- Joined
- May 26, 2022
- Posts
- 9,200
- Solutions
- 18
- Reaction
- 12,481
- Points
- 4,044
“HINDI KO NA PO MAALALA, YOUR HONOR!”
I find it concerning to read the numerous comments and ill-informed opinions regarding Mayor Alice Guo, particularly from individuals who lack sufficient knowledge yet act as armchair experts.
Hear me out!
In MOF Company, Inc. v. Shin Yang Brokerage Corp., the Supreme Court (SC) held that the burden of proof rests with the party who brings the suit. Although this is a civil case, this fundamental principle of evidence law dictates that the responsibility to prove a claim lies with the plaintiff, not with the respondent, as the latter cannot produce proof of a negative.
Furthermore, in the criminal case of Daayata, et al. v. People, the SC emphasized that the prosecution bears the burden of proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution must establish its case with moral certainty, relying on its own merits rather than the relative weakness of the defense. Failure to meet this burden necessitates an acquittal.
This principle should also be applied to the situation involving Mayor Alice Guo. It is clear that the Senate, having raised questions about her nationality and the other allegations, bears the burden of proof. It is not the responsibility of the Mayor to prove her innocence under pressure from the Senate, which is not a prosecuting body to begin with.
This explains why Mayor Guo's responses may seem repetitive and frustrating to some. Her careful and consistent answers are a strategic choice, given the Senate's lack of prosecutorial authority in this matter.
To clarify, I am not defending Mayor Alice Guo, as I do not know her and only recently became aware of her.
My intent in this post is to highlight the technical aspects that must be adhered to in such cases. Recognize that this has become a recurring pattern in Congress that as elections approach, they frequently raise issues against various individuals to gain “free airtime and media coverage.”
Notice that they initially reopened the case against Pastor Quiboloy. However, finding him difficult to challenge as PACQ’s lawyers are more brilliant than them, they shifted their focus to POGO, which has unfortunately implicated Mayor Alice Guo.
We should remember that issues surrounding POGO date back to President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's administration. This is not a new issue. The real question is why the House of Representatives (HOR) and the Senate have not filed a bill to declare POGO îllégâl. This could’ve been a valid point to castigate the accused of her association with POGO operators. But at present, POGO is not îllégâl in the Philippines. It is a regulated industry overseen by PAGCOR. POGOs are licensed by PAGCOR to operate online ******** services.
The ongoing issues surrounding Mayor Guo evoke memories of the tumultuous proceedings during the accusation against Grace Poe regarding her nationality. Despite being a foundling with no knowledge of her biological parents and physical appearance that may not conform to typical Filipino stereotypes, the Supreme Court provided clarity on the matter.
In the landmark case of Poe v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 221697, the Court emphasized the presumption of Filipino nationality for foundlings. The Court held that under principles of human rights, all children, including foundlings, are presumed to possess a nationality. Thus, even in the absence of concrete evidence regarding parentage, foundlings are entitled to the presumption of Filipino citizenship.
Why can't we apply the same presumption in Mayor Guo's case? Is this because she’s a Chinese? Her father is Chinese? Or is this because we are simply SINOPHOBIC?
She has presented documents confirming her Filipino citizenship, including a birth certificate and a Philippine passport. Whether she was late registered or not, these documents affirm her status. That should be enough.
It is now the job of the Senate to prove she’s not a Filipino.
It is truly unusual that the issue of nationality is being raised now, considering that it should have been addressed promptly after the filing of the certificate of candidacy. Mayor Guo has held her position as Mayor of Bamban, Tarlac, for two years without any prior challenges to her citizenship status.
The Senate's apparent intrusion into her personal life raises questions about the relevance of such inquiries to her capacity to serve as Mayor. The focus should be on her qualifications, performance, and adherence to legal and ethical standards in carrying out her duties, rather than on extraneous matters that do not directly impact her role as an elected official.
Their persistent pursuit of this matter, without immediate resolution or clear legal basis, raises concerns of undue harassment and misuse of taxpayer funds. If the Senate is genuinely committed to addressing this issue, it would be more prudent to allow the appropriate legal channels, such as the courts, to adjudicate the matter. This approach would ensure a fair and impartial resolution without unnecessary expenditure of public resources.
“HINDI KO NA PO MAALALA, YOUR HONOR!” — for me is the safest answer which is tantamount to “I invoke my rights to remain silent.” If Mayor Guo ends these issues with a bang, she can definitely use this media mileage to her advantage.
I find it concerning to read the numerous comments and ill-informed opinions regarding Mayor Alice Guo, particularly from individuals who lack sufficient knowledge yet act as armchair experts.
Hear me out!
In MOF Company, Inc. v. Shin Yang Brokerage Corp., the Supreme Court (SC) held that the burden of proof rests with the party who brings the suit. Although this is a civil case, this fundamental principle of evidence law dictates that the responsibility to prove a claim lies with the plaintiff, not with the respondent, as the latter cannot produce proof of a negative.
Furthermore, in the criminal case of Daayata, et al. v. People, the SC emphasized that the prosecution bears the burden of proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution must establish its case with moral certainty, relying on its own merits rather than the relative weakness of the defense. Failure to meet this burden necessitates an acquittal.
This principle should also be applied to the situation involving Mayor Alice Guo. It is clear that the Senate, having raised questions about her nationality and the other allegations, bears the burden of proof. It is not the responsibility of the Mayor to prove her innocence under pressure from the Senate, which is not a prosecuting body to begin with.
This explains why Mayor Guo's responses may seem repetitive and frustrating to some. Her careful and consistent answers are a strategic choice, given the Senate's lack of prosecutorial authority in this matter.
To clarify, I am not defending Mayor Alice Guo, as I do not know her and only recently became aware of her.
My intent in this post is to highlight the technical aspects that must be adhered to in such cases. Recognize that this has become a recurring pattern in Congress that as elections approach, they frequently raise issues against various individuals to gain “free airtime and media coverage.”
Notice that they initially reopened the case against Pastor Quiboloy. However, finding him difficult to challenge as PACQ’s lawyers are more brilliant than them, they shifted their focus to POGO, which has unfortunately implicated Mayor Alice Guo.
We should remember that issues surrounding POGO date back to President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's administration. This is not a new issue. The real question is why the House of Representatives (HOR) and the Senate have not filed a bill to declare POGO îllégâl. This could’ve been a valid point to castigate the accused of her association with POGO operators. But at present, POGO is not îllégâl in the Philippines. It is a regulated industry overseen by PAGCOR. POGOs are licensed by PAGCOR to operate online ******** services.
The ongoing issues surrounding Mayor Guo evoke memories of the tumultuous proceedings during the accusation against Grace Poe regarding her nationality. Despite being a foundling with no knowledge of her biological parents and physical appearance that may not conform to typical Filipino stereotypes, the Supreme Court provided clarity on the matter.
In the landmark case of Poe v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 221697, the Court emphasized the presumption of Filipino nationality for foundlings. The Court held that under principles of human rights, all children, including foundlings, are presumed to possess a nationality. Thus, even in the absence of concrete evidence regarding parentage, foundlings are entitled to the presumption of Filipino citizenship.
Why can't we apply the same presumption in Mayor Guo's case? Is this because she’s a Chinese? Her father is Chinese? Or is this because we are simply SINOPHOBIC?
She has presented documents confirming her Filipino citizenship, including a birth certificate and a Philippine passport. Whether she was late registered or not, these documents affirm her status. That should be enough.
It is now the job of the Senate to prove she’s not a Filipino.
It is truly unusual that the issue of nationality is being raised now, considering that it should have been addressed promptly after the filing of the certificate of candidacy. Mayor Guo has held her position as Mayor of Bamban, Tarlac, for two years without any prior challenges to her citizenship status.
The Senate's apparent intrusion into her personal life raises questions about the relevance of such inquiries to her capacity to serve as Mayor. The focus should be on her qualifications, performance, and adherence to legal and ethical standards in carrying out her duties, rather than on extraneous matters that do not directly impact her role as an elected official.
Their persistent pursuit of this matter, without immediate resolution or clear legal basis, raises concerns of undue harassment and misuse of taxpayer funds. If the Senate is genuinely committed to addressing this issue, it would be more prudent to allow the appropriate legal channels, such as the courts, to adjudicate the matter. This approach would ensure a fair and impartial resolution without unnecessary expenditure of public resources.
“HINDI KO NA PO MAALALA, YOUR HONOR!” — for me is the safest answer which is tantamount to “I invoke my rights to remain silent.” If Mayor Guo ends these issues with a bang, she can definitely use this media mileage to her advantage.
