Days before the burning of my house in January 12 this year, I have blogged about issues related to the Nevada case settlement negotiations for $20-M that had been bragged about during the 2013 Elections by certain quarters, I also blogged about developments on the disqualification case vs Regina O. Reyes and flip-flopping statements made by her before the Courts and media, as well as posts about the case filed more than three years ago before the Sandiganbayan vs Gov. Carmencita O. Reyes in connection with the infamous Fertilizer Scam where there's still no move to suspend her from office in accordance with law.
I am reposting my blog subtitled Regina Reyes' Multiple Flip-flops dated January 9, 2014, in the light of apparent attempts now to muddle the issue some more by making grotesque claims (after more than two years since the case was filed). At issue this time is my blog titled "Seeking and finding the truth about Regina O. Reyes" whose writer they claim has not been identified, variously describing him as an "anonymous blogger", "unnamed blogger", as well as "an internet blog whose author has not been revealed, much less surface".
One such claim was posted by Bel Cunanan an Inquirer writer in her blog Political Tidbits three days ago, August 17, 2014. She adds thus:
The truth is that Cunanan's newspaper (Inquirer) published a story, "Blogger in disqualification case vs Reyes fears for his life"on January 14, 2014, the internet version of which is reproduced below. Another truth is that the name of the blogger is identified in both the COMELEC and SC case documents, also below.
And there is no phantom except in the devil's storehouse. That goes without saying who the author is.
This blogger is no phantom!
I am reposting my blog subtitled Regina Reyes' Multiple Flip-flops dated January 9, 2014, in the light of apparent attempts now to muddle the issue some more by making grotesque claims (after more than two years since the case was filed). At issue this time is my blog titled "Seeking and finding the truth about Regina O. Reyes" whose writer they claim has not been identified, variously describing him as an "anonymous blogger", "unnamed blogger", as well as "an internet blog whose author has not been revealed, much less surface".
One such claim was posted by Bel Cunanan an Inquirer writer in her blog Political Tidbits three days ago, August 17, 2014. She adds thus:
"Reyes rightly asks, "is there such a person at all who supposedly authored this blog? Does he or she actually exist?" At the moment her camp asserts that neither the Comelec nor the SC knows for sure if that blogger truly exists. And yet, there seems to be effort to ease her out through this "draft decision" on the evening of HRET's convening? Indeed, is there a phantom, not of the Opera, but of the House?"
The truth is that Cunanan's newspaper (Inquirer) published a story, "Blogger in disqualification case vs Reyes fears for his life"on January 14, 2014, the internet version of which is reproduced below. Another truth is that the name of the blogger is identified in both the COMELEC and SC case documents, also below.
And there is no phantom except in the devil's storehouse. That goes without saying who the author is.
This blogger is no phantom!
 |
| Screen shot of Inquirer article January 14, 2014, by Maricar Cinco (above) |
 |
| Excerpts from the blog of Bel Cunanan dated August 17, 2014. |
 |
Text of the Inquirer article January 14, 2014, (above) by Maricar Cinco. Excerpts:"In January 2013, Obligacion wrote an article titled "Seeking and finding the truth about Regina Reyes," that presented a database of Reyes' immigration records as an American citizen and holder of a US passport since 2005...""In a text message on Tuesday, Reyes denied any hand in the fire and attack on Obligacion. "It is not in our character and I pray for Mr. Obligacion's enlightement," she said. |
 | ||||||
| Excerpt from SC Resolution dated October 22, 2014, whereby "the disposition of 25 June 2014, is here repeated for affirmation": |
Petitioner alleges that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it took
cognizance of "newly-discovered evidence" without the same having been testified on
and offered and admitted in evidence. She assails the admission of the blog article of
Eli Obligacion as hearsay and the photocopy of the Certification from the Bureau of
Immigration. She likewise contends that there
was a violation of her right to due process of law because she was not given
the opportunity to question and present controverting evidence.
Her contentions are incorrect
.
It must be emphasized that the COMELEC is not bound to strictly adhere to the technical rules of procedure in the presentation of evidence. Under Section 2 of Rule I, the COMELEC Rules of Procedure "shall be liberally construed in order x x x to achieve just, expeditious and
inexpensive determination and disposition of every action and proceeding brought before the Commission." In view of the fact that the proceedings in a petition to deny due course or to
cancel certificate of candidacy are summary in nature, then the "newly discovered evidence"
was properly admitted by respondent COMELEC.
Furthermore, there was no denial of due process in the case at bar as petitioner was given
every opportunity to argue her case before the COMELEC. From October 2012 when Tan's petition was filed up to 27 March 2013 when the First Division
rendered its resolution, petitioner had a period of five (5) months to adduce evidence.
Unfortunately, she did not avail herself of the opportunity given her.
REPOST FROM JANUARY 9, 2014:
.jpg) |
| At the center of it all... REGINA O. REYES' MULTIPLE FLIP-FLOPS |
Having followed the case and media's coverage of the issues involved where there was repeated mention of 'that Internet blog' which was 'no evidence' or mere 'hearsay evidence' with others warning about a new 'danger' posed by use in court of such blogs to disprove one's claims, it became evident that no one ever bothered to check what admissions and contradictory claims Regina O. Reyes had made before the poll body, the High Court and the media.
In the previous post that contained facts deliberately brushed aside by mainstream media, contrary to fair media reporting, facts spelled out in the COMELEC and the High Court decisions, anyone with open eyes must have seen that the propaganda line that the blog-entry-as-basis claim is absolutely false and a horrible, despicable, deplorable insult to our time-honored institutions.
We must have seen the truth that: after hammering on a self-made claim that she never became a naturalized U.S. citizen, there was no objection manifested by Regina O. Reyes nor counsel to the documentary evidences presented by petitioner. Instead, respondent Reyes suddenly ADMITTED, repeat, ADMITTED, that she was a 'dual citizen' after all. But, as if to convey that someone could be untouchable, that someone could be above the law here in our disaster-stricken country, Reyes stated - under oath - that the provisions of RA 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Reacquisition) DID NOT APPLY TO HER; that there was no need for the twin requirements in her case, i.e. to take an oath of allegiance to the Republic and renounce her foreign citizenship AS REQUIRED BY LAW, not presenting any evidence why the law is not applicable to her, however.
(Ref: SC Resolution on GR 207264 dated October 22, 2013 here, and Separate Concurring Opinion by CJ Sereno here.)
But there's another thing. Where on earth would you encounter the argument of those who have dual citizenship by virtue of having mixed parents, as also used in this case by respondent, when the whole world knows that you have neither an American mother nor an American father? That was also part of what she raised before Comelec earlier on, but not being a lawyer, I suppose it was simply buried, maybe not found to be worthy of comment by the authorities concerned because of sheer absurdity. An absurd claim that was repeated in media (print and TV), by one of her counsels.
 |
| Regina Ongsiako Reyes. Photo: Rappler |
"Hindi po totoo iyon, base lamang sa internet blog iyun. Iyun po ay kasinungalingan po sapagkat ako ay Filipino, natural born po ako…", she (Reyes) explained.(ABS-CBN)
Parang ang ibig sabihin baga ay 'natural born po ako kahit pa ako ay nag-renounce ng pagiging Filipino nung ako ay naging Amerikana dahil kailangan ko pong talikuran naman ang aking pagiging Pilipino ayon sa batas ng Amerika'? 'At naging Pilipino po ako ulit kahit hindi ako nanumpa sa Republika at hindi rin tumalikod sa U.S. dahil hindi applicable sa akin ang RA 9225 ng Pilipinas'? Dahil iba po ako eh?
Then you would dramatically cry 'foul' after it was proven, based on your own admission and other fantastic claims you've made that, indeed, there were material misrepresentations in your own certificate of candidacy. Admissions do not require proof, right? After all, also at issue here is a very serious matter prohibited under the Constitution:
"Article IV. Section 5. Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law."
It is inimical to the national interest indeed, particularly when the issue involves one seeking an elective office. It's like serving two masters or, at worst, serving the interests of your foreign master and not those of your native master if the law is not heeded. We must realize that those seeking naturalization in the U.S. have to undergo a tedious process, finally having to "renounce and abjure absolutely and entirely all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty".
The Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America, on the other hand, reads as follows:
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God." (read)
That's clearly an oath that, among others, incorporates in substance, supporting the U.S. Constitution, renouncing all allegiance to any country particularly that of the country which before you were a citizen, and defending the laws of the U.S. against enemies, foreign and domestic. Are you going to say then that U.S. laws also are not applicable to you?
Renunciation is the most unequivocal way in which a person can manifest an intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. It is also a renunciation of all the rights and privileges associated with such citizenships and not taken lightly by the U.S. government. Meaning, a certain process also has to be followed that unless you already possess a foreign nationality, you may be rendered stateless and thus, lack the protection of any government (read).
But lucky are those who have the protection of a ruling party in their native shore. The law of the land could just be dumped.
On the other hand, former Filipino citizens reacquiring Filipino citizenship under RA 9225 are mandated to take an oath of allegiance to the Republic. This is the oath that in the course of the proceedings Regina O. Reyes stated - under oath - DID NOT APPLY TO HER:
“I, (name), solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines and obey the laws and legal orders promulgated by the duly constituted authorities of the Philippines; and I hereby declare that I recognize and accept the supreme authority of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; and that I imposed this obligation upon myself voluntarily without mental reservation or purpose of evasion. So help me God.” (read)
Ngayon ang tanong: Kung hindi ka nanumpa ng katapatan sa Republika para maibalik ang iyong citizenship bilang Filipino at hindi mo rin naman tinalikuran (renounced) ang iyong pagiging Amerikano, nasa aling bansa ang iyong katapatan (allegiance)?
Remember that one was seen very angrily telling the whole world that she could, with "forgotten evidence", prove that she was once in fact a naturalized U.S. citizen (!). And note, further that there's another twist coming from her own mouth in the very same breath: It appeared that the authenticity of the documents she brandished before media could not be proven, she says, because its 'records are missing'! Such!
So again, at the risk of being repetitive, at first she 'hammered' on the claim that she is not an American citizen; changed this to that of being a 'dual citizen', but someone, she says, who did not undergo the naturalization process but through citizenship by 'marriage to a U.S. citizen' (!), someone who, likewise as she claimed, need not follow the requirements of Philippines' RA 9225 to reacquire her former Filipino citizenship; then belatedly presenting a document dated Sept 2012, to prove 'renunciation', that she described as 'a superfluity'; altering the claim once more by belatedly announcing after the Comelec final judgment - to a yellowed media, of course, that she had 'forgotten evidence'- an Identification Certificate under RA 9225 that "Comelec refused to accept" but that the official records for said document for purposes of authentication are missing, she said, in fact that would furthermore support her contradictory averments if it had been presented to the poll body.
More inconsistencies or lies here, but, after the foregoing
it's your turn to figure it out.
But media appears to have been helplessly hoodwinked. Now, this flipping, flopping craze goes on and on, no one dares to notice and we are held hostage to one's grotesque antics?
Item: "Reyes said she was once a dual citizen but she gave up her American citizenship ship in 2005." (Disqualified Marinduque solon insists she's Filipino) ABS-CBN
But hey! Giving up American citizenship in 2005 (use of U.S passport started same year according to BI records), allows one to use U.S. passport up to June 2012, and makes for renunciation of U.S. citizenship via a notary public on Sept. 21, 2012, a 'superfluity'?
Item: "Reyes has presented many evidences of her renunciation of US citizenship, including her use of a PH passport for some time now, but the SC has ignored them." Bel Cunanan 'relentless advocate of truth'.
Relentless advocate of truth? But the Comelec and decisions are available online for checking such claims and obviously ignored by some such advocates. So much for that kind of 'truth'!
But going back to another Constitutional provision being violated:
Article VI. Section 6. No person shall be a Member of the House of Representatives unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at least twenty-five years of age, able to read and write, and, except the party-list representatives, a registered voter in the district in which he shall be elected, and a resident thereof for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the election.
The way to do it is by staging another circus. Claim COMELEC grave abuse and absence of due process before an excited media audience in a series of offensives and press releases.
Media apparently did not bother to look into the case records. (Some writers claim they did, but stuck to the obvious template using the same quotes, same viewpoint from the same camp). The lie is repeated with more accusations, premeditated accusations really, that would make for startling sound bites and headlines.
Bakit daw ganito?
How's that possible? "May media mafia dito sa mainstream, hindi mo ba alam?", sagot sa akin. An insider confides when I tried to check why the lies have suddenly dominated the headlines. The clear message is that there's control of media by the powers that be in general, but other group persuasion could make a dent from time to time, though not as frequently, depending on pecuniary benefits that could be derived from any given issue being developed.
Oh yeah? Oh yes!
 |
| Form DS4080. OATH/AFFIRMATION OF RENUNCIATION OF NATIONALITY OF THE UNITED STATES. That I am a national of the United States by virtue of: 0 Birth in United States or Abroad to U.S. Parent(s) 0 Naturalization Date of Naturalization ______ |
"Not agreeing with the Resolution of the COMELEC First Division, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration14 on 8 April 2013 claiming that she is a natural-born Filipino citizen and that she has not lost such status by simply obtaining and using an American passport. Additionally, petitioner surmised that the COMELEC First Division relied on the fact of her marriage to an American citizen in concluding that she is a naturalized American citizen. Petitioner averred, however, that such marriage only resulted into dual citizenship, thus there is no need for her to fulfill the twin requirements under R.A. No. 9225." - SC Resolution
And so the Marinduque saga has evolved into what we now see. The trail of deception has creepingly, maliciously evolved from the poverty-stricken corners of a 'nondescript island' into the halls of Congress to wreck havoc therein for the institutionalization of anarchy and insanity. We hear voices now that appear to make claims that the Constitutional provisions cited above, after the case involved has been decided upon by Comelec and the High Court, could be thrown away into the dustbin for a "political decision taking precedence over jurisprudence of a court without a popular mandate." Such!
Also read:
No comments:
Post a Comment