Topic: Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte

[Rockford]

Davao City Mayor Rodrigo Duterte

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=709631195724333&set=a.317154781638645.79048.310621318958658&type=1&theater

BULLSEYE! 

Please delete / lock if posted

[Pierro7]

add ko na rin yung link ng article.
http://www.rappler.com/business/industries/247-agriculture/49577-duterte-tags-bangayan-smuggler-senate-hearing

I really admire this guy. Kahit nakakatakot ako sa kanya. 
kamay na bakal talaga ang kelangan ng Gobyerno natin.
non-sense yung "Human Rights" kung ultimo yung kriminal, nilalabag ito sa mga biktima nila.

[BlueAlphaZero]

I realize this is a minority opinion but from what I know, good men--most especially good men elected to a public office--uphold the rights of both the innocent and the guilty so that they can have their day in court where the law--the law that every good public servant takes an oath to uphold--will prevail.

[abdul jahkool]

I realize this is a minority opinion but from what I know, good men--most especially good men elected to a public office--uphold the rights of both the innocent and the guilty so that they can have their day in court where the law--the law that every good public servant takes an oath to uphold--will prevail.

Indeed sir BAZ, the justice system that protects the innocents is the same system that protects the guilty. The system that is being capitalized by the law makers themselves. The system manipulated by lawyers and counsels where resources is favorable. Justice that mostly serves the rich and the literate. Any system designed by men will always have flaws. Against a rich business man who stole from helpless farmers who in turns died from hunger, where is the justice on that?

I guess majority is a dexter fanatics.

[Trigger Davao]

I have been all over big cities like Manila,QC,Cebu,etc. Never did I think about trading Davao City for any other.
Kahit Iphone 5s pa yang cp mo, magtext ka or tumawag sa jeep no problemo.
100% Davaoeño here

[BlueAlphaZero]

Any system designed by men will always have flaws.

The key word here, in my opinion, is "men"; that is to say, our present justice system was put together not by an individual but by a group so that no single person can override it entirely for their own ends.

Admittedly, the system is flawed but by virtue of it being made by a collegial body, those flaws can be identified and rectified, if and when it becomes necessary. This can be done with the participation and the consent of those whom the system affects on a day-to-day basis. There can be checks and balances put into place. Dissent and assent are given equal weight.

Can the same be said of a system where only one man has the combined authority of judge, jury, and executioner? In such a system, where are the checks and balances? Do dissenting opinions still matter? How will the flaws of such a system be corrected? When only one man has the power to decide who is guilty and who isn't, how long before he finds everyone guilty of one crime or another?

Indeed sir BAZ, the justice system that protects the innocents is the same system that protects the guilty. The system that is being capitalized by the law makers themselves. The system manipulated by lawyers and counsels where resources is favorable. Justice that mostly serves the rich and the literate.[...]Against a rich business man who stole from helpless farmers who in turns died from hunger, where is the justice on that?

Again, admittedly, it is true that those who can afford high-powered legal counsel often have the advantage in our present justice system. But that's not always the case. I've been witness to an instance wherein the "poor and unfortunate" took advantage of their supposed social status in order to escape the consequences of their actions. I use the term "poor and unfortunate" loosely based on my experience regarding this incident I'm recounting.

To wit: a family who lives next to me was caught tapping the electricity supply of a relative of mine, resulting in a Meralco bill that was triple the normal amount for my relative. When my relative filed a complaint before our barangay officials, the family of power pilferers said that they had no money to pay for the equivalent amount of electricity they had illegally used. My relative--not wanting her electricity to be cut--had no choice but to pay her grossly inflated bill (although she's been seeking legal counsel regarding this matter). The power pilferers got away (temporarily, one hopes) with their crime. Would that be considered justice since the power pilferers are "poor and unfortunate"?

[abdul jahkool]

Let me clarify that it is not the justice system that i wanted to change. And i am not telling one individual should override the system. It is only worth noting that there is a leader willing to take responsibility over his action should someone violated the law in his town. In fact he know vigilantism is against the law but he, as duterte said, is willing to be put to prison if smugglers try to smuggle rice in davao. He is willing to undergo the same justice system to defend his land. That is something only few are willing to risk.

About your sample scenario, justice is not yet served and the perpetrator is still on the lose. Instead of reaching legal counsel, why not prepare amicable settlement. Those family could provide services in lieu of the money owed.

Then again, no one can use poverty to deny justice, but the rich can play the game with money. Poor people seeking true justice needed someone with authority in order to protect them and not the authority protecting the rich culprits (provided that evidenced and witnesses is already available)