We invite you, particularly those who are passionate about the recent Miriam behavior at the Impeachment Court, to a Cyber Think-in on the Miriam Issues.
A think-in is a vibrant flow of ideas on the identified issues into an Ideas Pot. This is not a cyber debate at this stage. Not yet, anyway. We shall get back to that prospect later in a creative manner.
Let us now focus on the substantive issues raised by Miriam rather than the manner with which she conveyed them.
We invite you to concentrate on one question: Were the arguments presented by Miriam, as highlighted below, Rational, Reasonable and Relevant?
Remember: zoom in on issues, not ad hominems. Dictionary.com defines ad hominem (adjective) as: “ 1.appealing to one's prejudices, emotions, or special interests rather than to one's intellect or reason. 2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.”
Based on the formal subject of Logic, ad hominems are low-intelligence-level arguments. So, please avoid them.
Teddy Boy Locsin has articulated the message Miriam conveyed, but which got lost in the “translation”. We provide a synthesis of the Locsin article (fully reproduced below). If the cyber reader feels there is a divergence between the synthesis and the Locsin article, follow the latter. If the cyber reader differs from how the episode actually transpired, let him/her provide valid documentation to the contrary. The synthesis organized the content of the Locsin article into 3 interrelated group headings.
1. Intensive Processes and the “Thunderbolt”. a) Based on personal knowledge, 188 Congressmen submitted 8 very grievous impeachment articles, threatening the separation of powers and freedom. b) Both sides labored on the requirements, Miriam studied the Articles to prepare for the presentation of evidence, and the defense diligently addressed the allegations. After intensive processes over 2 months, the prosecution unexpectedly withdrew 5-1/2 articles. How does one convict on ½ article?
2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt, certainty of conviction and doltishness. The prosecution boasted that: a) the 2-1/2 impeachable offenses support Senate’s conviction, not consideration, b) Corona’s refusal to submit evidence, which Constitutionally he has the right to withhold, is tantamount to admission of guilt – notwithstanding the lack of evidence, c) the prosecution’s refusal to submit evidence on 5-1/2 articles does not denote suppression of evidence the prosecution did not possess, d) conviction is a certainty even the defense had not yet come forward, and e) a verdict other than guilty is wrong – reflecting doltishness.
3. Trial framework, contempt citation, complaint’s travesty and violation. Miriam a) indignantly queried if the prosecution was conducting a trial under the law or by public opinion -- emphasizing that the Senate has the sole Constitutional right to decide; b) doltishness is ground for contempt; and c) the complaint was a travesty and violation of the lawyer’s oath to uphold the truth.
============================
SUNDAY, 11 MARCH 2012 22:27 TEDDY LOCSIN JR. / FREE FIRE
BUT what did Miriam really say? She said: That the Senate received an impeachment complaint but was hit by a thunderbolt, just two months to the day.
That the Senate got eight articles of impeachment in a complaint of the highest gravity, that challenged the separation of powers but under the compulsion of higher duty to remove an official for offenses, about which all 188 members of the House knew of their personal knowledge, threatened the life of liberty and the country. Eight. No less.
That the prosecution and the defense submitted their compliance with the Senate demand to list documents and the witnessesauthenticating them or testify of their own personal knowledge on each and every article of the complaint.
That, she, Senator Santiago, had studied all eight articles ahead of the evidence presented to judge their pertinence or impertinence whether they were legal evidence or not. That the defense had also prepared and labored to refute the allegations in all eight articles of impeachment, out of deference to the solemn duty of the House.
Then out of the blue, a direction from which she never expected anything, came a thunderbolt out of the sky, announcing the prosecution were withdrawing five and a half articles of impeachment out of the eight; leaving two and a half for a conviction. Not for the Senate’s consideration but for its conviction, presumptuous at that. How do you convict on half of an article? How do you punish for half an offense? For half of the remaining term of the Chief Justice? But which half, the first or the last?
That the prosecution bragged they had proved beyond reasonable doubt two and a half offenses; and that was more than enough. Ang yayabang n’yo, Miriam is said to have said, though the transcript does not say that.
That Corona’s refusal to offer in evidence what the law allows him to keep back is an admission of his guilt, said the prosecution; despite the evidentiary lack. But the prosecution’s own refusal to present any evidence on five and half out of eight was not an admission of suppressing evidence the prosecution actually lacked. And that conviction was a foregone conclusion even if the defense had not yet come back.
Who was the prosecution addressing? Miriam demanded in a rage, a court of law and justice or just the court of public opinion? Is the prosecution conducting a trial by publicity or a trial according to law? Public opinion will not decide this case, only the Senate will do it under the Constitution of a representative government. Anong kagaguhan ba ’yan?
I did not see it in the transcript, but she is said to have said, Ang yayabang n’yo. Mga gago naman.
Indeed only gagos will put a judge on the spot by suggesting that any verdict but guilty is wrong.
She concluded: kagaguhan is ground for contempt. Now that is pure law. The complaint was a sham and a violation of the lawyer’s oath to do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any falsehood in court.
Connie Gomez-Valdes
Executive Director
Global Filipino Nation
Makati Philippines
No comments:
Post a Comment