u/Mean_Application_102

In Anton Asistio's recent statement, he said:

>"There was nothing done to us that would put us in immediate danger."

However, in an older interview with Ranidel de Ocampo, when asked if anyone had ever nearly drowned during those Baler training sessions, Anton reportedly answered:

>"Muntik na si Gboy Babilonia."

Genuine question: if a player almost drowned during the training, wouldn't that qualify as being in immediate danger?

Of course, "almost drowned" could mean different things depending on the circumstances, and it's possible Anton is referring to intentional hazing versus risks that naturally come with extreme training. But at face value, the two statements seem difficult to reconcile.

Ateneo de Manila University has confirmed the passing of two members of the Ateneo Men's Basketball Team, Rene Clert Baterbonia and Divine Adili, following a drowning incident during a team-building activity in Dipaculao, Aurora.

No rivalry, no school colors, no competition matters in moments like this.

These were young student-athletes with dreams, families, teammates, and futures ahead of them. What was supposed to be a team-building activity turned into an unimaginable tragedy.

My deepest condolences to their families, friends, teammates, coaches, and the entire Ateneo community.

May they rest in peace. 🕊️

Back in 2025, Curlee Discaya attracted attention when he used the phrase "ilan sa kanila" during the flood control controversy, leading many to speculate that more names—possibly lawmakers and even senators involved in the investigations—would eventually be revealed.

Later, he clarified that there were no more names to be dropped.

Now, after being sentenced, he is reportedly claiming that more than 150 congressmen are allegedly involved in the flood control scam.

My question is simple:

If he truly had knowledge of a scheme involving over 150 lawmakers, why wasn't this disclosed earlier when he was under oath, being questioned, and had the attention of the public and investigative bodies?

Why wait until after a conviction or sentence to make such a massive allegation?

If the claim is true, it deserves evidence and investigation. If not, then it risks looking like an attempt to shift the narrative after the fact.

What do you think explains the timing?

• Fear of retaliation?
• Lack of evidence before?
• Trying to negotiate or seek leniency?
• Or something else?

This post isn't about declaring anyone guilty. I'm more interested in understanding why such a serious accusation would surface only now.

Today, Sen. Raffy Tulfo raised several points that had been bothering me since the 18 "kargadors" first came forward.

Instead of simply accepting the narrative at face value, he pointed out inconsistencies, gaps in the timeline, and questions that still need answers. That's not taking sides—it's doing what an investigator is supposed to do.

Whether the allegations are true or false, scrutiny should apply to everyone. If a story holds up, it should survive tough questioning. If it doesn't, then the public deserves to know that too.

That's why today's discussion felt more productive than simply letting witnesses make statements without meaningful follow-up.

Today, we witnessed what looked like a more legitimate and professional Blue Ribbon Committee hearing.

No viral confrontations. No shouting matches. No grandstanding.

Instead, the committee heard from government institutions tasked with investigating the case—the NBI, DOJ, and Ombudsman—to explain their findings, procedures, and actions regarding the alleged money-delivery scheme.

While no witnesses directly involved in the allegations appeared today, the hearing focused on obtaining information from the agencies responsible for the investigation. Whether you agree with their findings or not, it was an opportunity to hear from the institutions handling the case.

The absence of the reported 18 bodyguards/security personnel remains a significant issue. Their testimony could help clarify key facts and answer questions that government reports alone may not fully address.

At the end of the day, accountability requires both competent investigations and willing witnesses.

Ever wonder how a 24-member Senate can hold a session with only 12 people? It all comes down to the Supreme Court ruling in Avelino v. Cuenco, which dictates that quorum is based on the number of available active members.

Back on May 5, 2015:

• 4 senators were out of the country
• 3 senators were in detention (Enrile, Revilla, and Estrada) and legally unable to attend

Youtube video link: Senate Session No. 69 (May 5, 2015) - YouTube

Ever wonder how a 24-member Senate can hold a session with only 12 people? It all comes down to the Supreme Court ruling in Avelino v. Cuenco, which dictates that quorum is based on the number of available active members.

Back on May 5, 2015:

• 4 senators were out of the country
• 3 senators were in detention (Enrile, Revilla, and Estrada) and legally unable to attend

Giving the vlogger the benefit of the doubt, pero sana nilinis nila yung kalat pagkatapos ng video. Wala kasing indication sa post kung nag-clean up sila afterward.

First, the Senate was dragged into controversy over the sheltering of a wanted individual. Then came the shooting incident involving a Senate employee. Next was the presentation of a controversial video that critics say contained unverified or misleading information. And now, a Senate session failing due to a boycott by the leadership itself.

Whether you support or oppose Cayetano, it's hard to deny that the Senate has seen a series of unprecedented controversies under his leadership.

The scheduled meeting between Senate President Alan Peter Cayetano and Vietnamese President To Lam on Monday has been canceled.