Alan F. Paguia
Former Professor of Law
Ateneo Law School
University of Batangas
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila
alanpaguia@yahoo.com
December 16, 2010
Is the seven-vote acquittal rendered by the Supreme Court en banc in the consolidated cases of Lejano v. People and People v. Webb - constitutional?
It is respectfully submitted the proper answer is NO.
The dispositive portion of the Decision, dated December 14, 2010, reads:
“WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the Decision dated December 15, 2005 and Resolution dated January 26, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. 00336 and ACQUITS accused-appellants Hubert Jeffrey P. Webb, Antonio Lejano, Michael A. Gatchalian, Hospicio Fernandez, Miguel Rodriguez, Peter Estrada and Gerardo Biong of the crimes of which they were charged for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They are ordered immediately RELEASED from detention unless they are confined for another lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Director, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to report the action he has taken to this Court within five days from receipt of this Decision.
SO ORDERED.”
1. The 15 Justices voted as follows:
a. Seven (7) for acquittal;
b. Four (4) dissenting; and
c. Four (4) took no part.
2. On the basis of the seven votes, all the accused were immediately released from prison.
3. The material provisions of the 1987 Philippine Constitution appear to be as follows:
“The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.” (Sec. 1, Art. II)
“The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices. It may sit en banc or in its discretion, in divisions of three, five, or seven Members. Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof.” (Par. 1, Sec. 4, ART. VIII)
“All cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement, or law, which shall be heard by the Supreme Court en banc, and all other cases which under the Rules of Court are required to be heard en banc, including those involving the constitutionality, application, or operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations, shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.” (Par. 2, ibid.)
“Cases or matters heard by a division shall be decided or resolved with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon, and in no case without the concurrence of at least three of such Members. When the required number is not obtained, the case shall be decided en banc: Provided, that no doctrine or principle of law laid down by the court in a decision rendered en banc or in division may be modified or reversed except by the court sitting en banc.” (Par. 3, ibid.)
“The conclusions of the Supreme Court in any case submitted to it for decision en banc or in division shall be reached in consultation before the case is assigned to a Member for the writing of the opinion of the Court. A certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice shall be issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case and served upon the parties. Any Member who took no part, or dissented, or abstained from a decision or resolution must state the reason therefor. The same requirements shall be observed by all lower collegiate courts.” (Sec. 13, ibid.)
4. There are two ways by which the SC can decide a case:
(a) En banc, referring to the total of 15 justices; or
(b) In divisions of 3, 5, or 7 justices.
5. In EN BANC proceedings, the case “shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon”.
6. In DIVISION proceedings, the case “shall be decided or resolved with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon”.
a. In a division of 3 Justices, a decision must have 3 concurring votes in order to be valid. This absolute minimum is by express provision of the Constitution. It can be readily observed that the required number of votes in relation to the total number of justices in the division is CONSISTENT with the cardinal principle of DEMOCRACY or the RULE OF MAJORITY.
b. In a division of 5 Justices, a decision must also have 3 concurring votes in order to be valid. This absolute minimum is by express provision of the Constitution. It can be readily observed that the required number of votes in relation to the total number of justices in the division is CONSISTENT with the cardinal principle of DEMOCRACY or the RULE OF MAJORITY.
c. In a division of 7 Justices, 4 would constitute a QUORUM. By mechanical application of the rule, 3 out of the 4 could render a decision. This is the problem. Why? Because 3 obviously do not constitute a majority of the total number of justices in the division.
7. Therefore, the rule cannot be mechanically applied. The rule is not clear. It is ambiguous. In divisions of 3 or 5 justices, the result of the application of the rule is consistent with the rule of majority; but, in a division of 7 justices, such application results in ABSURDITY. Instead of upholding the rule of majority, the result is the RULE OF MINORITY or violation of the cardinal principle of DEMOCRACY.
8. The same ABSURDITY arises from the application of the rule in en banc proceedings where 7 justices could rule over the 15 justices of the Court. Hence, the question is whether (a) 7 out of 15, or (b) 8 out of 15 – is the CORRECT MAJORITY.
9. Where the rule is not clear, it must be construed or clarified before it can be applied. There is no such construction or clarification in the case at bar.
10. Is the rule requiring the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon – consistent with the RULE OF MAJORITY?
The answer must be qualified.
(a) First, in divisions of 3 or 5 justices, the answer is YES.
(b) Second, in a division of 7 justices, the answer is NO.
(c) Third, in en banc proceedings, the answer is NO.
In other words, the proper application of the rule is qualified. Insofar as the second and third cases are concerned, the application must be consistent with the RULE OF MAJORITY. Ergo, in the second case, the required number of votes for a valid decision should be 4, while in the third case, the required number of votes should be 8.
11. QUORUM means MAJORITY. Since the mechanical application of the rule requires the majority of the quorum, it follows that the requirement is, in reality, a majority of the majority – which actually refers to the MINORITY. Hence, there would appear two kinds of MAJORITY: the TRUE MAJORITY which is democratic, and the FALSE MAJORITY which is undemocratic.
12. Is the 7-vote acquittal valid? NO. According to the Supreme Court, where the required number of votes is not obtained, THERE IS NO DECISION (Fortich v. Corona, 312 SCRA 751, at 758).
13. Is the order of release questionable? YES. It appears undemocratic. It is based on the RULE OF MINORITY, not the RULE OF MAJORITY.
14. Does the inconclusive acquittal render the case undecided? NO. By parity of reasoning with the doctrine laid down in Fortich v. Corona, ibid., there is still the Court of Appeals decision affirming the conviction of the accused which must stand in view of the failure of the Supreme Court en banc to muster the necessary vote for its reversal. Thus, the appeal is lost. The appealed decision is not reversed and must therefore be deemed AFFIRMED.
15. Is the lost appeal final? NO. All the accused have 15 days from receipt of the decision within which to file a motion for reconsideration. If the motion is granted and at least one dissenting justice changes his mind and votes for acquittal in addition to the 7-vote acquittal, then the appealed conviction would be REVERSED with finality. Otherwise, the conviction stands.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Monday, December 20, 2010
The colonial anti-boycott struggle
DIE HARD III
Herman Tiu Laurel
12/20/2010
"Coalition of the weak” and “lovely collection of rogues and cowards” are some of the pejoratives used for the countries that rejected this year’s Nobel Peace Prize award ceremony in Oslo, Norway. Weak, rogues, and cowards… huh? Seriously?
Among the 18 or so countries that joined the boycott, Vietnam, Venezuela, Cuba and Russia are countries that have stood up to the foremost imperialist in modern times. The United States of America, for everyone’s information, maintains 800 military bases in 130 countries and continues to trigger wars in smaller countries on all continents of the globe (except Australia).
Cuba, meanwhile, has withstood US economic blockade since 1960; Vietnam defeated the US in 1975; Venezuela has defied Uncle Sam to the benefit of Venezuelans and nationalized the oil industry which the US once controlled; while Russia has gone tit-for-tat with the US in arms control, missile defense, South Ossetian independence, and a lot more since Putin restored Russian sovereignty.
It would be more correct to describe the detractors of the Peace Prize boycott as a gaggle of weak minds for wittingly or unwittingly missing such obvious facts.
This gaggle among the local crop of naysayers should not surprise anyone anymore. The Philippine intelligentsia is still a colonial vestige that survives and thrives on the handouts of the imperial power. From the nurturing of their journalistic careers (with grants, scholarships, and visas), to the multi-national advertising money poured in for their media organizations, to funding for “human rights journalism” and recruitment to US academe, not to mention prestigious awards and prizes, this intelligentsia merely sucks from the great imperialist’s bosom.
Francisco Tatad, for instance, tells a story of this writer he saw decades ago in Washington DC. As he saw the latter tugging his luggage and making his way to State Department offices at the Watergate complex, the writer (now one of the most vitriolic in the Philippine Star on the Peace Prize issue) said, “Pera-pera lang ito,” revealing his role as a US hack.
The real surprise is that among the countries that boycotted the Nobel Peace Prize, Afghanistan and Colombia are both under US control. Were the leaders of these countries instructed to join or was it their way of nudging their American masters for more “aid” as it seems to be their habit?
The boycott from Ukraine is no longer surprising as it is under the new pro-Russia president Victor Yanukovych. Sudan, another country fighting off Western attempts to split it into two — the North whose President Bashir is persecuted by the International Criminal Court for “genocide,” a charge no African country believes, and the oil-rich South that has pro-US rebel forces — also joined the boycott. Iran, as we know, has defied the West’s nuclear apartheid for quite some time, so its boycott came as no surprise.
Other boycotting countries include Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Serbia (which has real issues against the West, such as the separation of Kosovo, later placed under the leadership of a Mafioso and organ smuggler), Pakistan (which has given the West the best runaround on its nuclear arsenal), Egypt , Morocco… and then the Philippines.
As I have said before, even if the Philippine boycott was for mistaken reasons, it was the “right” mistake, which may be a first step in wriggling a toe away from the US straight jacket. Hopefully it won’t go the direction of Gloria Arroyo who got one toe out in the Iraq pull-out but soon learned that the US will still give her free rein if only for corruption, subservience, and personal convenience — but never for political independence.
About the Nobel Peace Prize’s latest Trojan horse, Liu Xiaobo, few know that he rooted not only for the US attack on Iraq, but also praised the US-Nato-led Afghan War and campaigns for China to be fully westernized. For local intelligentsia such as the PEN writers who condemned China, westernization and colonial mind slavery are a ticket to more visas and Western literary awards or grants.
How can anyone with a right mind award a Peace Prize to a war monger, and worse, to one that seeks to erase Asian historical and cultural legacy? The mainstream of Philippine opposition to the Peace Prize boycott is conveniently weak, if not absent-minded. It likes to shoot from the hip while knowing very little about the Nobel laureate and hardly considers the recent turn for pro-war figures of the Peace Prize committee chairman, Thorbjoern Jagland, a Nato war hawk and concurrent chairman of the hawkish Council of Europe.
The Philippine anti-boycott voices reflect the prevailing colonial mentality of local intelligentsia. It explains why the Philippines is unable to break free from colonial exploitation and oppression, making the nation exceedingly poorer.
If the nation’s intelligentsia today were only half as proud and independent as those of Cuba, Vietnam, Venezuela, Iran, or China, our nation would long have stayed at the forefront of Asian intellectual leadership as the revolutionary intellectual Rizal and company showed. As things stand, a Philippines that exists only under the shadow of the US will never grow intellectually, cultural, politically, and economically.
(Tune in to Sulo ng Pilipino, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, 6 to 7 p.m. on 1098AM; watch Politics Today with HTL, Tuesday, 8 to 9 p.m., with replay at 11 p.m., on Global News Network, Destiny Cable channel 8; visit our blogs, http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com and http://hermantiulaurel.blogspot.com; P.S.-“10 minutes lights out vs power plunderers,” 7 to 7:10 p.m., Monday nights)
Herman Tiu Laurel
12/20/2010
"Coalition of the weak” and “lovely collection of rogues and cowards” are some of the pejoratives used for the countries that rejected this year’s Nobel Peace Prize award ceremony in Oslo, Norway. Weak, rogues, and cowards… huh? Seriously?
Among the 18 or so countries that joined the boycott, Vietnam, Venezuela, Cuba and Russia are countries that have stood up to the foremost imperialist in modern times. The United States of America, for everyone’s information, maintains 800 military bases in 130 countries and continues to trigger wars in smaller countries on all continents of the globe (except Australia).
Cuba, meanwhile, has withstood US economic blockade since 1960; Vietnam defeated the US in 1975; Venezuela has defied Uncle Sam to the benefit of Venezuelans and nationalized the oil industry which the US once controlled; while Russia has gone tit-for-tat with the US in arms control, missile defense, South Ossetian independence, and a lot more since Putin restored Russian sovereignty.
It would be more correct to describe the detractors of the Peace Prize boycott as a gaggle of weak minds for wittingly or unwittingly missing such obvious facts.
This gaggle among the local crop of naysayers should not surprise anyone anymore. The Philippine intelligentsia is still a colonial vestige that survives and thrives on the handouts of the imperial power. From the nurturing of their journalistic careers (with grants, scholarships, and visas), to the multi-national advertising money poured in for their media organizations, to funding for “human rights journalism” and recruitment to US academe, not to mention prestigious awards and prizes, this intelligentsia merely sucks from the great imperialist’s bosom.
Francisco Tatad, for instance, tells a story of this writer he saw decades ago in Washington DC. As he saw the latter tugging his luggage and making his way to State Department offices at the Watergate complex, the writer (now one of the most vitriolic in the Philippine Star on the Peace Prize issue) said, “Pera-pera lang ito,” revealing his role as a US hack.
The real surprise is that among the countries that boycotted the Nobel Peace Prize, Afghanistan and Colombia are both under US control. Were the leaders of these countries instructed to join or was it their way of nudging their American masters for more “aid” as it seems to be their habit?
The boycott from Ukraine is no longer surprising as it is under the new pro-Russia president Victor Yanukovych. Sudan, another country fighting off Western attempts to split it into two — the North whose President Bashir is persecuted by the International Criminal Court for “genocide,” a charge no African country believes, and the oil-rich South that has pro-US rebel forces — also joined the boycott. Iran, as we know, has defied the West’s nuclear apartheid for quite some time, so its boycott came as no surprise.
Other boycotting countries include Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Serbia (which has real issues against the West, such as the separation of Kosovo, later placed under the leadership of a Mafioso and organ smuggler), Pakistan (which has given the West the best runaround on its nuclear arsenal), Egypt , Morocco… and then the Philippines.
As I have said before, even if the Philippine boycott was for mistaken reasons, it was the “right” mistake, which may be a first step in wriggling a toe away from the US straight jacket. Hopefully it won’t go the direction of Gloria Arroyo who got one toe out in the Iraq pull-out but soon learned that the US will still give her free rein if only for corruption, subservience, and personal convenience — but never for political independence.
About the Nobel Peace Prize’s latest Trojan horse, Liu Xiaobo, few know that he rooted not only for the US attack on Iraq, but also praised the US-Nato-led Afghan War and campaigns for China to be fully westernized. For local intelligentsia such as the PEN writers who condemned China, westernization and colonial mind slavery are a ticket to more visas and Western literary awards or grants.
How can anyone with a right mind award a Peace Prize to a war monger, and worse, to one that seeks to erase Asian historical and cultural legacy? The mainstream of Philippine opposition to the Peace Prize boycott is conveniently weak, if not absent-minded. It likes to shoot from the hip while knowing very little about the Nobel laureate and hardly considers the recent turn for pro-war figures of the Peace Prize committee chairman, Thorbjoern Jagland, a Nato war hawk and concurrent chairman of the hawkish Council of Europe.
The Philippine anti-boycott voices reflect the prevailing colonial mentality of local intelligentsia. It explains why the Philippines is unable to break free from colonial exploitation and oppression, making the nation exceedingly poorer.
If the nation’s intelligentsia today were only half as proud and independent as those of Cuba, Vietnam, Venezuela, Iran, or China, our nation would long have stayed at the forefront of Asian intellectual leadership as the revolutionary intellectual Rizal and company showed. As things stand, a Philippines that exists only under the shadow of the US will never grow intellectually, cultural, politically, and economically.
(Tune in to Sulo ng Pilipino, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, 6 to 7 p.m. on 1098AM; watch Politics Today with HTL, Tuesday, 8 to 9 p.m., with replay at 11 p.m., on Global News Network, Destiny Cable channel 8; visit our blogs, http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com and http://hermantiulaurel.blogspot.com; P.S.-“10 minutes lights out vs power plunderers,” 7 to 7:10 p.m., Monday nights)
Friday, December 17, 2010
Supreme blunders?
DIE HARD III
Herman Tiu Laurel
12/17/2010
The 19-year tale of blunders and consequent injustice marks the track of Philippine society, from the staggering blunder of elite families allowing their children to be swallowed by the drug culture and involvement (without saying that they are guilty) in such a heinous crimes (such as the 1997 Chiong sisters rape-slay in Cebu by scions of powerful families) to the deadly Keystone Kops or rogue cops character, law enforcement agencies and officers, through the hoodlums in robes in the nation’s courts; and to top it all, the supreme blunder of the Supreme Court (SC) in allowing a minority of seven of the en banc to carry the final day of the almost 20-year-old Vizconde saga. According to Law professor Alan Paguia, the Constitution, jurisprudence and decided cases require the majority of eight concurrences of the en banc to decide a case; and consequently the prisoners’ release is illegal.
This is not a discussion of the merits of the Webb case. It is about the cavalier way Philippine society treats law and law enforcement that bring endless blunders and injustice upon our society. Our Global News Network show, aired live and as breaking news as the SC spokesman Midas Marquez’s statements were being replayed on air, Paguia discussed this salient point of the Constitution and the law with our other guest, former senator and whom I call senior statesman Eddie Ilarde: that the concurrence of the majority of no less than eight SC justice sitting en banc, as distinguished from a division of three or five, is required for the en banc decision to be effective. This means that the SC’s seven acquit, four sustain (for the lower court decisions) and four abstain or inhibition is actually sustaining the conviction. Vizconde should take note of this and not blunder on, though the defendants could still petition for reconsideration.
The hasty order from the SC to the prison officials to effect the release of the accused is another disconcerting error that has raised cries of “foul” from the Vizconde family sympathizers. The normal process would bring the order for release to the Department of Justice (DoJ) first and from thence to the prison officials, which would take at least a few days. The injudiciously hurried release ordered by the SC has raised charges of bribery from Vizconde supporters, believing the hastiness was compelled by other than legal considerations. I sought second opinions: four out of five lawyers said that Paguia’s questions “have merit,” two pointed out that the question however would be judged by the SC itself if brought up and would not prosper, and the hasty release was “highly irregular.” The rest of the country, even Vizconde, has accepted the SC decision to be gospel truth, thus we continue to be a “blundering society.”
The blundering media must not be let off the hook. One of the factors that got the “trial by publicity” of the accused all stoked up was the ABS-CBN’s once TV talk show host, the late Sen. Rene Cayetano, who played up the case to build up his own political stock. The Pasay judge in the Vizconde case showed a penchant to ham up to media which media lapped up with gusto, and colleagues of the judge congratulated her upon being assigned the celebrity case the media had built up and which she could bask in the glory of “hanging” the accused and gain her ticket to promotions as other “hanging judges” paved their way to prominence and other careers upon retirement. The media glare brings out many questionable values in human beings. Even today, the media show their propensity for idiocy, swallowing like the rest of society the announcement from the SC as if it were gospel truth and not raising the questions that should be raised.
The foibles of media in the aftermath of the Webb release continue, one columnist lamented “trial by publicity” when he and his newspaper have been the major “crucifier” by publicity as they did to President Joseph Estrada. The DoJ is reopening the Vizconde rape-slay case and the media should be raising the questions, such as: the role of the “drug Indians” and the NBI which allegedly illegally sprung them and which Sen. Freddie Webb was investigating, a second set of suspects who were then discounted, inexplicable lapses in the consideration and care of evidence by the court and the NBI, etc. It remains to be seen if this time the straight path to the facts and truth be taken; but after the Hong Thai-Mendoza hostage-taking and apparent cover-up are any indication, Philippine government and society will continue to blunder along — until revolutionary change imposes a strong moral and ethical culture replaces what we have today.
(Tune in to Sulo ng Pilipino, Monday, Wednesday and Friday, 6 to 7 p.m. on 1098AM; watch Politics Today with HTL, Tuesday, 8 to 9 p.m., with replay at 11 p.m., on Global News Network, Destiny Cable Channel 8; visit our blogs, http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com and http://hermantiulaurel.blogspot.com; P.S. — “10 Minutes Lights Out vs Power Plunderers,” 7 to 7:10 p.m., Monday nights)
Herman Tiu Laurel
12/17/2010
The 19-year tale of blunders and consequent injustice marks the track of Philippine society, from the staggering blunder of elite families allowing their children to be swallowed by the drug culture and involvement (without saying that they are guilty) in such a heinous crimes (such as the 1997 Chiong sisters rape-slay in Cebu by scions of powerful families) to the deadly Keystone Kops or rogue cops character, law enforcement agencies and officers, through the hoodlums in robes in the nation’s courts; and to top it all, the supreme blunder of the Supreme Court (SC) in allowing a minority of seven of the en banc to carry the final day of the almost 20-year-old Vizconde saga. According to Law professor Alan Paguia, the Constitution, jurisprudence and decided cases require the majority of eight concurrences of the en banc to decide a case; and consequently the prisoners’ release is illegal.
This is not a discussion of the merits of the Webb case. It is about the cavalier way Philippine society treats law and law enforcement that bring endless blunders and injustice upon our society. Our Global News Network show, aired live and as breaking news as the SC spokesman Midas Marquez’s statements were being replayed on air, Paguia discussed this salient point of the Constitution and the law with our other guest, former senator and whom I call senior statesman Eddie Ilarde: that the concurrence of the majority of no less than eight SC justice sitting en banc, as distinguished from a division of three or five, is required for the en banc decision to be effective. This means that the SC’s seven acquit, four sustain (for the lower court decisions) and four abstain or inhibition is actually sustaining the conviction. Vizconde should take note of this and not blunder on, though the defendants could still petition for reconsideration.
The hasty order from the SC to the prison officials to effect the release of the accused is another disconcerting error that has raised cries of “foul” from the Vizconde family sympathizers. The normal process would bring the order for release to the Department of Justice (DoJ) first and from thence to the prison officials, which would take at least a few days. The injudiciously hurried release ordered by the SC has raised charges of bribery from Vizconde supporters, believing the hastiness was compelled by other than legal considerations. I sought second opinions: four out of five lawyers said that Paguia’s questions “have merit,” two pointed out that the question however would be judged by the SC itself if brought up and would not prosper, and the hasty release was “highly irregular.” The rest of the country, even Vizconde, has accepted the SC decision to be gospel truth, thus we continue to be a “blundering society.”
The blundering media must not be let off the hook. One of the factors that got the “trial by publicity” of the accused all stoked up was the ABS-CBN’s once TV talk show host, the late Sen. Rene Cayetano, who played up the case to build up his own political stock. The Pasay judge in the Vizconde case showed a penchant to ham up to media which media lapped up with gusto, and colleagues of the judge congratulated her upon being assigned the celebrity case the media had built up and which she could bask in the glory of “hanging” the accused and gain her ticket to promotions as other “hanging judges” paved their way to prominence and other careers upon retirement. The media glare brings out many questionable values in human beings. Even today, the media show their propensity for idiocy, swallowing like the rest of society the announcement from the SC as if it were gospel truth and not raising the questions that should be raised.
The foibles of media in the aftermath of the Webb release continue, one columnist lamented “trial by publicity” when he and his newspaper have been the major “crucifier” by publicity as they did to President Joseph Estrada. The DoJ is reopening the Vizconde rape-slay case and the media should be raising the questions, such as: the role of the “drug Indians” and the NBI which allegedly illegally sprung them and which Sen. Freddie Webb was investigating, a second set of suspects who were then discounted, inexplicable lapses in the consideration and care of evidence by the court and the NBI, etc. It remains to be seen if this time the straight path to the facts and truth be taken; but after the Hong Thai-Mendoza hostage-taking and apparent cover-up are any indication, Philippine government and society will continue to blunder along — until revolutionary change imposes a strong moral and ethical culture replaces what we have today.
(Tune in to Sulo ng Pilipino, Monday, Wednesday and Friday, 6 to 7 p.m. on 1098AM; watch Politics Today with HTL, Tuesday, 8 to 9 p.m., with replay at 11 p.m., on Global News Network, Destiny Cable Channel 8; visit our blogs, http://newkatipunero.blogspot.com and http://hermantiulaurel.blogspot.com; P.S. — “10 Minutes Lights Out vs Power Plunderers,” 7 to 7:10 p.m., Monday nights)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
