RULE OF LAW

This is the phrase many (or majority) except lawyers and advocates of law have not truly understood.

Here are situations that explain this.

Situation 1.

When people like Mar Roxas , his camp and Trillanes accused VP Binay of corruption, or accused Duterte
of mass murder, this does not mean VP Binay and Mayor Duterte are guilty because under the due
process clause of the constitution, these accusations being criminal in nature, the accused persons
should be afforded his day in court which is the proper forum where the factum probans are presented.
It is only the court, and nobody else, that can legally declare a person guilty of crime. Trial by publicity in
news and in social media which are not backed up with solid evidence are merely opinions which have
NO PLACE in the court of law. The law provides that the prosecution has the onus probandi in regard to
every element of the accusation (crime) and an iota of doubt entertained by the court on the evidence
or the failure to support with relevant and competent pieces of evidence the issue or factum
probandum is tantamount to failure to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In this situation, the
law mandates that the court shall absolve the accused (declare the accused NOT GUILTY) from criminal
liability.

Continuation......

RULE OF LAW

This is the phrase many (or majority) except lawyers and advocates of law have not truly understood.

SITUATION 2:

The Constitution and statutes (laws) provide that in ALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS, the accused must be
PRESUMED INNOCENT UNTIL THE GUILT IS PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. This is both
substantive and procedural in character. While the accusatory charge is filed, in the eyes of the law, the
accused is presumed INNOCENT. It is therefore the duty of the prosecution or complainant to prove the
guilt with the required QUANTUM of evidence, that is: PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. The
plethora of Jurisprudence provide that the guilt of the accused rests on the evidence of the prosecution,
and not on the weakness of the defense. This simply means that the accused may or may not present
evidence on his behalf if the evidence of the complainant is unsupported with solid evidence.

This the situation happening in the case of VP BINAY who is accused of corruption and even DUTERTE
who is accused of killing people. What their opponents did and are doing is to smear the reputation of
VP BINAY and demolish his achievements, BUT FAILED.
Continuation......

RULE OF LAW

This is the phrase many (or majority) except lawyers and advocates of law have not truly understood.

SITUATION 3:

In this National and local elections, RULE OF LAW will NOT APPLY to issues of MANAGEMENT
COMPETENCE; PUBLIC SERVICE EXPERIENCE and other PERSONAL ATTRIBUTES. Instead, THE RULE OF
OPINION/ THE BAR OF PUBLIC OPINION will mostly apply. The observations and experiences of people
on how the Presidential candidates did their jobs will guide them. Example: how Makati was raised by
BINAY to the status of one of the best cities in the world; how basic services are efficiently delivered free
of charge in Makati; or how did the goverment particularly the DILG under Roxas falter or fail in helping
the victims of earthquake and typhoon yolanda compared to the immediate help from the private
sector; why did the MAMASAPANO happen, or why is government spending less in basic services; or
how Duterte, as admitted, killed criminals to preserve order in Davao. These are few examples where
the BAR OF PUBLIC OPINION, in more ways than one, matters.