MikeLigalig.com

Hindi rin anya nagtataka si Pinalas kung bakit nagkaroon ng “lunch meeting” si Escudero at si Vice-President Jejomar Binay.  “Si Chiz ang isa sa mga arkitekto ng NoyBi o Aquino-Binay coalition nung 2010 na kung saan tinalo ni VP Binay si Mar Roxas. Ilang linggo bago lumabas ang desisyon sa kasong disqualificatiojn laban kay Poe, nagkita at nananghalian umano sina Escudero at Binay. “Eto ba ay di sinasadya o mayroon talagang namuong usapan sakaling madiskwalipika si Grace?

Kung manalo naman si VP Binay at si Chiz, si Chiz ang papalit na pangulo kung sakaling matanggal sa pwesto si VP dahil sa issue ng katiwalian,” sambit pa ng propesor. Sinabi din ni Pinalas na tila “Trojan Horse Politics” ang uri ng pulitika ni Chiz dahil tila malikot at patago ang kanyang mga galaw sa pulitika.

“Huwag na magturo at manisi ng ibang tao si Se­nator Chiz Escudero. Bukod sa pagiging campaign strategist ni Grace,  si Chiz ay abogado at meron siyang sariling law firm, at siguradong marami siyang kaalyadong abogadong tumutulong. Hindi dapat niya ipinasok si Senator Poe sa alanganing sitwasyon na maaaring madiskwalipika ang senadora”, pahayag ni Pinalas.

“Dahil sa nangyaring disqualification kay Grace, hindi natin maiaalis na mayroong tamang duda at ispekulasyon sa mga galaw ni Escudero. Sad­yang ma­raming katanu­ngan at kuro-kuro. Obvious na pinilit ni Chiz ang Poe-Escudero tandem kahit nung una pa ay lumitaw na ang usaping citizenship at residency.  Pero kapag susuriin mo ang mga galaw ni Chiz, pabor sa kanya ang nangyayari. Kung manalo silang dalawa at sa malaon napatunayan sa Korte Suprema na hindi natural born si Grace at kulang sa residency requirements, eh di magiging presidente si Chiz.”

Chiz sinisi sa DQ ni Poe

Ni Malou Escudero (Pilipino Star Ngayon)
December 6, 2015


Se­nator Chiz Escudero

MANILA, Philippines â€" Malaki umano ang pananagutan ni Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero kung bakit diniskuwalipika ng Commission on Elections si Sen. Grace Poe sa pagkandidatong pa­ngulo sa halalan sa 2016.

Ito ang tinuran kahapon ni Polytechnic University of the Philippines Professor at political analyst Joey Sindayen Pinalas na nagtuturo ng socio-political thought at philosophy of politics sa PUP.

These are all flawed documents. In all these, Mrs. Llamansares (and her surrogate mother Jesusa Sonora Poe, in the case of the 2006 certificate of live birth) lied under oath. Why did this hotshot lawyer Francis Escudero allow his political partner to submit these falsified documents to be used as evidence against her? Are people simply daydreaming when they suggest that Chiz Escudero may not be unprepared to make his next move if and when Grace Poe Llamanzares falls off her self-created pedestal?

http://www.manilatimes.net/is-chiz-escudero-to-blame-for-grace-poes-fate/220539/

6) A copy of Mrs. Llamanzares’ certificate of candidacy for the Senate, dated Sept. 27, 2012 in Quezon City, saying she is a natural-born Filipino citizen, without any information about her parentage.

5) A copy of a Bureau of Immigration order dated July 18, 2006, signed “for” Immigration Commissioner Alipio Fernandez Jr. by an unknown hand, granting Mrs. Llamanzares petition for reacquistion of Philippine citizenship. Being based on a false claim under oath, and signed by an unknown hand other than the duly authorized signing officer, this order is patently invalid.

4) A copy of a petition for retention and/or reacquisition of Philippine citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 by Mrs. Llamanzares, dated July 7, 2006, where she declares under oath that she is a natural-born Filipino born to the Poe couple in Iloilo City on Sept. 3, 1968.This is a false claim which cannot be the source or basis of the reacquisition of her citizenship.

3) A copy of a certificate of live birth in favor of Mary Grace Natividad Sonora Poe, executed by Jesusa Sonora Poe on May 4, 2006, claiming that Mary Grace Natividad Sonora Poe was born on Sept. 3, 1968 in Jaro, Iloilo City, to Jesusa Sonora Poe and to Ronald Allan Poe. This is a revision of the circumstance of Mary Grace’s birth, from having no known parents to being the daughter of the Poe couple, whose marriage happened to be childless.

2) A copy of a decision under the signature of Judge Alfredo Gorgonio of the municipal court of San Juan, Rizal, dated May 13, 1974, purporting to show that after due hearing, the Court decided to grant the petition for adoption of the minor Mary Grace Natividad Contreras Militar by the spouses Ronald Allan Poe and Jesusa Sonora Poe. The veracity of the order deserves full investigation because the municipal court had no jurisdiction over adoption cases. This is known to most lawyers.

Among these documents were:

1) A copy of a certificate of live birth of a “foundling,” named May Grace Natividad Contreras Militar, born on Sept. 3, 1968 and found in the parish church of Jaro, on Sept. 3, 1968, at about 9:30 am, by Mr. Edgardo Militar, who turned over the child into the custody of Mr. and Mrs. Emiliano Militar at Sta. Isabel Street, Jaro. The certificate is originally typewritten, but it contains certain erasures and intercalations. For instance, the name “Natividad” is inserted by hand between “Grace” and “Contreras”, and the name “Contreras Militar” is bracketed, and above it is written “Sonora Poe.” The certificate is dated Nov. 27, 1968, but on the right hand side is a handwritten note saying: “Note: Adopted child by the spouses Ronald Allan Poe and Jesusa Sonora Poe as per Court Order, Municipal Court, San Juan Rizal, by the (ineligible) Judge Alfredo Gorgonio, dated May 13, 1974, under Sp. Proc. No. 138.” This is proof positive that the document was not made on Nov. 27, 1968, as claimed, and is therefore at best a spurious document. It cannot stand as evidence in favor of the defense.

Did Escudero’s lawyers not prepare all the documentary evidence to show that David’s petition was a pure nuisance complaint? Why did the basic documents turn out to be spurious and incompetent, and instead of supporting the respondent, support the petitioner instead? The documents were so incriminatory in character that the petitioner simply adopted them, to the respondent’s patent grief.

throwback; excerpts from 'Is Chiz Escudero to blame for Grace Poe’s fate?', September 24, 2015, by Francisco S. Tatad 

The one big unanswered question is, what kind of political and legal advice did Mrs. Llamanzares get, or was getting, from Sen. Chiz Escudero, her announced running mate? Did he not assure her that because she is the adopted daughter of ‘Panday,” the other popular name of Fernando Poe Jr., and she has been rating high in the propaganda surveys manufactured by the usual fraudsters, not even her declared opponents would try to make life hard for her, that foreign and local financial donors would come rushing into her chamber with suitcases bulging with P1,000 bills, and everything would be a walk in the park for her? What happened to this syrupy promise?

Question 9: Should we simply forget Poe’s abandonment of our country when she became an American and accept her now as our president?

Answer: That is a political, not legal, question that is better answered by our people via their ballots. Not every question can and should be decided by our tribunals. Let Poe explain to our people, and if the majority accepts her explanation and votes her to office, so be it. This is the essence of democracy. As the axiom goes, Vox populi vox Dei.

opinion.inquirer.net/
(note: the format of this question-answer as it appears on the column was changed by the poster here for easier reading)

Question 8: Apart from the presidency, vice presidency, Senate and House memberships, are there other positions that require natural-born citizenship?

Answer: Yes, thousands of others, like commissioners of elections, audit, civil service, human rights; ombudsman; most judicial and prosecutorial posts; directorships in several bureaus and commissions; memberships in boards of examiners of various professions; grantees of scholarships; and others too numerous to fit in this space. The point is: Foundlings should not be denied entry to these offices or grants.

Question 7: Why should the abandoned, like foundlings, be given more law? Dura lex sed lex. The law may be harsh; nevertheless, it must strictly be followed and applied equally to everyone, isn’t it?

Answer: Dura lex sed lex is a favorite expression of lawyers educated under the Analytical School of legal philosophy. They interpret law verba legis, that is, according to the literal meaning of the words used. However, I believe the better way of interpretation is to look at the spirit, the intent and the substance of the law. I think that lawyers should not be mere automatons or legal technicians who apply laws strictly and automatically without considering their effects on society. Rather, they should be social engineers who help build just societies with law as their tool.

Question 6: Senator Poe is not poor. Why should the social justice principle of giving more law to those who have less in life favor her?

Answer: Social justice does not favor only the impoverished. It equally favors the disabled, the sick, the abandoned (like foundlings), the infirm, the mentally-retarded, the disaster-stricken and everyone economically, socially, politically, racially and medically disadvantaged.

Question 5: Under the same Frivaldo doctrine, should Rodrigo Duterte be allowed to run?

Answer: I do not have the complete facts on Duterte’s case but if, as reported in the media, the only reason for his alleged disqualification is a typographical error, I believe he should be allowed to run for president. Substantial justice, not literal interpretation, should be applied. This does not mean I approve of his human rights shortcuts or habitual cussing. Legal eligibility is different from electoral acceptability.

Question 4: Isn’t it unfair for Sen. Loren Legarda to ask our electorate to decide legal issues?

Answer: No, she did not so ask. Rather, she first quoted from Frivaldo vs Comelec (June 26, 1996) the two main ways of legal interpretation, thus: “At balance, the question really boils down to a choice of … how to interpret and apply laws relating to elections: literal or liberal, the letter or the spirit, the naked provision or the ultimate purpose, legal syllogism or substantial justice, in isolation of or in the context of social conditions, harshly against or gently in favor of the voters’ choice. In applying election laws, it would be far better to err in favor of popular sovereignty than to be right in complex but little understood legalisms.”

Then, choosing the liberal way of interpretation, she opined: “In case of doubt in the interpretation of constitutional and legal provisions involving popular sovereignty, it is best to interpret such provisions in a manner that enables our electorate to elect freely their chosen leader.”

Question 3: The SET voted 5-4. Isn’t this unreliable?

Answer: Many landmark cases, here and abroad, have been decided by one vote. Thus, our Supreme Court, voting 8-7 in Lambino vs Comelec (Oct. 26, 2006), trashed the people’s initiative to institute the parliamentary system here. The US Supreme Court, voting 5-4 in Bush vs Gore (Dec. 12, 2000), rejected the recount of the contested ballots in Florida and ushered in the election of George W. Bush as the new US president.

Question 1: What will happen to these contrasting rulings?

Answer: Senator Poe will file Monday with the seven-member Comelec en banc a motion for reconsideration. On the other hand, with the denial of his motion for reconsideration by the SET, Rizalino David is poised to go to the Supreme Court. Ultimately, these two cases (and the three others still pending in the Comelec’s First Division) will be elevated to the high court for a final consolidated decision. Meanwhile, Poe’s name will be printed in the automated ballots, as was done in Joseph Estrada’s case in the 2010 presidential election.

Question 2: Once the SET decision reaches the Supreme Court, will the three justice-members still participate and vote there?

Answer: No, having judged below, they can no longer judge above.

WITH DUE RESPECT

Contrasting the Comelec and SET decisions

By: Artemio V. Panganiban
Philippine Daily Inquirer
December 6th, 2015

The three-member Second Division of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) cancelled the certificate of candidacy for president of Sen. Grace Poe on the ground that her “material representations” about her natural-born citizenship and 10-year Philippine residency were “false.” In contrast, the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) earlier upheld her natural-born citizenship but did not rule on her residency. Here are some questions raised by readers:

A man carries a dog as he wades through a flooded street in Chennai, in the southern state of Tamil Nadu, India, December 3, 2015. (REUTERS/Anindito Mukherjee)

Pope Francis opens the holy door of the Bangui cathedral, Central African Republic, Sunday, Nov. 29, 2015. Pope Francis is in Africa for a six-day visit that is taking him to Kenya, Uganda and the Central African Republic. (AP Photo/Andrew Medichini)

37. Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Tribunal, all that remains for me to do is to say thank you. First, I wish to thank our counsel. The Philippines could not have entrusted this case, our fate, to more skilled, principled and determined Professionals.

I know they share the Philippines’ firm conviction about the need to uphold the international rule of law as the bedrock of peace, order and stability in our world.

38. Second, I wish to thank the most able personnel of the Permanent Court of Arbitration who have provided all of us with the diligent assistance that has made these proceedings run so smoothly. We know none of this would have been possible without them.

39. And finally, Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Tribunal, on behalf of our President, Benigno S. Aquino III, on behalf of myself and on behalf of all the Filipino people, I wish to humbly thank each of you for the care, dedication, wisdom and courage with which you have conducted these proceedings.

We confidently entrust our fate, the fate of the region and, indeed, the fate of the Convention to you. We know that in your capable hands, the rule of law will not be reduced to the quaint aspiration of a time now past, but rather will be accorded the primacy that the founders of the United Nations and the drafters of UNCLOS envisioned.

40. Mr. President, Distinguished Members of the Tribunal, we proffer to you our deepest gratitude. May I now ask that you kindly invite the Honorable Solicitor General to the lectern to present the final Submissions of the Philippines. Thank you once again.

philstar.com
images from various online sources

34. That said, The Tribunal’s mandate to achieve justice is not carried out in a vacuum. Judges and arbitrators are not expected to be oblivious to the realities on the ground. UNCLOS is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The object and purpose of the Charter, as well as those of the Convention, are far from irrelevant. These purposes include the maintenance and strengthening of international peace and security. Nothing would contribute more to these objectives than the Tribunal’s finding that China’s rights and obligations are neither more nor less than those established by UNCLOS. And that the entitlements of the tiny insular features it claims are limited to 12 M.

35. Finding otherwise would gravely undermine these same objectives. It would leave the Philippines, and its ASEAN neighbors, in worse straits than when we embarked on this arbitral voyage.

It would convert the nine-dash line, or its equivalent in the form of exaggerated maritime zones for tiny, uninhabitable features, into a Berlin Wall of the Sea. A giant fence, owned by, and excluding everyone but, China itself.

36. We are confident that you will interpret and apply the law in a way that produces a truly just solution. That is the best way―indeed, the only way―to craft a legal solution that truly promotes peace, security and good neighborliness in the South China Sea.

31. Mr. Martin and Professor Oxman showed that the very purpose of Article 121(3) is to prevent such perverse results by denying tiny islands expanded maritime zones. The need for clear and definitive legal constraint is obvious. And it is to you, Mr. President, Members of the Tribunal, to whom we confidently entrust the task of providing the necessary constraint.

32. Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Tribunal, if I may say so, there is no greater contribution to international peace and security the Tribunal could make than to decide that none of the features in the Spratly Islands is capable of generating any entitlement beyond 12 M.

The unjustifiable encroachment on the sovereign rights of other States, as well as the global commons, would be avoided. The importance of the sovereignty disputes over these tiny bits of land would be reduced in importance. They would cease to be a casus belli. And the inexcusable harm to the environment resulting from efforts to solidify expansionist maritime claims would be diminished.

33. Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Tribunal, we recognize that the Tribunal’s mission is in fact judicial. The Tribunal must decide the claims on the basis of the facts and the law, in this case UNCLOS. We submit that on that basis alone, the Tribunal must sustain all of the Philippines’ claims, especially in regard to the maritime entitlements of the Parties, and the exclusive sovereign rights and jurisdiction of the Philippines within 200 M of its coasts, except for the 12 M territorial seas around the disputed insular features.

28. Last Thursday, Professor Oxman made clear what the practical consequences of deciding that even a single feature in the Spratly Islands generates entitlement beyond 12 M would be. China regards its entitlements in the South China Sea as excluding those of the Philippines and of Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei as well.

It has absolutely no regard for the entitlements of other States. China is also more than willing to use force and the threat of force to enforce its perceived entitlements, even where it has none.

29. If the Tribunal found that China has a potential entitlement to 200 M on the basis of a speck of broken coral and sand in the middle of the South China Sea, it would effectively hand China the “golden key” that Mr. Martin referred to last Wednesday. The Filipino people would only be able to benefit from the natural resources of our EEZ and continental shelf on China’s terms, if at all. In the real world, that would mean not at all.

30. It would also perpetuate in another form, the same disputes, the same danger and the same instability that China currently exploits without restraint.

And this time it would be much worse: the possibility of a just solution obtained through arbitration will have been exhausted. We will have no other legal avenue of confronting China’s unlawful conduct.

25. Yet, the stakes are still greater. The Convention’s “Constitution for the Oceans” is itself at risk. No State, no matter how powerful, should be allowed to claim an entire sea as its own and to use force or the threat of force in asserting that claim. No State should be permitted to write and re-write the rules in order to justify its expansionist agenda. If that is allowed, the Convention itself would be deemed useless. Power, Mr. President, will have prevailed over reason, and the rule of law would have been rendered meaningless.

26. We trust that our counsel have made it equally clear that there is no issue of overlapping entitlements beyond 12 M in the South China Sea.

Mr. Reichler and Professor Schofield showed that there is no feature in the Spratly Islands that can sustain human habitation or an economic life of its own. There is therefore no feature that can generate an EEZ or continental shelf. Mr. Reichler called Itu Aba a “Potemkin Island.”

27. Since there are no overlapping entitlements beyond 12 M, the Tribunal is free to rule that China’s actions at Mischief Reef, at Second Thomas Shoal and elsewhere violate the Philippines’ sovereign rights and jurisdiction.

22. China is not just interfering with the progress of the Filipino people. China’s unilateral actions, and the atmosphere of intimidation they have created, are also trampling upon the rights and interests of the peoples of Southeast Asia and beyond.

23. China’s massive island building campaign shows its utter disregard for the rights of other States, and for international law. China started this a year after the Philippines initiated the arbitration. It is intent on changing unilaterally the status quo in the region, imposing China’s illegal nine-dash line claim by fiat and presenting this Tribunal with a fait accompli.

24. China’s island building not only undermines regional stability, but also the rule of law. It is moreover inflicting massive environmental damage on the most diverse marine environment in the world.

China has intentionally created one of the biggest emerging environmental disasters in the world.

19. On Wednesday morning, Professor Sands showed why we so desperately need your guidance. With an assertiveness that is growing with every passing day, China is preventing us from carrying out even the most basic exploration and exploitation activities in areas where only the Philippines can possibly have rights.

20. The preamble to the UN Charter states (and I quote)

“WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
…
“to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

“to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,” (end of quote)

21. China is failing on both counts, Mr. President. It is failing to respect the obligations arising from treaties, specifically UNCLOS. It is also interfering with the Philippines’ sovereign duty to promote the social progress of our people, and our efforts to achieve a better standard of life for all Filipinos.

16. Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Tribunal, the Philippines more than anyone is mindful of the fact that your October Award on Jurisdiction was not the end of the story. Several jurisdictional questions were joined to these hearings on the merits.

17. We trust that last week and again today, our counsel have resolved any lingering jurisdictional concerns you may have. In our view, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction could not be clearer with respect to declaring that China’s claim to “historic rights” in the areas encompassed by the nine-dash line is inconsistent with UNCLOS. Mr. Reichler showed last Tuesday that the historic rights that China claims are very different from a claim to “historic title” that might be precluded from jurisdiction under Article 298.

18. On the substance of the matter, Professor Oxman and Mr. Loewenstein showed that the regimes of the continental shelf and exclusive economic zone under UNCLOS, and even general international law, plainly exclude China’s claim of “historic rights” within the nine-dash line.

Mr. President, I am not a lawyer. But in my mind, when the Convention says that the Philippines’ rights in its continental shelf exist ipso facto and ab initio, and do not depend on occupation, that means there is no room for China’s claim. And when the Convention speaks of an “exclusive” economic zone, I take exclusive to mean exclusive. That means it is ours, and what is ours is ours, not China’s.

13. This year is also the 40th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between the Philippines and the People’s Republic of China. Since 1975, economic and political ties between our two countries have grown. We view China as a valued friend. And it is precisely to preserve that friendship that we initiated this arbitration.

14. We believe this arbitration benefits everyone. For China, it will define and clarify its maritime entitlements.
For the Philippines it will clarify what is ours, specifically our fishing rights, rights to resources and rights to enforce our laws within our EEZ. And for the rest of the international community, it will help ensure peace, security, stability and freedom of navigation and overflight in the South China Sea.

15. We also believe that this arbitration will be instructive for other States to consider the dispute settlement mechanisms under UNCLOS as an option for resolving disputes in a peaceful manner.

10. I am proud to say that the Philippines was among the original 51 signatories of the UN Charter. This was true for China as well.

11. When we started this arbitration, the Philippines was fulfilling one of its most solemn duties, which is to settle international disputes peacefully. The Tribunal knows that our disputes with China in the South China Sea have, for a very long time, complicated our relationship. Most recently, tensions have risen dramatically. Unable to resolve these disputes ourselves, we thus turned to this arbitration to provide all parties a durable, rules-based solution.

12. China has said that it considers the initiation of this arbitration to be “an unfriendly act.” We disagree. In 1982, the UN General Assembly adopted the Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes Between States which declared that recourse to the judicial settlement of disputes “should not be considered an unfriendly act between States.”

7. It is fitting that these hearings are ending as 2015 itself draws to a close. This year marks the 70th anniversary of the United Nations.

That great institution is an expression of the best in us. It is unfortunate that it took one of the saddest episodes in human history to create it. Yet, those of us who lived through that episode also remember the hopes for a new chapter in our common history. We dared to envision a future of enduring peace, shared prosperity and a new era of collaboration.

8. Two centerpieces of that new order were the sovereign equality of all States, and the commitment to settle disputes peacefully. The sovereign equality of States is enshrined in the first substantive provision of the UN Charter, Article 2(1). The obligation to settle disputes by peaceful means appears subsequently in Article 2(3).

9. Mechanisms for the compulsory settlement of disputes were also a critical part of this new order.

Article 33(1) specifically mentions arbitration and judicial settlement. And, of course, the Charter also gave birth to the International Court of Justice.

4. That is why, in January 2013, we confidently put our fate in the hands of this Tribunal and the compulsory dispute resolution mechanisms of UNCLOS. With your wise guidance, we have come a long way.

5. Mr. President, Distinguished Members of the Tribunal, the 29 October Award on Jurisdiction is a remarkable document. It will not only stand the test of time, it will be a model for ages. It is remarkable in many ways, most especially for its moral strength. It is a compelling rebuke to those who doubt that international justice does exist and will prevail.

6. I say this not just as the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines, but also as a global citizen. It is not just the fate of the Philippines that rests in your hands. I note the presence of the distinguished observers from Australia, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and Viet Nam. I thank them for their presence. Other countries too are watching to see what this Tribunal will do.


The entire Philippine delegation to the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague, Netherlands is composed of 48 individuals, including six Philippine ambassadors from different posts in Europe, counsel, advocates, expert witnesses and support staff. Official Gazette

Remarks delivered by Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario before the Permanent Court of Arbitration upon conclusion of the Republic of the Philippines v. People's Republic of China on Nov. 30, 2015.



1. Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Tribunal, a very good afternoon. Before our Agent, the Honorable Solicitor General, presents our final submissions, it is my honor to respectfully address you one last time in this Great Hall of Justice.

2. When I first had the privilege of appearing before you in July, it was at the beginning of the hearings on jurisdiction. We did not know then whether or not we would ever reach this point. The Philippines, however, never doubted this Tribunal’s jurisdiction.

But there are some who could not believe that the Arbitral Tribunal would have the courage to apply the law to a country like China.

3. There are those who think the rule of law in international relations does not apply to Great Powers. We reject that view. International law is the great equalizer among States. It allows small countries to stand on an equal footing with more powerful States. Those who think “might makes right” have it backwards. It is exactly the opposite, in that right makes might.

5-Hour Journey Into The Mountains On A 1ft Wide Path To Probably The Most Remote School In The World, Gulu, China (Sipa Press)

boredpanda.com

di gyod lalim.  ambot giunsa pagkumbinsi aning mga bataa sa ilang ginikanan.  hurot akong bilib.

those kids "[Fly] 800m on a steel cable 400m above the Rio Negro River, Colombia".  whew!

understandable.  the frog prince and the frog queen.

Quote
Chinese Mountain Cat (Felis Bieti)

dahlin', shall we meet at scarborough shoal?

vIt’e’ naD lalDan ’e’ tIv.

(star wars force you wish, star trek klingon we accept.)

di man god member ang pluto sa UN, aside from the fact that pluto is out of this world called earth.  anyways, bahala na sila sa ilang intergalactic war with the klingons.

BETWEEN U.N.-RECOGNIZED STATES AND OTHERS

1. Republic of China (Taiwan)-People's Republic of China:  Mainland China, Hainan, and other islands controlled by the PRC

2. Republic of China (Taiwan)-People's Republic of China:  Heixiazi/Bolshoy Ussuriysky Island (western half)

3. Republic of China (Taiwan)-People's Republic of China:  Taiwan, Penghu, Jinmen, Matsu Islands, Pratas Islands

LAND

1. North Korea-China People's Republic of China:  Baekdu Mountain

2. Bhutan-People's Republic of China:  Bhutanese enclaves in Tibet, namely Cherkip Gompa, Dho, Dungmar, Gesur, Gezon, Itse Gompa, Khochar, Nyanri, Ringung, Sanmar, Tarchen and Zuthulphuk

3. India-China People's Republic of China-Taiwan Republic of China (Taiwan):  Demchok, Chumar, Kaurik, Shipki Pass, Jadh, and Lapthal

4. North Korea- South Korea-People's Republic of China:  Jiandao

5. Bhutan-People's Republic of China:  Kula Kangri and mountainous areas to the west of this peak, plus the western Haa District of Bhutan

6. Vietnam-Republic of China (Taiwan)-People's Republic of China:  Macclesfield Bank

7. Republic of China (Taiwan)-Vietnam-People's Republic of China:  Paracel Islands

8. Philippines-Republic of China (Taiwan)-People's Republic of China:  Scarborough Shoal

9.  India-People's Republic of China:  Shaksgam Valley

10. India-Republic of China (Taiwan)-People's Republic of China:  Arunachal Pradesh

11. Republic of China (Taiwan)- Vietnam-Philippines (part)-Malaysia (part)- Brunei (part)-People's Republic of China:  Spratly Islands

12. Republic of China (Taiwan)-People's Republic of China:  Taiwan

if only china can behave like india when it comes to sea and eez claims vis-a-vis bangladesh and the judgment of the UN arbitration tribunal.

The Indian government has welcomed the judgment for having brought about a settlement which can make the Bay of Bengal a zone of peace and tranquility. As one has seen in the South China Sea where a crisis situation persists with claimants indulging in aggressive posturing, this is no mean achievement. Although the award may have fallen short of expectations of both countries, it should thus be seen as creating a win-win situation. It has rightly been greeted as such by the foreign ministries of both.

more at https://www.rt.com/op-edge/172960-un-india-bangladesh-dispute-end/

Beijing has never precisely defined its claims to the strategic South China Sea, through which about a third of all the world's traded oil passes.

The waters have become the stage for a tussle for dominance between Beijing and Washington, the world's two largest economic and military powers.

Following a stand-off between Chinese ships and the weak Philippine Navy in 2012, China took control of the rich fishing ground called Scarborough Shoal that is within the Philippines' claimed exclusive economic zone.

The court is now due to hand down a decision some time in 2016, even though Chinese officials did not attend.

It noted that Beijing's consistent position was that it "has indisputable sovereignty over the South China Sea Islands and the adjacent waters."

yahoo.com

The Philippines also believes China has failed "in its duty to prevent its nationals from exploiting resources over which the Philippines has sovereign rights and has failed to respect traditional fishing rights at Scarborough Shoal," the statement said.

Beijing had also failed to protect the marine environment by using destructive fishing methods such as cyanide and explosives, while its ships were proving a hazard in the sea.

Even after Manila launched the court proceedings, Beijing had exacerbated the tensions by "building artificial islands at nearly all of the maritime features presently under its control," Philippine officials told the court.

The hearing was held behind closed doors. But Australia, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam were allowed to have observers present.

Beijing claims sovereignty over almost the whole of the South China Sea on the basis of a segmented line that first appeared on Chinese maps in the 1940s, pitting it against several neighbours.

But it is also a party to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Manila has called for the tribunal, set up in 1899, to rule on the dispute, accusing Beijing of flouting the convention.

The Philippines argued "China's claims to sovereign rights jurisdiction, and to 'historic rights', with respect to the maritime areas of the South China Sea... are contrary to the Convention," the court said in a statement issued late Monday.

Manila attacks Beijing South China Sea claims in court case

AFP
30 November 2015


A protestor rallies in front of the Chinese Consulate in Manila's financial district on July 7, 2015, denouncing China's claim to most of the South China Sea including areas claimed by the Philippines (AFP Photo/Jay Directo)

The Philippines has sought to debunk China's claims to disputed islands in the South China Sea, court officials said Monday as an international tribunal wrapped up a five-day hearing.

Although Beijing has refused to take part in the hearing before the Permanent Court of Arbitration, judges have now given China until January 1 to write a rebuttal to the case laid out by Manila in the Hague.

"We view China as a valued friend, and it is precisely to preserve that friendship that we initiated this arbitration," Philippine Foreign Secretary Albert Ferreros del Rosario said Monday as he closed his country's case, according to a court statement.

and my all-time favorite/s

and more.

dia pa more...

match these, o ye of little faith in animals like ye...

it's a wonderful world

mao nay gitawag nga capybara.  sure ko nga kasabot ka ani nga alien language pa more:


Kingdom:  Animalia
Phylum:    Chordata
Subphylum:  Vertebrata
Class:   Mammalia
Order:   Rodentia
Suborder:  Hystricomorpha
Family:    Caviidae
Subfamily:  Hydrochoerinae
Genus:   Hydrochoerus
Species:  H. hydrochaeris
Binomial name:  Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris (Linnaeus, 1766)

The capybara (Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris) is a large rodent of the genus Hydrochoerus of which the only other extant member is the lesser capybara (Hydrochoerus isthmius). The capybara is the largest rodent in the world. Close relatives are guinea pigs and rock cavies, and it is more distantly related to the agouti, chinchillas, and the coypu. Native to South America, the capybara inhabits savannas and dense forests and lives near bodies of water. It is a highly social species and can be found in groups as large as 100 individuals, but usually lives in groups of 10â€"20 individuals. (wikipedia)

silingan bitaw na ninyo.  siyarog di ka makig-ingon-ingon...

all i see are great souls behind those eyes.  they can hardly wait to tame me.

A pink diamond seized three decades ago from Imelda Marcos. Photograph: EPA

Only three pure, vivid pink diamonds of more than 10 carats have appeared for sale in almost 250 years of auction history, according to the Christie’s jeweler.

The “phenomenally rare” 25-karat pink diamond, measuring barely an inch and possibly cut during the 18th century, came from India’s Golconda mine that produced the Hope Diamond and Agra Diamond, among others, Warren said, adding that the gem could have been worn by a Mogul emperor as a turban ornament.

Read more: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/742152/pink-imelda-diamond-found#ixzz3t0ePmtSn

duterte's kind of political showmanship is bound to grow stale.

hey, let's let decency lead the nation.

would the country dare again to have the likes of erap who needed extra security personnel from the military for the families of the other women?

Duterte: I have 2 wives and 2 girlfriends

By: Maricar B. Brizuela
@inquirerdotnet
Philippine Daily Inquirer
December 1st, 2015

HE MUST be a romantic at heart. And maybe a comedian, too.

In a no-holds-barred speech before 10,000 supporters on Sunday night in Taguig City, Davao City Mayor Rodrigo “Digong” Duterte opened up about his personal life, speaking not only of having two wives but of two girlfriends, as well.

When he was younger, the 70-year-old presidential aspirant said, he would spend the whole night with his girlfriends, but since he had grown older, he could spend only “short time” with them.

The crowd apparently enjoyed his speech, cheering, applauding, laughing and at times shouting with glee.

Duterte spoke at the end of a “MAD (Musicians and Artists for Duterte) for Change” concert around 10 p.m., hours later than originally planned because he said his flight was delayed.

He said the public needed to know everything about him, including his love life and interest in women, if they want to make him President.

Read more: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/743793/duterte-i-have-2-wives-and-2-girlfriends#ixzz3t0YFeiRJ

“These incidents, according to Boyle, displayed China’s ‘deliberate disregard for international law’ on the safety of maritime vessels,” Valte said.

Another expert, Bernard Oxman, enumerated the Chinese actions that “aggravated and extended the dispute” between the neighbouring countries.

“Oxman cited instances where the Philippines was blocked by China from entering Second Thomas Shoal (Ayungin) for a resupply mission. Oxman stressed that China’s denial of access forms part of ‘a deliberate policy to physically expel the Philippines and its nationals’ from the disputed features and its surrounding waters,” Valte narrated.

The next hearing will be held on Monday, Nov. 30.

globalnation.inquirer.net

Valte said Carpenter believes “the damage to the complex coral reef ecosystem (in the area) is close to catastrophic.”

Clive Schofield, director of research at the Australian Centre for Ocean Resource and Security in the University of Wollongong, also presented before the tribunal his findings on 47 features in South China Sea. He was earlier asked by the tribunal to determine which of the features was insular, low tide, or high tide elevations.

During his second presentation, Boyle discussed the near-collisions in Scarborough Shoal between Philippine vessels and the Chinese Marine Service vessels during April and May of 2012.

The professor argued that China has violated its obligation under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos) “to protect and preserve the marine environment, citing instances of harmful fishing practices such as blast fishing, cyanide fishing, harvesting of giant clams, catching of turtles, and other endangered species,” Valte said.

He said China is also to blame for the illegal fishing activities in the area.

Kent Carpenter, professor at the Department of Biological Sciences at the Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, also accused China of causing grave harm to the environment because of its reclamation activities.

Valte is with the Philippine delegation in The Hague for the next round of hearings on the country’s petition seeking to nullify China’s claim to a large part of South China Sea.

Recently, the court decided that it has jurisdiction over the matter.

Boyle is a member of the Essex Court Chambers in London. He has served as an arbiter for various international courts and has counselled groups on international law.

Experts at UN tribunal point to damage caused by Chinese reclamation

By: Kristine Angeli Sabillo
INQUIRER.net
November 27th, 2015


In this May 11 photo, an aerial photo taken through a glass window of a military plane shows China’s alleged on-going reclamation of Mischief Reef in the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea. AP

International experts presented their studies on the damage wrought by China’s land reclamation in South China Sea during the third hearing on merits at the United Nations Arbitral Tribunal in The Hague, Netherlands, Malacañang said on Friday.

“Professor Alan E. Boyle presented to the tribunal the damage China has done to the marine ecosystem; more specifically, to the complex ecosystem of coral reefs, biological diversity, and living resources in the South China Sea,” deputy presidential spokesperson Abigail Valte said in a statement to media.

“Boyle stated that, if unchecked, China’s activities will continue to pose a significant threat to the marine environment of the South China Sea and of all the states which border the sea,” she explained.

from one opportunist to another?  dreadful.

Quote

aylandil is willing to be tamed by felis margarita.

QuoteYou're tall.

A 2008 Princeton study of thousands of people found that taller individuals scored higher on IQ tests as kids and earned more money as adults.

The researchers write: "As early as age 3 â€" before schooling has had a chance to play a role â€" and throughout childhood, taller children perform significantly better on cognitive tests."

something's askew here.  how tall was einstein?  1.75m (5'9"), shorter than david beckham's 1.83m (6'003').  is shaquille o'neal smarter than barrack obama and bill clinton?  since the dutch are the tallest in the world, does it follow that the netherlands as a country has more geniuses and wealth than any other country in the world?  filipinos are the second shortest in asia.  must we think of ourselves as intellectually inferior to thais and singaporeans?  well, women are shorter... where does this put women then?  the questions can go on and on.   

QuoteAccording to French daily Le Parisien, the anonymous letter said that “no mosque and none of your businesses will be safe” and threatened that “brothers [Muslims] will be slaughtered like pigs and crucified as our Lord converts their souls.”

unsa na man ni?  is there a crank behind this?

maoy gidangat.  don't know whether i should laugh or cry over this.

When the man said he had no wife or girlfriend and was home alone, police asked: "Come on mate, what have you done to her?"

The "sheepish" man eventually confessed: "It was a spider."

When police asked about the woman who had been heard screaming, he responded: "That was me. I really, really hate spiders."

"After a very long pause, some laughter and a quick look in the unit to make sure there was no injured party (apart from the spider) we left," police said in the Facebook post.

Police said that the man had been chasing the spider around his apartment with bug spray. They did not say which type of spider was involved, but said it was "rather large."

news.yahoo.com

Cops Respond to Calls of Man Shouting 'Die! Die!' To Discover He's Trying to Kill a Spider

By Inside Edition
November 27, 2015



Authorities thought they were responding to a case of domestic abuse after neighbors reported a woman screaming hysterically and a man shouting: "Die! Die!"

Instead, they arrived to find a man trying to kill a spider.

Police in Sydney, Australia said they received multiple calls reporting furniture being moved, a woman screaming and a man shouting: "I'm going to kill you!"

When police cars responded to the address at 2 a.m. on Sunday, an "out-of-breath and rather flushed" man opened the door, according to the Harbourside LAC â€" NSW Police Force, which documented the event on its Facebook page.

"Where's your wife?" police said they asked the man.

foster mother and children

afir!