So much for her bullshitry!
(Only to have shit thrown back at it!)
Notes on the recent action of Lorraine Badoy-Partosa
and how lawyers, academics, and concerned folks ganged up together against her hyseria
This note condemns a former government official and her threats against Judge Marlo Magdoza-Malagar and her husband, Atty. Chancellor of the University of the Philippines-Cebu, Leo Malagar.
Because Lorraine Badoy-Partosa made the claim a few days ago on social media that political beliefs were to blame for the murder of a judge and the bombing of courthouses. The DOJ's petition was dismissed on September 21 by Magdoza-Malagar, presiding judge of Manila Regional Trial Court Branch 19, in a court judgment that the influencer disagrees with. Malagar contrasted between "terrorism" and "rebellion" in rejecting the DOJ's argument, pointing out that terrorism has a wider reach than revolt and that rebellion is merely one method of terrorism.
Malagar distinguished between "rebellion" and "terrorism" in rejecting the DOJ's plea, pointing out that terrorism is broader in scope than rebellion, with rebellion being only one of the various means by which terrorism can be committed.
For the apologist, Badoy's and her colleagues in the NTFELCAC "were about to cut the head of the serpent," as they've claimed, only to find themselves affecting the concerned, much less the innocent, all in the name of "anti-subversion" and "anti-terrorism." That their comments, whether justified as free speech whether posted on social media or spoken in a television program, rather degenerated into absurdity, especially in connecting certain people (including judge Magdoza-Malagar) to the communist party and therefore “face the consequences”.
With words such as “So if I kill this judge and I do so out of my political belief that all allies of the CPP-NPA-NDF must be killed because there is no difference in my mind between a member of the CPP-NPA-NDF and their friends, then please be lenient with me,” the former government official posted a hypothetical question that is willing to do so in the name of her “anti-communist cause.”
And this kind of question did occur in countries such as Latin America during the 1980s. Those who advocated for human rights, the rule of law, and even expressed concern were killed in the name of counterinsurgency, or anti-terrorism in today's parlance. Even clergymen like Bishop Romero was killed by the military just because he spoke against state terror! Will Badoy's words remain hypothetical in light of this example? This doesn't matter to the apologist; in fact, it justifies what amounts to an open public threat against a lawful official, what more a member of the bar.
Furthermore, according to the statement from the “Free Legal Assistance Group”, that “Badoy's threat is not protected speech-it is a felony. Her red-tagging of the spouses Malagar violate their rights under international law and Philippine law. Her irresponsible posts against them and others clearly indicate that she will continue to act with impunity unless she is held accountable.”
Even the University of the Philippines College of Law condemn the threats and should not be allowed to remain unaddressed as red tagging violates the basic principles on the role of lawyers. “Both undermine the rule of law a s represent the continuing impunity which is key to the modus operandi of Ms. Badoy and her ilk.” According to the statement.
Thus, in this light, this note again deplores such action by Badoy et al. as reeks of hysteria, as it vilifies and endangers those who administers justice if not seeking truth from facts. By claiming to be defending “democracy” and “freedom” under this current order this turned out to be willing to set aside due process, rule of law for their distorted concept of order reminiscent of oplans “Tokhang” and “Double Barrel” of the past regime- and this may repeat again by claiming this as a necessary evil.
At present, the former government official may’ve “obeyed” the order brought from the courts as it sternly warns those who continue to incite violence which endangers the lives of judges and their families" shall “likewise be considered a contempt” of the tribunal and “will be dealt with accordingly.”
But, does it mean she and her ilk will stop and give way to the decision? Or will still babble as if nothing happened?