tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post6022347825382862143..comments2023-10-20T21:46:49.945+08:00Comments on Philippine Commentary: Puno Has Prejudged Every Terrorism Case and Beheaded the Rule of LawDeany Bocobohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01443168826029321831noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-87999733390460108372007-04-26T22:23:00.000+08:002007-04-26T22:23:00.000+08:00thanks for that HB. By the way it's not a dart boa...thanks for that HB. By the way it's not a dart board. It's a meat grinder, hehe.Deany Bocobohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01443168826029321831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-82923281289409364042007-04-26T18:47:00.000+08:002007-04-26T18:47:00.000+08:00Hullo folks!Well, well, well... I see you've put m...Hullo folks!<BR/><BR/>Well, well, well... I see you've put me on your dart board, eh Dean?<BR/><BR/>Not completely sure what the whole thing is all about. Haven't been reading the Pinas papers so have not a clear idea of what wrong Puno has committed but in response to Dean's "I will be happy to hear from MB or HB any morally consistent counter-argument to this point.", I'm happy to contribute my 2-pence worth.<BR/><BR/>OK, so correct me if I'm wrong Manuel and Dean, DJB's real concern is the following:<BR/><BR/>Philippines passed a law on terrorism, Chief Justice speaks out against this law.<BR/> <BR/>On that focal point - with the total exclusion of everything else, even on our own disagreement about the rights of suspected terrorists to the rule of law, i.e., rule of law applies to everybody, respect for human rights covers everyone regardless of creed, race, color, or whatever, - I do believe that Puno might have violated his impartiality as Chief Justice when he SPOKE OUT PUBLICLY AGAINST a newly devised law. <BR/><BR/>(Question really of method of speaking out or if you like ethics.)<BR/><BR/>I do think that his job is to administer the law to the people through the courts fairly and impartially and secondly to advise the government on what should be included in the law (??? as in the UK system) to ensure it complies with Philippine constitutional law, existing law and international law. <BR/> <BR/>He cannot make public comments against the Laws of the Philippines. He is part of the process that has produced them. If he wishes to do this then he must resign and speak as a private citizen albeit legal luminary.<BR/> <BR/>I may totally agree with his comments (and boy, do I agree with him thanks to Dean's posts), but he is not the right person to say the laws of the Philippines are wrong. It is his job to uphold them.HILLBLOGGERhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05977843513566589811noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-79505388186175803542007-04-26T15:30:00.000+08:002007-04-26T15:30:00.000+08:00But it's literally true MB. Judges are not allowed...But it's literally true MB. Judges are not allowed to make political speeches. It's unethical and simply wrong. Those are the Rules of the Game that Puno has violated. You and I are more privileged than he is, and freer in this respect, believe it or not. Ask any lawyer man. After all, what would happen if that Code of Judicial Conduct did not exist and the Chief Justice had opinions closer to mine than yours. Just think about it consistently. You would be making the arguments I am making. I guess what I mean by consistency in this matter is, we should criticize him not for the opinion he actually expressed, but for the unethical act of expressing an opinion on such a weighty and complex issue that is sure to come before his Court.Deany Bocobohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01443168826029321831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-56771784418220970932007-04-26T15:22:00.000+08:002007-04-26T15:22:00.000+08:00Yeah you're right DJ.If we do not agree with what ...Yeah you're right DJ.<BR/><BR/>If we do not agree with what someone says, if we cannot shut him up with superior arguments then we find another way to do it.<BR/><BR/>Reminds me of Suzette Pido's tactics.manuelbuencaminohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07644763064403005323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-23711153232120204662007-04-26T06:51:00.000+08:002007-04-26T06:51:00.000+08:00MB,Sorry, MB, you didn't bother to understand this...MB,<BR/>Sorry, MB, you didn't bother to understand this post. It's an ethical issue with judges. Puno and most lawyers know what I'm talking about. He has a right to any opinion he wants to have, but what you have completely missed is that they are NOT allowed to express it in this manner. It is ILLEGAL to do so because of the Code of Judicial Conduct. You can go on and on about OUR ideological differences, but it is NON SEQUITUR in this case, because that isn't the point here at all. Now I know why you think Davide is such a great judge. I'm not arguing here with his opinions but with his actions, which you can't defend, so you attack MY opinions, which aren't the question at all. I'll be happy to engage you again on those points, but concentrate on the issue: did Puno violate the Code of Judicial Ethics on IMPARTIALITY? I am not the Chief Justice. He IS, and that is the point about Rule of Law. You and I have every right to express our opinions any way we want to. He is NOT!Deany Bocobohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01443168826029321831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-46166539328718192952007-04-25T23:52:00.000+08:002007-04-25T23:52:00.000+08:00"I will be happy to hear from MB or HB any morally..."I will be happy to hear from MB or HB any morally consistent counter-argument to this point."<BR/><BR/>We've been down this morally consistent road before and you're in no position to demand that of anyone. I have an unanswered comment on your position on torture so....<BR/><BR/>Is your problem with Puno speaking out or that he believes that your crusade, the way you are going about it, is mindless? <BR/><BR/>Or is it his position on human rights which you twisted by adding a phrase. That was a positively immoral tactic by the way, reverend.<BR/><BR/>I can condemn the method of your war and, at the same time, condemn those beheadings or any other similar outrageous crime without being morally inconsistent because to me, human rights cannot be sacrificed for expediency, <BR/><BR/>You blew the moral consistency theme over torture. I said Torture is never justified. You said it is allowed under certain circumstances and gave a ticking clock example, which I debunked and you left unanswered. Remember I showed you how it actually works in favor of the tortured instead of the torturer? That was the best proof of the mindlessness of the conduct of your war. <BR/><BR/>I can also see that both you and the terrorists are on the wrong side of humanity.<BR/><BR/>I'm glad Puno called your war mindless. Your methods are insane. I'm glad he upheld human rights. <BR/><BR/>I'm sure that if and when a specific criminal case is brought before his court he will judge it based on law and not some pie in the sky ideology.<BR/><BR/>The Abu Sayaf and their ilk are assholes and so are your fascists friends, mein fuhrer.<BR/><BR/>And I guess the best counterargument you can present to the SC for your imagined court case on the anti-terror are the words of herman goehring on preventive detention. (I quoted it in your precious post just in case you need to cite an authority when someone sues your fascist friends for illegal or preventive detention as Goehring called it,)manuelbuencaminohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07644763064403005323noreply@blogger.com