AS a law dean, this priest from San Beda should stop making comments such as calling senators childish.
First of all, as a law dean he should refrain from making comments unless he speaks for the whole San Beda law school. As a priest, he should reserve his comments to himself unless he wants to go into politics. As a regular reactor to news publications, he should do so but not under the cloak as a priest or as a dean. Then I will welcome his comments.
Please don’t mock your school name or your students. And calling the senators childish reminds me of my teachers in grade school. Yes, we deserved then to be called childish but calling the senators at this time childish for doing their jobs is a behavior that this priest dean has not overcome yet, his being at one time a grade school teacher. If you want to be a regular critic for or against political issues, unless you want to compromise your position as dean, then stop addressing yourself as priest dean.
Meanwhile, the reaction of the senators to the Supreme Court decision is normal since the Senate is a co-equal body under our Constitution. The SC decision drew a lot of reactions from the public as well as private sector. What I have learned from my political science professors is that the SC ’s role is merely to interpret the law and to keep in mind that the rationale behind such law is to protect the Constitution and to protect the interest of all and not one person who in this case is the appellant. The SC decision unless reversed will send signals from hereon that it’s all right to report a crime and then cover it up by invoking executive privilege.
Under our present laws, if you deliberately engage in a cover-up of a crime then you are equally liable for it even though you did not commit it. I rest my case and I hope this priest dean would do the same.
– Franklin Ysaac, Sen. Gil Puyat Avenue, Makati City, Philippines (via e-mail)
Loading ...
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:01 am
Mang Godo, very well said…
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:17 am
To Nestea
Remember, RP is a free country where anyone can say what he want? Yeah, as long as it is pro-administration, and pro-Arroyo and not a critic. Otherwise it becomes a very dangerous matter. You throw around “idiots”, so try to call GMA or FG an idiot in the public and look how free you can express your opinion, in jail or facing a multimillion libel case, no matter you think you have good reasons to think so about them.
In a free and democratic society, nobody should be exempted from answering questions about visibly wrongdoings, to say it politely, not even a president. How it is now, GMA could even kill somebody, then claim presidential executive privilege for not to answer any investigative questions and then could not even being impeached since there is no proof of guilt without an investigation. A very democratic system…
To Dinky
If Cruz mentioned that he would not give GMA a communion since she is a public sinner, then it is well within his rights. He did not order anyone outside his region to do the same. And it is his right to hink so, as priest as well as a citizen, since there are countless accusations against GMA and FG, countless anomalies etc., and all is only denied but any real investigation immediately blocked. Can anyone imagine that all checkings and questioning would be blocked if there is nothing wrong to hide? If all is so well legal and above board, then GMA should not block but support investigations and every accused would be cleared by law, not whitewash only. It is really stupid to denounce all the accusations baseless, fabricated, untrue because who would do that if the accused easily could prove innocence by just let the matter be investigated? Innocent peop[le have nothing to hide and could easily answer to questions. Those who still would throw baseless and fabricated accusations which easy could be unmasked, would really be idiots, because risking their honor, image and even legal problems.
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:14 am
isaac, what a hyprocite you are! i have not heard you condemn a priest and a few bishops taking a stand on political issues. one bishop even calling to deny the president holy communion.
dean aquino is worthy of praise. he is speaks calmly and intellingently. we need more of you fr. aquino and less of isaac.
April 1st, 2008 at 10:30 pm
I take exception to Isaac. It is true that the Supreme Court’s function is to interpret the law and protect the consitution, but it is ad hominem as it does not follow that when it decided the Neri case, it protected a particular person and it helped cover up a crime. Let us not second-guess the majority decision of the Supreme Court based on speculations and surmises for to do so would be undermine it as one of the three independent but co-equal branches of our system of government.
Furthermore, if Bishop Oscar Cruz can say everything that he wants, why can’t the Dean of San Beda do the same, in whatever identification or title he uses. Isnt this part of freedom of express, where what is good for the goose should likewise be good for the gander?
April 1st, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Well, we dont expect much from law schools anyway. Lots of these kinds are just factories of flunkers in law and right conduct. The supreme court decision was a very clear leaning to the CHED chairman. The chairman is the top honcho on review schools. Many other schools even eversince do not deliver well. They put up their review centers to fill up what were not delivered in their curriculum, the answers. When opportunity strikes to get into the right juicy kitchens of the government they excel cooking up menus. Even priests forget the right conduct. Magellan might have brought with him perhaps the wrong religion.