MERGED: All About Gloria Arroyo - Past, Present, Future

[Luskan]

---

Yep, FM was never convicted of any crime. In fact the majority of civil cases against his family are still languishing in the courts and have not been resolved. I guess by the logic of these PGMA supporters, FM was deposed illegally, hence every single government from Cory down to PGMA are illegitimate and must be overthrown in favor of Imelda. I hope everyone sees the stupidity of this logic, or is it only stupid when applied to FM but not to PGMA?

hmmmm........ so commonsense is the better logic?? (scratches head)

[raski]

hmmmm........ so commonsense is the better logic?? (scratches head)

I honestly don't know how to answer this question. Are you saying hypocrisy is more important than common sense?

[haiasi]

At the time Erap was ousted, the impeachment complaint against him was not complete, his Presidential Immunity was never removed. Only the Senate may remove a sitting President, but because Erap controlled the Senate, he could not be removed, hence the people resorted to People Power. It was in this manner that Gloria assumed the presidency. And now Gloria's allies and lapdogs (you included) are crying Innocent Until Proven Guilty, when the very same principle needed to be thrown out the window IN ORDER FOR YOUR DEAR PRESIDENT TO BECOME PRESIDENT IN THE FIRST PLACE

ok, gather the masses then, ask the church, media, AFP, SC
to back you up and carry out people power 3 or 4 or so...

[raski]

ok, gather the masses then, ask the church, media, AFP, SC
to back you up and carry out people power 3 or 4 or so...

Ka childish gyud nimo bai, ambot nalang wura kag bata. At least ni-admit na ka indirectly nga hypocrite gyud ka, so dili na lang ko motobag nimo kay settled na na. Instead of debating the issue, you skirt around it and make an assinine suggestion. Unsa may sunod ani bai, manghulga ka'g sumbagay? Nahulog nalang gyug pa-buang buang ang discussion so dili nalang ko motobag nimo ha, maghuwat nalang ko sa uban nga basig naa pay madebate nga tarong...

[Luskan]

I honestly don't know how to answer this question. Are you saying hypocrisy is more important than common sense?

Very amusing Raski, so "innocent until proven guilty" is associated with hypocrisy? All aboard the Failboat




!

[raski]

Very amusing Raski, so "innocent until proven guilty" is associated with hypocrisy? All aboard the Failboat




!

Luskan, I have a serious question for you do you really read people's posts carefully or do you just repeat things over and over again? Dako baya to ang discussion regarding "innocent until proven guilty". Parroting that again and again without reference to or even addressing the issues raised regarding that principle does not make you look smart. Pero basig kapoy lang gyud kaayo ang pagbasa og taas nga discussion, understandable man siguro na kung ang tao walay abilidad sa reading comprehension, kung applicable na sa imoa ingon na lang ha. kanang failboat ba, it should mean "failure in reading comprehension".

Just answer simple questions luskan, if you are able. Hypocrisy and "innocent until proven guilty" reread the posts prior again and again until you can debate the issues please. Thanks lang ha bai, kai gusto kog detail nga discussion dili kaning mga one-liners nga wurag walay seryoso nga arguable point. Pero kung gusto lang kag binuang nga ingon ana, OK ra bro, ingna lang ko kai dili na ko mo usik sa ako og imong oras, ignore nalang tika kai kapoy baya nang ingon ana, nga ang usa ka side gusto mo debate sa tanang points, inya ang pikas nga side ignore lang ang previous discussion wala lang gali gi-address ang ilahang pagka-hypocrite.

[medicaloxygen]

too bad we're the no.1 importer of rice in the world,34 million filipinos are unemployed and political scandals never get old..otherwise, it would have been perfect.:d

not to take anything away from pgma but then again,i'm just saying...

well, dili sad siya ang best, kay meron naman siyang nagawa na mabuti

[giddyboy]

yeah innocent until proven guilty... ferdinand marcos is not corrupt also. he was never convicted.

Marcos was never convicted but "implicated" in the assassination of his primary political opponent, Benigno Aquino, Jr. during his term. The implication caused a chain of events, including a tainted presidential election that served as the catalyst for the People Power Revolution in February 1986 that led to his removal from power and eventual exile in Hawaii. It was later alleged that he and his wife Imelda Marcos had moved billions of dollars of embezzled public funds to the United States, Switzerland, and other countries, as well as into fictitious corporations during his 20 years in power.

That people power exercise is not an application of "innocent until proven guilty" principle coz it was an exercise of a peaceful revolution. A peaceful revolt sometimes referred to as the Yellow Revolution.

ERAP was never convicted of a crime, why did we oust him?

he was convicted of a crime actually, well after he has ousted. In 2007, he was found guilty of plunder during his term as president and sentenced to reclusion perpetua, but was later granted a pardon by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

as to your question why did we oust him, do we really have to ask that question?

to review a short history: Protesters gathered in front of the EDSA Shrine at Epifanio de los Santos Avenue, not too far away from the site of the 1986 People Power Revolution that overthrew Ferdinand Marcos. A political turmoil ensued and the clamor for Estrada's resignation became stronger than ever. In the following days, the number of protesters grew to the hundreds of thousands.

On January 19, 2001, the Armed Forces of the Philippines, seeing the political upheaval throughout the country, decided to withdraw its support from the president and transfer its allegiance to the vice president, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. The following day, the Supreme Court declared that the seat of presidency was vacant. At noon, the Chief Justice swore in the constitutional successor, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, as President of the Philippines.

again, that people power exercise is not an application of "innocent until proven guilty" principle coz it was an exercise of a peaceful revolution. A peaceful revolt.

now, if we take the case of Gloria with all the accusations against her, to unseat her now by people power is almost next to impossible, given the proximity of the next elections. yeah sure, the people can use people power but the fact that that didn't happen at all.

so impeachment is the next resort. and in impeachment process, due process must be followed. and if due process, we have to take the "innocent until proven guilty" principle.

[FKtemp]

@giddyboy... correct 100% on facts and figures, this is where our question lies... we are arguing on the claim on INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. People at the time of Marcos and ERAP did not use this principle... they just use their common sense. It just so happen that mass of people march to the streets. Their could be a lot of reasons why GMA was not ousted through people power... people getting tired on same old face... too busy attending to their daily lives... the list could go on, but that does not mean to their eyes she is innocent, maybe not to the cebuanos... majority distrust her because many perceive her to be corrupt.

I just don't see it right in claiming GMA is not corrupt because she was not convicted, we convicted ERAP and MARCOS before they were convicted in courts, where the INNOCENCE UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY is applied.

[raski]

Very well said FKTemp and I think nakuha gyud nimo ang main point of contention between the pro and the anti. I think it's pretty clear that nobody is against "innocent until proven guilty" concept, it is a principle that undergirds most countries' criminal justice systems. The question is whether or not that standard or test is applicable to personal opinions about presidents, clearly it is not, because each individual is not a court of justice and there are no real consequences to such powerful people of individuals holding beliefs even in the absence of all proof. In the situation at hand, there also are "implications against PGMA" as one of the folks here mentioned, so to speak and that should be enough for people to form their own opinions. We are not trying or convicting PGMA in a court of law by debating these issues in this forum, so why must the standard be that of innocent until proven guilty. In like manner, can anyone really personally confirm 100% that she is not guilty of any crime or prove beyond reasonable doubt that tshe really is the best president, when most of what has been said has been completely subjective? Of course not!

I don't think there's anyone here who wishes this country harm. But I think it's an insult to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" to oversimplify the concept or to make its application so broad it covers even mere opinions of people debating on the internet. Worse is the attempt by some people to only apply the principle towards PGMA but not to Erap, certainly it is a matter of hindsight because the issue has to a degree become moot by his conviction during PGMA's time, but thats circular logic as in reality he was deposed without actually being convicted, hence the dilemma, if Presidents are immune until properly impeached then clearly People Power, even being a revolution, is unlawful even anti-constitutional because it contravenes law. Its a double standard that is not founded on fairness or principled thinking to condemn Erap without regard to "innocent until proven guilty" and to use the exact same principle as a shield to PGMA just because there were "implications that lead to People Power in Eraps time." Is People Power the only barometer as to when it is acceptable to set aside the principle? That creates a real chicken and the egg mystery.. does People Power legitimize ignoring "innocent before proven guilty" or not? And what are these implications and what makes you think these do not exist today for PGMA? I thought all the unanswered scandals would create the very same "implications" spoken of?