‘Acquit Him’ #cj trial

26 May 2012

ellen tordesillas, who would like to see corona convicted, said last thursday that even before may 22, malacanang palace already had enough votes (16 of 23) to convict corona.

teddy locsin jr., who thinks corona should be acquitted…

Teddy Locsin Jr. ‏@teddyboylocsin
@riaroxas I can’t even figure out what he is accused of that is impeachable.

… tweeted this today, at 11:26 a.m.

Teddy Locsin Jr. ‏@teddyboylocsin
@mahalpilipinas @mled26 Noy said he has sewed up 18 votes. It is over. 

so the summations by prosecution and defense on monday are a formality na lang, the senators judges have made up their minds.  hmm.  believable naman that the palace has been wooing, and possibly winning, as many senator judges’ votes as needed, if not more, given the last five months’ no-holds-barred campaign of the aquino admin to demonize corona, complete with mainstream and social media support.

however, i like to think there’s still a possibility of at least 7 senator judges voting to Acquit Him.  just because, considering the law he cited, i don’t think that not declaring his dollar accounts and co-mingled peso funds in his SALN is an impeachable offense.  i have also not forgotten that it was a weak impeachment complaint to begin with, and that(‘s why) it had to be railroaded, no due process.  also, an acquittal would send an important message to the yellow media that allowed themselves to be used in the trial by publicity: it’s no way to build credibility and it’s no help to in nation-building.  finally, a conviction would give the executive control over the judiciary, sooner or later, as in gma times, and we know what a disaster that would be for our fragile democracy.

i know, i know, an acquittal would be bad news for the president; but look at the bright side — he’d have someone to blame for noynoying on stuff that requires a compliant judiciary.  and he can try and have corona impeached again, but build a solid case naman (i’m still suspicious of those huge deposits on significant dates, for instance) and observe due process sana, for a change.  ‘wag padalusdalos.

read atty jay c. de castro’s prognosis back in february: Senators Will Sustain Bill of Rights, May Acquit CJ Corona

Those who do not have the “cold neutrality of an impartial judge” and will 100% convict Corona, with or without evidence, are the LP Senators, 1) Frank Drilon, 2) TG Guingona, 3) Kiko Pangilinan and 4) Antonio Trillanes.

Those who’ll convict the CJ based on the evidence adduced, that is, his million-peso deposits in PSB and BPI, are, Senators, 5) Koko Pimentel, 6) Serge Osmena, 7) Ralph Recto, 8) Ed Angara and 9) Ping Lacson.

Those who’ll acquit the CJ, due to their own strict interpretation of the law, and strong adherence to the jurisprudence, laid in the case of Diokno vs. Stonehill, that evidence illegally seized or obtained are inadmissible, and therefore, cannot be used to convict Chief Justice Corona, are Senators, 1) Miriam Defensor-Santiago, 2) Joker Arroyo and 3) Juan Ponce Enrile.

Those who’ll adhere to said doctrine and champion the Bill of Rights, guaranteed in our Constitution are, Senators, 4) Chiz Escudero, 5) Jinggoy Estrada, the siblings, 6) Alan Peter and 7) Pia Cayetano, 8) Greg Honasan, 9) Loren Legarda, 10) Manny Villar and 11) Tito Sotto.

Those who’ll join this group and vote for acquittal, due to their affinity with former President GMA are, 12) Bong Revilla, 13) Lito Lapid and 14) Bongbong Marcos. Bongbong cannot reconcile with P-Noy, because of the latter’s rejection of the late dictator’s burial in the Libingan ng mga Bayani.

In fine, despite the evidence adduced against him, CJ Corona, MAY BE ACQUITTED, due to the Prosecution’s own making, i.e., their use or introduction of illegally obtained evidence against the former, which is repugnant to our Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights, which command the acquittal of an accused, if the evidence presented against him, are manufactured or illegally obtained, and therefore inadmissible in our courts of law.

Indeed, of what use is the liberty against corruption, if those who campaign against it, resort to illegal and corrupt means to quell it? ” Atty. Jay C. De Castro, Founder, Magkaisa Para sa Bayan, February 10, 2012.

pero parang ang dami na masyadong nangyari since, and who knows how any of it, especially the corona testimonies and the walkout-walkback drama, may have altered certain mindsets.

whatever, acquit or convict, i’m looking forward to hearing the senators explain their votes, esp the ones with 2013 on their minds.

Posted in impeachment, senate

49 Responses to ‘Acquit Him’ #cj trial

  1. May 26, 2012 at 9:40 pm

    In any country with a written Constitution, the Constitution will take precedence over any other source of law.
    Article 2 of the impeachment complaint against Corona accuses him of failing to disclose all of his assets and liabilities as required by the Constitution and as provided for by law, Section 8 of Republic Act 6713, or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.
    Corona declared P3.5 million in investments and cash in his 2010 statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth (SALN).
    Chief Justice Renato Corona admitted he has $2.4 million and about P80 million in seven bank deposits, which he did not declare in his annual asset statements.

  2. May 26, 2012 at 11:53 pm

    @EQ P: I agree 100%. the CJ was given his day in court to explain, destroy all allegations of Constitional violations based on a sworn statement of facts contained in his SALN. As the supreme magistrate he should be the model/exemplary for ALL governement employees who derive their income/source of livelyhood from the taxes paid by the people. Hence, there should be no double standard of compliance even it involves a few centavos or pesos. We demand and expect the Rule of moral principles and not on man-made legal statutes which has a built-in loopholes and extra-judicial prerogatives not given to ordinary citizens who because of poverty,ignorance and class status may not have the privilege to enjoy at this juncture of our judicial system. Let’s not be personal, let reason rule over our emotional feelings and intellectual biases. To God be the Glory if Corona is convicted.

    • May 27, 2012 at 1:07 pm

      actually i don’t think it’s me that’s letting “emotional feelings and intellectual biases rule” but the other way around. if you mean na-emo ako sa testimony and tears ni corona, not at all. i hated that, and tuned off whenever, believe it or not.

  3. May 27, 2012 at 1:16 am

    Angela, please read and consider these points too: http://article8jester.blog.com/2012/05/25/good-script/

  4. May 27, 2012 at 1:17 am
  5. May 27, 2012 at 1:19 am

    The law is a wonderful thing, until it gets twisted to an absurdity. That is why the Civil Code provides: ‘In case of doubt in the interpretation or application of laws, it is presumed that the lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail.’ (Article 10).

    If we are then to accept the theory of the defense, it is right and just and intended by our lawmakers that public officials take undue advantage of a martial-law era bank secrecy statute to defeat their basic duty of accountability under the Constitution. That kind of reasoning is in, by, and of itself a betrayal of public trust.

    Even if that is all there is, it should be enough. Otherwise, we will forever chase our tails.

  6. May 27, 2012 at 3:05 am

    thanks for reading, guys, even if you disagree. my problem really is, re betrayal of public trust, they’re all guilty of it (if not more), one way or another. that it’s corona who happens to be on trial, and so it’s just him we want to/can convict, um, but he didn’t just happen to be on trial, pinag-initan siya ng presidente, at nagcooperate ang house of reps, kaya siya on trial at all — and i have no doubt that the hacienda luisita ruling is part of it, and the cojuangco campaign for a multi-billion rather than a mult-million compensation is part of it; as is the ruling against the truth commission to investigate gma. and it scares me, the kind of precedents that have been set in that kind of use of presidential power. and it dismays me, because that’s so much power that he could be using constructively, creatively, instead to effect real change. and it freaks me out that we are so willing to make him even more powerful in the hopeless hope of making it easier for him to effect the CHANGE he promised. when malinaw na that all we’re going to get out of this president, obstacles or no obstacles, is small change.

    • May 27, 2012 at 3:26 am

      But Angela, assuming it’s about HLI, and assuming Noynoy wants to be a dictator, and conceding that all prosecutors are guilty of betrayal of public trust, are these reasons enough to justify the acquittal of a man who recklessly assumes that his so-called privacy rights trumps the constitutionally-mandated value of accountability and transparency to remain the head of the judiciary?

      Hindi ba non-sequitur na yung mga side issues na yun? The issue is Corona’s moral fitness, not the hypocrisy of his accusers. I’m sorry, but I strongly disagree that he should be acquitted.

      • May 27, 2012 at 4:23 am
        GabbyD

        but J, here’s angela’s point (tell me if i’m wrong):

        if its true that “it’s about HLI, and assuming Noynoy wants to be a dictator, and conceding that all prosecutors are guilty of betrayal of public trust,” etc…

        then these are bigger problems than firing the CJ for hiding 2.5(?) million dollar (and 80?+ mill pesos) from a saln form. in fact convicting him will make those bigger problems even more problematic.

        • May 27, 2012 at 2:18 pm

          yes, something like that

    • May 27, 2012 at 4:48 am

      angela, i suppose your unease stems from a gut feel that an invalid tuquoque (‘you too’) defense would nonetheless shore up an ‘i’m being singled out for persecution’ defense.

      the problem is that both are affirmative defenses, in that the accused does not deny the charge, but comes up with an explanation. the question then is whether the explanation is valid. tuquoque is invalid because everyone else’s (claimed but unproven) guilt cannot exonerate. the ‘persecution’ theory may have better traction, but like self-defense, should probably require clear and convincing evidence, something i think is not there.

      in short, the scare scenario doesn’t work, at least not for me. but i suppose there are others who are convinced.

  7. May 27, 2012 at 3:21 am
    GabbyD

    I’m confused — what is the illegally obtained evidence, and has that evidence been entered as evidence despite its being illegally obtained?

    • May 28, 2012 at 1:58 am
      GabbyD

      ito ba ang 45 property di umano? but this was preliminary evidence that has subsequently been debunked. in other words — its not evidence anymore.

      isnt that what we expect a trial to uncover? the truth? so whats the problem?

      its still true that some properties were not listed in the saln when they ought to be. this was not debunked by the defense. diba?

      honestly, i’m hearing alot about illegally obtained evidence being used. ano yun? that matters coz people like you angela keep citing that as a reason for acquittal. pero ano ba yun illegal evidence na yun?

      • May 28, 2012 at 2:56 am

        http://www.newsflash.org/2004/02/hl/hl111565.htm the bank accounts. the ombudsman’s testimony:

        “Some senators expressed doubts on the admissibility of the documents on the ground that Morales obtained them from the AMLC without a court order. However, Morales invoked her specific constitutional authority to seek the help of any government agency in the discharge of her duties. Enrile made short shrift of the argumentation, pointing out that even illegally obtained evidence, assuming they could be so characterized, would be admissible in the impeachment court.” http://opinion.inquirer.net/29033/will-corona-testify

        • May 28, 2012 at 4:36 am
          GabbyD

          1) ah, so this is about the PS bank material.

          as your link says, PS bank themselves testified to the falsity of that info. I’d be shocked if the ps bank docs will be official evidence.

          so there is no issue na di ba? again, this is the purpose of the court/trial.

          2) on amlc — these are official govt docs. they dont give you balances, only transactions. these are docs that the amlc routinely collects. this info doesnt break confidentiality, nor does it require court orders. this is part of evidence for a prelim investigation on ill-gotten wealth (which again, is the whole point of the amlc, which is to get info which forms a basis of a formal investigation which would require a court order. indeed, this is the staus of the ombudsman investigation; she asked the CJ to explain the amlc transactions and she wants a court order to look into his accounts)

          these amlc docs dont prove balances. tama ang defense — whatever estimate of the CJ’s accounts is ONLY an estimate.

          BUT they do prove that there are accounts. yun lang. the defense didnt debunk existence of accounts — only that the amounts are wrong.

          again, isnt this the point of a trial? if its wrong or false, it would come up in the trial that it is false.

          so whats the problem?

        • May 28, 2012 at 1:47 pm
          manuelbuencamino

          Angela,

          Si corona ang nagpresenta kay Morales bilang witness di ba?

  8. May 27, 2012 at 3:40 am

    Let’s listen to former CJ Artemio Panganiban. he thing prosecution succeeded and the defense failed. Prosecution’s case was prima facie: undeclared wealth is ill-gotten, therefore defense has burden of proof to explain otherwise. Did defense fulfill burden? No. Corona merely offered denial, but didn’t offer proof. In Jurisprudence, mere denials, uncorroborated testimony, not given much weight. http://opinion.inquirer.net/29521/historic-decision

    • May 27, 2012 at 5:16 am

      and in effect, the defense had also allowed the ‘ill-gotten wealth’ camel back in the tent when they presented SC personnel on his income and expense accounts.

  9. May 27, 2012 at 1:00 pm

    sunday tweet: Teddy Locsin Jr. ‏@teddyboylocsin
    I am NEVER WRONG, he will be convicted.
    8:03 am 27 may

  10. May 27, 2012 at 5:46 pm
  11. May 27, 2012 at 6:18 pm

    sharing malou tiquia’s fb status:

    For those wanting to follow the numbers. Here they are:

    1. Re-elect
    Legarda, Escudero, Honasan, Pimentel, Trillanes, A. Cayetano

    2. End of term
    Arroyo, Angara, Villar, Lacson, Pangilinan, Santiago

    3. LP
    Drilon, Guingona, Recto, Osmena, Pangilinan

    4. Leadership positions
    JPE, Estrada, Sotto

    5. Non-lawyers -12
    Estrada, Sotto, Legarda, Honasan, Trillanes, Revilla, Lapid, Recto, Osmena, Villar, Lacson, Marcos

    6. Lawyers -11
    JPE, Santiago, Arroyo, Angara, Drilon, Pangilinan, Guingona, Pimentel, A Cayetano, P. Cayetano, Pimentel

    • May 27, 2012 at 7:40 pm

      Thanks Angela.

      So we have the Bisquera-11 for conviction: Drilon, Escudero, Guingona, Osmena, Recto, Pangilinan, Revilla, Lacson, Pimentel, Trillanes, Estrada.

      The Bisquera-4 for acquittal: MDS, Marcos, Villar, Joker.

      That leaves the Middle-8: Angara, the 2 Cayetanos, JPE, Honsasan, Lapid, Legarda, Sotto.

      Only 5 of the 8 are needed to convict. And, of course, only 4 of the 8 to acquit.

      • May 27, 2012 at 9:33 pm

        what’s “bisquera”?

        • May 27, 2012 at 10:58 pm

          Dean Joe Bisquera, vice-president for legal affairs at the University of Manila..

          • May 27, 2012 at 11:09 pm

            ah ok. who pala :) i don’t know why i thought chiz was among the undecided. and that jinggoy would acquit, and angara would convict.

  12. May 27, 2012 at 11:14 pm

    angie, I understand your apprehension against the Yellow brigade’s conspiracy and its influence in the media which is more speculative than the Corona court’s TRO on GMA hold departure and on opening of FCD deposit and flip-flopping on PAL labor rights issues. I am more convinced that accountability and betrayal of public trust are so vital in pursuing a drastic change than the small change you perceived in cornering Corona to start a grand revolutionary change in the judicial system if not on good governance which i believe any administration in the present cultural mindset cannot win over because of economic and religious values. I still have faith that Pinoy can make the difference despite his social class origin and perceived weak attitude on on vital issues affecting real CHANGE in the fight against cleaning the govt of corruption and instituting accountability by public officials. We should fear more on the clutches of the Red brigade encroaching on our soil, souvereignty and economic stability. As Mao Tse Tung has said, Power comes from the barrel of a gun. Do we have enough solid power to fight the billion soldiers backing the military force?

  13. May 27, 2012 at 11:40 pm

    Hi Angela,

    I think you have a better feel than Dean B. The pro-conviction would be 10 (take out Escudero, and substitute Angara for Estrada); the pro-acquittal is 5 (add Estrada); and the swing bloc is 8 (bring in Escudero and take out Angara).

    The swing group includes 4 re-electionists (Escudero, Honasan, A. Cayetano, Legarda), one who needs Malacanang, two with leadership positions and are mindful of their place in history (JPE, Sotto), and one who may be the most ambivalent (P. Cayetano). If all 8 convict, that makes for Teddy Boy’s 18. He is seldom wrong and always right.

  14. May 27, 2012 at 11:43 pm

    I think the public including the “non-intellectual” community has had enough exposure on the educational teach-in on Law 101 on Impeachment trial and to come out with their own individual appreciation of weighing with an “academic” justification,with their own emotional biases on the conduct of both sides and the senator judges to arrive at the compelling reasons why a conviction against Corona is a logical and political conclusion. My fearless forecast which I hope i am not wrong, it will be 16-7 with Miriam,Marcos Jr.,Joker,Pia Cayetano,Loren, Bong R. and Lito Lapid acquiting Corona.

  15. May 28, 2012 at 12:47 am
    • May 28, 2012 at 1:55 pm
      manuelbuencamino

      ON SALUDO”S TWISTED ARGUMENTS:

      “If Corona is ousted, his waiver would go down as just another desperate ploy to vainly stave off conviction. But if he stays, he will be walking proof that public servants can be completely open and transparent in their finances and assets.”

      Corona waited until the prosecution and the defense rested before giving his waiver. Corona declared his real properties only after he was impeached. He is indeed walking proof that public servants will only become completely open when forced to do so.

      “More than good governance, however, a far weightier impact of Corona’s retention or conviction is on our democratic system and the rule of law. As warned in the Dec. 14, 2011, column, a Chief Justice handpicked by President Benigno Aquino 3rd could weaken the last check and balance on the Executive branch.”

      Teka Corona was not handpicked by GMA? How about the other justices who handpicked the majority of them? So our democratic system and the rule of law is stronger if GMA’s handpicked control the judiciary?

      Gago!

  16. May 28, 2012 at 12:50 am
    • May 28, 2012 at 1:36 am

      saludo seems to say that if we acquit, it would be a vote for due process, transparency, and all that. he forgets that acquittal would also condone the continuing corruption rot.

      austero suggests we’re in deep shit anyway with our trapo system that there’s no way anyway of arresting corruption. maybe he’s right. but whatever happened to the idea that evil persists because good men do nothing?

      the bigger picture is that of a choice between two evils – one is the continuing nightmare of our distant and recent past, while the other is an impending possibly even worse future. i would bet that there is greater certainty in the existence of the former than in the latter.

      conviction may then be similar to taking an untested drug which has a small chance of worsening the sickness and an equally small chance of beginning a cure. we will not know until we try. but if we didn’t take the untested drug, we would remain trapped in a time warp.

      • May 28, 2012 at 3:06 am

        “evil persists because good men do nothing.” parang di na kasi black and white ang evil and good. corona is said to be the evil one because of undeclared wealth and because he is a gma-man. pero mga “good” ba talaga yung mga nag-persecute/prosecute/trial by publicity sa kanya?

        • May 28, 2012 at 9:10 am

          its not a question of the pot calling the kettle black & dirt. Given the moral bancruptcy in our society, is it more practical to throw the whole basket rather than do something to separate rotten fruits from the basket one by one?

  17. May 28, 2012 at 9:47 am
    GabbyD

    let me share something i’ve just discovered:

    i found something interesting in the IRR that hasnt been raised in the court yet.

    the chief justice DOES have vast power to implement/interpret compliance of the SALN law. (this is a huge weakness in the saln law, where each branch can determine for themselves what proper compliance is.holy crap!)

    from the IRR:
    ….
    (c) In the case of the Judicial Department, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court;

    …..
    The above official shall likewise have the authority to render any opinion interpreting the provisions on the review and compliance procedures in the filing of statements of assets, liabilities, net worth and disclosure of information

    there are other duties they they ask the CJ to do. so the questions must be: what are the compliance procedures put into place by the CJ, and were they followed.

    in other words, is the rule that dollars should not be put in, written down in the compliance procedures?

    _________________________________________
    but, apart from the issues above, the impeachment has become much more complex for me. i think it’ll be tough for the senate to say to the person who is tasked to interpret saln compliance that he is wrong. that means policy should be changed, and i’m almost sure that impeachment is NOT the place to change policy.

    if you want a uniform way to determine saln compliance, then write the law/amend the current law. dont fire the guy which the law says can unilateraly determine compliance .

  18. May 28, 2012 at 10:03 am
    ricelander

    Either way, I think it is bad news for PNoy.

    Acquittal will erode his hold of power and that is why understandably everyone in the Yellow Horde is in full court press for conviction.

    Conviction on the other hand will bring Pnoy immense joy but will likely produce complicated consequences that will eventually backfire on this administration. For one, to justify conviction— and all that overflowing venom and searing fury and hate and humiliation heaped on Corona all these months—, people should see that indeed he was hiding wealth of dubious or criminal origins. A continuing attempt to obstruct would be affirming or strengthening that suspicion but having now issued a blanket waiver to all his deposits, all that suspicions now would be weakened. Worse, now that all obstruction to examine his deposits are cleared, the prosecution would not even want to take a look. Are they afraid to see that everything naman pala is in order? Hehehe.

    Ok now he must be convicted. Over what? All that venom and fury and hate and humiliation, over what? Over Dollar deposits that were not declared?! And we get the impression the accused is guilty of some heinous crime against humanity?!

    I wonder, when suspicions are building up that even the President himself and his allies actually have some undeclared dollar deposits and hidden wealth, and that is precisely why they did not look kindly to the challenge of a waiver, how would it look like?

    • May 28, 2012 at 10:33 am

      Even if Corona is acquited, Pnoy has a fall-back option which has more Constituitional power to indict and cause for his removal, the Ombudsman. No way Pnoy will loose this battle to fight corruption, destiny is on his side.

      • May 28, 2012 at 8:44 pm
        Bert

        is that right, jojie? i thought the cj cannot be accused anymore by the ombudsman if he is aquitted.

      • May 28, 2012 at 10:43 pm

        bert: as far I have surmised, the Ombudsman can raise the issue of ill-gotten wealth in the Sandiganbayan since they can use the AMLAC documents and the waiver signed by Corona to question his undeclared assets. I think the prosecution dropped this charge as they have no legal basis to prove it.

    • May 28, 2012 at 10:13 pm

      ricelander :) thanks for the link. i tried commenting sa blog mo but neither my gmail nor wordpress passwords worked, or maybe hindi mag-match with which user, naguluhan na lang ang senior cit!

      • May 29, 2012 at 8:49 am
        ricelander

        Will check what is wrong. Matagal din kasing nasa hibernation mode.

  19. May 28, 2012 at 10:42 pm

    I think Enrile has just set the tone for conviction.

    • May 28, 2012 at 11:50 pm

      @J, it just sounded as the biblical verse “rightfully dividing the word of God”. to paraphrase, since the Constitution is our (the people’s) political bible, Enrile has defined the legal parameter to the gravity of Corona’s sins of omission as being contrary to the basic law, hence such willful act of violation is tantamount to betrayal of public trust. Corollary to this act,Follow the intent and the command of law.

  20. May 29, 2012 at 1:13 am
    baycas

    Appeal to Emotion

    Kapag mahirap manalo sa laban at hindi kayang depensahan, ang atake ay sa damdamin at hindi sa tunay na lohika at tuwid na pag-iisip.

    Damdamin laban sa ebidensiya…mga hurado (jury) ang kaharap…damdamin ang pipiliting manaig kaysa ebidensiya.

    Mga sangkap ng “APPEAL TO EMOTION” na gamit na gamit ng kampo ni Corona:

    “Appeal to faith” – ipinagpapa-Diyos ko na lang ang mga mangyayari

    “Appeal to pity” – kami ang pinagmalabisan, ang mga Basa ay malupit

    “Appeal to hatred” – ang prosecution, ang mga complainants, ang Ombudsman…sila ang dapat kamuhian sa kanilang walang basehang alegasyon

    “Appeal to fear or threat” – magiging diktador si P.Noy, magiging makakaliwa ang bansa

    “Wishful thinking” – kung mayroon man akong pagkakasala, hindi ito sinasadya; hindi ito impeachable, nawa’y huwag akong parusahan ng labis-labis…mawawala na’ng lahat sa kin

    Tunay na lohika at tuwid na pag-iisip ang habol mula sa mga senador.

    Makakamit kaya ng bayan ang katarungan batay sa tunay na lohika at tuwid na pag-iisip?

    Mapapasaatin kaya ang resulta ng ebidensiya at hindi lang dahil nakurot ni Corona ang mga damdamin ng mga senador para siya mapawalang-sala?

    “Appeal to emotion” ang laban ni Mang Rene (Corona)…patunay lang na talo siya sa ebidensiya.

  21. May 29, 2012 at 12:32 pm

    Teddy Boy crows that 18 is in the bag. Dean Bisquera says 19.

    TB may well be right, particularly if Estrada votes to acquit.

    Here’s the Bisquera ‘forecast’ set up by order of voting. He includes Estrada and the Cayetanos in the convicting group.

    For TB’s scenario to work out, one of the Cayetanos and Estrada will have to vote to acquit early. If not, then the vote is more likely to follow the Bisquera forecast.

    If after Legarda votes (she’s no. 13 in the order of voting), and the vote is 9-4, the game is over. Otherwise, there’s a chance of a cliff-hanger with Villar and JPE making the decisive votes.

    • May 30, 2012 at 1:02 pm
      Bert

      Lando, sa aking palagay Dean Bisquera’s prediction is more accurate than TB. Villar I believed, if placed earlier to pronounce his verdict will surely vote to acquit.

      Nasa kulelat na nga siya, bumoto nga ng guilty ay halatang-halata naman na pilit at masama ang loob. No choice siya kundi mag guilty kasi maliwanag na ang results ng verdict, at wala namang tao na gustong lumagay sa grupo ng talunan lalo kung merong interest si Villar na protectahan ang kanyang business interests. Bumoto nga ng guilty, pagkatapos inupakan naman ng husto ang prosecution at ang administration. Masama talaga ang loob.

      • May 30, 2012 at 2:04 pm

        Bert, not only do I agree with you, but Villar even abused his judgeship by using the forum to campaign, in effect, for his wife. Maybe he’s not Villaroyo, but he looked pretty trapo, as it turned out.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

twitter

follow @stuartsantiago on twitter

recent comments

  • © Angela Stuart-Santiago