Roy Tang

Well, let's think about it. Could/ should a law have been passed? Isn't it too… draconian? Dictatorial? Unconstitutional? Wouldn't the fight have ended up in the Supreme Court still, just in a different flavor?

A law? But according to the wikipedia (please correct if it's wrong)… According to Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Regulation G 161-373….proh ibits “personnel who were dishonorably separated/ reverted/ discharged from the service and personnel who were convicted by final judgment of an offense involving moral turpitude” from interment at the Heroes' Cemetery What discharge can you have that is more dishonorable than getting booted out of office and out of the country by an entire nation?!?!?!?!

We are all to blame by action or inaction. It doesn't make the anger over the ninja burial or the protests any less legit, though.

I happen to like goldfish. So my vote is to give her more memory.

blame all

Yes, but can also be considered as another case of out of sight out of mind culture of Filipinos. Lagi naman nila sinabi ever since na gusto nila sa LNMB ilibing. Noynoy amd LP exerted effort to go after Corona but didnt put closure to Marcos issue. In a twisted sort of way it's actually a better reminder of martial law. Hindi na out of sight out of mind. Kung ako masusunod magtatayo ako ng martial law memorial sa tapat or palibot ng libingan ni Marcos, complete with large statue of seated Ninoy looking at Marcos grave like in the Lincoln memorial. Maging tourist attraction pa yan.

Personally, I blame the failure to pass a law within the past 30 years for this. Maybe that makes me dumb or ridiculous in your eyes, so be it. I believe I am telling it like it is. My take comes from the actual experience of helping a friend who worked on this case. I am pro-Robredo, but a friend of mine from the firm is the sole lawyer on record for the Marcoses on this case. Ironically, she is also pro-Robredo. Up front, we set our 2 basic ground rules: (1) There would be no claims that Marcos was a hero. It will only be about the law; an examination of the legality of the President's order. And (2) that when she argues this before the SC, that she ask only for what is legal, and she fights any notion raised by the petitioners that this is a battle on morals. Non-secular morality is for another cathedral, not the Supreme Court. I learned early on that you survive this lawyer life by separating personal politics from professional practice. Lawyers, we're pros; we are expected to play offense and defense, for any team, at home or away. You can live with yourself if you only make it about the law. While she was working on the case, and in discussing the legal aspects with her over coffee (of counsel discussion, like a "consult" among doctors, but with lawyers), as well as proofing, practicing, and editing her opening speech and answers to interpellation questions, it became obvious to us that the law was on the side of burial. And that the law was on the side of presidential prerogative. And no amount of public sentiment that falls short of governmental policy will change that, no matter how much crying goes on in court. I think you will agree with me that a biased court who disregards the rights granted by law is worse than a despotic president who does not believe in due process. Because then, when the president wants to put a bullet in your head, who do you run to without an impartial final arbiter? They say that when the law is against you, you pound on the facts. However, we are a civil law country and laws here are codified, and the judge's hands are tied to that law. So I say, when the law is against you, you change the damned law. And you do it before there is a chance that law is invoked against you in a court of law. Any lawyer worth his salt will see that gaping hole in the legal system. I honestly regret that we didn't find a way to cover that up for 30 years. We felt that every President after Cory would be angry at the Marcoses. A Duterte presidency and an almost Bongbong Marcos vice-presidency made me realize that not everyone is angry. And that is their right not to be, for the right to believe is absolute. But the right to act on a belief? That is limited by law. A law, which, sadly, we failed to create when we had the chance. This is what I'm thinking. I concede that I am ridiculous.

Unfortunately Marcos was never convicted of an offense involving moral turpitude because we didn't get that chance: he died only 3 years after he was ousted, while in exile in the US, and criminal charges can't be filed or even continued against a dead man.

It was still a dishonorable discharge. Unless the wording here is wrong, it describes 2 types of personnel who are disqualified from burial, not 2 qualifications for a single personnel

dishonorably discharged from military service yata dapat? (although he was commander in chief (pala) nung president siya, so i wouldn't know if that counts)

Yes from military service. Some will say he is the commander in chief, so military sya. But, the constitution states that "civilian authority, is, at all times, supreme over the military." Thus, that makes FM a civilian at the time of his removal.

Sorry nag double post ba? Di ko madelete.

I only see one

Ok I see two. Anyway, pang asar lang sa mga Marcos di ba kung tayuan mo ng martial law memorial. Mapikon talo hehehehe

you can only live with yourself if you make it only about the law. i grew up with you, Weng Santos . and we've disagreed on a ton of things. but you've always been a straight arrow. and fought fairly. and sometimes avoided the fight altogether. that makes you a goddamn brilliant lawyer. but your argument is also why i believe robots will replace perfect lawyers in the future. and i will have my human cousin back, and maybe, for once, beat him in an argument.

From a legal perspective kasi ang analysis mo e :)

ganda ng sagot wes! of ROBOT lawyers and human cousins. naiisip ko na lang ang isang mundo na may robot traffic enforcers and robot sports referees. more efficient and fair, but so… SAD.

Human law is imperfect, Wes . Maybe someday there will be a better legal system, like the robots you mentioned, that is always fair and equal while still shielding us from every hurtful or evil thing. But until then, I'm just a pro trying to earn a living, while trying to stay faithful to my personal beliefs, which is a battle in itself because I swore an oath to be obedient of the law, to delay no man for malice or money, to interpose every possible legal argument regardless of my personal convictions. I'm just trying to contribute to the betterment of this country by taking part in the administration of justice, on the premise that without lawyers to fight for the unpopular clients, there is no justice for anyone, even the righteous. And Roy is correct, that I come from the legal perspective. When I took my oath, part of the responsibilitie s it imposed on me was to recognize that my actions as a citizen is the same as my actions as a lawyer. That's why I try to stay away from Facebook arguments; also why I don't comment my unpopular legalistic view on people's posts. Well, except now, and last night on Nathanael 's post. But because I broke my silence, I accept all the "ridiculous" branding coming way. Because as a lawyer, I will also defend to the death your right to free speech.

oh. you don't need to worry about that. the legalistic view is quite popular this time. :)

Also, I'm still your human cousin. At least I think I am LOL. It just so happens that I am also a lawyer, but a lawyer who will fight for you legally, tooth and nail in any legal proceeding, for free, no matter how big the opponent, because that's what human cousins do =)

Okay, back to my shell now. Sometimes, having peace in your life is more important than being right.

I hate to comment on Roy's post since I have many antagonist here. But since I was tagged I'm happy to see that Weng Santos is holding the front on the legal side. I defended the moral side and got almost branded as blasphemous.

Sorry I didn't know that or I wouldn't have tagged you. Anyway, to my batchmates here, and to Bik Yonzon , pag na-tokhang kayo call me. Not as efficient as a robot, but due process goes both ways and I will uphold your right to it.

Eligible din ba kami for free service? Lol

kung madukot pa namin cellphone namin weng…

Nakafree consultation na ako jan kay Weng Santos . Pwede ka rin jan Roy. Gagawa ka ba ng cybercrime? 😜

Wes Platon yun lang. In that case, hihingi na lang ako ng kung anumang hustisya ang mabibigay ng sistema.

Wes Platon wag ka kasi manlalaban.

Roy Tang , 09175299073 pag natokhang ka G. I'm still optimistic about the law. I believe that in its plain words there is justice. And your right to due process, that is in the plain words of no less than the Constitution.

I'll add you to my phone and take you up on that :D

Any system we come up with will have its flaws. To err is human after all and we are living in the kingdom of man, not in the perfect kingdom of God. Ganun talaga sa separation of church and state, it becomes a legal issue. Let's not forget why such separation is in our Constitution. My personal take on it, dont get mad get even kasi nandyan na yan eh. What can we do legally para bwisitin ang mga Marcos ü

… wait…. as commander in chief he still didn't count as military?

No. The constitution explicitly states that civilian authority is, at all times, supreme over the military. Hence, the president, as the head of civilian power, is installed as commander in chief. Kahit si Ramos na heneral, he is considered a civilian president, who is also, by constitutional fiat, the commander in chief. That is a people power provision in the constitution designed to prevent military rule and to ensure that sovereign power always resides is regular citizens.

ah…. gets…

I still say it counts as a dishonorable discharge! Nakalagay "dishonorable discharge from service" NOT "dishonorable discharge from MILITARY service". As president, it would count as "dishonorable discharge from PUBLIC service"

Maybe so. But the AFP regulations only apply to military personnel, not all public servants.

Nakow, para kang nag-setup ng pro-bono office for tokhang nyan Weng . Ubra rin ba kami?