Despite two big Aquino presidencies, that of the late Cory Aquino from 1986 to 1992 and then her son’s, Benigno Simeon ‘BS’ Aquino III, from 2010 to 2016, the brains behind the murder of former Senator Benigno ‘Ninoy’ Aquino Jr had never been identified. Despite several inquiries through the Cory Aquino administration, only a handful of underlings were convicted. This led Inquirer columnist Ma. Ceres P. Doyo to ask as recently as August 2018, Who killed Ninoy?
But who were the brains? They could only have been persons with massive power and resources. The convicts were mostly underlings who could only have acted in obedience, in an elaborate plot they knew little about.
Since the beginning of the term of current President Rodrigo Duterte, “thought leaders” of the Yellowtard-led Opposition have been screeching about a lack of any big-time drug personalities being brought to justice in Duterte’s so-called War on Drugs. This makes it all the more laughable that they presume to “honour” the “martyrdom” of Ninoy Aquino considering that they too had failed to bring the Big Guns that shot Aquino to justice and had, instead, satisfied themselves with jailing the little fall guys.
The Yellowtards, in short, are hypocrites. They are people who pepper their rhetoric with lofty words like “justice” and “accountability” yet routinely do their own “hero” a shameful disservice — commemorating him yet leaving every stone unturned in their lazy quest for justice for a murder that will likely remain unsolved forever.
As expected, supporters of Vice President Leni Robredo are dismissing the recent charges of sedition against her as mere “harassment”. A group called “Team Philippines” are even mounting a petition to the Department of Justice to drop the charges.
It seems these people feel sorry for Robredo because she looks like a damsel in distress or they want her to be given special treatment because she is a woman. This is not good for advocates of gender equality. They should be reminded of the persecution former Vice President Jejomar Binay experienced.
Indeed, one of the biggest sins of Leni and the Opposition is being too loyal to the members of the Philippine oligarchy instead of to the people. They prioritise their own interests, not the public’s.
Nonetheless, Robredo does not need protection because the law is there to protect innocent people. If there is no proof against her, the case will not even reach the court and will be dismissed. But unfortunately for her, if the prosecutors prove that she was part of the group who employed Bikoy then she needs to pay the price of her offenses and go to jail.
Perhaps this is really how “human rights” lawyers work. They make victims of people who never saw themselves as victims to begin with. These parasitical members of the legal profession make people believe they are “victims” all for the purpose of turning them into “clients” who fit their nebulous “human rights” narrative.
Chel Diokno fits the bill perfectly. He presumed to represent the “victimhood” of the Filipino fishermen whose boat was allegedly rammed by a Chinese vessel in Reed Bank in mid June. The trouble is he made an equally nebulous case that was crushed under the intense grilling of the Philippines’ Supreme Court justices. Asked in a variety of words by these justices, What is it exactly you are asking of the Court? all Diokno’s legal team could respond with was a shrug and a scratch in the head.
Even more laughable, the fishermen themselves eventually disavowed themselves of Diokno’s quaint legal stunt.
All Diokno has left is a face to save. But it seems he is too late to save even that.
The Inquirerhighlights the key message of the report…
By failing to extend assistance, the Chinese vessel failed to comply with the regulations of the United Nation Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), which obliges masters of ships to provide assistance to the distressed persons at sea, the report stated.
Now that there is an authoritative account of what happened, there is now a clear basis to take action.
(1) Mount a criminal investigation and court procedure that leads to a proper ruling issued by a Philippine Court.
The case therefore needs to be put through the Philippines’ criminal-justice system after which, “If prosecution is successful, file a request to extradite the captain and crew of Yuemaobinyu 42212 from China.”
The important thing is a pathway forward is defined and taken. No aimless shrill activism will replace a modern effort of thinking things through and executing the plan decisively.
The concept of an “international criminal court” is flawed at the core. Thus it is quite unfortunate that the International Criminal Court (ICC) is named and chartered as such. The presumptuous pomposity with which the ICC carries out its “mission” today has thus become a sad international punchline.
To presume to be a court outside of and, yet, higher than that of a sovereign nation is a ridiculous notion at best. Following the Philippines’ withdrawal from the ICC earlier under the leadership of President Rodrigo Duterte, Malaysia, under Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad had recently expressed its intention to withdraw from the ICC…
“This is not because we are against it but because of the political confusion about what it entails, caused by people with vested interest,” a visibly upset Mahathir told a news conference.
“I see this as a way to blacken my face because they know they cannot oust me easily,” said Mahathir, the world’s oldest leader at 93.
This demonstrates how untenable the very notion of the ICC is. No government — specially of any country that takes pride in its independence — would voluntarily subject itself to the rule of a foreign “court”.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) is, well, a criminal court as its name implies. As such, by presuming to be an authority on what is “just” in the Philippines, it is, in effect, competing with Philippine courts for authority. But, see, there is nothing in the Philippine Constitution that allows any entity beyond a Philippine court to rule on criminality in the Philippines. So what is it exactly that gives the ICC license to do that?
By going to the ICC for help to remove a sitting duly-elected president, the Philippine Opposition are acting like traitors. Their actions could be interpretted as acts in contempt of the Philippine judiciary. Should this behaviour be tolerated? It shouldn’t. What the Opposition led by the Yellowtards are doing is roping in the judiciary — a branch of government independent of the executive and legislative branches — into a political battle that, normally, is fought in the popularity contests that characterise the latter two.
Normally, when the Yellowtards have exhausted all ideas on how to grab power legally, they resort to illegal means — i.e., “people power” revolutions. In recent months they’ve discovered another illegal approach to seizing power — enlisting the support of a foreign “criminal court”.
The Yellowtards are, indeed, a nefarious bunch. They’ll stop at nothing, even take measures that could destroy their own country’s democratic institutions, just to achieve their power-hungry ends. They already did that in 1986 and they are doing it today — going as far as getting in bed with Philippine communists (who command a terrorist arm, the New People’s Army or NPA) to expedite the process. They must be stopped.
Former First Lady Imelda Marcos is not in jail because “the Supreme Court’s Third Division denied for lack of merit the petition for certiorari filed in 2008 by the late Solicitor General Frank Chavez.”
“Petitioner having failed to establish the basis for this court to evaluate and review the facts in this case the petition may be dismissed on this ground,” read the 53-page decision written by Justice Marvic Leonen.
The other division members, Justices Presbitero Velasco Jr., Lucas Bersamin, Francis Jardeleza and Samuel Martires Jr., who is now the Ombudsman, all concurred in the ruling, which also castigated the prosecution for mishandling the case.
It is supposedly “common knowledge” that the Marcoses “plundered” the Philippines. This is according to the narrative of the Yellowtards and the broader circle of Martial Law Crybabies who blame the Philippines’ continued impoverished state on the “ills” of the “Martial Law Era”.
Perhaps the Yellowtards and Martial Law Crybabies just need better lawyers.
A statement tweeted by Chrystia Freeland, Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, seems to insinuate a position her government is taking on the credibility of the Philippine government.
Canada remains deeply concerned for the security and safety of @mariaressa in the #Philippines. The harassment and intimidation of journalists have no place in democracy. We call for due process to be respected and stand with all journalists working in defence of the truth.
So suspected tax evader Maria Ressa is “working in defence of the truth”? Is the Canadian government implying that the officials of the Philippine government are a bunch of liars and that Ressa is telling the truth?
If Freeland is truly sincere about justice prevailing, she ought to wait for a proper Philippine court to rule on who really is telling the truth.
Until then, her government should butt out of Ressa’s case and keep her opinion on how the Philippines’ justice system is handling the matter.
The demise of Rappler will ultimately be good for the Philippines’ news media industry — because Rappler, led by its CEO Maria Ressa, is disproportionately responsible for casting the entire industry under a bad light thanks to their taste for shrill dramas.
For that matter, why does Maria Ressa keep bothering the Filipino people with her problems? There are so many people dying of hunger and diseases but she keeps giving this impression that she has to be prioritised. Had she kept her affairs in order, she wouldn’t be in this predicament.
According to Rappler minion Chay Hofilena, Ressa declares: “I’m going to challenge the process and I’m going to challenge the charges…I will continue to hold the government accountable.”
To that we say, please do. But do it in a proper court, not in that Court of Public Opinion favoured by the Yellowtards.
Former Philippine First Lady, currently reelectionist House Representative, Imelda Marcos has reportedly been convicted by the Sandiganbayan 5th Division today of “7 counts of graft for using her Cabinet position to maintain Swiss bank accounts during the Marcos regime.”
Marcos’ graft cases stemmed from complaints filed in 1991 when prosecutors alleged that the Marcos family channeled public funds into their personal accounts overseas.
This follows more than 30 years of an apparent inability of no less than two Aquino administrations — that of the late Cory Aquino from 1987 and that of her son Benigno Simeon ‘BS’ Aquino III from 2010 to fast track this case. Over those years and presidencies, the murder of the late former Senator Benigno ‘Ninoy’ Aquino Jr, was not solved nor any person of significant consequence convicted either.
This most recent achievement further highlights the truth about Philippine democracy and its justice system — that these are neither dying nor impotent respectively under the administration of President Rodrigo Duterte. It is an indictment of the perceptions of the Philippines as a failed state being spread by the Opposition over international media and in the initiatives they mount in international “courts” such as the International Criminal Court.