Monday, November 14, 2011

Reply to a Raissa Robles' blog post

Earlier my attention was called on a post on Raissa Robles' blog. You can view the said post here.

In the interest of fairness and setting some things straight I made a comment on the post. As of the writing of this blog post my comment is still awaiting moderation. As a staunch advocate of press freedom, I believe that Raissa will have my comment approved for posting.

Below is more or less my comment on Raissa's blog post:

The title of this blog post is utterly misleading. Let me point out why.

a. You imputed that GMA stopped someone from leaving the country by issuing her WLO.

But didn't your interview with former Sec. Gonzales says otherwise? It was clear from his answer that it is the Justice secretary who exercise discretion on who to place under WLO. Atty. Yogie Martirizar was placed under WLO during the time of Sec. Gonzales. Isn't it conspicuous that you did not ask him the case of that former election officer?

b. You gave an impression that GMA used Circular No. 18 (as Circular No. 41 is non-existent then) to persecute someone. You gave your readers the impression that GMA or at least her DOJ used the power to place someone under WLO arbitrarily especially against her political enemies (though this inference of yours is discrete and implicit).

But who exactly is Atty. Yogie Martirizar? She was an election officer in Maguindanao that was charged by Sen. Koko Pimentel as among those involved in dagdag-bawas. Now tell me who between Koko Pimentel and Atty. Martirizar do you consider as GMA ally? Certainly not the former and yet the senator was the beneficiary of the latter being placed under WLO.

If GMA made an attempt to bail out Atty. Martirizar from the WLO so that she can escape from the complaint that then-opposition leader Koko Pimentel filed against her that would be the only time that GMA can be accused of favoring against her political enemy.

c. You tried to draw the similarity between of the circumstances of GMA and Atty. Martirizar being placed under WLO.

Aren't you guilty of intellectual dishonesty on this regard? As one of those interested in uncovering the so called election fraud of 2007 you ought to know that there is a pending complaint against Atty. Martirizar filed by Sen. Pimentel before the COMELEC- EO Case No. 07-138.

Atty. Martirizar is expected to appear before the COMELEC to answer the complaint against her. But since COMELEC even as it convenes en banc as a quasi-judicial body still does not wield the power to issue WLO as this only resides on competent courts like the RTC.

It is in this case that Dept. Circular No. 18 was applied to ensure that tnere will be no miscarriage of justice and that the electoral complaint against Atty. Martirizar will proceed.

The fact that not many are not familiar with this case means that GMA did not intervene. Otherwise we'd be hearing lot of noises from the opposition.

Yes, both GMA and Atty. Martirizar are under WLO but that's where the similarity ends. The latter has a pending case before the COMELEC but not a single case was filed against GMA.

d. Another similarity that GMA and Atty. Martirizar you tried to infer is the nature of their disease.

This one I so doubt. I will only believe that Yogie is suffering from the same illness that of GMA if I can take a look at her medical abstract. I'm sure that doctor-patient confidentiality will not be entered as an excuse because they've already presented such medical abstract to the Bureau of Immigration as part of the evidence of her petition to be taken out of the WLO as she has to undergo a medical procedure that can only be done abroad

If Yogie is suffering from the delibitating illness then how come she looks fine when she and Radam appeared before the media when they were presented as new state witnesses on the election fraud issue?


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...