Comments on: Ang Ladlad and Danton Remoto, A Bunch of Liars

By: Supreme Court Approves Ang Ladladâ€™s Participation on the May 2010 Polls | Pinoy Sounding Board

Thu, 08 Apr 2010 07:13:51 +0000

[...] Ang Ladlad was even accused as immoral who cannot do any good to this nation and short of bluntly called criminals by bishops of the CBCP and the Comelec Commissioners of the Second Division. [...]

By: Bastardizing of the Party-list System of the Philippines 101 | Pinoy Sounding Board

Mon, 29 Mar 2010 02:06:23 +0000

[...] is the only country that everyone, everything and all groups could now easily become a marginalized sector and have a representation in [...]

By: elmot

elmot — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 06:33:58 +0000

Hi Trey! Thanks for the comment.

There are certain criteria that a group should follow in order to be listed as a party-list group. However, the decision of the COMELEC on the issue of Ang Ladlad is basically not on a plainly legal sphere but on a moral issue that tried to find some justifications on existing laws. And obviously when one tries to inject morality and religion on judicial decisions, the decision already loses its validity on the eyes of the petitioning party.
elmot´s last blog ..Hello world!

By: Trey

Trey — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:55:56 +0000

what are the basic requirements for a party-list to be a legitimate candidate for the coming elections? i think the commission and Ang Ladlad must stick to these objective criteria than to focus on moral issues which are in fact undetermined until the latter is put to congress and implement their program of action.

if athletes, teachers, youth, environmentalist, animal right advocates, the PWDs, OFWs, labor organizations, jeepney drivers, etc. are represented by a party-list, why can’t the GLBTs?

By: elmot

elmot — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 03:56:32 +0000

Hi Balty! Thanks for the comment and active participation. You are always welcome here on my blog.

You raised indeed another point-of-view that indeed exposes the problem that the COMELEC has raised on its decision. Deciding on a petition based on religious beliefs and tone that they are somewhat standing on a higher moral ground opens the discussion about other politicians and political groups who are approved by their office to run though are tainted and known as people with questionable morals. How about that?

By: elmot

elmot — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 03:52:42 +0000

Thanks doc MD for sharing your thoughts.

Though I also think that he made a total idiot out of himself…I would not have him hanged with his family…

He should alone be sent to Abu Sayaff-infested territories. LOL

By: elmot

elmot — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 03:49:33 +0000

I agree Roy. Homophobic or not if a person who is tasked to render judgment is impartial and faithful to the things written on our laws and constitution, it would not matter so long has his decision is devoid of personal biases and judgments, more so of religious tones and sarcasm.

But the three justices has proven otherwise.

And include me too of those who could have easily been filed a felony case if the decision of the COMELEC is to be based upon by authorities.

By: Balty

Balty — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 13:14:20 +0000

I just wonder. If COMELEC disqualified Ang Ladlad because of issues of immorality, shouldn’t they also disqualify individuals because of the same grounds?

Of course, COMELEC may say that they don’t have the authority to declare a person immoral or not…Teka, didn’t they just do that with Ang Ladlad?

And with this decision of COMELEC, can we petition the disqualification of candidates because they are immoral?
Balty´s last blog ..Logic 101 by Comelec

By: roy

roy — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:41:51 +0000

Hello Elmot, whether he’s homophobic or simply being religious is beside the point. He should apply what the law is, and the law applicable for me here is the 1. Constitution, 2. the Party List System Act, 3. COMELEC Resolution #2847.
I just think that all three are just being ignorant for insisting that gay representatives in the congress “tolerate/promote immorality”. They continue being ignorant by uttering ignorant remarks when they defend their position. One even said, “there’s no need for representation, there are many of them already in the congress.” Another one challenged the reporters “who any of us here can honestly say that homosexuals do not tolerate/promote homosexuality?”
The Revised Penal Code provision where they base their decision is very outdated and already vague when it was promulgated in the 1930s. I cannot begin to think how does one become guilty of ‘tolerating/ promoting immorality.’ And if so, how many including me have not been charged w/ the felony.

By: doc MD

doc MD — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:46:22 +0000

TO Elmot: i think Nicodemo is an idiot. An old, bigoted idiot. He should be hanged and his family hanged with him.