Paco's Witnesses Risk EVERYTHING

One of the greatest injustices that happened is how Francisco Juan G. Larrañaga aka Paco was unfairly arrested with six others. There were already several witnesses that could testify that Paco was in Quezon City. I'm amazed that some people would still believe the faulty Supreme Court Decision, this person who only goes by "Nam Nam" even says that the log book and the photos may have been tampered with. Yet, there were more than 30 witnesses who knew that Paco was in Manila when the crime happened. Just watching Give Up Tomorrow made my blood boil at how faulty the justice system could get.

It's amazing how these vital pieces of evidence were ignored soon after Paco's arrest on September 15, 1997:

The pictures of Paco and his friends were dismissed because "they could've been tampered with". Never mind that the judge didn't order the evidence examined.
Plane ticket schedules were also ignored. I love the way that Solita Collas-Monsod described the judge's colorful imagination that Paco could hire an airplane, go to Cebu, do the dastardly deed, and return to Manila without a record whatsoever. The judge was simply ignoring common sense. As one of the lawyers said, the judge was making his own rules.
If I remember correctly, Cebu City Vice Mayor Atty. Raymond N. Garcia even presented negatives in court. How could the judge even dismiss the negatives to prove that Paco was in Manila?

The late Charles Edward P. Celdran discusses the problem of trial by publicity. There was really hardly any evidence until 10 months later with Davidson Rusia. Yet, Davidson's story was so full of inconsistences. An episode in The Calvento Files dealt with the narrative of Davidson as if it were the truth--that's before the defense could present its case that Paco (and the six others) weren't the perpetrators.

The unfair arrest of Paco still takes place today. It's sad how many years of Paco's life were wasted. Sure, paco is now working as a chef in Spain at day but he still has to sleep in jail at night. Some may say that they would rather believe the Supreme Court decision because it's the Supreme Court (as that "Nam Nam" says). However, that "Nam Nam" (and others like her) may need to ask, "Would you respect a supreme court decision that declares you guilty even when you know you're innocent?"

Is It Just a Coincidence that Most Least Corrupt Countries, are Under the PARLIAMENTARY System?

It's easy to post an outrage on Facebook, whether it's on the Butthurt Philippines' Facebook page or Gerry Cacanindin's relatively open Facebook profile (except that only his friends can comment). I try to ignore the guy's page. I was wondering if Gerry has learned his lesson (that the Philippines badly needs a system upgrade) or if he still wants to believe that "It's just a matter if Leni Robredo or Vico Sotto." The latest Facebook post gives me something to think about: People often ask why some countries seem almost immune to corruption. As if their leaders are just magically more honest. But that’s not really it. The truth is actually simpler. These countries didn’t wait for good people. They built systems where doing something dirty is hard, risky, and usually not worth it. In the least corrupt countries, corruption isn’t just illegal but inconvenient. Paper trails are everywhere. Payments are digital. Contracts are public. Anyone can look up wh...

What? The Aquinos Aren't Part of a Political Dynasty?!

I was looking at the Mahal Ko Ang Pilipinas (I Love the Philippines) Facebook page, which made me laugh. This is what they wrote on their post saying that the Aquino Family isn't a political dynasty: THE AQUINO FAMILY IS NOT A POLITICAL DYNASTY 🇵🇭🎗 Pro-Duterte blogger Tio Moreno says that Bam Aquino is part of a political dynasty because the Aquino family is a political dynasty. But to me, this is not true. Why is it not true that the Aquino family is a political dynasty? 🤔 1. When Ninoy Aquino entered politics, none of his children joined him in his endeavors, and even his wife Cory did not join him in politics. 2. When Ninoy was assassinated in 1983, none of his children succeeded him in politics, not even his wife. But when the opposition and his supporters were looking to be the opposition's candidate for the presidency in the snap election called by Ferdie Marcos for 1986, his housewife Cory Cojuangco-Aquino was approached, encouraged or convinced by people t...

Is There No Need for Constitutional Reform, Because the Nation is Now "Healing" During the Midterm Elections 2025?

Two days ago, I voted during the Midterm Elections . Of course, I'm not allowed to post my ballot online. I'll address people who believe the nation is "healing" because Atty. Francis "Kiko" Pangilinan and Paolo Benigno "Bam" A. Aquino have won the senatorial race. Okay, congratulations to Kiko and Bam for winning. The nuisance candidate Apollo C. Quiboloy had lost the elections, thankfully. Some say that success is but a step-by-step process. However, you can be taking the wrong steps. To say that the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines is the "best in the world", has made us ignore Article XVII , and even think that the Filipino First Policy is good. Here's a screenshot I took from Butthurt Philippines' Facebook page. Is it really "healing" for the country as claimed by this person, whose name I blocked out? I usually block out the names of people who are private citizens, to protect their identity. However, I may...

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...

Democracy is NOT Mob Rule: Why Parliamentary Systems Are Actually MORE Democratic than Presidential Systems

It's very easy to confuse democracy with mob rule , right? I remembered an English class proverb by George Orwell, the author of Animal Farm , who also warned, "Beware lest democracies may become tyrannies." It was most likely the theme of Animal Farm when the pigs took over the farm and made it worse than their human owners. Now, how do we define democracy? Most people just say that it's the rule of the majority. However, the Council of Europe website would give us what democracy really means: The word democracy comes from the Greek words " demos", meaning people, and "kratos" meaning power; so democracy can be thought of as "power of the people" : a way of governing which depends on the will of the people. There are so many different models of democratic government around the world that it is sometimes easier to understand the idea of democracy in terms of what it definitely is not. Democracy, then, is not autocracy or dictatorship, ...

A Business Graduate's Reviewing History Blog

Search This Blog