Presumption of Innocence, Rule of Law and the Supremacy of the Department of Justice

Justice cannot be achieved by committing another injustice. Every man is entitled to due process, to be presumed innocent unless proven otherwise. We are equal before the eyes of the law regardless of whether you are rich or poor, famous or not. The law applies to all. The constitutional guarantee covers everyone. No exception. The former president is entitled to the same protection of the constitution precisely that’s why we have the bill of rights so we can protect ourselves from the possible abuse by the state in the exercise of its powers. The state is too huge an opponent. It has the Police, the Armed Forces and all the agencies of the government under its disposal to prosecute and or persecute a person. And, as a people what do we have? Just the words inscribed in the 1987 constitution. To make sure that our rights are protected, we have the courts that will ensure that due process is observed.

It’s no less than the 1987 Constitution that says, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved…” And who will decide whether the accused is guilty of the crime as charged? It’s the court(s). A person cannot and should not be convicted by public opinion. The general public forms its opinion based on the news, on what they’ve heard on the radio, watched on television or read on-line. The media not only delivers news but sometimes biased opinions, as well. The public should exercise extra-caution when presented with reports. To allow the public to use these information(s) to decide on the guilt of the accused without the benefit of trial is a red-carpet entrance to a dungeon of injustice.

In criminal cases, the quantum of evidence required is “proof beyond reasonable doubt”. This is enough to show how important right to life, liberty or property is. It requires the state to present damning evidence to buttress or overthrow presumption of innocence. It has the burden of proof. In a democratic country, conviction is rendered by the courts - real Courts. Not Kangaroo Courts. Trial is conducted inside the courts. Not outside. If guilt is to be proven by the opinion of the public, might as well remove the courts and conduct survey instead and whoever gets the 50% and 1 of the votes should be hanged to death. But that’s not how it works. Due to the presumption of innocence and due process requirements and the importance of life, presentation of evidence is required, careful technical evaluation of these evidence have to be observed, and decisions have to be based on the facts of the case, existing jurisprudence and the controlling laws at the time when the alleged crime was committed. We should all remember that we were not there when the alleged offense was committed. That’s why a more detailed presentation and careful assessment of facts, in its totality, have to be done.

I know that probably 80%, or perhaps 99%, of the Filipino people believe that CGMA is probably (others are even so convinced as if they were all there when the alleged crime was committed) guilty of the crime and as such should languish in jail but this does not change the fact that she too is a Filipino entitled to the same protection of our laws. We cannot take a short-cut just so our version of justice is served. The end does not justify the means. While it may be true that our laws require a speedy trial but it doesn’t mean [that] we skip the essentials. It doesn’t follow that we trample upon the rights of the accused. It results to travesty of justice.  I think the best test to find out whether the act is JUST is to ask ourselves this simple question, IF IT WAS I IN HER PLACE ACCUSED OF THE SAME CRIME AND I TOO BELIEVE THAT AM NOT GUILTY OF THE CRIME THEY CLAIMED I HAVE COMMITTED, SHOULD I JUST GO TO JAIL DIRECTLY WITHOUT A FAIR TRIAL BECAUSE THE GENERAL PUBLIC ABHOR MY VERY EXISTENCE?????? If you honestly believe that it’s okay then go ahead. Hang yourself. Be my guest. I commit myself to provide you a happy-meal before you do it.

What I am asking is for all parties to observe the RULE OF LAW, for after all, ours is a government of laws and not of men. The presence of the courts and our obedience to its order on matters that involve the law are requirements sine qua non for our very survival. This separates us from the barbarians. This makes us, among other things, a civilized society. A single defiance, more so if it is attended with malicious intent, signals an era of chaos and the society’s transformation to a state of anarchy. What Secretary De Lima did was not just an ordinary defiance. It was tainted with bad faith, an insult to the Supreme Court and its processes and therefore she should be reminded that she is not above the law. If possible, she should be sent back to San Beda Law School and be taught once more that the Department of Justice is not a co-equal branch of the Supreme Court and neither is it superior than the SUPREME Court. It may be true that majority of the people favor her defiance, but it does not make it right. Her reasoning that she cannot implement the TRO issued by the HIGHEST Court because of its irregularity is actually in the DISSENT of the five Associate Justices but eight says otherwise. So, who should we follow, the 8 or the 5 justices? Do we need a scientific calculator to do that? Her reasoning is disturbing. Looking at her while spewing those words made me ask myself, is she delusional or just patently incompetent? She should not be confirmed by the Senate. 

On a question of law, only one has the final say. It is our courts. No matter how irregular it may seem to one, the fact remains that he has to live with it. This very institution was created for a grand, noble and worthwhile purpose. Along with the other two branches of government, the Courts will serve as our last bastion. When Congress enacts bad laws and the executive abuse its powers in the execution of laws, we have the courts to turn to and ask for protection. While it may be true that the state has the Police, the Armed Forces and other agencies of the government under its disposal, and we, as a people – only the words of the Constitution, we should fear not for the gavel of justice can use these same words to hammer down, pound back and remind the government that SOVEREIGNTY resides in the people and the state exists to serve and protect them.

The Right to Travel, in the eyes of Sec. Leila De Lima, the Secretary of (In)justice?

Last August 24, the Secretary of Justice Leila De Lima issued an order which placed the husband of former president now Pampanga Representative Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in the watchlist in connection with the ongoing investigation by the Senate over the anomalous sale of second-hand helicopters to the Philippine National Police (PNP) in 2009. In effect, the said order seeks to restrain or impair Mr. Arroyo’s right to travel.

Is this proper?

The hell No. The arrogance of the Secretary of Justice has become more and more obvious these past few days. I don’t know what she’s up to. But one thing is for sure – She has become a glutton for media attention. Is it because of the fact that the next Senatorial election is fast approaching? Is she really that desperate that she will stop at nothing just so she could publicly humiliate the Arroyo’s in hopes that she could gain the public’s trust and confidence? What a pity.

Being the Secretary of Justice, we look up to her with so much respect especially because she holds enormous power in ensuring that we will have a better, peaceful and just society. However, the way I see it, things have become worse. Her legal opinion on matters with great constitutional significance has become so short-sighted and patently illogical that one can’t help but wonder how on earth did she become the Chairman [before] of the Commission on HUMAN RIGHTS and now the Secretary of Justice. How could she say that her order of including Mr. Arroyo in the watchlist is proper and does not violate the constitutional right of the gentleman to travel? What happened? She should know better. Do we have to ask for clearances now before we can travel just like during Martial Law years? Last time I checked we are still under a democratic regime where freedom is valued and constitutional rights are respected.

Now on the merits.

Section 6 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution is very explicit in its provision. It says, “The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.”

Our constitution is very clear. Even in the United States where there is no express provision that guarantees or protects one’s right to travel, their Supreme Court has ruled that "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125 In the case of Mr. Arroyo, was he given due process before the Secretary decided to include him in the watch list? I don’t think so. The Secretary has unilaterally, without regard to any constitutional right or whatsoever, hammered down into the abyss Mr. Arroyo’s right to travel which, unlike in the US, is expressly provided for in our constitution. If the US values such a right so dearly despite its absence in their constitution, don’t you think it’s the more reason that we have to fight for it since it’s clearly found in ours?

Note that the right to travel is not really absolute. However, please also note that [any of] the following conditions have to be present first before it can be impaired: it has to be in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law. But is there already a law? There is none. It is for this reason that former Senator Loi Ejercito Estrada introduced Senate Bill No. 174 in 2004, otherwise known as The Right to Travel Act. In her introduction, the good Senator wrote, “that the right to travel may only be impaired pursuant to a law and that means a law passed by congress, not a law promulgated by the judicial or executive branch of government. Absent such law, any act purporting to curtail or restrict the right to travel is unconstitutional.” ‘Til today though, there is no news as to the status of the said bill. Now that she’s no longer in the Senate, it is safe to assume that it’s probably buried already together with the pieces of legislations that she authored.

Today, only the Courts can impair someone’s right to travel and usually the order is issued only when there is a case filed in court against such person. This has been upheld in the case of Manotoc v. Court of Appeals (142 SCRA 149). The Supreme Court likewise, in the case of Marcos vs. Manglapus, sustained the refusal of the government to allow the petitioner’s return, on the ground that it would endanger national security. Note though that the SC was squarely divided on this issue, voting 8-7 against the petitioner. The state likewise has the power to restrict someone’s right to travel if he is inflicted with a disease like leprosy [in order] to protect public health.

Fr. Bernas, former member of the Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution and a well-respected authority in Constitutional law said, that Article III, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution should be interpreted to mean that while the liberty of travel may be impaired even without Court Order, the appropriate executive officers or administrative authorities are not armed with arbitrary discretion to impose limitations. They can impose limits only on the basis of "national security, public safety, or public health" and "as may be provided by law," a limitive phrase which did not appear in the 1973 text (The Constitution, Bernas, Joaquin G.,S.J., Vol. I, First Edition, 1987, p. 263), as cited in the case of Silverio vs. CA G.R. No. 94284 April 8, 1991.

Again, absent any of the compelling grounds of nationally security, public safety or public health, as may be provided by law (not just by any administrative order), one’s right to travel cannot be impaired.

It is clear therefore, considering all the foregoing facts and jurisprudence, the order of the Secretary of Justice is patently unconstitutional. You can’t right a wrong by committing another wrong. It’s that’s simple. You may have the noblest of all [the] intentions but then again, the end does not justify the means. Secretary De Lima should not allow herself to be used by this administration as an instrument of and for political harassment and persecution; otherwise, she could well then be considered as Secretary of Injustice.

P.S

Has she already won a major case since she assumed office or it’s all blah blah blah blah?

The Right to Travel, in the eyes of Sec. Leila De Lima, the Secretary of (In)justice?

Last August 24, the Secretary of Justice Leila De Lima issued an order which placed the husband of former president now Pampanga Representative Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in the watchlist in connection with the ongoing investigation by the Senate over the anomalous sale of second-hand helicopters to the Philippine National Police (PNP) in 2009. In effect, the said order seeks to restrain or impair Mr. Arroyo’s right to travel.

Is this proper?

The hell No. The arrogance of the Secretary of Justice has become more and more obvious these past few days. I don’t know what she’s up to. But one thing is for sure – She has become a glutton for media attention. Is it because of the fact that the next Senatorial election is fast approaching? Is she really that desperate that she will stop at nothing just so she could publicly humiliate the Arroyo’s in hopes that she could gain the public’s trust and confidence? What a pity.

Being the Secretary of Justice, we look up to her with so much respect especially because she holds enormous power in ensuring that we will have a better, peaceful and just society. However, the way I see it, things have become worse. Her legal opinion on matters with great constitutional significance has become so short-sighted and patently illogical that one can’t help but wonder how on earth did she become the Chairman [before] of the Commission on HUMAN RIGHTS and now the Secretary of Justice. How could she say that her order of including Mr. Arroyo in the watchlist is proper and does not violate the constitutional right of the gentleman to travel? What happened? She should know better. Do we have to ask for clearances now before we can travel just like during Martial Law years? Last time I checked we are still under a democratic regime where freedom is valued and constitutional rights are respected.

Now on the merits.

Section 6 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution is very explicit in its provision. It says, “The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.”

Our constitution is very clear. Even in the United States where there is no express provision that guarantees or protects one’s right to travel, their Supreme Court has ruled that "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125 In the case of Mr. Arroyo, was he given due process before the Secretary decided to include him in the watch list? I don’t think so. The Secretary has unilaterally, without regard to any constitutional right or whatsoever, hammered down into the abyss Mr. Arroyo’s right to travel which, unlike in the US, is expressly provided for in our constitution. If the US values such a right so dearly despite its absence in their constitution, don’t you think it’s the more reason that we have to fight for it since it’s clearly found in ours?

Note that the right to travel is not really absolute. However, please also note that [any of] the following conditions have to be present first before it can be impaired: it has to be in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law. But is there already a law? There is none. It is for this reason that former Senator Loi Ejercito Estrada introduced Senate Bill No. 174 in 2004, otherwise known as The Right to Travel Act. In her introduction, the good Senator wrote, “that the right to travel may only be impaired pursuant to a law and that means a law passed by congress, not a law promulgated by the judicial or executive branch of government. Absent such law, any act purporting to curtail or restrict the right to travel is unconstitutional.” ‘Til today though, there is no news as to the status of the said bill. Now that she’s no longer in the Senate, it is safe to assume that it’s probably buried already together with the pieces of legislations that she authored.

Today, only the Courts can impair someone’s right to travel and usually the order is issued only when there is a case filed in court against such person. This has been upheld in the case of Manotoc v. Court of Appeals (142 SCRA 149). The Supreme Court likewise, in the case of Marcos vs. Manglapus, sustained the refusal of the government to allow the petitioner’s return, on the ground that it would endanger national security. Note though that the SC was squarely divided on this issue, voting 8-7 against the petitioner. The state likewise has the power to restrict someone’s right to travel if he is inflicted with a disease like leprosy [in order] to protect public health.

Fr. Bernas, former member of the Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution and a well-respected authority in Constitutional law said, that Article III, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution should be interpreted to mean that while the liberty of travel may be impaired even without Court Order, the appropriate executive officers or administrative authorities are not armed with arbitrary discretion to impose limitations. They can impose limits only on the basis of "national security, public safety, or public health" and "as may be provided by law," a limitive phrase which did not appear in the 1973 text (The Constitution, Bernas, Joaquin G.,S.J., Vol. I, First Edition, 1987, p. 263), as cited in the case of Silverio vs. CA G.R. No. 94284 April 8, 1991.

Again, absent any of the compelling grounds of nationally security, public safety or public health, as may be provided by law (not just by any administrative order), one’s right to travel cannot be impaired.

It is clear therefore, considering all the foregoing facts and jurisprudence, the order of the Secretary of Justice is patently unconstitutional. You can’t right a wrong by committing another wrong. It’s that’s simple. You may have the noblest of all [the] intentions but then again, the end does not justify the means. Secretary De Lima should not allow herself to be used by this administration as an instrument of and for political harassment and persecution; otherwise, she could well then be considered as Secretary of Injustice.

P.S

Has she already won a major case since she assumed office or it’s all blah blah blah blah?

The Right to Travel, in the eyes of Sec. Leila De Lima, the Secretary of (In)justice?

Last August 24, the Secretary of Justice Leila De Lima issued an order which placed the husband of former president now Pampanga Representative Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in the watchlist in connection with the ongoing investigation by the Senate over the anomalous sale of second-hand helicopters to the Philippine National Police (PNP) in 2009. In effect, the said order seeks to restrain or impair Mr. Arroyo’s right to travel.

Is this proper?

The hell No. The arrogance of the Secretary of Justice has become more and more obvious these past few days. I don’t know what she’s up to. But one thing is for sure – She has become a glutton for media attention. Is it because of the fact that the next Senatorial election is fast approaching? Is she really that desperate that she will stop at nothing just so she could publicly humiliate the Arroyo’s in hopes that she could gain the public’s trust and confidence? What a pity.

Being the Secretary of Justice, we look up to her with so much respect especially because she holds enormous power in ensuring that we will have a better, peaceful and just society. However, the way I see it, things have become worse. Her legal opinion on matters with great constitutional significance has become so short-sighted and patently illogical that one can’t help but wonder how on earth did she become the Chairman [before] of the Commission on HUMAN RIGHTS and now the Secretary of Justice. How could she say that her order of including Mr. Arroyo in the watchlist is proper and does not violate the constitutional right of the gentleman to travel? What happened? She should know better. Do we have to ask for clearances now before we can travel just like during Martial Law years? Last time I checked we are still under a democratic regime where freedom is valued and constitutional rights are respected.

Now on the merits.

Section 6 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution is very explicit in its provision. It says, “The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.”

Our constitution is very clear. Even in the United States where there is no express provision that guarantees or protects one’s right to travel, their Supreme Court has ruled that "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125 In the case of Mr. Arroyo, was he given due process before the Secretary decided to include him in the watch list? I don’t think so. The Secretary has unilaterally, without regard to any constitutional right or whatsoever, hammered down into the abyss Mr. Arroyo’s right to travel which, unlike in the US, is expressly provided for in our constitution. If the US values such a right so dearly despite its absence in their constitution, don’t you think it’s the more reason that we have to fight for it since it’s clearly found in ours?

Note that the right to travel is not really absolute. However, please also note that [any of] the following conditions have to be present first before it can be impaired: it has to be in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law. But is there already a law? There is none. It is for this reason that former Senator Loi Ejercito Estrada introduced Senate Bill No. 174 in 2004, otherwise known as The Right to Travel Act. In her introduction, the good Senator wrote, “that the right to travel may only be impaired pursuant to a law and that means a law passed by congress, not a law promulgated by the judicial or executive branch of government. Absent such law, any act purporting to curtail or restrict the right to travel is unconstitutional.” ‘Til today though, there is no news as to the status of the said bill. Now that she’s no longer in the Senate, it is safe to assume that it’s probably buried already together with the pieces of legislations that she authored.

Today, only the Courts can impair someone’s right to travel and usually the order is issued only when there is a case filed in court against such person. This has been upheld in the case of Manotoc v. Court of Appeals (142 SCRA 149). The Supreme Court likewise, in the case of Marcos vs. Manglapus, sustained the refusal of the government to allow the petitioner’s return, on the ground that it would endanger national security. Note though that the SC was squarely divided on this issue, voting 8-7 against the petitioner. The state likewise has the power to restrict someone’s right to travel if he is inflicted with a disease like leprosy [in order] to protect public health.

Fr. Bernas, former member of the Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution and a well-respected authority in Constitutional law said, that Article III, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution should be interpreted to mean that while the liberty of travel may be impaired even without Court Order, the appropriate executive officers or administrative authorities are not armed with arbitrary discretion to impose limitations. They can impose limits only on the basis of "national security, public safety, or public health" and "as may be provided by law," a limitive phrase which did not appear in the 1973 text (The Constitution, Bernas, Joaquin G.,S.J., Vol. I, First Edition, 1987, p. 263), as cited in the case of Silverio vs. CA G.R. No. 94284 April 8, 1991.

Again, absent any of the compelling grounds of nationally security, public safety or public health, as may be provided by law (not just by any administrative order), one’s right to travel cannot be impaired.

It is clear therefore, considering all the foregoing facts and jurisprudence, the order of the Secretary of Justice is patently unconstitutional. You can’t right a wrong by committing another wrong. It’s that’s simple. You may have the noblest of all [the] intentions but then again, the end does not justify the means. Secretary De Lima should not allow herself to be used by this administration as an instrument of and for political harassment and persecution; otherwise, she could well then be considered as Secretary of Injustice.

P.S

Has she already won a major case since she assumed office or it’s all blah blah blah blah?

Why should we NOT get married BUT why not? :)

I was supposed to study for tomorrow instead, I found myself having this “internal conversation” and I decided to write it down...momentarily ignoring my books. :) Here it is.

************************************************************************************

Babe, I love you! My life will never be the same without you. You gave meaning to my life. Without you, I am nothing. I will love you as long as I live and then, “I do”.

Wait. Does it have to be like that all the time? Can you not love without getting married? Can you not share every minute of the day without necessarily tying the knot? Does it really follow that once you’re in love and you, in all honesty, believe that he’s the man of your life [that] you also have to jump into binding yourself TO him for eternity as if he’s the only moving creature left?

I was so drunk last Saturday night and guess what. I realized that there are a lot of people around, in this world, on this planet, everywhere, waiting to be discovered - beautiful inside out. Then, I thought, why should I bind myself and be forever one and in turn, figuratively, be swallowed by the concept of oneness brought about by marriage? I don’t want that. What I want is to keep “me”, “myself” separate and distinct. I don’t want to disappear and be part of something that will make me lose my person, my identity.

Change is the only permanent thing in this world. I love you now but will I still love you tomorrow? You’re the apple of my eye (at least for now) but will you still be 3 years from now? There really is no guaranty, is there? Then why get married? Why take the risk of spending your life with someone whose feelings, emotions are beyond your control? Marriage, at least in this country, is like a prison cell. The only difference is there’s no parole. There’s no getting out. Di lahat ng pinasukan mo, pwede mong labasan (Parang iba ang dating but you get my point, right?) :)

I’ll give you examples:

A Case of Falling out.

I have a friend who, at the time when she got married, was madly and deeply in love with her long time boyfriend – a 12-year love affair. After almost 2 years of living together as husband and wife, she just woke up one day feeling empty. The feeling is gone. Just like that. Since then, they’ve been quarreling over almost anything under the sun - from tissues, towels, misplaced slippers, empty bottle of shampoo, the list goes on and on... You really can’t say that it wasn’t love. Who are we to say that? We were not there when they started it all. We were not there when all the sweet nothings were whispered. We were not there when they made their promises to love each other, forever. We were not there when they had their intimate moments [although, we would love to J]. We were simply not there. But both of them were there. Dude, what happened? I don’t know. Fell out? Perhaps? I really don’t know. But wait even if you fell out of love, there’s no getting out. There’s only one choice for you [really] - suck it up. Forever, live in misery.

Abandonment.

Another girl friend of mine married the love of her life. Then one day, he left her for another woman and the bad thing is she could not even get an annulment coz boy, abandonment is not a ground for annulment. Can you imagine, while your husband is having an affair, gratifying himself, you were left alone – deprived- no means of enjoying sex in a valid, moral and legal way. That’s not fair. Totally.

A Case of battery – emotional and physical. This is the worst kind.

Promise, I will not make you cry. I will do everything I can to make you happy. Just marry me.

You believed him. You can’t be faulted for believing. You married him. Then, BANG! PAK! BOOM!!! blog!! Black-eye. You didn’t know that all these would happen to you. He promised!!!! Yeah, right. And you believed. Who wouldn’t? But dude? Why marry? Can you not be happy without being married? The sad thing is there’s no ground for annulment here. Not even for legal separation. Even for legal separation, the physical abuse has to be REPEATED, so you have to be hit not just once, not twice but several times and the worse thing of it all – he remains your husband, willing to love you and hit you, not once, not twice, but several times. Sigh. :(

Again, why get married? Tell me. :)

P.S

If you have a happy married life, please share your story :) If it's sadder than what I posted above, still share it. :)

GMA Behind Bars?

If the anti-Arroyo group was able to file multiple suits against her during her incumbency, how much more after [her term]?

As expected, the DOJ is flooded with criminal complaints against the former President. I have nothing against it. I find this new direction commendable and worthy of support. After all, who does not like seeing corrupt officials behind bars and [we] actually living under a regime free from corruption? If the current administration is bent on bringing all the corrupt officials [past or present] down, including those who have overdosed themselves with one billion pesos worth of coffee, by all means they should pursue these cases to the very end. We must support this administration in whatever way we can for it is our duty.

However, this should not be interpreted to mean that we will just tolerate any form of abuse just to satisfy public opinion. I hope that the anti-Arroyo group truly has all the evidence to support their allegations against the poor woman. It’s never fair to try anyone by publicity. There is no justice when the guilt or innocence of an accused is to be decided by public opinion. On matters that involve the possible curtailment or deprivation of the enjoyment of ones right to life, liberty or property, the cacophony of the large can never be part of the consideration. As a matter of fact, it should be out of the equation. Justice is never based on emotion but on reason.

Just to make myself clear. If you have all the evidence to directly connect GMA to all these allegations, charges and complaints of impropriety, corruption and many more, by all means bring it on. But, if what you have is nothing but revenge or personal vendetta, please spare the country from so much trouble and instead consider the possibility that despite all the troubles that we’ve been through as a country and as a people, forgiveness, healing and/or reconciliation could be the cheapest and easiest way towards achieving a better, progressive and happier Philippines.

No matter how guilty you think GMA is, she too is a human being entitled to the same rights and privileges that are guaranteed by the Constitution.