u/AnimalNo6715

First of all, according to a news article in 2023: "Former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte said he would “face the music” and “rot in prison” after the International Criminal Court (ICC) rejected an appeal to postpone its probe into his bloody war on drugs. “Wala akong pakialam basta ginawa ko yung dapat kong gawin (I don’t care, as long as I did what I had to do),” said Duterte, speaking before the National Convention of the Philippine Prosecutor’s League in Davao City on Wednesday, March 29." From a legal perspective, public statements of defiance-such as declaring a willingness to 'rot in prison'-can be interpreted as an acknowledgment of the severe legal vulnerabilities surrounding the execution of the anti-drug campaign. While framed as a defense of state policy, such admissions provide critical context regarding the deliberate nature of the operations now being scrutinized by international jurists. It was for a good purpose, but the ways were wrong.

Secondly, with that statement, Duterte, Bato, and other responsible allies should be arrested by the ICC. Here are the reasons why:

• Assuming that a local warrant is needed, then what if the next years or next administration the ex president or his political faction is still very influential, just like today, do you think a warrant will be issued? Take note since 2022, no warrants were issued just to arrest Digong, Bato, and company. Thats why the ICC stepped in to issue a warrant of arrest because precisely local courts failed to issue a warrant within reasonable time. He is very influential because with his brand alone, Robin was able to clinch Top 1 in the senatorial race, Camille Villar able to secure a spot when she was losing before transferring to Duterte's side, BBM was able to win the presidency because of his allegiance then with Sara, etc. Do you also recall the time Sara punched a sheriff just because he was just doing his duty? If a local warrant is needed, then that could potentially make the ICC useless, especially if the ex-president or ex-official is still powerful even after his term ended. In technical terms: The complete absence of local criminal prosecutions against high-ranking officials years after the alleged offenses-despite widespread documentation of the acts-constitutes a prima facie case of state unwillingness and functional inability under Article 17 of the Rome Statute. Because deep-seated political influence paralyzes the standard territorial machinery of the Revised Penal Code, the specialized, independent track of international enforcement under R.A. No. 9851 becomes the only viable pathway to satisfy the demands of justice. Under Article 17 of the Rome Statute, the ICC acts as a global safety valve that triggers only when a sovereign nation is genuinely unable or unwilling to prosecute.
• Also, what if one would say that "if a local warrant isn't needed, it could be weaponized by the ruling powers to dispose or deport any major enemies." Well, that's precisely what Bato filed in the Supreme Court which it just rejected yesterday. If you feel that the case of deportation is unfair or has no grounds, then one can just simply file a TRO to the SC or a petition for certiorari. If an accused wishes to challenge an international arrest, the proper remedy is not to demand a local warrant, but to file for specific constitutional safeguards (such as petitions for Certiorari or Injunction) in Philippine courts. Although the Supreme Court is yet to release this coming Monday its reasoning why it rejected Bato's TRO, my opinion, theory or speculation is that there is probable cause for the case against him (via the countless documentations and statements) and the Supreme Court’s denial of the TRO suggests that the petitioners failed to demonstrate a clear, unmistakable, and imminent danger to their life or liberty that would justify stopping law enforcement action. While some commentators and allies highlighted the recent Senate shooting as a security threat, the court likely evaluated the circumstances surrounding Senator Dela Rosa’s sudden return to the chamber, the timing of the leadership change under Senate President Cayetano, and the statements of Sec. Remulla clarifying that the Senate itself was not under an institutional attack, concluding that a judicial halt to an international warrant was unwarranted. Looking at the timeline through the lens of circumstantial evidence, the political maneuvering is hard to ignore. Senator Dela Rosa’s sudden emergence from months of hiding precisely in time to cast a crucial vote for Senate President Cayetano-who now holds immense institutional power over the chamber-presents a highly convenient sequence of events. When you couple this with the coordinated live streams of allied senators, the historical PMA ties with OSAA Head Aplasca, and Sec. Remulla’s categorical statement that the Senate was not under an institutional attack, the narrative of an imminent security threat begins to look less like a legal justification for a TRO and more like strategic political staging. For emphasis: STRATEGIC POLITICAL STAGING. Meanwhile, In an interview with One PH's Aplikante on March 5, Dela Rosa said, "Hindi ako natatakot. Bring it on." So Mr. Senator Bato, nasan na yung tapang mo ngayon? Bring it on, wag kana magtago!
• One might also say "Hindi na tayo member sa ICC." Well, in Pangilinan v. Cayetano (2021), the Supreme Court ruled that the Philippines' withdrawal from the Rome Statute did not erase its legal obligation to cooperate in proceedings that began before the withdrawal took effect. Meaning, the crimes committed before the withdrawal were still and until now under the jurisdiction of the ICC. Just imagine that President A committed warcrimes or crimes against humanity, how unfair would that be if he would escape accountability just because he withdrew membership from the ICC. That would create a way for acquittal for offenders to just withdraw from the ICC to prevent accountability.
• And this Duterte/Bato saga isn't even the most extreme case of the intersection of domestic and international law. Because are you aware of the organization called UN Security Council? Do you remember the Kosovo Bombing Campaign (1999) — Operation Allied Force? During that time, good luck bringing Yugoslav and Serbian to the ICC because there was no ICC at that time. But do you recall the Nuremberg Trials? Yeah that was one of the earliest forms of the ICC back then before its birth. Also, in 2011, do you recall the NATO Intervention in Libya (2011) — Operation Odyssey Dawn? Even if the ICC was already in existence in 2011, good luck bringing Libya to the ICC during that time. That's why other nations intervened like the USA. The point here is this: There are two kinds of crimes you could commit while in your country - the territorial crimes like the RPC and the universal crimes like crimes against humanity. That's why the "local warrant theory" wouldn't hold. Although the Supreme Court is yet to decide whether it is really required, but I bet it would decide that a local warrant isn't needed, with precedents like R.A. No. 9851 and Pangilinan v. Cayetano (2021). But at least I appreciate the D-D-S for defending like that because it will help enrich Philippine legal jurisprudence and to be more specific about certain matters.

First of all, according to a news article in 2023: "Former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte said he would “face the music” and “rot in prison” after the International Criminal Court (ICC) rejected an appeal to postpone its probe into his bloody war on drugs. “Wala akong pakialam basta ginawa ko yung dapat kong gawin (I don’t care, as long as I did what I had to do),” said Duterte, speaking before the National Convention of the Philippine Prosecutor’s League in Davao City on Wednesday, March 29." From a legal perspective, public statements of defiance-such as declaring a willingness to 'rot in prison'-can be interpreted as an acknowledgment of the severe legal vulnerabilities surrounding the execution of the anti-drug campaign. While framed as a defense of state policy, such admissions provide critical context regarding the deliberate nature of the operations now being scrutinized by international jurists. It was for a good purpose, but the ways were wrong.

Secondly, with that statement, Duterte, Bato, and other responsible allies should be arrested by the ICC. Here are the reasons why:

• Assuming that a local warrant is needed, then what if the next years or next administration the ex president or his political faction is still very influential, just like today, do you think a warrant will be issued? Take note since 2022, no warrants were issued just to arrest Digong, Bato, and company. Thats why the ICC stepped in to issue a warrant of arrest because precisely local courts failed to issue a warrant within reasonable time. He is very influential because with his brand alone, Robin was able to clinch Top 1 in the senatorial race, Camille Villar able to secure a spot when she was losing before transferring to Duterte's side, BBM was able to win the presidency because of his allegiance then with Sara, etc. Do you also recall the time Sara punched a sheriff just because he was just doing his duty? If a local warrant is needed, then that could potentially make the ICC useless, especially if the ex-president or ex-official is still powerful even after his term ended. In technical terms: The complete absence of local criminal prosecutions against high-ranking officials years after the alleged offenses-despite widespread documentation of the acts-constitutes a prima facie case of state unwillingness and functional inability under Article 17 of the Rome Statute. Because deep-seated political influence paralyzes the standard territorial machinery of the Revised Penal Code, the specialized, independent track of international enforcement under R.A. No. 9851 becomes the only viable pathway to satisfy the demands of justice. Under Article 17 of the Rome Statute, the ICC acts as a global safety valve that triggers only when a sovereign nation is genuinely unable or unwilling to prosecute.
• Also, what if one would say that "if a local warrant isn't needed, it could be weaponized by the ruling powers to dispose or deport any major enemies." Well, that's precisely what Bato filed in the Supreme Court which it just rejected yesterday. If you feel that the case of deportation is unfair or has no grounds, then one can just simply file a TRO to the SC or a petition for certiorari. If an accused wishes to challenge an international arrest, the proper remedy is not to demand a local warrant, but to file for specific constitutional safeguards (such as petitions for Certiorari or Injunction) in Philippine courts. Although the Supreme Court is yet to release this coming Monday its reasoning why it rejected Bato's TRO, my opinion, theory or speculation is that there is probable cause for the case against him (via the countless documentations and statements) and the Supreme Court’s denial of the TRO suggests that the petitioners failed to demonstrate a clear, unmistakable, and imminent danger to their life or liberty that would justify stopping law enforcement action. While some commentators and allies highlighted the recent Senate shooting as a security threat, the court likely evaluated the circumstances surrounding Senator Dela Rosa’s sudden return to the chamber, the timing of the leadership change under Senate President Cayetano, and the statements of Sec. Remulla clarifying that the Senate itself was not under an institutional attack, concluding that a judicial halt to an international warrant was unwarranted. Looking at the timeline through the lens of circumstantial evidence, the political maneuvering is hard to ignore. Senator Dela Rosa’s sudden emergence from months of hiding precisely in time to cast a crucial vote for Senate President Cayetano-who now holds immense institutional power over the chamber-presents a highly convenient sequence of events. When you couple this with the coordinated live streams of allied senators, the historical PMA ties with OSAA Head Aplasca, and Sec. Remulla’s categorical statement that the Senate was not under an institutional attack, the narrative of an imminent security threat begins to look less like a legal justification for a TRO and more like strategic political staging. Meanwhile, In an interview with One PH's Aplikante on March 5, Dela Rosa said, "Hindi ako natatakot. Bring it on." So Mr. Senator Bato, nasan na yung tapang mo ngayon? Bring it on, wag kana magtago!
• One might also say "Hindi na tayo member sa ICC." Well, in Pangilinan v. Cayetano (2021), the Supreme Court ruled that the Philippines' withdrawal from the Rome Statute did not erase its legal obligation to cooperate in proceedings that began before the withdrawal took effect. Meaning, the crimes committed before the withdrawal were still and until now under the jurisdiction of the ICC. Just imagine that President A committed warcrimes or crimes against humanity, how unfair would that be if he would escape accountability just because he withdrew membership from the ICC. That would create a way for acquittal for offenders to just withdraw from the ICC to prevent accountability.
• And this Duterte/Bato saga isn't even the most extreme case of the intersection of domestic and international law. Because are you aware of the organization called UN Security Council? Do you remember the Kosovo Bombing Campaign (1999) — Operation Allied Force? During that time, good luck bringing Yugoslav and Serbian to the ICC because there was no ICC at that time. But do you recall the Nuremberg Trials? Yeah that was one of the earliest forms of the ICC back then before its birth. Also, in 2011, do you recall the NATO Intervention in Libya (2011) — Operation Odyssey Dawn? Even if the ICC was already in existence in 2011, good luck bringing Libya to the ICC during that time. That's why other nations intervened like the USA. The point here is this: There are two kinds of crimes you could commit while in your country - the territorial crimes like the RPC and the universal crimes like crimes against humanity. That's why the "local warrant theory" wouldn't hold. Although the Supreme Court is yet to decide whether it is really required, but I bet it would decide that a local warrant isn't needed, with precedents like R.A. No. 9851 and Pangilinan v. Cayetano (2021). But at least I appreciate the D-D-S for defending like that because it will help enrich Philippine legal jurisprudence and to be more specific about certain matters.

Happy Mother's Day to all mothers! This day is special for them, isip mothers nato and ilaw ng tahanan.

But speaking of "ilaw ng tahanan," and pardon me to be frank, we all know dili tanang mothers kay bootan or kind or non-toxic. Yeah, one might argue nga "isa ra akoang inahan" or "kung wala siya wala ko", but being a mother doesn't give the right to abuse the child, poison the family, or bring harm to the child or family which is much worse.

Yeah, lets just say tanang girls naay pagka maldita or kuti, especially our moms, but ibang usapan na yan when the "ilaw ng tahanan" becomes the source of darkness. Being annoying or strikta is another thing, but being already toxic or harmful is an entirely different league. While bias jud sa atoa ang family members nato, but the moment imong relatives like first degree cousins, aside from other many non-relatives, dili na gani maka-uyon sa imo mama, well most likely naa najud niya ang problema.

Or the moment the mother violates the Anti-Child Abuse Law or VAWC Law. Yes, pwede mahimong offender ang mama sa VAWC. As per the Supreme Court, a mother who maltreats her child resulting in physical or psychological violence is not exempt from liability. The law is meant to protect children even when the mother is the abuser.

Naa pud ubang mama dira, bisan dako na ang anak, like late 20s to 30s, mura gihapon teenager ang treatment. In short, naa jud mga SELFISH MOMS. To be clear, unless obviously dangerous or illegal ang buhaton, ang mabuhat rajud sa mama kay guidance nalang sa kana nga age range.

Ang uban pud dira, gihimo as retirement plan or personal resource ang anak nga obligated jud daw ka mubuhi nila or muhatag jud daw dapat. Uban magbuot pa how personal funds will be utilized, like dapat dako dayon ang ihatag, dili ginagmay lang. Again, okay raka mu advice but ayaw pagbuot sa final decision sa anak esp if hinagoan na niya. Naay uban mupa dungog2x by saying "kita ang nagtanom pero lahi ang nag-ani." WTF. Uban dira pa victim dayun or mang-wenta nga nalimtan naba daw sa anak ang sacrifices sa mama. Lol. Well, nalimot pud si Toxic Mom nga you are not God nga PIRMING SAKTO.

To conclude, I know no matter how cruel, toxic, or evil a mom is, mama gihapon na nato. But the moment she becomes a burden or bringing trouble in our lives, motherhood is never a license to abuse or maltreat a son or daughter. And my personal take? Life is just too short for stupid toxicity, and I have no room for people like that, even if YOU ARE MY MOM. I will still love you, remember you, honor you, support you, but dili nako mukuyog nimo and dili ka maka dictate nako unsa ako buhaton. I give whenever I can and want or whenever necessary. Like what I said, mothers should be the "ilaw ng tahanan", not "kadiliman ng tahanan."

But for others nga swerte nga bootan ang mama or sakto ra ang pagka strikta or maldita, Im happy for you. Anyway, whether kind or toxic mother, Happy Mother's Day gihapon!

I remember watching a YT video. I forgot which channel. He basically said his theory that the matchmaking system is designed to usually limit your winning rate to 50-60%, unless you are exceptionally good with semi-pro or pro level skills. Also, he has a theory that if you are good player, like winning many MVPs in recent games, bad players will be paired with you for the next matches so that you will be the one to carry those bad players.

In other words, you are a smart student in your class and you are intentionally paired with dumb classmates in a group activity because the teacher is hoping you will be the one to carry those dumb classmates.

I can't wait for the day when the top officials of Moneytoon will be interviewed and will respond to the long-time allegations and complaints by the players. And the interview questions should not be given in advance.

Sa mag nagtapos dito ng college or currently in college, do you still recall your subject called "Logic"? Because now, that subject can save you from the lies and traps by various political factions. You cannot be easily fooled if you have studied that subject well in college. Because if you can recall, one of the topics in logic are fallacies. Philippine legal laws decide whether you are legally right or wrong, but the rules on logic decide whether you are illogical or not - walang bias dyan. Unfortunately, many people nowadays they commit fallacies, especially in politics - even the educated and professional ones all for the sake of defending their chosen political leader. Below are two of the most common fallacies committed recently.

1. Whataboutism (The Great Deflection)

The Issue: Sara Duterte’s Impeachment & Fund Misuse. 

The Argument: "Why all this focus on impeachment? How about the billions stolen from flood control under the Marcos administration?" 

Logical Breakdown: Even if the flood control scandal is real (and the 2026 audit suggests it is), it does not logically prove that the Vice President is innocent of misusing confidential funds. These are two separate crimes. 

Why it’s a sign of weakness: They are conceding the point. By saying "what about them," they are indirectly admitting, "Okay, we might have done it, but they did it too."

The "Fallacy Fallacy" Rebuttal

• The Opponent's Defense: "You’re committing the fallacy fallacy! Just because my logic is 'whataboutism' doesn't mean the corruption in flood control isn't a more important fact than the impeachment."
• Your Response: "Acknowledging your fallacy isn't about ignoring the flood control scandal—both can be true, and both deserve prison time. However, using one to distract from the other is a Red Herring. My point isn't that the VP is guilty because your logic is bad; it's that your argument provides zero evidence for her innocence. If she didn't misuse the funds, show the receipts. Pointing at the floods doesn't explain the missing confidential funds."

2. Cherry Picking (The Selective Truth)

The Issue: The Drug War & the International Criminal Court (ICC). 

The Argument: "The Drug War was a success because Davao City became the safest city and millions of users surrendered." 

Logical Breakdown: This ignores the thousands of extrajudicial killings and the 2026 ICC findings of "systematic" state-sponsored violence. It focuses on a small, contested success to mask a national disaster. 

Why it’s a sign of weakness: You only cherry-pick when the "whole tree" is rotten. If the policy were an objective success, you wouldn't need to hide the body count.

The "Fallacy Fallacy" Rebuttal

• The Opponent's Defense: "Even if I'm cherry-picking, the 'safety' of Davao is still a fact. You're just using the 'fallacy fallacy' to dismiss a real-world success!"
• Your Response: "The Fallacy Fallacy only applies if a conclusion is true despite poor logic. But in this case, your conclusion (that the Drug War 'worked') is actually invalidated by the missing data. In medicine, you can't claim a drug is a 'success' because it cured one person's cough while causing heart failure in ten others. By ignoring the systemic killings, your 'fact' about Davao is an incomplete truth, which in a legal context is a lie by omission. I'm not dismissing your fact; I'm revealing that your fact is not a representative sample of the reality."

When an opponent uses the "Fallacy Fallacy" defense, they are trying to force you to debate the truth of their distraction. Don't fall for it. Accept their distraction as a separate truth, but firmly point out that it has zero logical connection to the issue at hand. The side that uses the most fallacies is the side that cannot win on the main evidence.

So the next time you can hear someone say - "Why all this focus on impeachment? How about the billions stolen from flood control under the Marcos administration?" - now you know that is an illogical statement. But even if you try to enlighten that person, pero ayaw paring makinig, well better just avoid people na close-minded kasi wala kanang magagawa sa mga tao na yan. As the saying goes: "A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it is not open." - Frank Zappa (often attributed to James Dewar)

Sa mga naay uyab dira, esp sa baguhay palang ni enter, pagbantay mo ana inyong uyab. Do not give everything - at least maintain some level of VIGILANCE. Dapat aware mo kung gaslighting bana or manipulation, especially if naglikay silag accountability. And to be fair, dili tanang acts kay gaslighting or manipulation, so one must know the difference.

For example, nibakasyon ang imo uyab kuyug sa iya family, pero sa 2 or 3 nights niya didto, esp naay signal didto, wala jud siya naka chat nimo maski gamay lang, esp if nag tagay2x siya with laptop by the beach. Dayun inig balik, the moment mangutana ka ngano, magpataka dayun blame nga "needy" daw ka. Lol. Ka oplok rasona. So ikaw pa hinuon ang sala instead of taking accountability. Calling your partner 'needy' for wanting more than a thumbs-up reaction to messages is a way to avoid talking about why you went silent. I’m not asking for your constant attention - I’m asking for basic respect when you clearly have the downtime. And it might get worse if wala siya naka chat nimo habang naa didto, pero sa laing opposite sex nga non-family naka chat siya. HAHA.

Another example, nag cheat imo uyab pero ikaw ang gi blame kay seloso daw ka or busy daw ka or dili daw ka enough para niya. Lol.

Another example, nikuyug siyag voluntary trip for multiple nights with her older male ESL student 1v1 adtos south, unya sa dihang ganahan ka mukuyug kay something feels off sa imoha (arang2x nalang mukuyug kaysa ipa cancel jud nimo), kalit lang siyag ingon nga controlling daw ka or possessive. Hahaha. Pagka obob.

So sa mga walay uyab dira, kakita nimo unsa ka complicated ang uyab2x? Masabtan raman ngano kay pagkabata nato wala raba ta gitudluan unsaon na pag handle. Maong if single paka, humana muna imo pagskwela until graduate naka or professional naka. Because as cleverly titled by Thomas Erikson in his three books: "Surrounded by Psychopaths"; "Surrounded by Idiots"; and "Surrounded by Liars." Yes, unfortunately we live in such a world and usahay maka jackpot ka nga ingonana imohang uyab maong if nag skwela paka avoid the potential drama of relationships by staying single.