Fmr Senator Leila de Lima belittles the effect of INC peace rally yesterday on Sarah Duterte's impeachment

It is more fun criticizing

Former Senator Leila de Lima says that the massive 1 million + attendance of the INC KOJC peace rally does not have any impact on stoppage of VP Sarah's impeachment.  It is but an expression of the minorithy.   The law will take its course.

But so far, only 6 have endorsed the VP Sarah's impeachment mostly the members of the progressive block.  (Sign of fear of the congressmen of signing imperilling their reelection bid?)

What do you/we think?

Wa epek nga ba?

Initial unofficial reports from transparency server shows the prediction of this site to be correct - Duterte/Bong2 win

It is more fun criticizing

Philippines May 9, 2016  6:33 pm

Twitter alerts for VP results

Wow the automated voting of Comelec is wowing many citizens for showing sizable number of precincts and votes, running into millions barely an hour after the closing of voting

Initial election returns shows Duterte to be leading the presidential race with sizable lead about 600t lead over (at of 6 pm today)  second ranking candidate Grace Poe.  Administration candidate Roxas is third.

For Vice President it is Bong2 Marcos. He leads over Admins canddate Leni Robredo by about 200t votes (it is a close lead)

This post predicted a Duterte Bong2 win  A likely Duterte Bong2 Marcos win?

Sen Bongbong Marcos could end up as the next VP

Is the Pacquiao Bradley fight violating the Fair Election Act?

It is more fun criticizing

Rizal Philippines
March 12, 2016

Pacquiao Bradley fight violates Election Law - former Comelec Chairman

Pacquiao Bradley fight does not violate OAVL - Lawyer Macalintal

I watched the debate at ANC between the Ateneo and Palawan State University regarding the proposition that the Paqcuaio Bradley fight is giving the former an undue advantage over the other candidates and thus should be disqualified.

One is simply amazed how the law students researched the issues very well, and argued cogently on the subject matter.

However, one notes that some laws and legalities (jurispudence previous decisions) do not jibe well with one another raising more issues.   The two sides were arguing on various laws like Fair Election Act and OAVL (Oversea Absentee Voting Law)

The affirmative side argued that the fight gives Pacquiao undue advantage over other candidates eg as exceeding the maximum exposure of 120 minutes media time.   And thus denies other candidates equal opportunities to vbe known by the electorate

The negative side argued that Comelec does not have control over the profession of Pacquiao as a boxer.  The punches and announcement does not convert into votes.  While the boxer is ahead in popularity he is only No. 12 in terms of possible votes.  Pacquiao lost to Antonino in South Cotabato as representative even as a very popular boxer then (and spent heavily) but was badly beaten.  The voters are intelligent these days and would discern who to vote.  The undue advantage is highly speculative. Boxing is a sports event and is not a prohibited act under the Fair Elections Act. That his name would be mentioned many times is only incidental and not deliberate event.

The fact is Pacquiaos being a boxer, and 8 category champs, unequalled in annals of boxing has undue advantage, as are TV hosts, or incumbent with their numerous committee hearings

Yes I would like to side more on the negative side that the proposition violates the rights of Pacquiao as a boxer and that it is highly speculative, that the event while being held abroad could sway votes.  Pacman has his limitation and weakness and the Bradley Pacquiao fight would be of no consequence

If however Pacquiao has his pants with vote Pacquiao for senator, or such words as his tatoo, then it is a different story, or if the ring announcer pitches it in.

Has the debate given Pacquaio an undue advantage,or has the DQ case vs Poe given her undue media exposure.?What do you think?

                                     Eh paano mananalo, and vest di nga pantay?

Why did Lawyer Kapunan take the Napoles case?

Social and political criticisms

I watched the interview of Lawyer Kapunan by Tina Monson Palma over the allegations vs her client Napoles.  While she was logical and very clear on her stand with regards to alleged illegal detention of Ben Hur Luy, she was not when asked why she took the case.

She said Luy went on a retreat.  And the fact is Luy, who is a relative of Napoles was alleged to have malversed funds from Napoles and was alleged to own businesses like call ctrs. etc.

But when asked why she took the case, she was ambivalent and nebulous with her answer.

It was as if you heard former Senator Saguisag being interviewed on why he took a controversial client to defend.  (Well we can be practical by saying, that money is good)

She said she was against the crooks behind the PDAF;   Whaaat. ???? That would not have been possible without the facilitation of her client.    The advocacy of lawyer is sometimes about the legal fees.  Had she said that it advocacy and everybody needs equal protection before the law, that would seem more like it.