A history blog by a business administration graduate, set to talk about news, current events, historical records, fake news, etc. Just written as a hobby blog since the writer himself is no historian but it doesn't mean he can't be right where some history majors are wrong.
A BORING Rainy Evening Made Me Watch "Jacqueline Comes Home"
Get link
Facebook
X
Pinterest
Email
Other Apps
-
I remember reading a lot and I mean a lot of bad reviews on Jacqueline Comes Home. After many years of deciding not to watch it, I decided to watch it out of sheer boredom. I watched Give Up Tomorrow (read my review here) before this lackluster film,and even read the Supreme Court of the Philippines decision. For people who are curious about this incorrigible law student I ran into a few years ago--I'm not going to name her out loud. I wouldn't be surprised if this law student (I believe she's a lawyer now and I'll refer to her only as Atty. Naunsa Ba Ni (who also got married and I'll call her husband Atty. Imbento Ug Istorya meaning To Invent Stories), to avoid direct confrontation since I feel she's not worth arguing with) would use the film Jacqueline Comes Home as "proof" of the "infallibility" of the Supreme Court decision, even when Given Up Tomorrow presented a lot of proof that something was horribly wrong with the Philippine justice system. Yesterday's heavy rain reminded me of how two sisters went missing during that heavy rain.
I paid for an SD rental from YouTube. The film by Ysabelle Peach Caparas. I wonder what made the movie get bad reviews here and there. For example, IMDB gives it such a low score. If it were an exam, it's good as close to zero. I decided to watch it as history is now a recent hobby of mine. Fortunately, it's only Rated 13--in contrast to the exploitation film by Federico "Toto" Natividad Jr. called Animal (2004). I still believe that Marty Syjuco, the brother-in-law of Mrs. Mimi Larrañaga-Syjuco (her husband is Miguel Syjuco) with Michael Collons, interviewed Natividad along the way (read here). That means there wouldn't be scenes of the actresses Donnalyn Bartolome (Marijoy) and Meg Imperial (Jacqueline) getting completely naked, like in Animal (2004). Animal (2004) was a fictional movie with details close to Davidson's narration, instead of real people. I can only assume that Marty and Michael found Natividad irrelevant for the final cut. Part of me still wanted that aspect mentioned to discourage exploitation films. Did the late Charles Edward "Carlos" P. Celdran mention a thing about Animal (2004) during the premiere? Did Natividad show up during that same premiere too?
A Calvento Files episode dramatized the testimony of the "star witness" Davidson Rusia. The suspect's names were all mentioned--Francisco Juan "Paco" G. Larrañaga (who was in Quezon City at the time of the crime) up to the so-called star witness. It wasn't until someone told me that Paco was innocent. It shocked me to learn Paco was in Manila when the crime happened. I believe that Paco was guilty of some offenses but it turned out that the Chiong Case was a far stretch. Unlike the Calvento Files episode--the main villain is called Sonny. Was it because Sonny was supposed to represent Paco or was he supposed to represent the real suspect? I can't be sure. There's a scene of who could be Margarita Gonzales-Larrañaga talking to Thelma Jimenea-Chiong at the site where Marijoy was supposedly dumped. Once again, let me remind the readers I believe that the body was hers. However, failure to do further autopsy was uncalled for.
Diving into the film's plot and events
Ryan Eigenmann portrays Sonny. Sonny leads this gang of delinquents with more than eight of them. Like the other members of the Chiong 7--we never get a direct mention of their names. I'd like to stress that artistic liberty was added. For example, in a scene where Sonny has one of his women (no name mentioned and must be another fictional character) whom he attempts to choke. Was there any incident that Paco did that? I believe Paco forced someone to go out on a date with him. The NBI's former head Atty Florencio O. Villarin, also testified Paco was a juvenile delinquent. However, Villarin also knew Paco wasn't involved in why the Chiong sisters went missing. Why was Villarin not allowed to testify during the trial? The gang members were merely put as "perpetrators". At the sentencing scene, there were more than seven--a far cry from the reality that we've had seven people who were sentenced by the late Judge Martin Ocampo to reclusion perpetua, twice. That should already be a careless mishandling. Couldn't they even edit for that scene?
The trial scene in the movie differs from reality. If Naunsa Ba Ni should endorse the film--Give Up Tomorrow presents the anxiety and breakout of the Jimenea sisters. Both Cheryl S. Jimenea (who was Joseph Estrada's close friend and secretary) and Mrs. Chiong (who was given an office at that time by Estrada) got hysterical. Cheryl cried in front of the camera saying, "There's no justice given by this court!" Mrs. Chiong stated that the penalty should be none other than death. For a circus of a court, one must ask why did the so-called honest and incorruptible judge not even have the body examined? Why didn't the judge have the pictures examined? Why wasn't Paco even allowed to speak at all? The judge later said he wasn't certain if there was rape or murder, and doubted the body's identity (even after he rejected the forensic experts to see if the body belonged to Marijoy). That's why I have doubts concerning the Supreme Court decision, even though I never went to law school. I need not be a fireman or an electrician to understand their findings. I don't need to be an electrician to know improper wiring can cause a fire. I don't need to be an electrician to know exposed wires can cause much trouble or start a fire. I may require professionals to help me out. However, I don't need to be a professional to understand what professionals warn the public about. I don't need to be a lawyer to understand the basic right of presumed innocence for suspects. However, there might be a deleted scene of Alma Moreno doing Mrs. Chiong's angry scream after the trial concluded in Cebu City. It was probably cut out due to time constraints.
Was there any proof that the Chiongs were extorted? There was one scene where the late Dionisio Chiong (played by Joel Torre, whose business has expanded in Singapore) was lied to. The scene involved people claiming they found Jacqueline. Did that event really happen or was it artistic liberty? I believe it was based on a fact. Until now, I still have sympathy for the Chiong family. However, several actions by Mrs. Chiong caused her loss public support. Using one's connections to the Philippine president was uncalled for. If the incident in the movie was real--perhaps it was because the Chiongs were still connected to Estrada. I already speculated (but never confirmed) that Estrada was the godfather of one of the sisters. I assume that Estrada was a godfather of Jacqueline--something I can't prove. If so, there's the possibility that these people who lied about finding Jacqueline wanted money from Estrada. Did the incident happen when Estrada was already tried for his alleged corruption charges?
It tries to tell the crowd that Debbie Jane Jimenea Chiong-Sia is not Jacqueline. Sure, Jacqueline and Debbie look alike. There's an entire school to prove that Debbie was in elementary when the crime happened. It probably highlighted the possible estrangement between Debbie and her mother, if it ever happened. Debbie and the others may have gone to Canada during the ongoing trial. I believe that Estrada arranged for their departure. Immigration may have records of the three Chiong siblings leaving for Canada and returning to the Philippines from the same place. Speaking of immigration, it's hard to believe the judge just dismissed the flight records, even after that judge asked for evidence! Debbie was probably the daughter talking to Mrs. Chiong over that long-distance telephone, not one of her two older sisters! Was a scene of Debbie talking to Mrs. Chiong on the long-distance phone filmed? Some people can testify that Debbie isn't Jacqueline. Debbie would be in her late 30s. Jacqueline would be 50 years old if she were still alive. The narrative Debbie is Jacqueline under a new name can be disproven with scholastic records. Jacqueline graduated from the University of San Jose-Recoletos (USJ-R). Debbie graduated from the University of San Carlos (USC).
Another interesting narrative is the gossip. It's said that Jacqueline was thrown into the ocean. If this was true, why weren't these people summoned to court? They could've proven Paco's innocence though they could've been coerced into lying. Since it was very dark when the sisters were abducted--why did one of the witnesses later say she saw Paco when she initially couldn't identify anybody? The name of that witness in Ayala Center Cebu is Sheila Singson (read here). Davidson's story would fall apart if the witnesses were summoned to court. Give Up Tomorrow revealed in affidavits that Davidson was tortured into making a false testimony. As Dogan Gurkan, the owner of the boarding house (read here) said, "If I wanted to save my life, I would tell a lie."
I'd like to address the illiterate woman's plight (read here). A dramatization of the scene where people gossiped that they heard a scream. However, the illiterate woman was either (1) forced to be added to the crowd just for the sake of another witness, or (2) the body was already dead when it was thrown down the cliff. This would further show the limitations of the film. If there were more clips of the witnesses--it could've helped. Instead, making a movie instead of a documentary may have limited everything. This continues to leave more questions Not to mention, Give Up Tomorrow shows that the Chiong family initially did not recognize the body. The body found at the ravine was already badly decayed. Meaning, that even if the body was indeed Marijoy's body, which I still believe was her, the face would be too decayed. Nobody came to claim the body either. Sadly, the family cremated the body because further examinations would've proven what really happened.
What's also barely noticed in the movie is one angle of Mr. Chiong. Mr. Chiong lost his job and his daughters. Mr. Chiong may have discovered something that would've incriminated his boss, whose name was beeped out (but I'll call him Mr. Beep) of Give Up Tomorrow. Why was that angle not even put in the movie? Give Up Tomorrow presented the angle that the police never gave consideration to. Mr. Chiong was supposed to testify before the Senate but backed out. It's because Mr. Chiong lost his daughters. The chain of events from Mr. Chiong losing his job to losing his daughters can create a closer link. That means even if Paco and Josman Aznar (whose name was not mentioned in the film) were suitors of Marioy and Jacqueline--being suitors doesn't automatically mean they were the culprits! Why didn't the Supreme Court even reconsider investigating the claims of the alibis? The movie needed its own version of Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr.--the idol of the 1987 Constitution idolaters. It's because Atty. Davide was actually married to Virginia Jimenea Perez-Davide. Give Up Tomorrow specified the connections the Chiongs had during the case. As Michael said, the irony was that Mrs. Chiong clouded the judicial process by using her connections. That raises more questions about why Paco's innocence is ignored--just because Marty was his brother-in-law's brother! Marty already admitted the bias was there. What would Naunsa Ba Ni have to answer about the degrees of Jimenea involved?
Asian Madness Podcast
Was justice even done for the Chiongs?
I still feel sorry for Mrs. Chiong, especially when she thought she had justice. Mrs. Chiong's lines from Give Up Tomorrow where she said, "Imagine I already had justice and they got back Paco." That was Mrs. Chiong's response when Paco was transferred to Spain, where he served his sentence. Mrs. Chiong's laugh may seem suspicious, but one can think she's trying to look strong. Mrs. Chiong probably cried hard before she laughed, thinking about getting revenge on Paco. Mrs. Chiong was still a victim (and I'm convinced that her daughters are both dead) who made terrible decisions (such as asking for help from the presidential office at that time) while trying to get justice for her daughters. Did Mrs. Chiong get justice with the court system? Why was the DNA test denied to the body? Was it bordered on superstitious belief? I can't be certain but it seems it's because the family accepted that the body was of their daughter. Nobody came forward to claim it, so who else could it be? That's why I believe that the fingerprints were Marijoy's. The judge could've benefited from a second DNA test but he refused. Even the Supreme Court of the Philippines refused. That's why I'm still in doubt about the decision made by the Supreme Court of the Philippines at that time, especially with Davide as a relative-by-marriage to the victimized family. Again, no justice if the wrong people are punished.
Furthermore, I found this review which shares the sentiments of the movie. I highlighted in yellow showing where the movie can be problematic from so many angles:
People involved with the film say it's not about the perpetrators, but a large chunk of the story focuses on them, depicting them as cartoonishly evil dudebros who can't keep their dick in their pants. Instead of Paco Larrañaga, we have Sonny (Ryan Eigenmann), a violent drunk who stalks the Chiong sisters mercilessly. He and his gang stalk, rape (and possibly kill) a girl before the Chiongs, something with no basis in real life. It seems like the filmmakers think that the audience doesn't possess the capacity to accept the crimes committed unless the perpetrators are caricatures. Then, almost as an afterthought, there's a scene where Thelma Chiong (Alma Moreno) talks with Sonny's mother, who asserts her son's innocence. In the light of the rape and murder we just saw, this conversation comes off as insincere; and if one takes Sonny as an avatar for Paco (not an unreasonable notion, given that the two look similar), it ends up smearing Paco's family as a group of people who maintain innocence for a person who has clearly done something wrong. And here, the character stand-in for Davidson Rusia is portrayed as an unwilling participant, even though the real life Rusia participated in the rape and murder, if his testimony is to be believed.
Does the film honor the Chiong sisters? Nope. Their rape scene is gratituous; even though the two are fully clothed during the act, it feels pornographic. Caparas revels in the violence, virtually fetishizing it by drawing it out and making it as the film's climactic moment. It feels utterly exploitative, tasteless and insensitive, and it's something I really couldn't stomach. Don't take it from me, ask Thelma Chiong, who walked out of the cinema when she saw this scene. The younger Caparas said later "...I apologized to her for bringing her back to that sad experience." Well, what the hell did she expect, putting that woman through additional trauma? Whatever dignity these two sisters have left is taken away by displaying their rape for all the world to see. But I feel the Caparases don't really care. I think they operate on some sort of self righteous mission to create entertainment in the name of 'seeking justice.' Case in point: the elder Caparas' 1994 movie, The Untold Story: Vizconde Massacre II - May the Lord Be with Us!, a sequel to his first Vizconde Massacre movie. Why a sequel? The victims are already dead, and this is no zombie movie. What worth is it to restage traumatic events again and again other than extra box office receipts? What the hell is up with these people?
Does the film honor the Chiong family? It seems doubtful. The Chiong brothers are almost non-existent after the sisters disappear, and youngest daughter Debbie is depicted as little more than a placeholder for Jaqueline (she even tells her mother to call her Jacqueline in one scene). The parents are shown grieving, but the amateurish filmmaking doesn't help make their case.
Does the film shine a positive light on Cebuanos? Nope. They are either depicted as scammers or bystanders unwilling to help the Chiong family gain closure.
By reading the review above, who can remember VIVA Films? VIVA Films even created that award-winning garbage called The Flor Contemplacion Story (read here). The film was an attempt by Flor's family to prove her innocence. Flor's twin sons Joel and Jun Jun--joined the cast as themselves. The film was done by Joel Lamangan but still from VIVA Films. The reviewer of Jacqueline Comes Home spells it as it is. The part where Debbie allowed her mother to call her Jacqueline would further hurt the real Debbie. It's not enough that some people are claiming that Debbie is Jacqueline. Never mind that there's an entire school to prove that Debbie is Debbie. I can drag all of them to the Philippine Christian Gospel School (PCGS), a Baptist academy in Junquera, and they can say, "Oh I'm sure it's just tampered with!" Oh boy, talk about people who are trying to defend Paco's innocence regarding the case, while acting like the judge who caused Paco and six others to rot in jail, for a crime they never committed. Severak if those guys were delinquents, but let's not falsely accuse people!
The rape scenes caused Mrs. Chiong to walk out. I would've walked out if I were that woman! I may not be impressed with her wrong decisions, such as giving Peach the blessing to make the film. Maybe, Mrs. Chiong regrets it now. Sure, the scenes of Jacqueline and Marijoy are nowhere near as explicit as what happened in Animal (2004). The film had the late John Regala as the villainous Jako Lozano (a caricature of Paco). The Tan sisters are portrayed by Via Veloso and Pyar Mirasol, both bold actresses. Animal (2004) went to extremes, such as a waitress getting gang-raped (and one can see her breasts exposed) by Jako's gang (a sanitized version of that existed in Jacqueline Comes Home). Jako and his gang also cause the same victim to end her own life through harassment. A later scene has the sisters Cherry and Sandra, both stand-ins for Jacqueline and Marijoy, getting stripped naked twice. Cherry and Sandra were raped at the gang's warehouse. What happened next was Jako and his gang stripping them naked against their will in the open, wanting them to dance naked, and the gang had a wild sex party. The women tried to escape but to no avail. Jako later shoots Sandra saying that if he can't have her, no one will. That scene also made me think that if Paco did all that on July 16--would he be able to go back to Manila as if nothing happened? It seems Natividad made the scenes out of disrespect. No wonder the Chiongs were outraged. I believe Mrs. Chiong should've thought twice before giving the blessing and attending the premiere. If only Mrs. Chiong saw the Vizconde Massacre movies and how sleazy they could be!
True the rape scenes are nowhere near as brutal as Animal (2004). They were still fully clothed. However, it's still utterly exploitative, tasteless, and insensitive, and it's something that can't be easily stomached. It may not have scenes of Donnalyn and Meg getting stripped naked near the cliff, forced to dance naked, and then Sonny and the gang taking turns in raping the girls, unlike in Animal (2004). I must wonder if Natividad even saw the film or repented of making his exploitation film. What can't be denied is that, unlike Give Up Tomorrow, which was careful not to glorify the rape (if ever) of the sisters, the film still put it. Why it was given an R-13 rating despite the presence of the rape scenes is beyond me. Even worse, if Peach wanted to raise awareness for women's rights, that wasn't the right thing to do. I believe the rape scenes could've been shortened or even only mentioned in dialogue. Instead, why did we need those tasteless scenes? It was practically Animal's (2004) nude scenes but discounted. However, I'd like to stress that exploitation is exploitation. Even worse, how could Peach, as a woman, think of putting that in her films? Her father, Carlo J. Caparas, must also ask (since he was part of the film's crew) if he wants his daughter to be put into a similar situation.
I'd like to say that the Chiong couple were wrong to give Peach permission, in hopes of clearing out the rumors. The Chiong parents could've presented documents like immigration records and Debbie's birth certificate, to clarify that Debbie isn't Jacqueline. Didn't the Chiongs combat the filming of the exploitative Animal (2004) film which was originally released as Butakal (Male Pig) in 1999? It took a long battle before the film was released in 2004. If ever Marty and Michael talked with Natividad--I could imagine what Natividad could've talked to them about. I could imagine Natividad probably made the exploitation film out of disbelief, more than anything else. In fact, spoiler alert, so readers don't need to watch the film--one of the Tan sisters actually survived the incident. Sandra showed up in court where she testified that she and her late sister Cherry, were gang-raped by Jako and his gang. I wonder if the scene was meant to show if Jacqueline survived the incident. Did Peach take the idea from the film Animal (2004) where one of the sisters survived the rape ordeal? Cherry's testimony was the nail to Jako's and his gang's coffin. If Jacqueline survived the ordeal, she would've already testified about who really did the crime. Maybe, Paco and his gang would've been acquitted. Unfortunately, it might be safe to assume that Jacqueline joined the list of murdered people whose body was never found. Unlike Cherry in Animal (2004)--Jacqueline never resurfaced while her name is written in a columbarium.
It's really something that Mrs. Chiong still believes that Paco and company, did the murders. While watching this, I believe Mrs. Chiong really needs psychiatric help. I don't blame her for believing what was fed to her during the trial. It's easy to make wrong decisions when one's seeking justice--while under a lot of stress! However, I must wonder where the Chiong couple get the idea that Paco courted and threatened Marijoy. That threat was if Marijoy didn't break up with her boyfriend, who at that time was an engineering student, something bad would happen to her. But what if it was somebody else?
Even this statement from the same review above reminds me of a law student, I dubbed as Naunsa Ba Ni, when she simply brushed off Give Up Tomorrow because it was made by a "cousin" of Paco:
I had initially planned to write something humorous about this film, but there's nothing funny about the circumstances behind the film, so I decided against it. There's a scene near the end that many other reviewers have noted where a couple of law students talk to each other about the case. Some of the students admit that they think that some of the accused may be innocent. But this is quickly brushed off, with one student saying that the justice system should be trusted, a statement I find laughably naive. Say, if the Chiong 7 did not commit the crime they were accused of, then there are two miscarriages of justice: first and foremost, Jacqueline and Marijoy's true killer may still run free, and seven people will have spent their lives in prison for nothing.
Even more, the movie may leave more unresolved questions than the documentary, Give Up Tomorrow, where Marty acknowledged his "relation" to Paco, the brother of Paco's brother-in-law Marty. I share some similar sentiments with the writer of the article in 2018. I talked with someone who watched the film and said she had unexpected moments to laugh at. The beginning of the movie has some jarring acting scenes. Instead, it's how the scenes of Sonny stalking Marijoy can be so badly portrayed. The rape scene at the beginning was simply a preview of how bad the movie can get. Even more, the film's unintended laughs are like adding confectionary sugar to sinigang, a Filipino sour fish broth. In short, it's not even supposed to be there but it becomes unexpected. The unexpected laughs from several badly portrayed scenes--such as Sonny going after Marijoy--are badly done. The Calvento Files episode was better portrayed--to the point of the public getting outraged.
This helps me recall my "final argument" with Atty. Naunsa Ba Ni. I told her that a crime can happen and the wrong people can be convicted. The scene of the debate between law students makes me laugh and cringe--at the same time! I once believed that both Hubert and Paco were guilty. Just because Hubert and Paco had bad records (I assume Hubert also had them), doesn't automatically make them guilty! Even if Paco courted Marijoy, courtship doesn't equal guilt! I can court this specific woman, even threaten her but if I wasn't the one who did the rape-slay, it'd be unfair to convict me! I can be sued for harassment and threat but not rape and murder. In legal matters, we only stick to the facts. However, Atty. Naunsa Ba Ni only gave a HaHa emoji reaction. Did she even hear of the execution of the late 14-year-old George Stinney, a crime he never committed? That incident should be brought up in law school as much as in murder cases where the body was never found. Maybe Atty. Naunsa Ba Ni did but she might reply, "Well, I'm sure George Stinney was guilty! There was a jury and there was a victim! I had to be him! I'm sure of it!"
I could only imagine how Atty. Naunsa Ba Ni and her husband Atty. Imbento Ug Istorya both handle their work as lawyers. Both husband and wife probably reject evidence from the defendant's side, without examining them. What if the defendant was innocent and the real perpetrator still remains free? Such behavior would make me assume the real people behind the crime may have also bribed the courts. Atty. Naunsa Ba Ni said there were conflicts between Paco's story and the teacher's. However, Atty. Naunsa Ba Ni seems to believe the "accuracy" of Davidson's story, never mind that the time lapse was very far. Even more, Davidson claimed that drugs and alcohol were used in the incident. Can one have a "perfect recollection" when one's mind is numbed? Previous stories pointed out that Sheila Singson didn't identify anyone during the initial investigation by the NBI. Why did Sheila say she saw Paco in Ayala when she previously said, she never saw anyone? Was it ghosts or money? With the promise of money--I assume that the witnesses were bribed into lying Paco was there. However, Paco wasn't there and more than 35 witnesses knew it.
I wouldn't be surprised if Atty. Naunsa Ba Ni has been using the film as "evidence" to prove the Supreme Court of the Philippines' infallibility. I even asked her if she would buy the verdict of the Supreme Court of the Philippines' such as the dismissal of the well-documented ill-gotten wealth of the Marcos family. I believe that arguing with Atty. Naunsa Ba Ni can lead to me getting further Ad Hominems because she's a lawyer and I'm not. It's really as stupid as me telling someone to shut up who's warning me that my house was on fire--all because the person warning me isn't a fireman! Come on, the house is on fire and while I may need a fireman to put it off, I don't need a fireman to know that the house is on fire, if it's on fire! I don't need to be a lawyer to realize these--evidence must always be examined, suspects have the right to defend themselves, and the wrong people can be arrested. However, Atty. Naunsa Ba Ni might operate with the mindset, "I trust the Philippine justice system will never convict an innocent person!" I assume Atty. Naunsa Ba Ni and her husband Atty. Imbento Ug Istorya believes the Supreme Court of the Philippines is "infallible". Fortunately, the other panel said, "What if they were innocent?" However, the movie already puts Sonny as guilty because of what Sonny did. Also, a scene of Sonny's mother insisting on her son's innocence, even when Sonny is guilty, may be an indirect way of telling people that Paco is guilty. However, it's amazing that the Larrañagas didn't move to sue Natividad for that sleazy film Butakal (2004).
What I didn't ask Atty. Naunsa Ba Ni was, "How would you like it if you were framed for a crime you never committed? How would you like to know you're innocent but tried by publicity by a public that wrongfully that you're guilty?" Chances are Atty. Naunsa Ba Ni might arrogantly say it'll never happen to her, like an arrogant teenager. If ever Atty. Naunsa Ba Ni and her husband Atty. Imbento Ug Istorya have children--they need to put themselves in the shoes of the Chiongs and the Larrañagas. The Larrañagas have knowledge of the kind of troublemaker Paco was. Paco wasn't a good boy and he admits to his bad reputation. However, the family also knew that Paco was in Manila when the crime happened. How would Atty. Naunsa Ba Ni and her husband Atty. Imbento Ug Istorya wants it that they have a child, that child gets falsely accused, and they can't do a thing about it. I pray it doesn't happen to them. However, if it happens to them, maybe Atty. Naunsa Ba Ni and her husband Atty. Imbento Ug Istorya might have a rude awakening. The Chiongs still believe the same old narrative, that the Chiong 7 were indeed the ones who caused them to lose their daughters. I don't blame them for still believing that narrative. The family lost two daughters and it's only natural they want justice. The late Lauro Vizconde thought he had justice but he was dead wrong. Hubert was later released when it turned out he was also innocent. Like the Vizconde Massacre, it seems like the real mastermind of the Chiong Sisters' disappearances will never be known.
It still leaves the questions. Who was the real killer or who masterminded the Chiong sisters going missing? Whoever the drug lord was during that time--why wasn't that angle explored in the investigation process? Why was the crime hit on Paco and seven other men, who all turned out innocent That's what Give Up Tomorrow presented. The review I read states it right in saying that the true murderers may still be running free (and maybe in another country by now) while the seven others were wrongfully sentenced. From that angle, I wonder if Atty. Naunsa Ba Ni and her husband Atty. Imbento Ug Istorya might be serving as one of Mr. Beep's lawyers. If anything, Give Up Tomorrow gave a better sense of justice for the Chiong Sisters. Justice can't be established if the wrong people are punished. Given that Paco was truly indeed in Manila when it happened--the movie should be dismissed as another pathetic exploitation film!
As said, I can't convince everyone that there was a mishandling of justice. Some people will still believe that the Supreme Court of the Philippines makes no mistakes. However, they need to Google "innocent people on death row" to find out that no Supreme Court in any country, is infallible. Until the right persons are found and punished, no justice is ever given to the victims.
It's been some time since Miriam Palma Defensor-Santiago died. True, she can be temperamental but she really has a lot of good reasons to be angry. The impeachment of the late Renato Corona was one example. I could remember seething in anger seeing Atty. Vitaliano N. Aguirre II when he covered his ears. Some say she went overboard. Maybe, she did and I think Aguire II didn't deserve to be detained in contrast to instant admonition. I believe that no caucus was needed and making Aguire II get out of the courtroom was more than enough punishment for minor disrespect . She may have clashed with the late Fidel V. Ramos but I can't get enough of her feisty behavior--something I feel the Philippines needs to become a truly disciplined country. Some may say that MDS is very maldita or a very mean woman. I did pass through a teacher who was like her. Sure, I didn't get good grades, she could go overboard, but I'm still thankful to that economics teacher. I'd say I...
I think one of the most interesting must-reads is Amy Chua-Rubenfeld's book Battle Hymn of a Tiger Mother . I bought that book during my MBA days and gave it a read. I remembered seeing the movie The Joy Luck Club which analyzed four different stories by Amy Tan. The Joy Luck Club explored the plight of Chinese women back then such as how they were often forced to share a husband, how gender inequality was an issue and the mistakes made by Chinese parents. There was the part where the two mothers frequently competed on who was better. "My daughter is a first-class pianist!" "My daughter is a chess prodigy!" Amy Chua, having been born during the Generation X generation, did show her mistakes as a boomer when she wrote Battle Hymn of a Tiger Mother with her Jewish-American husband, Atty. Jed Rubenfeld. Amy Chua was born to Chinese-Filipino parents. I guess the whole Chua surname already speaks volumes. She had already violated the older Chinese rule of never int...
Studying Philippine history, it's often said that Filipinos are a mixture of mostly Malaysians and Indonesians. There's also the Out of Taiwan theory. I'm inclined to believe that the Taiwanese aborigine tribes are basically from Malaysian and Indonesian settlers. Maybe, some of the Malaysians and Indonesians who were in Taiwan decided to settle in the Philippines. Most Filipinos would identify themselves as Malay . The Hokkien word huan na shouldn't be limited to Filipinos alone but also to most Southeast Asians of non-Chinese descent. Maybe, I will call Taiwanese indigenous people huan na as well. The International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA) also spells out these names that would sound very similar to Filipino tribes : The Orang Asli, the Orang Ulu and the Anak Negeri peoples As of 2017, the Indigenous Peoples of Malaysia were estimated to account for around 13.8% of the 31,660,700 million national...
Getty Images It's crazy how reporting a comment with the word "Hitler" can get anyone banned. For example, this is what I found on Quora : They should be allowed. there are quotes of his that are not in praise of hitler but showing how he thought so that people are critical of their current leaders . For example, here’s a quote by him “ How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.” This is a perfect example of why Hitler quotes should be allowed; to show how dictators think and how people should be critical. Yes, he started a giant war and murdered people but censoring what he said will only help the next dictator start more wars and murder more people because people forgot about Hitler . This is why the First Amendment is so important: it’s about communication and freedom so that we all make better decisions in the future. I just told someone that Adolf Hitler seized the means of production and I got a strike. Like what? I wonder what ...
I decided to feel nostalgic by remembering my college days at the University of San Carlos. I remembered taking summer classes immediately after finishing my two-year computer course. I was more than glad that I wasn't accepted for Information Technology since it's not my line. I took basic marketing, statistics, and humanities. It would be around 2004 and it's almost 20 years since that experience. Facebook The mandatory field trip was going to the four historical Catholic churches in Summer Class 2004 (April-May under the old curriculum). If my memory serves me right, the places were Carcar, Bolhoon, Dalaguete, and Argao. I already forgot the route of the long humanities trip back in 2004. I could remember waking up early, we were told to be well-rested, I still had a camera with negatives back then, and it was a time for me to be extra attentive. Yes, I can be very inattentive. At that time, I still didn't have an active lifestyle though I tried to do some exercise ...
Jakarta Globe It's very easy to talk about how we need character change only, not a charter change. I say that having a charter change (better termed constitutional reform ) will lead to character change. The old saying of some boomers goes, "It's common sense that nothing is wrong with the system, just the people running the system." However, when I ask something like, "If that's so then why do other nations have better leaders? What about Mahathir Mohamad and Lee Kuan Yew?" Their answer is, "Well, that's proof that the system isn't defective, it's just the leader." This can also come from people who believe what Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr. said that there's nothing wrong with the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, that it's the "best in the world". The arguments are clearly illogical at best . Some say that the parliamentary system worked in Malaysia and Singapore because those heading it aren't corrupt. T...
Today is Ninoy Aquino Day though the holiday has been moved to Friday. It's to promote the long weekend . I'm ashamed as some people continue to promote the idea that it's a "revisionist thing". Unlike Christmas, Ramadan, New Year, Chinese New Year, etc.--commemorating the death of the late Benigno Simeon "Ninoy" A. Aquino Jr. might be best called a political holiday . I would like to discuss what might remain as a mysterious murder case. There are times when crimes happen and the wrong person is caught. A crime can occur and most people will never know who masterminded it. It may be the case of Ninoy. Some day it was the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. and others say it was the late Eduardo "Danding" Cojuangco. However, there hasn't been any empirical evidence to justify the claims. I wouldn't claim to now who committed the murder. I remember growing up believing that Marcos Sr. was the one who ordered the assassination. Another person s...
When I started doing some research on Chinese food, I got curious about the food of Communist Chinese revolutionaries. I guess it's time to cook with Communism. I tasted Yang Hero at Ayala Central Bloc IT Park. The soup sizes were rather huge so I just went for the rice bowl. It was a full house and I got to taste the food of the revolutionaries. I went for a smoked pork belly rice bowl which I believe was one of Chairman Mao's favorite foods. Mao himself had Sichuan braised pork which is spicier than the Filipino version of humba. Humba is derived from hóngshāoròu which the latter is spicier. I was laughing when I read this interesting piece of information about Mao's love for spicy food as written by Otto Braun : The shrewd peasant organizer had a mean, even “spiteful” streak. “For example, for a long time I could not accustom myself to the strongly spiced food, such as hot fried peppers, which is traditional to southern China, especially in Hunan, Mao’s birthplace.” Th...
People can falsely accuse me of colonial mentality because I've been quoting Kishore Mahbuban over Hilario G. Davide. I'm really sorry to say but I'm seeing various Facebook posts like La Verite (and the Pinocchio really fits it ), the Rule of Law Sentinel, Silent No More PH, and many more anti-reform Facebook pages (and very ironic too) quote Davide Jr. a lot. It's straightforward to say that Davide Jr. has been the favorite source of such people. An old man with a toga (who blocked me) also often quoted Davide Jr. Also, Davide Jr. turned 88 years old last December 20. I wish I had written this earlier but sometimes it's better late than never. In my case, it's better never late. Davide Jr. also mentioned that the 1987 Constitution is "the best in the world". It's easy to spew out words but can he defend his claims? One of his old statements went like this: It’s not change of structures, [whether] it would be federalism or parliamentary. It is...
Pinoy History Facebook Page July 16, 1997, was the day when the presumed deceased Chiong sisters, Marijoy Jimenea Chiong and Jacqueline Jimenea Chiong, went missing. July 18, two days later, a body was found and some believe it was Marijoy. I for one believe that the body found in Tan-awan, Carcar, belonged to Marijoy, since nobody came forward to claim the body. I still think it was a reckless move to have the body cremated sometime after the documentary Give Up Tomorrow came out (read the review here ). I refuse to believe what Enrique Uy, the father of the two suspects, James Andrew and James Anthony, said that the Chiong mother was able to talk to her daughter on the phone. If that was a daughter then did the other children go to Canada? Take note that before the crime happened, the youngest, Debbie Jane Chiong-Sia, was an elementary school student in Philippine Christian Gospel School (PCGS). I, at first, believed what Enrique said. When I told someone about it, she just said, ...
Comments
Post a Comment