COMMENTARY: Digong Duterte and criminals in the ruling classes

Davao's Digong Duterte wants the corrupt killed.
 

But the human rights community, marginalized at it may be, may perceive Digong himself as a criminal. He deserves due process which he seems to deny the nonentities he is charged with having dispatched to the Promised Land.

Vigilantism presents its own set of problems.

A looter may be looting to feed a starving family. He has a right to be heard on obeying the first law of mankind: survival.

Is one charged with owing the BIR P3.9B a criminal? Or does Manny Pacquiao deserve due process? But, he's a prominent billionaire, untouchable, for Digong.

Lawmakers may misallocate pork? Are they criminals?

The Binays claim their wealth came from massive unspent political donations, from what I read; they should be heard.

Digong, a perceived 2016 presidential rival, is perceived to have his own private population reduction program. Targetting the poorest of the poor. Uninfluential, oppressed. obscure. Not the Binays.

In 1997, a Taipan sent an emissary to me to offer P50,000 in cash, monthly, no receipt. My take-home was P14,612.50. Criminals in the ruling classes are not alarmed by Digong's obsession. I could not very well have asked that the Taipan be shot. Due process.

Only the yagits, poor, obscure, powerless, would get it under the Digong Principle or Doctrine. No Senator or Cong.

The Enriles, Estradas, Revillas and Binays would not lose sleep over Digong's threats. All members of the ruling classes. And they can shoot back.

If Digong will just knock off all criminals, how many government officials will be left?

 

Has he been suspected of or charged with having killed anyone prominent, or influential, members of the ruling classes, or only the poor, obscure and oppressed?

 

"Davao mayor says concept of human rights for thugs is Western not for PH." He says the Western concept of human rights does not apply to us. Ka Pepe Diokno says such line is "racist non-sense." 

 

Many believe GMA is a crook. Should Prez Digong order that she be shot in July 2016?

 

House arrest for her says the House Justice Committee (does not mean her house is to be arrested). Palace says hands off. John Doe asks that the House be asked to show cause why it should not be cited for contempt for interfering with the judiciary and violating the separation of powers principle. Which stance should one favor, the House's or the Palace's?   

 

The House Reso is authored by Rep. Bebot Bello, a staunch fellow human rights lawyer. Sec. 14 of Art. VI of the Consti bars Congs from personally appearing as counsel before any court. Does he violate the spirit of the ban? I have long supported house arrest for GMA, provided Mike has no objection. (When I proposed house arrest for Erap in  2001, he asked, "can I select which house?" Susmaryosep! Anyway, in the end he got Resthouse Arrest, in his sprawling estate in Tanay.)

 

BTW, the House showed sense in not naming Manny Pacquiao to head its overseas workers panel.

 

Violence has no place in any game. But, in boxing, violence is the game. No peep from me had Manny stuck to the Manly Art of Modified Murder though. His human right. But, when he multi-tasked as Cong, boxer, PBA playing coach, showbiz performer, concert singer, founder of his own Iglesia, etc., I asked the House to discipline or even expel him for violence to an institution.

He was finally sighted in the House this week. Let's hope he reforms if he really wants to be Senator in 2016 and Prez in 2022.

 

No Susmaryosep! please, or "of what country naman kaya?" We cannot underrate anyone's capacity for change and subjective growth.