A veteran laywer and a known supporter of Pres. Rody Duterte, Atty. Trixie Cruz-Angeles answered opposing arguments recently being released by the people involved in the controversial LeniLeaks documents and at the same time reveals the main reasons why most biased news media failed to report the oust Duterte plans.
Atty. Angeles was able to answer all the opposing arguments against the importance of LeniLeaks revealing some prominent supporters of VP Leni Robredo and even concluded that alleged oust Duterte plots were of importance and urgency.
The viral LeniLeaks showed exchanges between members of the "Global Filipino Diaspora Council," which includes prominent personalities abroad and news media people discussing plot to overthrow the duly-elected President through well-organized protest actions.
Atty. Angeles debunks the arguments of the those people who were involved in LeniLeaks who noted that ouster does not exist since it wouldn't be feasible. She stated that like many attempts at an ouster in history, the fact that it may seem unwinnable, doesn't stop the participants.
The veteran lawyer also said that even if the controversial LeniLeaks which was first initiated by Thinking Pinoy and Sass Rogando Sasot was a hoax, it still requires investigation especially if it could possibly constitute a crime.
For the past few days if a public official is targeted by false news, he or she usually refutes it with a statement but the silence from VP Robredo's camp is "astoundingly particular" according to Atty. Angeles, since the OVP could be a possible participant in an act of sedition.
Here's the Complete Statement of Atty. Trixie Cruz-Angeles:
Atty. Angeles was able to answer all the opposing arguments against the importance of LeniLeaks revealing some prominent supporters of VP Leni Robredo and even concluded that alleged oust Duterte plots were of importance and urgency.
The viral LeniLeaks showed exchanges between members of the "Global Filipino Diaspora Council," which includes prominent personalities abroad and news media people discussing plot to overthrow the duly-elected President through well-organized protest actions.
Atty. Angeles debunks the arguments of the those people who were involved in LeniLeaks who noted that ouster does not exist since it wouldn't be feasible. She stated that like many attempts at an ouster in history, the fact that it may seem unwinnable, doesn't stop the participants.
The veteran lawyer also said that even if the controversial LeniLeaks which was first initiated by Thinking Pinoy and Sass Rogando Sasot was a hoax, it still requires investigation especially if it could possibly constitute a crime.
For the past few days if a public official is targeted by false news, he or she usually refutes it with a statement but the silence from VP Robredo's camp is "astoundingly particular" according to Atty. Angeles, since the OVP could be a possible participant in an act of sedition.
Here's the Complete Statement of Atty. Trixie Cruz-Angeles:
Dealing with the arguments.
Fallacy 1: The ouster plot does not exist because it will not win. It is not feasible.
Answer: The plot may exist regardless of our opinion on whether or not it will win. Oakwood was unwinnable, but the participants went anyway. The Manila Hotel siege during the Cory years, also unwinnable (dead ended), but they went anyway. In the minds of the plotters they could win. So they plotted and they went. The plot exists/existed, even if it would not have won. What matters is the belief of those who participate in it.
Fallacy 2: There doesn't seem to be a crime, therefore there is no crime.
Answer: That is what investigations are for. If you have information that a crime is being committed or about to be committed, would you wait for the damage to be done before looking into it? In crimes involving national security, there is much leeway given to government agencies to address emergent issues to protect the state.
Furthermore, government has conducted investigations on a lot less information. Matobato was an unreliable witness, and the statements he made, unbelievable. But an entire Senate investigation (not to mention full page coverage of self serving statements post-Senate inquiry) was conducted to look into it.
On the other hand, police investigations do not need a private complainant for the PNP or other law enforcement agencies to begin looking into the matter, so long as the public interest warrants it. Certainly a plot to overthrow a duly constituted authority warrants a look, not a cavalier dismissal.
Fallacy 3: Hoaxes should be ignored
Answer: The determination of what constitutes a hoax may be left to the opinion of the individual and acted on accordingly. However, when the alleged hoax could possibly constitute a crime, an investigation is warranted to determine if it affects the public interest.
Also, if a public official is the target of false news, it usually behooves that person to refute it. When a misreporting of death is so obviously wrong, the "deceased" usually comes out with an "I'm still alive" statement, even if it is rather redundant. The silence from the Robredo camp, however is astounding particularly since the office of the vice president is touted to be a possible participant in an alleged conspiracy to commit sedition.
The point in all this is that the public discussions on #LeniLeaks is completely warranted and the issue of why it is being cavalierly dismissed, a reasonable point for discussion. So "don't us" if we wonder why it isn't being reported or why the participants are silent. All of that is fair game.
Source: Atty. Trixie Cruz Angeles
Fallacy 1: The ouster plot does not exist because it will not win. It is not feasible.
Answer: The plot may exist regardless of our opinion on whether or not it will win. Oakwood was unwinnable, but the participants went anyway. The Manila Hotel siege during the Cory years, also unwinnable (dead ended), but they went anyway. In the minds of the plotters they could win. So they plotted and they went. The plot exists/existed, even if it would not have won. What matters is the belief of those who participate in it.
Fallacy 2: There doesn't seem to be a crime, therefore there is no crime.
Answer: That is what investigations are for. If you have information that a crime is being committed or about to be committed, would you wait for the damage to be done before looking into it? In crimes involving national security, there is much leeway given to government agencies to address emergent issues to protect the state.
Furthermore, government has conducted investigations on a lot less information. Matobato was an unreliable witness, and the statements he made, unbelievable. But an entire Senate investigation (not to mention full page coverage of self serving statements post-Senate inquiry) was conducted to look into it.
On the other hand, police investigations do not need a private complainant for the PNP or other law enforcement agencies to begin looking into the matter, so long as the public interest warrants it. Certainly a plot to overthrow a duly constituted authority warrants a look, not a cavalier dismissal.
Fallacy 3: Hoaxes should be ignored
Answer: The determination of what constitutes a hoax may be left to the opinion of the individual and acted on accordingly. However, when the alleged hoax could possibly constitute a crime, an investigation is warranted to determine if it affects the public interest.
Also, if a public official is the target of false news, it usually behooves that person to refute it. When a misreporting of death is so obviously wrong, the "deceased" usually comes out with an "I'm still alive" statement, even if it is rather redundant. The silence from the Robredo camp, however is astounding particularly since the office of the vice president is touted to be a possible participant in an alleged conspiracy to commit sedition.
The point in all this is that the public discussions on #LeniLeaks is completely warranted and the issue of why it is being cavalierly dismissed, a reasonable point for discussion. So "don't us" if we wonder why it isn't being reported or why the participants are silent. All of that is fair game.
Source: Atty. Trixie Cruz Angeles
Lawyer Answers Opposing Arguments & Reveals Reasons Why LeniLeaks Were Not Reported
Reviewed by Phil Newsome
on
January 09, 2017
Rating:
Reviewed by Phil Newsome
on
January 09, 2017
Rating:
