screwed by manangs

read ricky carandang’s screwed and manuel buencamino’s “manangs” acquit a rapist.   my sentiments exactly.   what a huge setback for the women’s fight against sexist politics.   biglang we’re back to the dark ages when women were seen as sex objects incapable of saying no except when playing hard-to-get for extra favors.   biglang we’re back to the old biases and stereotypes, among them that girls who don’t behave with strict decorum, who dress to look ‘n feel good, who drink alcohol, dance dirty, flirt mightily in public, who just wanna have fun, are asking for rape.   wtf.   where are these women justices coming from?  opus dei?   catholic women’s league?  what books are they reading?   mills & boon?   barbara cartland?

read too rina jimenez-david who calls them “maiden aunts” and patricia evangelista who calls them “virtuous ladies”.   which set me wondering, teka, baka naman mga old maid nga ang “learned ladies” na ito of the court of appeals, and so maybe they don’t know any better about men and sex and rape, and quite possibly they’ve never been drunk in their lives?   so i googled them all, only to find that all three are wives and mothers, and maybe grandmothers, wow, good luck na lang sa karma.

both justice monina arevalo zenarosa and justice myrna dimaranan vidal were born in 1939.   zenarosa took up law in ust and feu, vidal in feu.  both are turning 70 and retiring this year.    hmm, formative years right smack during the japanese occupation and the liberation.   general douglas macarthur must be one of their icons.

justice remedios salazar fernando is a different story.   born in 1953, studied law in ateneo, so far she has been quite popular with post-EDSA administrations and has been having quite a rising career.

She was named Chairman of the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board in July 1987 where she concurrently held directorship posts at the Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA)and the Office of Transport Cooperatives. In the latter part of 1991, she held the position of Officer-in-Charge/Assistant Secretary of the Land Transportation Office in a concurrent capacity.

In 1992, she was appointed Commissioner of the COMELEC. On May 21, 1999, she was appointed Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals, being one of the youngest to have been appointed to the position. She received several awards from both private and public sectors, such as Ten Outstanding Young Men given by the Jerry Roxas Foundation, Most Outstanding Capampangan, Woman of Distinction Award by the Soroptimist International, etc. When she retired from the COMELEC, she received an Award for Outstanding Service from the Senate of the Philippines.

i bet she has a moist eye on the supreme court.   i suppose this subic rape case decision is in aid of that?   how sad, specially for a baby boomer whose generation birthed the women’s movement for equal rights.

by the way, if you’re one of those who don’t feel competent to judge for themselves whether what smith did to nicole was rape or not because transcripts of the trial have not been released, so you’re willing to give the three  justices the benefit of the doubt, they must know what they’re talking about, you’re taking their word for it, smith is innocent, well you might want to make tambay sa subicrapecase website’s summary of  court proceedings.   it was rape.


  1. Hey angela,
    CA is a trier of facts, and the question is whether there was consent, which is a “meeting of the minds” of the parties. Courts have difficulty ascertaining mental acts since they have to interpret overt evidence, and there will always be hard questions on how to make such interpretation. For example, IF (and that’s a big IF) Nicole had agreed but later says “no,” a conviction would be an injustice, which is why in a criminal case a court must acquit on reasonable doubt. On the other hand, if Nicole did not consent, but you have an acquittal, that would also be an injustice. The case is about women’s rights but it is also about how to determine consent in a rape case, and on presumption of innocence. SC decisions have generally struck a balance by allowing a rape conviction based only on the victim’s testimony, but then the SC has also imposed sufficiently high standards that such testimony must meet.

  2. manuelbuencamino


    here’s a case of indecorous behavior by one of the three manangs

    “The SC admonished Justice Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal for allowing herself to be rushed by Justice Roxas to sign the July 8, 2008 decision granting Meralco’s request for a temporary restraining order, which allowed the election of a new board and the Lopez family to maintain control of Meralco.”

    If you will recall the Meralco-GSIS case involved allegations of bribery. Oh well, bribery involves the pocket while sex involves the p_k_ so one can argue that the manang did not do anything indecorous by giving in easily to Justice Roxas’ persuasion.

  3. DJB has uploaded a copy of the CA decision. quite interesting…

    one thing that screamed at me was that there was not determination of her level of intoxication when she reported the rape. the doctor (Dr Go) didn’t give her a blood test to determine that. had they done that, then there would be less doubt about nicole’s state of mind…

  4. I believe it was rape too Angela, so much so, that I am floored at those who wish to cling to the decision as if it were correct on all counts.

    The argument by both Ricky and Manuel are both spot on in my opinion..

  5. it was rape…i just can’t fathom why these three manangs rendered such stupid decision. are they just too old not to know what rape is or they are just having too much of it?

    this is a court not a kangaroo court but a court of old pimps!