2012 7:47 am

    sax,
    This is probably the reason why the US is going to the dogs? It looks like this setup is bound to protect only the 1%, who can afford to manipulate technicalities, effect policy changes, and afford Lincoln lawyers.
    The day technicalities trump the truth will be the day of tyranny of the rich and influential.

  45. juggernaut - March 6, 2012 7:49 am

    Oops, its happening already, starting sa mga kano. Ano, gagayahin pa rin natin sila?

  46. Phil Cruz - March 6, 2012 12:57 pm

    Miriam: “I easily lose my temper over corruption and incompetence.”

    If so, she should lose her temper at herself.

  47. xman - March 6, 2012 3:37 pm

    Enrile said the prosecution was even luckier for not having to contend with many judges who would have made them cry.

    “The veteran and good judges would shame them in front of other lawyers so they will learn,” he said.

    “If they had met the old judges that I have encountered, they might have cried.”

    Enrile said Santiago’s demeanor paled in comparison to the shameful moments that the prosecution would have received from the likes of judges Arsenio Solidum, Al Buendia, Roberto Capulan, and Bienvenido Tan Antonio Mojica.

    http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/insideNews_mstd.htm?f=//2012/March/6/news5.isx&n=news&d=/2012/March/6

  48. juggernaut - March 6, 2012 10:25 pm

    kaya naman pala walang tiwala ang mga tao sa justice system natin dati pa eh? marami pala itong “mambabastos” este mambabatas na hukom na bastos, hmmmm, hoodlums in robes?
    pustahan tumatanggap mga yan?….ng regalo. :)

  49. juggernaut - March 6, 2012 10:28 pm

    eh kung manonood ka sa mga probinsya matatawa ka nga sa english ng mga abogago este abogado, pero hindi pa ako nakakita ng ininsulto ng judge. sana nga exception tong mga judges na to.

  50. juggernaut - March 6, 2012 10:29 pm

    Miriam: “I easily lose my temper over corruption and incompetence.”
    —————————

    good thing nobody lost their temper on her incompetence as a mother.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.