I am compelled once again to write forced by the prevailing ludicrous circumstances concerning the supra stupid “case” filed by a bunch of fanatical freaks whose name is unconstitutional against the so-called “Terror de Manila” which they dubbed as the so-called “national photobomber” of the land.
I have already written a great deal with regard to this matter, but what is “special” and necessary for this occasion is the issuance of the “official” position paper of the so-called sol-gen of the republic.
I am also forced to hold the bloody pen once again to tell to the whole Filipino people and the rest of the world that on this specific case, the solicitor-general has committed not only mistakes, but blunders of the highest order.
For the benefit of our people, please allow me to dissect some of the “notable” provisions of the “official” position paper as released by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).
On the issue of the Procedural aspect of the “case”, item number one, on the question of the legal standing of the petitioner to sue, the sol-gen states and I quote:
“Section 7 of R. A. 7356 imposes a duty on citizens to preserve and conserve Filipino historical and cultural heritage and resources. This is sufficient to confer legal standing on petitioner to seek adjudication on whether the construction of Torre de Manila impairs the physical integrity of the Rizal Monument in Luneta.”
Comment:
Assuming arguendo that the petitioner whose name is in violation of the constitution (Art. 6, Sec. 31) has the legal standing to sue, do they have the moral right to pursue this matter?
I heavily doubt that the petitioner have the legal standing to sue. Besides the moral aspect of my contention, the sol-gen had in my view impliedly admitted in the negative that:
“In any event, this case involves questions of transcendental public importance which necessitates the relaxation of the rule on standing.”
Hehehehe!
Questions:
What are those questions of transcendental public importance that involves in this case?
Assuming for the sake of the argument, that perhaps there is a slight or a minor so-called transcendental public importance involve in this case; does it mean and does it necessarily follows that it will lead to the relaxation of the rule on standing?
I do not think so!
To the question of whether or not the construction of Torre de Manila impairs the physical integrity of the Rizal Monument in Luneta demands a determination of facts and requires a full-blown trial, hence, hence, why the hell those idiots went straight to the Highest Court of the land wherein it is a well-entrenched rule that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts?
Number 2:
Whether petitioner is the real-party-interest
Again, let us assume that the so-called petitioner have the legal standing to sue and correspondingly are the real-party-interest in this case, my question is: why the sol-gen stated that, “In any event, this Honorable Court may resolve the case on the merits.”
Comment:
I wonder, how come the sol-gen did not even gave us the definition or meaning of a real-party-interest as defined by law?
According to Section 2 of Rule 3 (Parties to Civil Actions) of the Revised Rules of Court, “A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest.”
Questions:
What benefit shall the petitioner received or have if ever the ruling would be favorable to them?
Corollary to that, I am wondering what is the injury that the petitioner shall endured or have or received if ever the ruling would be adverse to them?
Lastly, I am also wondering why it is that the sol-gen used the word “may” instead of must or shall?
Is he aware that the Supreme Court may dismiss or remand this case to the appropriate court?
Number 3:
The sol-gen stated and I quote that:
“Petitioner’s direct recourse before the Honorable Court is justifiable as an exceptional circumstance that warrants immediate action from this Honorable Court.”
Question:
May we know “sir”, what the hell is that “exceptional circumstance that you are alluding or referring to?
Then, uncharacteristically the sol-gen defended the disrespectful act done by the petitioner in by-passing the lower court by directly going straight to the Supreme Court by invoking its original jurisdiction yet --- to the prejudice of the doctrine of the hierarchy of courts and exhaustion of administrative remedies.
This, the sol-gen have done by listing and naming some exception to the said rule, such as:
The issues involved are of transcendental public importance
When dictated by public welfare and the advancement of public policy
When demanded by the broader interest of justice
Questions:
As I’ve already noted and by way of necessary reiteration: What are those alleged questions of transcendental public importance that involves in this case?
What is public welfare? Who dictates it?
What is the official public policy of the government with regard to this issue? What or which relevant government agency or instrumentality or office has the legal and the moral right to advance said policy?
What does in our laws and jurisprudence means by the broader interest of justice?
Who has the right to invoke it?
Who has the power to interpret and implement it?
On “Substance”
Now, let us dwell on the Substantive part of the “case”, item number one, the sol-gen contends that:
“The Constitutional mandate to conserve, promote, and popularize the nation’s historical and cultural heritage and resources, includes, in the case of the Rizal Monument, the preservation of its sightlines and setting.”
Question:
I wonder, what the hell does “sightlines and setting” means?
Are those words or concepts written in the Constitution?
When the sol-gen stated that: “the only way to “conserve” the Rizal Monument is by removing the impairment to its sightline: the presence of Torre de Manila”, is he referring to those buildings and structures behind the monument?
I would like to ask a categorical question to that guy: “sir”, if sightline means the elimination and/or destruction of all those buildings and structures and “photobombs” behind the monument of Rizal, then what the fuck is your “view” with regard to all those buildings and structures and “photobombs” that can be seen from the left side and so as from the right side of the bloody monument?
I have already written a great deal with regard to this matter, but what is “special” and necessary for this occasion is the issuance of the “official” position paper of the so-called sol-gen of the republic.
I am also forced to hold the bloody pen once again to tell to the whole Filipino people and the rest of the world that on this specific case, the solicitor-general has committed not only mistakes, but blunders of the highest order.
For the benefit of our people, please allow me to dissect some of the “notable” provisions of the “official” position paper as released by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).
On the issue of the Procedural aspect of the “case”, item number one, on the question of the legal standing of the petitioner to sue, the sol-gen states and I quote:
“Section 7 of R. A. 7356 imposes a duty on citizens to preserve and conserve Filipino historical and cultural heritage and resources. This is sufficient to confer legal standing on petitioner to seek adjudication on whether the construction of Torre de Manila impairs the physical integrity of the Rizal Monument in Luneta.”
Comment:
Assuming arguendo that the petitioner whose name is in violation of the constitution (Art. 6, Sec. 31) has the legal standing to sue, do they have the moral right to pursue this matter?
I heavily doubt that the petitioner have the legal standing to sue. Besides the moral aspect of my contention, the sol-gen had in my view impliedly admitted in the negative that:
“In any event, this case involves questions of transcendental public importance which necessitates the relaxation of the rule on standing.”
Hehehehe!
Questions:
What are those questions of transcendental public importance that involves in this case?
Assuming for the sake of the argument, that perhaps there is a slight or a minor so-called transcendental public importance involve in this case; does it mean and does it necessarily follows that it will lead to the relaxation of the rule on standing?
I do not think so!
To the question of whether or not the construction of Torre de Manila impairs the physical integrity of the Rizal Monument in Luneta demands a determination of facts and requires a full-blown trial, hence, hence, why the hell those idiots went straight to the Highest Court of the land wherein it is a well-entrenched rule that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts?
Number 2:
Whether petitioner is the real-party-interest
Again, let us assume that the so-called petitioner have the legal standing to sue and correspondingly are the real-party-interest in this case, my question is: why the sol-gen stated that, “In any event, this Honorable Court may resolve the case on the merits.”
Comment:
I wonder, how come the sol-gen did not even gave us the definition or meaning of a real-party-interest as defined by law?
According to Section 2 of Rule 3 (Parties to Civil Actions) of the Revised Rules of Court, “A real party in interest is the party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the real party in interest.”
Questions:
What benefit shall the petitioner received or have if ever the ruling would be favorable to them?
Corollary to that, I am wondering what is the injury that the petitioner shall endured or have or received if ever the ruling would be adverse to them?
Lastly, I am also wondering why it is that the sol-gen used the word “may” instead of must or shall?
Is he aware that the Supreme Court may dismiss or remand this case to the appropriate court?
Number 3:
The sol-gen stated and I quote that:
“Petitioner’s direct recourse before the Honorable Court is justifiable as an exceptional circumstance that warrants immediate action from this Honorable Court.”
Question:
May we know “sir”, what the hell is that “exceptional circumstance that you are alluding or referring to?
Then, uncharacteristically the sol-gen defended the disrespectful act done by the petitioner in by-passing the lower court by directly going straight to the Supreme Court by invoking its original jurisdiction yet --- to the prejudice of the doctrine of the hierarchy of courts and exhaustion of administrative remedies.
This, the sol-gen have done by listing and naming some exception to the said rule, such as:
The issues involved are of transcendental public importance
When dictated by public welfare and the advancement of public policy
When demanded by the broader interest of justice
Questions:
As I’ve already noted and by way of necessary reiteration: What are those alleged questions of transcendental public importance that involves in this case?
What is public welfare? Who dictates it?
What is the official public policy of the government with regard to this issue? What or which relevant government agency or instrumentality or office has the legal and the moral right to advance said policy?
What does in our laws and jurisprudence means by the broader interest of justice?
Who has the right to invoke it?
Who has the power to interpret and implement it?
On “Substance”
Now, let us dwell on the Substantive part of the “case”, item number one, the sol-gen contends that:
“The Constitutional mandate to conserve, promote, and popularize the nation’s historical and cultural heritage and resources, includes, in the case of the Rizal Monument, the preservation of its sightlines and setting.”
Question:
I wonder, what the hell does “sightlines and setting” means?
Are those words or concepts written in the Constitution?
When the sol-gen stated that: “the only way to “conserve” the Rizal Monument is by removing the impairment to its sightline: the presence of Torre de Manila”, is he referring to those buildings and structures behind the monument?
I would like to ask a categorical question to that guy: “sir”, if sightline means the elimination and/or destruction of all those buildings and structures and “photobombs” behind the monument of Rizal, then what the fuck is your “view” with regard to all those buildings and structures and “photobombs” that can be seen from the left side and so as from the right side of the bloody monument?