 |
| Because of their "right" to that misconstrued 'freedom of expression'... Here's something to take into consideration: Free will is having the liberty to do things as a matter of moral prerogative. Exercising your right is more of a dispensation congruent with legal entitlement... You may have the free will to do things but it doesn't necessarily mean that you have the right to do so at the expense of sacrificing volition... |
There have been too many farcical jokes at the expense of lawyers. From a play on the word ‘lawyer’ itself hinting on what they seem to be ironically deemed as - “liars” (considering the supposed proving of the truth) to “abogago” among other “fun intended” (pun intended) coLAWquial terms to discredit the apparent seriousness of the ‘constitutional law-basing’ law practitioners as opposed to the more humane ‘law of nature-observers’ among a reasonable society. And there’s also that “I’m a lawyer” PROFESSion (another pun) wherein it’s an assertion as to one’s knowledge of the law thus, “don’t mess with me” sort of “implication” enSUEs (so much pun)... Unfortunately, for all its “admonitory imputation”, it builds an admonishing reputation more than a trustworthy representation (more pun to be a lawyer). Perhaps, it doesn’t help that there’s a strong affiliation between lawyers and politics...
However, it seems to be a case of common sense getting misconstrued, as it’s more like a rare sense; as rare as having many intelligent lawyers but lack the wisdom to understand the essence of “rights” assumedly corresponding with natural law wherein common sense actually makes sense... In layman’s er non-lawyer’s term, it’s like the borderline difference between a politician and a public servant... Common er that rare sense should rather be fairly and wisely applied for “aggravating factors” much like “mitigating circumstances”. Nonetheless, offenders/violators similarly have their legal rights, thus, it doesn’t necessarily justify their wrongdoing to be right, consequently, it doesn’t always justify...
Citing the Deputy City Prosecutor’s dismissal of the environmental case filed by Mayor Magalong against those responsible for the “murder” of 45 fully grown pine trees for instance, it was “surmised” on the lack of sufficient evidence to establish the criminal liability against the accused. What was rather not taken into consideration are the circumstantial facts as to how it could have possibly been carried out “without” their knowledge given their plans for the said lot... Another thing, assuming that under the law they have all the “right” to develop their property, then they could have just secured the necessary permits (no matter how “unpopular” it may be). There may be no “obvious” evidence against the accused but there could be reasonable grounds... Who would even have interest to murder those trees in an enclosed property without “sufficient” reason except those who are set to benefit from it? The intentional means to eventually make it appear that the trees are subject for cutting as “they’re dead” anyway, there is that conscious effort to veer away from possible backlash among the “environment-concerned populace”. There was that intent to deceive for their own gain.
Most likely having learned from the case of SM Baguio, they know about the more popular sentiment of the people (though not necessarily majority) triggered by human nature’s sentimental inclination towards “law of nature” as a better course. Consequently, they rather consider that than be brash about exercising their “legal rights” to save face as they have apparently branded themselves with an image of being “concerned about Baguio’s welfare” knowing their affiliation with entities who “duplicitously” supported the fight against SM (boycott SM) in so many ways; protecting their business as well... Their cause (or their “rights”) tantamount to the prosecutor’s eventual decision validates that “ulterior motive”, no matter how evident, isn’t sufficient enough...
And what may appear sufficient are the hidden agendas. As the attached photo above that was shared on social media, incriminating the one who posted it (one of the defense lawyers I guess) who even had the audacity to brag about “the rule of law” implication to be a stronger case even against “a more popular figure” as they brazenly claim to not give a F?€]<... By insinuating it’s not a case of popularity, it’s an “utter” tolerance of the unpopular decision as well as the “infamous” deed they’re defending their clients from... thus, such uncalled for social media posting (remark) wasn’t simply a case of “legalities” but outwardly personal in nature. On that note, given that they’re known to be staunch supporters of losing mayoralty candidates, it’s also some means to discredit the “popular mayor” representing the citizenry in Baguio’s fight against wrongdoings. (Trees were intentionally poisoned to die... not legally cut considering there’s a “rule of law” for that...) Now you tell us, is that some justifiable “rule of law?”
Ironically still, will this “rule of law” pave the way, as a “rule”, for others to do the same as long as they’d be circumspect “not to leave enough incriminating evidences” as they’d be cleared eventually... What could have been explained well (in lieu of that “ogag” post), given the “rule of law” we’re nevertheless inclined to abide by, was ironically (considering it’s coming from a lawyer) ill-advisedly disseminated. It may be as self-serving as some bragging “rights” to having won against an assumed more influential figure but such irresponsible posting incited doubt on:
- the judiciary as it stirred aspersions leaning on the “palakasan/pera-pera” system considering the involvement of high profile personalities...
- likewise the justice system as there may be laws but if there’s no justice, it’ll only benefit the few - selective justice? Laws will most likely be taken for granted as much as it could be manipulated and bought...
- the “rule of law” itself as the seemingly prejudicial post contradicts the truth and its purpose... - the real intentions of others who seem to show support for the mayor but outwardly has also some masked intentions as the post exposed probable turncoats through their “positive reaction” to it...
- aspirations for an ‘objective and united Baguio’, among people who are starting to regain hope for that lost amicable and impartial nature of Baguio... it divides us further
- a “greener” Baguio, as that “rule of constitutional law” seem to refute and undermine the civility-based “common courtesy for a natural law”, triggering some redness (hotheadedness) among/amidst Baguio’s fresh outlook/cool disposition...
- the possibility of a renewed vigor and optimism over real change as it’ll only boil down to this seemingly vague and partial “rule of law” that ruled and controlled how we’ve been governed since way back considering their affiliation with traditional politicians...
- ...and so much more “probable grounds”...
Punny err funny how they “switched on their ‘ogag’ mode” if only to validate what’s in the midst of their resolve, “abOGAGo?” Some “lawyer joke” you’re amenable to perhaps? “LAWkohan lang?” You’re addressed as “Attorney” for all the “presumed professionalism and expected lawful honor” you uphold... Whereas, most are much like expected to just kneel down in compliance with that “rule of law” as long as it is the law... No need to have us kneel on salt much like adding insult (or is it “in-salt”) to injury with a condescending emphasis on that “rule of law” that’s inconsiderate of our own “probable cause” to believe there’s due justice for the loss (both the trees and the case)... Mga attorney, sugat na tuhod namin, “a torn knee” na din kami..
“Gadaymet!”