Skip to main content

Winnie Monsod's Reaction Regarding the Supreme Court''s Decision on the Chiong Sisters' Case

I guess the rainy days really can make me remember the Chiong Sisters' sudden disappearance, right? Right now, Jeepney TV on YouTube hasn't uploaded the Chiong Sisters episode. I watched Give Up Tomorrow where one blatant opponent of constitutional reform, Mrs. Solitas G. Collas-Monsod, was there. I could think about her colorful descriptions that helped the video. Mrs. Monsod did present a lot of valid points such as the late Judge Martin Ocampo's colorful imagination of how Francisco Juan G. Larranaga aka Paco could just hire a plane, land in Cebu, do the dastardly deed, and fly to Manila like nothing happened. I could agree with Mrs. Monsod's statements but I'm still appalled at one thing--she's very anti-reform!

The video I'm sharing was most likely not included due to time constraints. However, it's a good thing that Michael Collins uploaded some of those scenes. These scenes included the owner of the house where the rape supposedly happened, the first lie which involved an illiterate woman signing an affidavit, and Paco's full speech which included his sympathy for the Chiong family. I could admire Mrs. Monsod's courage when she said, "I could be charged with contempt." and mention she has some speculation. She was right to call it a badly written decision.

What was the decision's basis that Paco was almost executed? It's because Paco didn't testify. However, Paco wasn't even allowed to testify on his behalf. The judge even ignored certain protocols such as allowing the forensic experts to verify if the body was indeed that of Marijoy Jimenea Chiong. I still stand by that it's really her. Later, the same judge treated the identity as irrelevant. The photos that were presented in court were questioned (and a certain Teresita Galanida, the one who questioned the photos, was later regarded as a bad joke according to the documentary), and how Paco was denied his right to testify. 

Mrs. Monsod even points out the first paragraph. I'm afraid a 2019 report from the Philippine Star says that reading comprehension in the Philippines is really that bad. Just check out how Filipinos tend to make comments and miss the point. Were those in the Supreme Court, at that time, acting like the social media idiots you have today? It's like people who don't understand what 100% FDI ownership is. They think that "Our country is being sold to China! It's Noynoy's/Duterte's gift to China." or "It's a loss of Philippine sovereignty." What they missed is that this 100% ownership means equity ownership. In short, FDIs don't need to find a local partner and get their equity limited to merely 40%. Instead, they can own 100% of their business (in terms of equity) while they're still required to pay rent, pay bills, and pay taxes. I felt that's how the Supreme Court, at that time, treated the documentary.

The irony of the situation is that Mrs. Monsod remains adamant against constitutional reform. I agree with what she said about the bad move of the Supreme Court of the Philippines at that time. However, what really makes me laugh is how she's still blatantly and adamantly anti-reform. Has she even failed to see the cause and effect? It's really funny (and irritating at the same time) when people say, "There's nothing wrong with the constitution. It's the people who are in it." The question is what allowed stupid politicians and appointees to rise up? Isn't it because the current constitution could care less even if somebody as stupid as Mr. Bean were president? If the person gets votes by plurality (such as the case of the late Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III and Rodrigo Roa Duterte) or majority (such as the case of Philippine President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr.)--they're automatically the president. Even if the person is really stupid--popularity will put them in power.

I was reminded of the short reign of former Philippine president, Joseph Estrada, as well. It's because Estrada's secretary, Cheryl Salvaleon Jimenea, was an aunt of the two victims. Estrada was already known for being inept. Yet, Estrada won anyway because he got the most number of votes. If people could vote for people only because of popularity--that can provide a better explanation as to why the appointees in the judiciary end up the way they are. This reminds me that Mrs. Monsod is a graduate of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Yet, it seems that she can't see the need to amend the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines because of what happened. 

What's more interesting that Hilario G. Davide Jr. was also part of the Supreme Court at that time. Davide Jr. was also related by marriage to both the Chiong mother and her sister. Davide's spouse is Virginia Jimenea Perez-Davide. Interestingly, the Philippine Star also shares this information regarding the motion for reconsideration:

Supreme Court spokesman Esmael Khan has confirmed that the tribunal en banc presided by Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. denied the convicts’ motions to reverse its Feb. 3, 2004 decision because there was no new evidence to warrant its reversal.

One must ask what really allowed the denial of the motion of reconsideration? Khan himself had said that Davide Jr. denied the motion for reconsideration based on the regional trial that concluded on May 5, 1999. I'd say that it's pretty much cause and effect. Davide Jr. ended up saying, "There's no need to revise the 1987 Constitution. It's the best in the world." Take note that I'm paraphrasing what Davide Jr. just said. I wouldn't be too surprised if Kishore Mahbubani of Singapore would facedesk if he heard it. Both Mahbubani and Davide Jr. were former UN diplomats and may have met each other several times. Meanwhile, the Singaporean justice system is said to be among the best in the world.

Meanwhile, it seems that one of the Monsod children, Trina Monsod, may now be seeing things differently. Hopefully, this can be an illustration that it's not enough to point out what's wrong but to find out the root cause of it. 

Popular posts from this blog

Nirvana Fallacy and the Die-Hard Defenders of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines

IMGUR The philosopher Voltaire (real name  François-Marie Aroue ) was said to have said, "Perfect is the enemy of good." To define the Nirvana fallacy, we can look at Logically Fallacious to help us define it: Description: Comparing a realistic solution with an idealized one , and discounting or even dismissing the realistic solution as a result of comparing to a “perfect world” or impossible standard, ignoring the fact that improvements are often good enough reason . Logical Form: X is what we have. Y is the perfect situation. Therefore, X is not good enough. Example #1: What’s the point of making drinking illegal under the age of 21?  Kids still manage to get alcohol. Explanation: The goal in setting a minimum age for drinking is to deter underage drinking, not abolish it completely.  Suggesting the law is fruitless based on its failure to abolish underage drinking completely, is fallacious. Example #2: What’s the point of living?  We’re all going to die anyway. Ex...

A Parliamentary Philippines with Mandatory Weekly Questioning Will Be Better Than Its Mandatory Yearly Presidential SONAs

Rappler I must admit that ignorance of the difference between the parliamentary system vs. the presidential system is there. Some people still insist on the myth that the first Marcos Administration headed by President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr.'s late father, Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr., was really a parliamentary system. In reality. the Marcos "parliamentary" years during the Martial Law era, were still presidential (read why  here ). A simple research would show that Cesar Virata was called by the late Lee Kuan Yew, as a non-starter and no leader. LKY would know how a real parliamentary system works. Sure, it's one thing that those who consider themselves Dilawan, voice their criticisms. However, the big problem of the Dilawans is their focus on political idolatry rather than solutions. I can talk with the Dilawans all they want that we do need to shift to the parliamentary system and some of them still cry foul, say that it'll be a repetition of the first Marcos Admi...

The Foolishness of Complaining About Stupid Voters and Stupid Candidates, While Insisting the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is "So Perfect"

I was looking into the Facebook page of Butthurt Philippines . Honestly, it's easy to complain but what's the use of complaining if you reject the solutions? The art produced by its administrator shows some problems. However, if the administrator here believes that the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is "perfect as it is" (and he seems to be throwing a "saving face" by saying it was just sarcasm, and I failed to detect it) then it's really something. It's one thing to keep complaining. Complaining can be good. However, what's the use of complaining if you reject the solutions. Even worse, complaining about the quality of candidates for the upcoming 2025 midterm elections , while still saying, "It's not the system it's the people!" Please, that kind of thinking has been refuted even by basic psychology and political science! It's really good to point out the three problems. Distractions? Check. Keeping people hopeless? ...

Don't Expect a Mahathir-Type Leader, Under the 1987 Constitution!

ABS CBN News Happy 100th birthday, Mahathir Mohamad! It's something that not so many people live up to 100, or more. The late Fidel V. Ramos passed away on July 31, 2022, at the age of 94. Ramos's advanced age may be the reason why the Omicron variant (which isn't supposedly fatal) ended his life. I'm posting this image of Ramos and Mahathir for one reason--Ramos wanted charter change back in the 1990s. However, plenty of anti-charter change commercials came in, the late Raul Roco said we only need a change in people, and we have Hilario G. Davide Jr. (who's in his late 80s but still active), and the idea that having a president who will rule for more than six years, is supposedly scary. Please, have they even thought that the late Pol Pot ruled Cambodia for just four years, but carried millions of deaths , that would make the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr.'s 20-year reign  look tame (read here )? I've read posts on Facebook saying the Philippines just needs l...

Why I Believe So Many Filipinos (Especially Boomers) Misunderstand (and Blindly Oppose) Charter Change

Okay, I'm no political analyst or historian. That doesn't mean I should just shut up and not share my opinion. I felt like I needed to publish this piece. This is where I want to examine another issue. I've noticed some people on Facebook are sharing the quotes of Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr. Some would try to do Ad Hominem attacks on me because I'm no constitutionalist (which I admit that I'm not). Just because I'm not a constitutionalist, doesn't mean, that I can't quote from the experts . Do I really need a degree in law at one of those prestigious universities in the Philippines? Sadly, some people are supposedly smarter than me but are the ones spreading nonsense.  Understanding charter change We need to see the definition first to understand why so many Filipinos, especially boomers , are so against it. The Philippine Star   gives this definition of charter change: Charter change, simply, is the process of introducing amendments or revisions to the ...