On impeachment: commentaries (not conclusion)

It is more fun criticizing

This post concerns commentaries regarding the "pasabog testimony"  of the last witness for the Art. IV of the impeachment vs VP Duterte.

The testimony of the star witness was considereably weakened and holes found (not enough evidence and or preparation?

1.  The continued answer of the good director saying he has direct personal knowledge of the investigation made by the agents, and previous to his appointment.    He has therefore impeached himself as a credible witness for being a hearsay witness  (Article 130 Section 22 where Vinluan reviewed the 29 year law veteran on the subject) , and admitting that his wife, a congresswoman (who sponsored the impeachment

2.  Pia Cayetanos pointing out that the good director was not 100% truthful in his communications regading the Senate GSIS 

3.   The director was not subpoenaed but merely invited by the  prosecution

4.  The continued effort and as objected to by the Prosecution to make legal conclusions on the facts presented as with the Kapunan speech.    The Chief Judge continued to remind the prosecution ot stop making conclusion on the evidence presented.   It is for the Court to decide. The NBI director, it would seem did not stop to make conclusion.   It is often the danger to invite a judge, a DOJ employee to make judgement as they are asked questions in the court

5  While the prosecution maintained that it is not a court proceeding, nevertheless, the rules of evidence was in effect.   

6.  The Prosecution does not seem to have enough solid evidences, nor proponderance as was the request ot subpoena bank records.   

The Lascana affidavit was neither signed nor notarized

When is somebody an expert? - you need 10,000 hours experience

It is more fun criticizing

10,000 hours to be an expert

In the current impeachment trial, some personalities were presented as experts.   "forensic expert"  It turns out that the said witness only spent two months in the field

As per Malcolm Gladwell in his book "Outliers"  you can only be considered an expert when you have been exposed and spent 10,000 in the said field (or roughtly 10 years.

We should be more careful in using the term

Impeachment cross examination of witnesses - a masterclass in logic, being detailed, and critical thinking

It is more fun criticizing

Some people including some senators are shrugging off the nitty gritty of cross exam of the witness, saying its useless (and further triggering off lawyers vs non lawyers in the chamber conflict)  However, for me, as studenet of logic and critical thinking, this hearings just like Corona case are living example of fine thinking:   logic, critical thinking.

So far, yesterday, with cross of Atty Vinluan the defense, tipped the balance of facts in favor  of the defense, if this post may give an opinion:

1.  Unsigned unverified affidavit and comparing this with ICC;

2.  Hearsay prior to the appointment as NBi director and yet makes comment on the investigation report

     That further weakens the affidavit of agents which mas made prior to his appointment.   Without             ownership..

3.  Presumed bias due to

     1.  The wife is a congresswoman who endorsed the impeachment

     2.  Theh witness  has a column which has negative view of the person being impeached

4.  The witness was not subpoenad, but volunteered

5.  The witness did not answer on yes or no but argues (and thus leads the court)  and makes his opinion

      (to sway court).  Not being called out by the court?

6.  Continuing investigation.   Therefore the affidavit of investigation  being incomplete cant constitute valid and legal evidence vs the perosn being impeached

This post does not intend to sway nor influence the outcome of said proceeding but merely points out the defects in logic, and education on critical thinking.  However this is weak day for the prosecution.

However I want to take advantage of the billions being spent on this proceeding to benefit my self improvement and continuing education

However, the agents of the bureau committed typo errors weakening their testimonies.  And their credibility.  (Not to mention their pending cases)

Move on or walk on in the floodwaters?

It is more fun criticizing

Should we now ignore the floods, move on away from flood control scandals?  These videos are grim reminders that that pronouncement could be misplaced?  Arent the floods paralyzing traffic, commerce and daily life of citizens.

What will be priority if you cant work, and the economy stands still because of the flood (that should be mitigated due to misplaced and/or stolen billions?)

Historic wage increase of P85.00 or 12% can hurt the BSP efforts to control inflation

It is more fun criticizing

DOLE secretary  Tolentino announced an P85.00 salary increase for MM, or a historic 12.22%  (P85/695).  The BSP head is worried about its impact on inflation that it is trying very hard to control (now currently at 7%).    A certain employers sector is worried too about the accompanying productivity that the said increase would produce.   Without an accompanying productivity its bound to produce additional woes to all ready bad situation:     inability to meet GDP growth target, loss of jobs (23%),

rising prices (expect more of that), downgrading of PHL by Fitch.

Before our concern was providing jobs but wages that are in the near P20k will be difficult to sustain.  Employers will cut back and resort to mechanization and automation  Surely, AI is here to assist in this difficult situation.   Employers can manage, but what about the workers.  Every solution produces its own problems (11 laws of systems principles) and this post expects this to be managed well.