Remarkably sui generis

Ronald Roy — 07 March 2012

Initials are practical for reasons of brevity, like FVR, GMA, and JPE. I Propose the initials MDS for Miriam Defensor-Santiago. However, I do not urge their reference to Malignant Delusions of Superiority, or the vernacular May Dalubhasang Sira.

Can you imagine the scandal MDS will create if, in an International Criminal Court session, she frenetically blurts out “ano, magpapataasan ba tayo ng ihi dito,” and a literal translation is announced in numerous languages?!

Atty. MDS, how dare you barbarize the English language?! Filipinos do not own American English or British English, so you have no right to mangle either!

Don’t you know you have become a laughing stock even among stevedores and fish vendors, as if it were not enough you have made a raucous spectacle of yourself at the ongoing impeachment trial?! Well, if you do and are enjoying it, I assure you that you are a riveting case study for shrinks.

How dare you lecture down the Rev. Fr. Catalino Arevalo, the honorable members of Congress and distinguished trial lawyers from the private sector!? I suggest that you get off your high perch of pedagogy that is alien to the civilized world, and consider a few reminders from grade school grammar.

Any word is a part of speech, and that all in all there are nine parts of speech, as follows: nouns, pronouns, verbs, adverbs, adjectives, conjunctions, articles, prepositions and interjections.

Examples of interjections are: gee, hey, whew, huh, ugh, and yuck. “What?!” is a pronoun functioning as an interjection, but your “Wha!” is an absolute barbarism plucked out of nowhere, since it is not a recognized word in any English lexicography.

And why are you so infatuated with “colloquy”, which is not a legal term? Why use colloquywhile speaking with lawyers, when you can simply say “chat”, “talk” or “conversation”? And by the way, you incorrectly used the work “oxymoron” in reference to a prosecutor whom you insinuated was a moron.

Oxford Dictionary defines oxymoron as a “figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction.” Example: A military intelligence unit is an oxymoron if its supervisor and personnel are not intelligent.

And oh, yes, summons is singular, and its plural form is summonses. Finally, the “entire records” is incorrect. Correct is “all the records.” You don’t say the “entire apples”, do you? Oh, you do? Truly, then, you’ve got to be the most remarkable of sui generis primates in our planet!

But then, #3085, all these years I have learned to expect the unexpected from MDS. I don’t think all her tirade against the prosecution in any way suggests she will vote for the respondent’s exoneration. Rather, she simply shows her impatience and frustration over the prosecutors’ weak methods of building a strong case. In the end, I’m almost certain MDS will vote for conviction.

#2118, there is no known mathematical yardstick with which to measure the whole range of quantum of evidence from the lowest level of substantial evidence where truth is easiest to establish, to the higher level of preponderance of evidence where truth is more difficult to establish, and lastly to the highest level where proof of truth beyond reasonable doubt makes it most difficult to convict.

In any justiceable controversy, even the most seasoned jurists such as those in the Supreme Court find themselves split on matters apropos of the quantum of evidence. It follows then that our non-lawyer impeachment judges should not feel hamstrung by their understandable inadequacies.

#6034, my deepest respect will go for a vote, whether for acquittal or conviction, if it is cast straight from the heart that throbs for country, not for self-interest. Before some senators, therefore, the question that is squarely posed is how their votes will impact on their reelection bids, and vice-versa.

In this connection, Michelle (de Castro), you are right in noting the fact that a so-called Catholic vote is non-existent in our country, and that a solid bloc of Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC) members said to represent over 4 million votes is right there staring us in the face. If you seek reelection in next year’s senatorial race, will you not vote for CJ Corona’s acquittal?

My think-tank remains convinced, as do many people I’ve been in contact with, that the respondent has every reason to hope to see two or three INC-influenced votes being added to the magic eight he already has in his pocket. But then again, we know that surprises are frequent occurrences in life, and that “the game ain’t over ‘til the final buzzer”.

It is not at all surprising that such a minority Christian organization as the INC is more cohesive than our largely predominant Catholic Church. It is human nature for a few to fortify themselves by bonding together in any setting dominated by a large majority.

However, the INC’s recent show of force should not by itself be a cause for alarm if it effectuates the exoneration of Chief Justice Corona. Of greater concern is an anarchic situation that might be triggered if he were not convicted.

In such a scenario, I would not put it past the obdurate President to resort to an extra-legal measure—such as the formation of a revolutionary council chaired by himself—to suspend the Constitution, revamp the Supreme Court, and institute other reforms before returning the country to normalcy—if at all this emergency remedy is possible without neocolonialist America’s approval, express or implied.

Your observation is a good one Bobby (Chiong). The Inquirer’s March 7 headline “Prosecution scores win” was a subtle mind-setting spin that CJ Corona’s conviction was a foregone conclusion. The word “win”, which should have been omitted, was purposely used to intensify the respondent’s trial by publicity on the eve of his turn to present evidence. “Prosecution scores” would have been fair,

For a GMA-bashing streetmarcher, Freida (Henson), your belief—that the impeachment trial should be conducted in a manner consistent with CJ Corona’s constitutional right to due process—is highly commendable.

Unlike your anti-Corona confreres, you abhor his unrelenting trial by publicity. You believe that, however guilty he is in your heart, he is entitled to all the remedies available for his defense.

You believe that it is unjust to hold that public opinion on his guilt is the legitimate pressure that should be made to bear upon his judges. You believe that to hold otherwise would clearly validate mob rule. Truly, you are remarkably sui generis.