Cuevas suspicion means fallacies bared Defense lead counsel Serafin Cuevas suspects something happened during the

past few weeks when the impeachment court went on recess. His suspicion was prompted by how the impeachment trial proceedings turned out until the last minute of the defenses attempts last May 7 (Monday) afternoon. It seemed that last Monday, the first day of the resumption of the impeachment against chief justice Renato C. Corona after a long recess, even Cuevas himself, and the defense team were flagellated in public view by the senator judges and by presiding senator judge Juan Ponce Enrile. The prosecution could have undoubtedly been elated over what happened inside the senate court. Maybe, too, the whole nation of Filipinos who believe that the chief justice is guilty and lying. Generally, the lecture by Enrile on the defense panel could be said as having created a devastating negative effect against Corona. For a long time earlier, during the presentation of evidences against the Philippine Supreme Court chief magistrate, the senates behavior appeared to some observers as working destructively against the complainant-prosecutor members of the House of Representatives. Last Monday, such beliefs might have crumbled. The resumption-first-day trial created the general conclusion that after all the Senate Impeachment Court is just fair. If to some it appeared cruel to the prosecution during the latters time to present evidence, it could have also appeared similarly cruel to the defense last May 7. But no. This is not a case of cruelty, but of real justice. The message was so strong: The Senate Impeachment Court could never be swayed by any amount of pedagogy or technicality brought before it by any of the contending parties. It is doing its job so well. It has finally surfaced that every individual senator-judge remains independent in terms of handling matters brought before this special high court. As the senatorjudges have been saying since day one of the trial, they will each have their own independent judgement at the end of the day, based on the merits of the case and on their own appreciation of the evidences presented, including other matters brought before them. Meanwhile, Corona should stop saying unfounded accusations against President Benigno Simeon Aquino III. In the first place, it is not PNoy who filed the impeachment complaint against him. It is utterly wrong for Corona to be thinking and saying that PNoy is behind the case against him. In another first place, he is himself a judge, who must know, if he heartily believes in the Philippine justice system, that as a judge he cannot and must not be saying anything about any case, including especially and particularly the impeachment case against him, outside the court. Speaking or commenting on a case is prohibited and unethical, that act being construed to mean as something that could persuade public opinion or influence court proceedings or judgment or verdict. As a chief justice, he should serve and maintain himself as the ultimate model of all judges on this regard. What if all the

other judges up to the lowest judicial level will also be saying just anything about cases that they suspect , only suspect because not fairly given a day in court, to either directly or indirectly affect them. That is not the kind of sober, honorable, prestigious and respectable justice system and judiciary that every taxpaying Filipino deserves. Corona and all the judges should behave by keeping their comments in court. Coronas attacking and repulsive behavior should rather be made during the court trial session where he should be present as a witness. Not outside. He must not take advantage of his position by also influencing the Judiciary and everyone in the Supreme Court. Making oneself appear while addressing subordinates (subalterns, as some quidnuncs insist) as a good boy or hardworking and unerring public servant, which elicits sympathy for him , is a fallacy, couched as an argumentum ad misericordiam, a petitio principii, or an ignoratio elenchi. It may help to borrow these thoughts from The Illogic Primer in afterall.net: Logos, often called the logical element of persuasion, is that element of persuasion in which logic is used to influence others. Pathos is that element of persuasion in which psychological or emotional factors are used to influence others. It could be called the psychological mode of persuasion, or the pathetic proofs. Ethos is that element of persuasion arising from the influence of the speakers; the factors of speech delivery, personality, and position or reputation in life. Style is that element of persuasion derived from the power of language to influence others. Choice of words that make a speech vivid, sentence structure, and other rhetorical devices constitute style. The full power of a particular speech is derived from the successful combination of these four elements and is modified by the attitudes and conditions of the members of your audience. (Huber & Snider, Influencing Through Argument, p. 177.) Logos, often called the logical element of persuasion, is that element of persuasion in which logic is used to influence others. Pathos is that element of persuasion in which psychological or emotional factors are used to influence others. It could be called the psychological mode of persuasion, or the pathetic proofs. Ethos is that element of persuasion arising from the influence of the speakers; the factors of speech delivery, personality, and position or reputation in life. Style is that element of persuasion derived from the power of language to influence others. Choice of words that make a speech vivid, sentence structure, and other rhetorical devices constitute style. The full power of a particular speech is derived from the successful combination of these four elements and is modified by the attitudes and conditions of the members of your audience. (Huber & Snider, Influencing Through Argument, p. 177) On another note, in connection with foreign bank accounts (euros, dollars, or whatever currencies), a trial court may need to look into Rule 129 of the Rules of Court on What need not be proved. These are the helpful provisions that may be taken contextually: SECTION 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory.A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of evidence, of the existence and territorial extent of states, their political history, forms of government and symbols of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political constitution and history of the Philippines, the official acts of the legislative, executive and judicial departments of the Philippines, the laws of nature, the measure of time, and the geographical divisions.(1a)

SEC. 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary.A court may take judicial notice of matters which are of public knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable demonstration, or ought to be known to judges because of their judicial functions.(1a) SEC. 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary.During the trial, the court, on its own initiative, or on request of a party, may announce its intention to take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon. After the trial, and before judgment or on appeal, the proper court, on its own initiative or on request of a party, may take judicial notice of any matter and allow the parties to be heard thereon if such matter is decisive of a material issue in the case.(n) SEC. 4. Judicial admissions.An admission, verbal or written, made by a party in the course of the proceedings in the same case, does not require proof. The admission may be contradicted only by showing that it was made through palpable mistake or that no such admission was made.(2a) Now, mark this: The flurry of attempts to beholden the Supreme Court, the chief justice on trial, the behavior of witnesses and lawyers in an impeachment trial, and the conduct of impeachment itself, from its initiation or filing, may hasten the call for a reconstruction of the Philippine Constitution. The redrafting of the fundamental law of the Philippines is actually now seen as an exigency, although a call for such can only follow effectively right after the winners in the May 2013 elections shall have already start working officially. The impeachment facets are bringing up loopholes in our laws. After the new re-made charter shall have been ratified and approved by the Filipino people, congress should immediately revise laws to conform to that, and the revision should include those on the statements of assets and liabilities and bank accounts, and powers and duties of the civil service commission, commission on audit, the ombudsman, and sandiganbayan *** The question of the right of nations is not an isolated, self-sufficient question; it is part of the general problem of the proletarian revolution, subordinate to the whole, and must be considered from the point of view of the whole. Joseph Stalin, (who lived from December 18, 1978 to March 5, 1953, was a Soviet politician and head of state who served as the first General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Unions Central Committee from 1922 until his death in 1953. rose to become the leader of the Soviet Union.. the 4th classic of Marxism-Leninism.), a leader of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or Russia. By: Chito Dela Torre The real agenda behind the impeachment of Supreme Court (SC) Chief Justice Renato Corona is to prevent the 6,000-hectare Hacienda Luisita from being distributed to its tenant-farmers by pricing it far beyond the capacity to pay of the farmers, according to news source said. Informed that the plot to impeach Corona was set, Transportation and Communications Secretary Mar Roxas, the source also said, quickly seized the opportunity and threw in his support for Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio. Roxas has a pending electoral protest against Vice President Jejomar Binay before the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) which is composed of the SC justices sitting

en banc. According to the source, Roxas wants Carpio to immediately convene the PET once he is appointed Chief Justice and uphold his protest, declaring him winner over Binay. Carpio, for his part, the source alleged, invited members of Congress to his condominium unit in Makati to solicit their support for Coronas impeachment. According to the source, a member of a bloc in the Lower House and a known leftist party list congressman, also visited Carpio in his condominium unit and pledged the support of his group, which is said to command at least two million supporters nationwide. He is one of the congressmen who signed the impeachment complaint without reading the Articles of Impeachment. The support of this bloc is needed by Carpio, said the source as these leftist groups can easily mobilize their group in the event of a public backlash on the Corona impeachment. It is common knowledge that Carpio has been eyeing the top seat of the High Court. With the numbers of lawmakers and an organized group already assured, the source further alleged that maximum media exposure aimed at building public opinion against Corona, is to be provided by at least one of the countrys leading national dailies. It will be like hitting two birds with one stone, said the source. The Cojuangco-Aquinos retaining ownership of Hacienda Luisita and Secretary Mar Roxas taking over Vice President Binay.And that is aside from President Aquino finally having his vengeance on Arroyo and Corona. The Tribune source said that the plot to oust Corona was hatched at the Bahay Matanda, the ancestral house of the Cojuangcos after elderly members of the Cojuangco clan reportedy berated President Aquino for attacking members of the High Court which they believe was the reason the SC justices revoked the stock distribution option and ordered the distribution of the sugar estate to its tenants. From the time of (President Ramon) Magsasay, the hacienda land was never lost. When Martial Law came, we still did not lose our land. GMA (Gloria Arroyo) and Cory had a fight during GMAs presidency, we Cojuangcos still did not lose our land. Now that that you (Noynoy) are president, we lose the hacienda!, the Tribune source quoted an elderly Cojuangco as he berated Aquino in the vernacular. You are the reason for our loss of the hacienda, because even the Supreme Court you had to fight with!, the elderly Cojuangco was further quoted as telling the President. Even before Aquino assumed the presidency, he had already openly expressed his displeasure over Corona, even refusing to be administered into office by the Chief Justice, whom he describes as one of Arroyos midnight appointee. Aquinos verbal attacks against Corona and the Supreme Court became more pronounced after the High Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on the watch list order issued by Justice Secretary Leila de Lima against Mrs. Arroyo, barring her from leaving the country to seek medical treatment.

According to the source, the Cojuangcos had arrived at a plan to oust Corona and have him replaced by Justice Carpio. With the Corona impeachment still fresh on the minds of the remaining justices, the threat of being their impeached will again be used against them to force them to support the dissenting opinion of Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno which states that the land price of Hacienda Luisita should be pegged at the market value in 2008, which could amount to P2.5 million per hectare based on the P500 million sale of 200 hectares of the disputed sugar estate which was converted into an industrial estate. At P2.5 million per hectare, no one among the 6,296 farmer-beneficiaries of Luisita would be able to avail of the land, thus the vast sugar estate would remain a property of the Cojuangco-Aquino clan. Corona and the rest of the justices want the land price of Hacienda Luisita pegged at the 1989 level which is about P40,000 to P70,000 per hectare. But with the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads, the SC justices would have no option but to heed the whims of the President. It is for that reason that a senior member of Congress had revealed that two more justices are to be impeached next year. They are already threatening the members of the Supreme Court, the source said. The other day, Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas was quoted over a radio interview they are contemplating on impeaching two more SC justices whom he refused to name. He however later backtracked saying they will not as yet file any impeachment case against any of the SC justices appointed by Arroyo as things have been overtaken by events. The fight between Aquino and Corona is personal to the President. That was the keyword used by Aquinos key allies in the House of Representatives to ensure that they would manage to muster 188 signatures and railroad the filing of an impeachment case against the Chief Justice in just a matter of hours. According to a source in the House of Representatives, prior to the Presidents green light to launch the signature campaign to impeach Corona, Speaker Feliciano Belmonte and Majority Leader Neptali Gonzales Jr were summoned by Aquino to a restaurant in Greenhills, San Juan.Aquino reportedly talked to them for less than 15 minutes and left. The source said that Gonzales and Belmonte immediately contacted Liberal Party stalwarts and gave the order to start getting the signatures needed to secure the impeachment of Corona. The source said that to ensure little resistance even from those who could be in favor of the impeachment but wanted to do it without haste, Gonzales and other LP stalwarts who were tasked to spread the word about the impeachment made sure that their message was very clear: the president wants their signature so bad that he would definitely take it against them if they would not sign. The source said that knowing Aquino as vengeful and a control-freak, many of the congressmen had no choice but to sign the 56-page articles of impeachment even without really reading its contents. Well at least we got to eat ha kao (shrimp

dumplings), said the source referring to the food served during the all-majority caucus held at the Edsa Shangri-la the following day. The source denied however that money changed hands in exchange for their signatures but admitted that Aquino used psychological force to ensure that Corona is impeached in the House of Representatives. Knowing PNoy, we are very sure that our constituents in our districts would most certainly suffer if we did not sign the articles of impeachment because Malacaang would find every excuse to make sure that our entitlements are not released. His fight against Corona is truly personal, the sources said. True enough, Batangas Rep. Hermilando Mandanas, became the instant casualty of Aquinos wrath after he was unceremoniously removed as ways and means chairman THE DAILY TRIBUNE High on unsubstantiated allegations, irrelevant claims and fallacies; low on facts and substance. To illustrate: Para 4: Except in Manila, there is no support for Corona at all. The fallacy of argumentum ad populum. Granting that there is no overwhelming support, it does not make a wrong right or a falsity true. Besides, think of: Hitler and the Nazis, who were very popular with the German people; the Salem witch trials at the height of Puritanism, where people falsely accused as witches were stoned to death by the public, and; if you are a Christian, that it was the public who called for the execution of Jesus and Pilate had to wash his hands to show that it was not his decision. In addition, youre statement is not completely accurate. Newspaper accounts, such as this, state that Many trial courts in Manila and across the country suspended sessions on Wednesday as a sign of support for embattled Chief Justice Renato Corona. (http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/12...-corona?page=5) Para 5 No such street protests similar to that of Pakistan Who cares? Is the fate of a Filipino citizen to be contingent on the fate of citizens of other countries? Another fallacy!

In 1992, I still had plenty of hair, was just fresh out of high school and I was in my first year of college. Back then I also held a job as a car wash and gas station attendant. If I remember it correctly, I was merely making around 7 dollars per hour and my bank account barely had 500 dollars in it as I wasnt exactly a Donald Trump back then. Fast forward to the present time, Im still not a Donald Trump but my assets have increased exponentially compared to my assets during my wild partying Vanilla Ice hair look-a-like days. Given this information, should I be branded as guilty of amassing ill-gotten wealth? To the prosecution team in the on-going

impeachment trial of Philippine Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona (CJ), the answer appears to be Yes. Prosecutor Jose Justiniano presented witness Mariano Dimaantal, Chief of the Malacaang Office Records, to attest to the veracity of the CJs Statement of Assets, Liability and Net worth (SALn) being presented by the prosecution. The SALns being attested to are from 1992 to 2002, this is the period prior to the CJ being appointed to the Supreme Court as a member of the High Tribunal. It is interesting to note that the pertinent Article of Impeachment being deliberated upon merely charges the CJ of having violated the Constitution of failing to disclose to the public his SALn. Never mind that the period of SALn being presented is outside of the CJs tenure at the Supreme Court, what I find amusing is the justification of the prosecution to use the SALns being presented to show the trend [in Coronas wealth] over the years. Prosecutor Justiniano, when asked to explain the relevance of the SALns outside of the period of the CJs tenure in the Supreme Court, said that these will be used and compared with his financial status when he worked for former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA) and when he was appointed to the Supreme Court by her. This gives the impression, of course, that the increased assets of the CJ throughout the years are ill-gotten which was made possible by his close association with GMA. Lets even put aside for now the fact that it has not been proven yet that the assets being pointed to were ill-gotten, let us focus for now the insinuation that the increase in assets were caused by the CJs association with GMA. The argument and logic being presented by the prosecution seems smacking of the logical fallacy called Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. The fallacy is to assert that because two events occur together, they must be causally related. Its a fallacy because it ignores other factors that may be the cause(s) of the events. To illustrate this point, I would like to point out that the United States of America is populated by approximately 79% whites. In addition, the United States of America also has approximately a 400% violent crime rate. If we are to apply the logic that the prosecution seems to embrace, given that the US, a country predominantly populated by whites, has a high average violent crime rate, does this mean that whiteness causes violent crime? The fact remains that the prosecutions basis for the charge of amassing ill-gotten wealth through his stature and close connection to GMA is merely a suspicion. Defense counsel Serafin Cuevas was correct to point out to the prosecutor: [By your logic], you and I can be sentenced to death by mere suspicion? Were dealing here with the fate and future of the Chief Justice. [We are not basing case] on what is suspect, I am also bewildered, as Justice Cuevas is, why the prosecutions plea is based on mere suspicions and not ultimate facts as the Rules of Pleading state that: A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations therein are true and correct of his knowledge and belief. If the prosecution charges the CJ of illegally amassing wealth as proven by the comparison of his SALns from before he was appointed to the Supreme Court up to during his tenure at the High Tribunal, then doesnt this imply that they really had no basis to verify their allegation because prior to the Senate impeachment trial, they never had any access to the CJs SALn? How can the complainants have attested to the veracity of the prosecutions pleading if they could not have any correct knowledge of the allegations? The main charge is the failure of the CJ to publicly disclose his SALn and that he is suspected to have amassed ill-gotten wealth which the prosecution said they intend to prove by showing the trend of the CJs increasing

assets from his pre-Supreme Court years to his Supreme Court tenure. How could it be possible to correctly allege to have amassed ill-gotten wealth because of his positions at the Supreme Court from 2002 up to the present when the complainants never had access to the CJs SALns for that period? From the prosecutions line of attack, I see that contrary to their claim that they hold smoking gun evidences, their case seems more like cold as ice. I really commend CJ Corona for keeping his cool while he gets vilified with these half-baked allegations. He keeps his composure when its time to get loose; magnetized by the mic when he kicks his juice. If there was a problem, yo hell solve it, check out the hook while his DJ revolves it, Ice Ice Baby! By Hector Gamboa Aptly put by Twitterzen @JesterInExile in his tweet: Philippine Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona was convicted in his impeachment trial in spite of and not because of the trial prosecution team. As Senate President and presiding officer of the impeachment trial Juan Ponce Enrile emphasized inhis vote speech on Article II of the impeachment complaint delivered just before he issued the court verdict We have witnessed with disdain the indiscriminate, deliberate and illegal machinations of some parties who have been less than forthright with this Court in presenting dubiously procured and misleading documents which were spread to the media obviously to influence this Courts and the publics opinion. It would be redundant to spell out here yet again the specifics around the gross disrespect and insult to the intelligence of the Filipino people the prosecution team led by their representatives Niel Tupas Jr and Rodolfo Farias had mounted in the course of winning this trial. My colleague Ildahad already summarised these just before the court re-convened after their Easter break. And Senator Enrile proceeded to enumerate these following the above passage. Indeed, the prosecution won. President Benigno Simeon BS Aquino III won. Uncle Peping won (well, sort of). But does victory really extend beyond the frenzy of mutual high fives Tupas, Farias, and their boys are probably throwing at one another now? Certainly the pain which accompanied Enriles issuance of his vote was quite palpable as it was for a handful of Senator-Judges who also voted to convict. Not in the case of Senator Francisco Kiko Pangilinan though. Kiko insisted that on top of impeaching Corona, the now ex-Chief Justice should be disbarred. Kiko being Kiko of course failed to grasp the irony in what he was saying that the trial itself was a 40-day demonstration of precisely why it is the attorneys of the prosecution camp that are really the ones who should be disbarred. On that note, let me just say it was a pleasure to serve the country side-by-side (virtually, at least) with the gentlemen and lady of the defense team, and the extended community of Netizens who used their brains, whether it be begging to differ to or affirming a view I happen to subscribe to myself. Its nice to be in good company. As an admired Filipino economist, based in New York observed more than a decade ago What ails the country is that Philippine society is intellectually bankrupt. Take, for instance, the national debates, she pointed out.

They are droll and unintelligent, focused on the trivial or the irrelevant. When the issues are of some significance, its the wrong arguments that prevail, the wrong side wins. Logic and common sense take the backseat to political arguments and the views of the poorly-educated. Do the Filipino people have an equal claim to the victory defined by the prosecution camp and its extended clique of henchmen in the media and various causeoriented groups? Perhaps so, if victory is defined to be an affirmation of the notion that the fundamental source of what ails Philippine society can be traced back to a single person or a clearly defined set of evil people. The conviction of Corona is just the most recent of a string of affirmations that give Filipinos that all-too-familiar warm fuzzy feeling that their wretchedness is the result of someone elses wrongdoing. This addiction to the national opiate goes way back. Filipino spirits soared as high as kites when the Spanish were driven out of the islands in 1898, when the Americans granted them independence in 1946, when the evil Ferdinand Marcos was ousted in a peaceful revolution in 1986, when Joseph Estrada was removed from office in the sequel to that in 2001, when the vile Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo stepped down as president in 2010, and, now, when convicted SALN understater Renato Corona is removed from the office of Chief Justice. What really happened at each milestone is that Filipinos lostone excuse to explain away their chronic failure as a people. Spanish imperialism, gone in 1898. American imperialism gone in 1946, the Marcos kleptocracy gone in 1986, the Erap plunder thwarted in 2001, the Arroyo illegitimacy gone in 2010, and now the showstopper of BS Aquinos Daang Matuwid (straight path) campaign promise is gone. With every imagined bogeyman vanquished, the real reason why Filipinos consistently fail to get it together becomes more evident we are the very reason behind our own consistent failure to prosper. Our ability to externalisereasons for failure is fast running out. That Filipinos would elect to the presidency the least competent, most uninspiring, and least motivated among a wealth of excellent options back in 2010 was the seminal manifestation of this bald truth about our society. We set ourselves up for failure by design as an outcome of a profoundly flawed approach to thinking. What then, now that President BS Aquino has secured another bullet point to add to his next State of the Nation Address (SONA)? At first, my colleague Arche asserts that the ball is in BS Aquinos court now that that the chief reason for his presidential paralysis has been dealt with. But then he changes his mind and clarifies: The ball has always been on [BS's] court. True. After the trial, focus will merely shift back to the still evident reality that BS Aquino lacks a vision of what the Philippines might look like after his term ends in 2016. My other colleague Ben Kritz for his part tweeted shortly after the court issued its guilty verdict So, did you feel the Earth shift on its axis? Did your life suddenly change? No? Didnt think so. Indeed. After so many political solutions implemented and heroes galloping in from and out to the sunset, over the last 100 years, has the Philippines really progressed? I hazard to assert that it has progressed backwards paatras ang asenso. From a quaint 19th Century colonial paradise to the poster child of American democracy in the Far East in 1946, the Philippines has since degenerated into a 100 million-strong largely irrelevant sovereign footnote in the region. The only reason we are making global headlines today is because we presume to stare down China with our nonNavy at the Spratlys.

Thats right. Now that the impeachment trial is over, the business of Getting Real simply resumes. SEEEEE: red herring (checked) - cum hoc ergo propter hoc (checked) - causal oversimplification (checked) - ignoratio elenchi (checked)

When the intensity of emotional conviction subsides, a man who is in the habit of reasoning will search for logical grounds in favor of the belief which he finds in himself. ~ Bertrand Russell A SOUND REASONING is not exclusive to the logicians, philosophers, or scientists. Everyone can be rational because it is inherent, as human being, to seek the truth based on reason and common sense. One does need a degree in PhD to be rational, but an attitude with decency, nobility and humility to seek the truth that illuminates the condition of humanity and the highest good of the society. Every day, we are barraged by fallacious arguments from newspaper to television, from social media to a daily conversation. In social network, for instance, we are quick to react to any popular issue, as if our mind is programmed to respond and virally spread any hot topic without rationalizing whether the given data possesses an epistemic value or denuded with meaning and substance. What is a fallacy and how does it affect our logical reasoning amidst the insalubrious prt--porter information being guzzled on us by social media, mass media, and mass culture? THE CORONA FALLACY (Definition and Etymology) Fallacy, from Latin fallacia literally means deceit, is an error of reasoning or inference, either deceptive or contradictory in context and substance. There are various kinds of fallacies that can be found in any argument, written or verbal. The most recent one is derived from Chief Justice Renato Coronas testimony before the impeachment trial court on May 22, 2012 before the Philippines Senate. His testimonial discourse, with all due respect to the Chief Justice, is laden with fallacious inferences and suppositions in an attempt to deviate the allegation against him on undeclared assets and hidden dollar accounts. By definition, The Corona Paradox (The Corona Fallacy), as coined by this writer, is a complex fallacy that circumnavigates on circuitous irrelevant issues, culminating in a new supposition that leads to self-contradiction (ad absurdum) and implausibility (ad ridiculum) of the proposed argument. It is a digression from the main thesis, which begets more fallacies in the process of reasoning, thus subverting the veracity of the argument with absurd and contradictory inferences and conclusions.

This kind of fallacy is common among politicians and government officials who are caught in the quagmire of corruption, sex scandals, lies and deceits. Instead of giving a straightforward answer to the allegation against them, they engage in a litany of denial by redirecting the issue either toward their self-serving repertoire of achievements or to their political opponents as an orchestrated black propaganda or smear campaign against them. Example Don Jos: Captain Pedro, why dont you expose your unexplained wealth and dollar accounts to the townsfolk of our barrio? Captain Pedro: Thats a blatant lie, Don Jos! Im an honest man, I have done many good things to the barrio, and the whole townsfolk can attest to that. Besides, you are up for revenge against me when I favored to divide your 99-hectare rice farm to the farmers. I earned my familys wealth through hard work, my wifes inheritance, and from my mother (tears begin to well up from Captain Pedros eyes). However, to satisfy your idiotic curiosity, Ill sign a waiver for the investigation of my dollar accounts, but Ill only release it only to the barrio if you also sign yours so that the townsfolk will also know of your hidden dollar accounts. Now, the Captain of this barrio wishes to be excused from any of your nonsense scrutiny. Explanation In this argument, Captain Pedro committed fallacies after fallacies in an attempt to deviate the accusation against him on his unexplained wealth and dollar accounts. The first fallacy is Argumentum ad Verecundiam (argument from modesty, or out of authority) when Don Pedro bellied his opponents invoking his authority as captain of the barrio against his accuser(s) or my words against theirs. The second fallacy is Argumentum ad Populum (popular opinion or belief of the people) when Captain Pedro appealed to the kind indulgence of the townsfolk who could attest to his achievements, and as an honest captain of the barrio. The third fallacy is Argumentum ad Hominem when Captain Pedro attacked Don Joss character as vindictive because he divided the latters rice farm to the farmers. The fourth fallacy is Argumentum ad Misericordiam (Appeal to Pity) when Captain Pedro cried after mentioning his mother, seeking sympathy not only from Don Jos but also to the townsfolk of the barrio. The fifth fallacy is The Red Herring (leading to a completely different argument) when Captain Pedro came up with a new supposition to cover up the allegation against him by proposing to sign waiver for the investigation of his dollar accounts on condition that Don Jos should also sign a waiver to expose his own dollar accounts. The sixth fallacy is the Tu Quoque (they are doing it, so Im doing it too) when Captain Pedro implied that Don Jos should call it quits (psychological blackmail by self-absolution) because he had also a hidden dollar accounts (psychological blackmail by implication). In this manner, Captain Pedro indirectly admitted the

accusation against him (a contradiction to his claim that the allegation against him was a blatant lie and that he was an honest man) with the intention to implicate Don Jos of his own wrongdoings (transference of guilt). Consequently, Captain Pedro was shackled by his own self-contradiction and the absurdity of the condition of his argument. THE BIRTH AND HISTORY OF 'THE CORONA PARADOX' On May 22, 2012, millions of Filipinos watched the televised testimony of the chief justice of the Philippine Supreme Court, Renato C. Corona, before the Senate impeachment court due to an allegedly undeclared assets and dollar bank account deposits on his SALN or Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth. In an attempt to diverge the accusation against him, Corona attacked the incumbent President of the Philippines, Benigno S. Aquino III, who allegedly orchestrated the impeachment against him as a reprisal to his decision to divide the 6,435-hectare Hacienda Luisita (partly owned by the family of the President) to the farmers. After an emotionally charged three-hour testimony: from a self-assured posture to a livid voice, from lachrymose eyes to a docile face, Corona culminated his argument with a proposal that would dramatically change the 40th impeachment hearing of his case. He stunningly broached a scheme to sign a waiver authorizing the investigation of all his dollar accounts. And it was during that particular gripping moment, when Corona flailed his pen in the act of signing the waiver, that the audience inside the Senate amidst millions of televiewers, who were favorably awed by his seemingly goodnatured intent, seemed to pause in eternal silence--but not for long. After signing the waiver, Corona unexpectedly hurled a tsunamic statement that stunned the audience, transmogrifying their emotional expectations into a bleak landscape of disgust and dismay. He proposed that he would only release his signed waiver if Senator Franklin Drilon (member of the Senate impeachment court) and all the 188 lawmakers had already signed theirs in exposing their respective dollar accounts to the public. Then, in a dignified and imperious demeanor, he invoked his authority as Chief Justice of the Philippines by excusing himself from the impeachment hearing, pending the signatures of the 188 lawmakers. Consequently, that defiant gesture had infuriated the Senate President, Senator Juan Ponce Enrile, calling Coronas act as disrespect of the Senate impeachment court. On May 28, 2012, he was found guilty and was removed from his office as Chief Justice of the Philippine Supreme Court when the Senate voted 20 to 3. Corona could have won the sympathy of the Filipino people (they could have understood, forgiven, and, in due time, forgotten the allegations against him) had he signed with pure intention and submitted his waiver with no terms and conditions. But it was too late to swallow back what he had already spitted out in the Senates courtroom. Arguably, his challenge that the lawmakers should also sign their respective waivers

to expose their hidden dollar accounts hints a psychological blackmail by selfabsolution and by implication (transference of guilt to the accusers or, in this case, the lawmakers) in his favor. His proposal elicits an implicit suggestion to be absolved from the issue of dollar accounts, as if he was blatantly asking the lawmakers to acquit his case (psychological blackmail by self-absolution) because they, too, have their own hidden dollar accounts (psychological blackmail by implication). The outright contention of the argument to redirect his own culpability toward the lawmakers is a digressive paradox of self-contradiction (ad absurdum) leading to an indirect admission of his own guilt (a contradiction to his testimony that all allegations against him were fabricated lies and that he was an innocent man with clear conscience). Worse yet, the improbability (ad ridiculum) on the condition of the waiver educes a stalemate response since-- as already expected by Corona--he lawmakers will not execute their own waiver because, in the first place, they are not on trial but Corona himself. In the end, Corona was trapped by the dilemma of his own convoluted fallacies, or shall we say, The Corona Paradox! THE TRUTH AND THE ELEGANCE OF REASONING The elegance of reasoning is intricately woven within an objective proposition of facts and coherent statements, not by a pullulated travesty of emotional appeals and strategic psychological intimations. One can cry over the death of ones mother or sibling, but it will not illuminate the Truth if it does not address the real issue. Emotional sentiments cannot substitute the epistemic value of the truth because they are subjective and affective experience. Anyone can twist the truth but not the contingent elements that surround it, i.e., (1) the knower, (2) the inextricable occurrence of the object to be known, and (3) the empirical existence between the knower and the object to be known within space and time. No one can prevent any individual from seeking the object of the truth; neither can anyone hide it unless he or she is a Super Human Being who can magically deface the occurrence of the truth within time and space. The Truth illuminates the human intellect to seek its presence with grace, probity and rationality, and not the human intellect to create the Truth in order to illuminate its presence for personal interests. The truth exists because it is simultaneously and universally felt and perceived by intelligent beings that live within the perimeters of its ontological presence. The Truth may be quantifiable but not mutable!

Sillada, Danny Castillones. The Corona Paradox (The Truth and the Elegance of Reasoning). Manila Bulletin (Manila) 11 June 2012: F1-2. Print.

The Corona testimony: A national milestone By Ricardo Saludo Whatever may be the outcome of the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona, his testimony this week is a milestone in our political development. Despite the risk of no-holds-barred questioning and distorted reporting, the fifth-highest official in the land is subjecting himself personally to the process of public accountability. Past impeachment proceedings against two presidents, one chief justice, and one ombudsman ended before any of them could appear in the Senate. Now our people will see the impeachment court receive testimony from the highest official in one of the three co-equal branches of government. Thus, whatever the flaws of the Corona impeachment, his appearance on the witness stand sets a lofty standard of accountability and subservience to the sovereign people. Moreover, how the Chief Justice, the Senator-Judges, the Defense and Prosecution teams, the media and the public at large conduct ourselves will demonstrate how mature or flawed our constitutional democracy has become, and whether we as a nation will move forward toward a more robust political culture which advances truth, justice unity, and the common good, or sink deeper into the morass of mightis-right, quo-pro-quo, self-serving politicking, where the supreme goal is winning, not serving. We have seen both aspects of our 66-year-old democracy in the conduct and coverage of the impeachment. On the debit side: the Prosecutions trial by publicity to Defense attempts to cast aspersions on some senator-judges. On the other hand, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile and several other senators have sought to uphold law and evidence, and check excesses on both sides, most appalling of which is the Prosecutions submission of unverified, probably falsified papers. In this historic moment in our constitutional democracy, how can we as a people advance the maturity and development of our political institutions and processes? This writer humbly offers five prescriptions not only for major players and media, but more so for the citizenry. While we as individuals may have little influence on the powerful and the press, we should at least rule our own minds and words. So here go one dont and four dos this week: Dont prejudge. While politicians, columnists and survey firms pre-empt the Senates verdict, those committed to truth and fairness will wait for all presentations and arguments to finish before passing judgment. Like earlier hearings, this weeks sessions would surely tempt many to acquit or convict without the benefit of further trial dates. Lets have the patience to wait for all facts and positions to be laid out before we judge. Listen to all. Another widespread tendency, much reinforced by media commentary, is to focus on statements and documents supporting ones preferred judgment, and to downplay or dismiss opposing arguments and evidence. Two ways to remove such bias: a) on every key issue, read or listen to at least one report or comment opposed to your view; and b) in assessing assertions and actions favorable to ones position,

ask yourself if they would be fair if applied to you or those you support. Seek truth and justice. This admonition sounds obvious, but in fact, many of those involved with or following the impeachment want victory, not truth and justice. What matters to them is not whether Corona has 45 properties or $10 million. They just want him out or in, supposedly to promote good governance, judicial independence or some other lofty principle. If lies and railroading will do it, so be it. Yet how can noble goals be served if the Chief Justice is removed or retained through untruths and undue process? In ferreting out the facts, lets beware of rhetorical tricks. Incriminating questions and innuendo can hoodwink unwary minds into thinking that whats suspected or suggested is true. Another well-worn tactic: make someone hateful by raising nasty things about him even if they have nothing to do with the impeachment charges, like the Basa family feud. The opposite is also done: make someone look oppressed to win sympathy. Think for yourself. In the sea of impeachment commentary, the challenge for senators as well as citizens is to make up our own minds at trials end. Sure, we listen to pundits and players on all sides. But democracy accords the freedom to think, speak and act for oneself. And we strengthen our democracy by forming and expressing our own mind freely, and listening to others do the same. And for believers, pray for discernment in judging the Chief Justice. Respect the verdict. After the Senate verdict, let not the old jest about Philippine elections there are no losers, just victims of cheatingextend to the impeachment. Already, some quarters are threatening protests if Corona stays. That is not people power, but mob rule. Democracy enables free debate precisely because its processes peacefully decide contentious issues. If those forums of resolution are not respected, then strife would be the only way to decide disputes. Thankfully, surveys said Filipinos would accept any verdict the impeachment court hands down. After the trial, the nation from President Benigno Aquino 3rd down, should move resolutely to heal national discord, and refocus attention and action on pressing priorities: rising hunger, the economic expansion needed to fill stomachs, and the tiff with China which could threaten growth. Once Renato Corona is exonerated or expelled, lets move on. Thats democracy. Ricardo Saludo serves Bahay ng Diyos Foundation for church repair. He heads the Center for Strategy, Enterprise & Intelligence, publisher of The CenSEI Report on national and global issues ( report@censeisolutions.com).