Monday, October 28, 2013
Hole of Justice: Irresponsible Radio Commentator
Hole of Justice: Irresponsible Radio Commentator: Hole of Justice By Peter G. Jimenea A Badmouth Radio Commentator Jurisprudence dictates: “Pre...
Hole of Justice: Irresponsible Radio Commentator
Hole of Justice: Irresponsible Radio Commentator: Hole of Justice By Peter G. Jimenea A Badmouth Radio Commentator Jurisprudence dictates: “Pre...
Hole of Justice: Irresponsible Radio Commentator
Hole of Justice: Irresponsible Radio Commentator: Hole of Justice By Peter G. Jimenea A Badmouth Radio Commentator Jurisprudence dictates: “Pre...
Hole of Justice: Irresponsible Radio Commentator
Hole of Justice: Irresponsible Radio Commentator: Hole of Justice By Peter G. Jimenea A Badmouth Radio Commentator Jurisprudence dictates: “Pre...
Hole of Justice: Irresponsible Radio Commentator
Hole of Justice: Irresponsible Radio Commentator: Hole of Justice By Peter G. Jimenea A Badmouth Radio Commentator Jurisprudence dictates: “Pre...
Irresponsible Radio Commentator
Hole of Justice
By Peter G. Jimenea
A Badmouth Radio Commentator
Jurisprudence dictates: “Press freedom is enshrined in the Constitution
but such freedom should not be abused because in every right there is a
concomitant obligation.” (G.R. No. 157315, Dec. 1, 2010). This is the language
of law.
Court stands firmly by things that have been decided on cases with
similar facts and had been resolved in the past. It warns too; Suum jus, summa
injuria – the abuse of right is the greatest possible wrong. (Arlegui vs CA,
378 SCRA 322).
But I am surprised on why radio broadcaster Jun Alojado Capulot of DYOK has
been putting me down in his program by insinuating that I have a link with a
certain Dragon, he alleged a drug lord.
Probably, he is referring to a businessman-owner of a transportation company
who is one of advertisers in my television program “Kape kag Isyu.” Capulot has
deliberately put malice to my business relation with this man he fondly called Dragon.
Does it put substance to his insinuation that when a person he suspects as
vice lord placed a paid advertisement of his legal business in my program, do I
am already engaged in illegal activities? It is an honest source of income. If
he can cite to me any politician whom I have asked a centavo, I will resign as
a media practitioner!
Capulot seems in run amuck. I am not alone in his unfounded accusation on
the air. He also lambasted PRO6 Dir. Agrimero Cruz, ICPO Dir. S/Supt. R. Floro,
the PDEA, Iloilo City Mayor Jed Patrick Mabiiog and some innocent people
including me his colleague in the media industry.
The public should know as this is not what we think a radio commentator’s
business is all about. What’s more, the one
thing we all abhor is not a cheap shot but illegal drugs. Yet, Capulot’s
handling of the issue is out of pique and inflating out of proportion.
Irresponsible!
Why insinuate only? He should have investigated further to obtain the
proper evidence that can pin down the culprits in his dreams. A continue insinuations
can besmirch the reputation of innocent people. Get out of your hole and help
the authorities rather than wage a war against them.
Look, he derides members of the PNP, the Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency (PDEA6) and the city mayor for not running after the man and the others whom
he wanted to pin down by insinuations. Capulot’s concept of justice is at odds
with due process.
He wants to become a hero at the expense of the PDEA and other PNP anti-Illegal
drug units in the city. His desire is easy said than done. But where is the evidence
for the law enforcers to follow his wish? If people commit crime, the
authorities need not be told by this radio commentator to arrest them.
Thus, for his temerity to attack anybody at whims, he was forced to lock
himself like a prisoner in a certain quarter at radio station DYOK for fear of
his life from the dozen or more enemies he created and now his feared would-be assassins.
In this case, who made his life miserable?
Oddly enough, while attacking Dragon for two months, he spared the Barangay
Bakhaw in Mandurriao, which police record speaks, has more number of drug
pushers apprehended and more volume of illegal drugs confiscated compared to all
the other city barangays.
A report from PDEA tells there are 127 city barangays affected by illegal
drugs. But Capulot attacked only Dragon and at times, insulted me. What is there
in Barangay Bakhaw anyway, that he spared it when war against illegal drugs is a
cause as he earlier claimed at?
Capulot’s over-kill insinuation lacks the substance to deserve public
attention. The more he talks about people he wants to link to Dragon without
evidence to support, the more he isolates himself from DYOK’s listeners.
This only reinforced the widespread public belief that he is an irresponsible
media practitioner. Jurisprudence dictates; “he
who has lied about one thing is most likely to lie about everything.”
(Ramos vs. CA, 188 SCRA 450). With a liar radio commentator on the loose, isn’t
this a cause for alarm?
The temerity to put in bad light the integrity of innocent people without
the benefit of evidence is something he had already paid a dear price in the
past. His victim, a lady doctor, had taught him a lesson for his large
propensity to badmouthing. Reminder: “a probation” is only enjoyed by a convict
once in a lifetime.
Capulot doesn’t learn. He probably believes that hard-hitting commentators
convicted or jailed for libel cases are the best media practitioners. Not today,
conviction for libel is a proof of irresponsible journalism. I’m not sure
though, if John Paul Tia DYOK’s station manager subscribes to this.
There is no intent to offend but you dragged my name several times insinuating
a bad link between me and my advertiser. Is it jealousy? He is a friend, so what’s
wrong about it? You’ve gone too far Jun Alojado Capulot. A friendly advice,
stop talking lies about me and I’ll stop telling the truth about you!
Irresponsible Commentator
Hole of Justice
By Peter G. Jimenea
A Badmouth Radio Commentator
Jurisprudence dictates: “Press freedom is enshrined in the Constitution
but such freedom should not be abused because in every right there is a
concomitant obligation.” (G.R. No. 157315, Dec. 1, 2010). This is the language
of law.
Court stands firmly by things that have been decided on cases with
similar facts and had been resolved in the past. It warns too; Suum jus, summa
injuria – the abuse of right is the greatest possible wrong. (Arlegui vs CA,
378 SCRA 322).
But I am surprised on why radio broadcaster Jun Alojado Capulot of DYOK has
been putting me down in his program by insinuating that I have a link with a
certain Dragon, he alleged a drug lord.
Probably, he is referring to a businessman-owner of a transportation company
who is one of advertisers in my television program “Kape kag Isyu.” Capulot has
deliberately put malice to my business relation with this man he fondly called Dragon.
Does it put substance to his insinuation that when a person he suspects as
vice lord placed a paid advertisement of his legal business in my program, do I
am already engaged in illegal activities? It is an honest source of income. If
he can cite to me any politician whom I have asked a centavo, I will resign as
a media practitioner!
Capulot seems in run amuck. I am not alone in his unfounded accusation on
the air. He also lambasted PRO6 Dir. Agrimero Cruz, ICPO Dir. S/Supt. R. Floro,
the PDEA, Iloilo City Mayor Jed Patrick Mabiiog and some innocent people
including me his colleague in the media industry.
The public should know as this is not what we think a radio commentator’s
business is all about. What’s more, the one
thing we all abhor is not a cheap shot but illegal drugs. Yet, Capulot’s
handling of the issue is out of pique and inflating out of proportion.
Irresponsible!
Why insinuate only? He should have investigated further to obtain the
proper evidence that can pin down the culprits in his dreams. A continue insinuations
can besmirch the reputation of innocent people. Get out of your hole and help
the authorities rather than wage a war against them.
Look, he derides members of the PNP, the Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency (PDEA6) and the city mayor for not running after the man and the others whom
he wanted to pin down by insinuations. Capulot’s concept of justice is at odds
with due process.
He wants to become a hero at the expense of the PDEA and other PNP anti-Illegal
drug units in the city. His desire is easy said than done. But where is the evidence
for the law enforcers to follow his wish? If people commit crime, the
authorities need not be told by this radio commentator to arrest them.
Thus, for his temerity to attack anybody at whims, he was forced to lock
himself like a prisoner in a certain quarter at radio station DYOK for fear of
his life from the dozen or more enemies he created and now his feared would-be assassins.
In this case, who made his life miserable?
Oddly enough, while attacking Dragon for two months, he spared the Barangay
Bakhaw in Mandurriao, which police record speaks, has more number of drug
pushers apprehended and more volume of illegal drugs confiscated compared to all
the other city barangays.
A report from PDEA tells there are 127 city barangays affected by illegal
drugs. But Capulot attacked only Dragon and at times, insulted me. What is there
in Barangay Bakhaw anyway, that he spared it when war against illegal drugs is a
cause as he earlier claimed at?
Capulot’s over-kill insinuation lacks the substance to deserve public
attention. The more he talks about people he wants to link to Dragon without
evidence to support, the more he isolates himself from DYOK’s listeners.
This only reinforced the widespread public belief that he is an irresponsible
media practitioner. Jurisprudence dictates; “he
who has lied about one thing is most likely to lie about everything.”
(Ramos vs. CA, 188 SCRA 450). With a liar radio commentator on the loose, isn’t
this a cause for alarm?
The temerity to put in bad light the integrity of innocent people without
the benefit of evidence is something he had already paid a dear price in the
past. His victim, a lady doctor, had taught him a lesson for his large
propensity to badmouthing. Reminder: “a probation” is only enjoyed by a convict
once in a lifetime.
Capulot doesn’t learn. He probably believes that hard-hitting commentators
convicted or jailed for libel cases are the best media practitioners. Not today,
conviction for libel is a proof of irresponsible journalism. I’m not sure
though, if John Paul Tia DYOK’s station manager subscribes to this.
There is no intent to offend but you dragged my name several times insinuating
a bad link between me and my advertiser. Is it jealousy? He is a friend, so what’s
wrong about it? You’ve gone too far Jun Alojado Capulot. A friendly advice,
stop talking lies about me and I’ll stop telling the truth about you!
Hole of Justice: Sensational Lovers' Case
Hole of Justice: Sensational Lovers' Case: Hole of Justice By Peter G. Jimenea Sensational Lovers’ Case In 1...
Hole of Justice: Sensational Lovers' Case
Hole of Justice: Sensational Lovers' Case: Hole of Justice By Peter G. Jimenea Sensational Lovers’ Case In 1...
Hole of Justice: Sensational Lovers' Case
Hole of Justice: Sensational Lovers' Case: Hole of Justice By Peter G. Jimenea Sensational Lovers’ Case In 1...
Hole of Justice: Sensational Lovers' Case
Hole of Justice: Sensational Lovers' Case: Hole of Justice By Peter G. Jimenea Sensational Lovers’ Case In 1...
Hole of Justice: Sensational Lovers' Case
Hole of Justice: Sensational Lovers' Case: Hole of Justice By Peter G. Jimenea Sensational Lovers’ Case In 1...
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Sensational Lovers' Case
Hole of Justice
By Peter G. Jimenea
Sensational Lovers’ Case
In
1981, Mrs Billie Jean King, the six-times Wimbledon Single Tennis Champion and
President of the Women’s Tennis Ass’n. (WTA), was accused by Marilyn Barnett,
her former personal secretary for breach of oral contract. The latter claimed they
are lovers but was forced to file the case when King demanded that she vacates the
Malibu beach home owned by the tennis star.
Barnett
testified that the house was promised to her by Mrs King through a verbal
agreement when they are still in the intimacy of a relationship. Unknown to
Barnett, King had earlier filed an eviction case against her because despite
the offer of money for her to leave the Malibu house, she rejected the offer
and refused to leave.
The
sensational case was feasted by the press. But days after the news broke out,
King called for a press conference. She was accompanied by her husband Larry
King, a sports promoter. At the press conference King admitted that she and
Barnett had been lovers when she was still active in the sport.
She
claimed to have told her husband about the affair when she noticed that Barnett
wants to get more money from her. She
also noticed that Barnett doesn’t want to give up the beach house despite the offer
of monetary consideration to start her new life when she vacates the place.
Barnett declined the offer and stood pat on her claim to the property.
Barnett
33, had filed a 13 page suit seeking a lifetime support and title to the Malibu
beach house which she said Mrs King had promised her. She abandoned her
hairdressing career to be the secretary of Mrs King from 1972 to 1979, while enjoying
the sexual intimacy on a regular basis. But now King demanded that she moves out
from the Malibu house so it can be sold.
Months
before the suit was filed, however, Barnett had fallen from a balcony of a
building and become a paraplegic. During the press conference, King denied their
relationship saying that she was shocked by the action of her secretary. But against
the advice of her lawyer, she admitted; “I did have an affair with Marilyn
Barnett.”
Her
mom and husband were there to give her full support when she addressed the journalist;
“I’ve always been honest. I’ve decided to talk with you as I’ve always talked
from my heart. I am very disappointed and shocked that Marilyn has done this,
not only to herself a very destructive thing, but to other people who cared for
her.”
King
added; “Though the affair had been over for some time, I made a mistake. I will
assume that responsibility. I discussed it with Larry – in some ways I think
we’re much closer today than we’ve ever been and our marriage is stronger.”
King tendered her resignation as president of WTA but was rejected by WTA
authorities and public response was overwhelmingly favourable to her as shown
by sacks of letters coming in.
The
niceties of the Court trial came in two parts. The first suit heard in December
1981, was filed by Mrs King and husband to force Barnett to leave the beach house.
The former hairdresser entered the Los Angeles Superior Court with stick and
long grey skirt to hide her leg braces. In the witness stand she was asked by
Mrs King’s counsel what she had done for the tennis star.
Barnett
answered; “I gave up my career, my identity, my pride and my home.” She
admitted hoping for a life-long relationship with King. When asked if the
tennis star owed her something, she said; “yes.” The Court, however, decided in
favour of King and husband. They won the right to evict Barnett from the
disputed beach house.
The
judge ruled that Barnett had come close to trying to extort money from the
tennis star; it appeared that Billie Jean King and husband had offered her
$125,000 to get her to leave the house. Ms Barnett had refused, according to the
judge, because she felt she can get more money. In November 1982, the judge
dismissed all Barnett’s claims and her plea for “Palimony” has failed. True, res
clamat domino- a thing insists for its owner!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)