Total Pageviews

Like us on Facebook

Friday, August 19, 2016

Did Inquirer represent the prim & proper elite in defending De Lima & attack Duterte? ~SHARE~

The Philippine Daily Inquirer took the side of De Lima and called Duterte's exposé the new low.  They said the language the President used was not presidentiable.

Yes, previous presidents who came from the ruling elite behaved in a prim and proper manner and used language that was more diplomatic and less scathing..... and therefore Presidentiable.

But a less scathing statement does not diminish the message, it is simply pleasant to hear for the 'prim and proper' ears.  As you see, the prim and proper would rather use the word 'copulate' instead of f**k even though it means the same thing.

Unfortunately for them, we have a president who will call a spade a spade.

Inquirer said that Duterte's accusations against De Lima had no proof, but wait; didn't PNoy accuse GMA of a lot of things and now GMA is free because the evidence against her were weak?

So if we talk about accusations and proof, the Inquirer should have also pointed out that De Lima too had accused Duterte in the past and offered no proof.

It appears to me, that the Inquirer would rather focus on form rather than substance.  We have a bigger problem and that is the drug menace; unfortunately however; Inquirer would rather have a showbiz style discussion and act like a talkshow host.

The basis for my comments is the Inquirer article titled 'A New Low" and I am really surprised that a newspaper as big as the Inquirer seemingly have double standards.

Please leave a comment to share your thoughts.

A new low
Philippine Daily Inquirer
12:26 AM August 19th, 2016

Where were you on Wednesday afternoon, when President Duterte assassinated the character of Sen. Leila de Lima in a speech in Camp Crame? Chances are, you will not soon forget the words the President used to attack his critic:

“Here’s a senator complaining. One day I will tell you that her driver himself, who was a lover, was the one collecting money for her during the campaign,” the President said, without offering a shred of proof to back his claim.

“An immoral woman, insofar as the driver’s wife is concerned, it’s adultery,” he continued. “Here’s a woman who funded a house of a lover and yet we don’t see any complaint about it,” he said. “Those [monies] came readily from her. The intercept between Muntinlupa and the driver were far beyond making sure that somebody was involved,” he added, cryptically.

Was the President certain, beyond any doubt, that the money allegedly collected by the driver went directly to De Lima? He said: “But in fairness, I would never say that the driver gave [the money] to her, but by the looks of it, she has it.”

In other words, the President’s attack against the chair of the Senate committee on justice and human rights, who will begin an investigation into the spate of extrajudicial killings that have marked the start of the Duterte administration, is based, not on proof that she was receiving money from drug lords, but only on her being allegedly an immoral woman.

This is a little rich, coming from a President who is quite happy to talk about his philandering ways, even during the election campaign. The argument on adultery is shockingly sexist; “real men” like Mr. Duterte are immune to criticism about their many affairs and dalliances. On the other hand, paint a woman with the brush of rumor and innuendo, and the President’s supporters will conflate alleged immorality with alleged corruption.

But the real reason that President Duterte is ready to believe these rumors and innuendoes about De Lima is the personal hurt he apparently continues to nurse, about De Lima’s investigation of the so-called Davao Death Squad in the city over which he presided for decades. Even to this day, the President will recall the details of the investigation, mimicking the English accent of De Lima, who was then chair of the Commission on Human Rights. Add the senator’s recent privilege speech about the extrajudicial killings and the committee investigation, and we can begin to understand why Mr. Duterte’s alarm bells have gone off.

The language that Mr. Duterte used, however, is decidedly unpresidential. Then again, perhaps we should not wonder, considering his offensive remarks during the election campaign: his cursing of Pope Francis for one, his gratuitous comment about having sex first, by rights, with a gang rape victim, for another. But stripped to its essentials, what is the President’s case against De Lima? Alleged immorality.

We are hard-pressed to think of another example, from previous presidencies, about language from the President that, if used by a senator, would immediately be deemed unparliamentary, or, if used by an ordinary citizen, would be grounds for slander. This is truly a new low. (And marking his 50th day in office, too.)

And despite promising last week that he would “destroy” a female official, the attack against De Lima last Wednesday was hardly the open-and-shut case he pledged. In the same way that his so-called “narco-list” is riddled with errors, the attack against De Lima is full of holes, too. If this is the best that the President of the Philippines can do, in marshalling government resources against a person he considers an enemy, then there is really nothing against De Lima.


  1. Bigay na yang ebedisyan kong mayroon para tapos ang kaso at sa kulongan ang bagsak. Puro dakdak



    3. Drug protector din siguro inquirer. Pag galit sa kampanya ni Duterte may maling ginagawa. Talk talk.

  2. di ba sabi killing me softly.... just wait, time will come

  3. palagay ko sangkot din pamunuan ng inquirer kaya ganun na lang pagdepensa nila kay delimaw,mga wala kayong kwenta

  4. Ok lang Inquirer I've been reading you since day one 1986 you say balance news fearless views but this time the balance seems tipping over to the wrong direction. That is why I'll go the side of the 90 million Filipinos they call Duterte fanatics.

  5. Sangkot din tong inquirer said illegal drugs..

  6. Sangkot din tong inquirer said illegal drugs..

  7. Sangkot din tong inquirer said illegal drugs..

  8. Then dont read this newspaper,e boycot ang newspaper na ito.

  9. Wala po kayong kwenta. Magsara na kayo. Isa kayong malaking pakyu sa pilipinas at no one will give a shit on your articles except dun sa mga mangmang at mga istupido katulad ng boss nio.