Connect with us


1935 Nalundasan case may hinder Marcos’ hero’s burial



According to the rules of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, AFP Regulations G 161-375, a deceased personnel may be disqualified from being buried at the Libingang ng mga Bayani if that person had dishonorable discharge from the army or is convicted by final judgement “for an offense involving moral turpitude.”

These conditions might be the rule that will hinder late dictator Ferdinand Marcos from being buried at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.

“Moral turpitude, it has been said, includes everything which is done contrary to justice, honesty, modesty, or good morals,” this was defined by Justice George A. Malcolm using Bouvier’s Law Dictionary in 1920 when he decided on what seemed to be the very first decision involving this issue.

“The inherent nature of the act is such that it is against good morals and the accepted rule of right conduct,” Malcolm added.

Recently, the Supreme Court has three approaches in determining whether the case involves moral turpitude (Brion concurring in Teves v. Comelec, G.R. No. 1803363, April 28, 2009).

First is to determine whether “the act itself must be inherently immoral; second, “to look at the act committed through its elements as a crime”; and third, “essentially takes the offender and his acts into account in light of the attendant circumstances of the crime: was he motivated by ill will indicating depravity?”

Now the question is, why does this apply to late president Marcos?

On October 22, 1940, 76 years ago, Marcos was convicted for an offense that may be judged as involving moral turpitude. Young Ferdinand Marcos, along with three of his relatives, were found guilty of contempt because of filing eight different complaints against the principal witness for the murder of Julio Nalundasan, even before the trial arrived to a conclusion.


Julio Nalundasan, the rival of Ferdinand’s father, congressman Mariano Marcos, was killed by a sniper’s bullet on the night of September 20, 1935 days after he defeated Mariano in the congressional elections.

Mariano Marcos was charged with murder along with his brother Pio, their brother-in-law Quirino Lizardo, and Ferdinand, who was then an 18-year-old student of the University of the Philippines and was, by various accounts, a sharpshooter.

The case was passed on to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. L-47388, People of the Philippines v. Mariano Marcos et al.) that the Marcoses and Lizardo filed eight separate complaints against the principal witness, Calixto Aguinaldo. The four involved in the murder case accused Aguinaldo of making false testimonies against them in the preliminary investigation on December 7, 1938.

However, it was determined that the eight complaints were filed even before the trial of the three Marcoses had begun and only Lizardo’s trial had commenced. In court, there has to be a final judgement first before any charge of false testimony can be filed against a witness.

According to the Supreme Court, “it is evident that the charges for false testimony filed by the four accused above mentioned could not be decided until the main case for murder was disposed of, since no penalty could be meted out to Calixto Aguinaldo for his alleged false testimony without first knowing the extent of the sentence to be imposed against Lizardo and the Marcoses (Revised Penal Code, art. 180).”

While Marcos and Lizardo were acquitted of their murder charge, the three Marcoses and Lizardo were found guilty of desacato (contempt), according to Justice Jose Laurel. They were ordered to pay a fine of P200, or in case of insolvency or non-payment, the corresponding jail time by the Court of First Instance but Laurel’s decision lowered the fine to P50. The conviction, however, stayed.

Since Ferdinand Marcos was found guilty, the first element in the AFP provision for disqualifications is met.

While it was indicated in the final decision of the High Court on the Nalundasan case that the contempt committed by the Marcoses was indirect and civil in nature, it also stated in the decision that the action done by the Marcoses and Lizardo were “directly or indirectly obstructing the administration of justice,” which could mean they committed “a duly forbidden act.”

Presently, there is no jurisprudence in the Philippines which states that obstruction of justice involves moral turpitude, the action of the Marcoses and Lizardo was meant to harass the main witness through legal action.

This piece by UP Diliman Third World Studies Center researchers Miguel Paolo P. Reyes and Joel F. Ariate Jr. was published by ABS-CBN on November 16.

Source: (



Netizens slam Duterte for saying women ‘could not stand threats and intimidation’



President Rodrigo Duterte drew flak for another controversial comment involving women after he remarked on May 24 that women “could not stand threats and intimidation.”

Duterte said that while he believed in women’s competence, it does not necessarily ring true in all aspects of life.

“I believe in the woman, the competence and capability, pero hindi lahat sa buhay dapat.Hindi ka, hindi, hindi. Dapat lang. It’s not appropriate when you cannot stand threats and intimidation,” he said in his May 24 speech.

He also said that women should be “prim and proper” and talked about his reservation in sending women police and soldiers to the field because unlike men, they did not grow up with a mindset that involves violence.

“Ang mga babae, sundalo pati pulis, ayaw ko ‘yan sa bukid. Unlike men kami, maliit pa lang, suntukan, bakbakan, barilan. And we grew up with a sort of a mindset na sometimes prone to violence. Itong mga babae, prim and proper man ‘yan, isang tingin lang sa nanay niyan, wala na tunaw na ‘yan. Tapos gawin mong pulis, ipaaway mo doon. Naku,” Duterte remarked.

Netizens then took to social media to react to Duterte’s most recent statements, making #BabaeAko trend again on Twitter.

“Mr. President, you just horrifyingly disrespected your own mother who bravely fought against the Marcos dictatorship. She withstood threats and intimidation. Siya ay babae! #BabaeAko,” a Twitter user remarked.

Forensic expert Dr. Raquel Fortun spoke out, too, saying “I am threatened and intimidated a lot. All my life. Don’t me. #BabaeAko.”

So did film and theater actress Chai Fonacier, who said, “Encouraging women — and I mean including those who identify as women — and our friends from the entire spectrum to share your #BabaeAko statements to fight the misogyny that the President and his ilk normalize through their behavior. Make them remember the feminine strength.”

KABATAAN Partylist Rep. Sarah Elago also reacted, saying she refused to be stereotyped.

Former Solicitor General Florin Hilbay urged other Filipinos to protest against Duterte’s misogynistic statements.

Other Twitter users weighed in on the issue.

Duterte’s previous misogynistic remarks


His remarks in his speech on May 24 seemed to have sought to explain another controversial remark he made on May 16 when he said that he did not want a politician, especially a woman, to become the next Ombudsman.

“Mag-nominate sila, pero I choose, but gusto ko ‘yung bilib ang tao sa integrity niya. Of course it could not be a politician, lalo na hindi babae,” he said during a chance interview.

This gave birth to the launching of the #BabaeAko movement on social media on May 21 by women activists and other people who also want to protest Duterte’s misogynistic and sexist statements.

One of  the women who joined the #BabaeAko campaign was former Social Welfare Secretary Judy Taguiwalo who said, “Akala ko taumbayan ang boss ni Duterte. Yun pala sina Marcos, Gloria, Trump at China. Para sa bayang makatarungan at malaya, lalaban ako.”

In February, he was also slammed for telling his audience of former NPA rebels that he told his soldiers to shoot female rebels in the vagina.

Sources: ( )


Continue Reading


New DOT chief to ask Montano why he rushed official New York engagement to watch Broadway show



Newly installed Department of Tourism (DOT) Secretary Bernadette Romulo-Puyat said she plans on talking with Tourism Promotions Board (TPB) COO Cesar Montano to ask for his side on certain accusations that were hurled against him.

Among these accusations came from an Abante report where Montano was said to have rushed a speaking engagement staged by the DOT in New York to watch the Broadway musical show “Hamilton.”

DOT reportedly launched the Philippine Tourism Presentation and Dinner Reception on May 9 to showcase Philippine tourism and fashion at the Roosevelt Hotel in New York. Montano was introduced as the event’s keynote speaker, but he was said to have only spoken for a bit before hurriedly leaving the venue, disappointing the guests, which also included US officials.

Montano was said to have been invited to the event in behalf of the now-resigned Tourism Secretary Wanda Teo. He was also named as one of the two hosts, the other being Teo, of the said event.

In reaction to this report about Montano, Puyat said she would talk to Montano as well as the Tourism attache and other DOT officials who attended the event to verify the accusation in the report mentioned above.


Puyat said that she would investigate into the “Buhay Carinderia” program that the TPB is set to implement. This was after Philippine Star Boo Chanco accused Montano of issuing P80-million worth of three checks to the event proponent and organizer.

“I still don’t have the papers. I will be asking [and] will be arranging a meeting with Mr. Cesar Montano to ask about ‘yung mga nabasa ko sa ‘Buhay Carinderia’ – kung totoo ba na walang bidding ‘yung P80 million na advance,” Puyat said on May 15.

“I’m planning to talk to him and ask his side. I want to ask all those who were there if it actually happened,” Puyat added.

In March 2017, TPB employees filed a complaint against Montano for his alleged corruption and mismanagement of the agency. These include hiring friends and relatives, using TPB’s funds for personal trips, and showing incompetence in fulfilling his obligations as the agency’s COO.

Sources: ( )


Continue Reading


Eldest Tulfo vows to help Wanda clear her name, berates ‘black sheep’ Ben over controversial P60-M DOT ad deal



Inquirer columnist Ramon Tulfo spoke up about the controversy involving his siblings, now resigned Tourism Secretary Wanda Tulfo-Teo and hosts Ben and Erwin Tulfo, over the P60 million tourism ad deal.

The eldest Tulfo wrote in his Inquirer column on May 10 that while President Rodrigo Duterte himself advised the Tulfo family to avoid talking to the media, he took it upon himself as the family’s acting patriarch to tell the story behind the controversy.

First up, Ramon blamed Teo for not hiring smart staff members who could have advised her against inking a deal with PTV 4, where one of the Tulfo brothers, Ben, was a blocktimer.

As a blocktimer, Ben pays for his TV show’s airtime on the state-run channel.

According to Ramon, Wanda was only complying with President Duterte’s injunction for his Cabinet secretaries to support PTV 4, adding that she did not know Ben’s company would get most of the multimillion advertising contract with DOT.

He also hit Ben, whom he called a “black sheep” with a “middle child” syndrome as the fifth child out of 10 siblings, for signing the P60-million advertising contract with PTV 4 despite knowing that there would be a conflict of interest on Wanda’s part.

Ramon also said that Wanda still tried to save Ben, who insisted on his innocence amid the controversy, leading her to resign from her post. He also explained that Wanda seemed to have forgotten the fact that her husband was on the board of director of the Tourism Infrastructure and Enterprise Zone Authority (Tieza), a part of DOT, when Duterte appointed her as tourism chief. He added that it should have been up to her husband to step down from his post upon his wife’s appointment.


In the same column, he also slammed Wanda’s lawyer, Ferdinand Topacio, whom he said did not even consult the Tulfo brothers on returning the P60-million funds from the ad deal. He also described the lawyer as “all talk,” a counsel who’s only focused on gaining publicity for himself.

Unlike what has been previously reported about Wanda resigning out of delicadeza amid the controversy, Ramon let it slip that he commended President Duterte for “sacking Wanda,” prompting some people to ask whether Wanda was fired instead of resigned.

Before he ended his column, he vowed to support “Wanda’s fight to clear her name, but not Ben’s.”
Wanda resigned on May 8 to show delicadeza and to spare everyone, especially Duterte, from the pain caused by the controversy, according to her lawyer.

The issue started with the Commission on Audit’s report showing the DOT paying P60 million worth of commercials to PTV 4, which in turn, tapped Ben’s Bitag Media Unlimited Inc. to air the tourism ads during Ben and Erwin’s show “Kilos Pronto.”

Malacañang said that Teo’s resignation does not mean that she is off the hook since the Ombudsman is still looking into her and other government officials involved in the controversial ad deal.

Sources: ( , )


Continue Reading

What Others Read