Cuevas suspicion means fallacies bared For a long time earlier, during the presentation of evidences against the

Philippine Supreme Court chief magistrate, the senates behavior appeared to some observers as working destructively against the complainant-prosecutor members of the House of Representatives. Last Monday, such beliefs might have crumbled. The resumption-first-day trial created the general conclusion that after all the Senate Impeachment Court is just fair. If to some it appeared cruel to the prosecution during the latters time to present evidence, it could have also appeared similarly cruel to the defense last May 7. The message was so strong: The Senate Impeachment Court could never be swayed by any amount of pedagogy or technicality brought before it by any of the contending parties. It is doing its job so well. Meanwhile, Corona should stop saying unfounded accusations against President Benigno Simeon Aquino III. In the first place, it is not PNoy who filed the impeachment complaint against him. It is utterly wrong for Corona to be thinking and saying that PNoy is behind the case against him. In another first place, he is himself a judge, who must know, if he heartily believes in the Philippine justice system, that as a judge he cannot and must not be saying anything about any case, including especially and particularly the impeachment case against him, outside the court. Speaking or commenting on a case is prohibited and unethical, that act being construed to mean as something that could persuade public opinion or influence court proceedings or judgment or verdict. As a chief justice, he should serve and maintain himself as the ultimate model of all judges on this regard. What if all the other judges up to the lowest judicial level will also be saying just anything about cases that they suspect , only suspect because not fairly given a day in court, to either directly or indirectly affect them. That is not the kind of sober, honorable, prestigious and respectable justice system and judiciary that every taxpaying Filipino deserves. Corona and all the judges should behave by keeping their comments in court. Coronas attacking and repulsive behavior should rather be made during the court trial session where he should be present as a witness. Not outside. He must not take advantage of his position by also influencing the Judiciary and everyone in the Supreme Court. Making oneself appear while addressing subordinates (subalterns, as some quidnuncs insist) as a good boy or hardworking and unerring public servant, which elicits sympathy for him , is a fallacy, couched as an argumentum ad misericordiam, a petitio principii, or an ignoratio elenchi. It may help to borrow these thoughts from The Illogic Primer in afterall.net: Logos, often called the logical element of persuasion, is that element of persuasion in which logic is used to influence others. Pathos is that element of persuasion in which psychological or emotional factors are used to influence others. It could be called the psychological mode of persuasion, or the pathetic proofs. Ethos is that element of persuasion arising from the influence of the speakers; the factors of speech delivery, personality, and position or reputation in life. Style is that element of persuasion derived from the power of language to influence others. Choice of words that make a speech vivid, sentence structure, and other rhetorical devices constitute style. The full power of a particular speech is derived from the successful combination of these four elements and is modified by the attitudes and conditions of the members of your audience. (Huber & Snider, Influencing Through Argument, p. 177.) Logos, often called the logical element of persuasion, is that element of persuasion in which logic is used to influence others. Pathos is that element of persuasion in which psychological or emotional factors are used to influence others. It could be called the psychological mode of persuasion, or the pathetic proofs. Ethos is that element of persuasion arising from the influence of the speakers; the factors of speech delivery, personality, and position or reputation in life. Style is that element of persuasion derived from the power of language to influence others. Choice of words that make a speech vivid, sentence structure, and other rhetorical devices constitute style. The full power of a particular speech is derived from

the successful combination of these four elements and is modified by the attitudes and conditions of the members of your audience. (Huber & Snider, Influencing Through Argument, p. 177) On another note, in connection with foreign bank accounts (euros, dollars, or whatever currencies), a trial court may need to look into Rule 129 of the Rules of Court on What need not be proved. These are the helpful provisions that may be taken contextually: By: Chito Dela Torre High on unsubstantiated allegations, irrelevant claims and fallacies; low on facts and substance. To illustrate: Para 4: Except in Manila, there is no support for Corona at all. The fallacy of argumentum ad populum. Granting that there is no overwhelming support, it does not make a wrong right or a falsity true. Besides, think of: Hitler and the Nazis, who were very popular with the German people; the Salem witch trials at the height of Puritanism, where people falsely accused as witches were stoned to death by the public, and; if you are a Christian, - that it was the public who called for the execution of Jesus and Pilate had to wash his hands to show that it was not his decision. In addition, youre statement is not completely accurate. Newspaper accounts, such as this, state that Many trial courts in Manila and across the country suspended sessions on Wednesday as a sign of support for embattled Chief Justice Renato Corona. (http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/12...-corona?page=5) Para 5 No such street protests similar to that of Pakistan Who cares? Is the fate of a Filipino citizen to be contingent on the fate of citizens of other countries? Another fallacy! In 1992, I still had plenty of hair, was just fresh out of high school and I was in my first year of college. Back then I also held a job as a car wash and gas station attendant. If I remember it correctly, I was merely making around 7 dollars per hour and my bank account barely had 500 dollars in it as I wasnt exactly a Donald Trump back then. Fast forward to the present time, Im still not a Donald Trump but my assets have increased exponentially compared to my assets during my wild partying Vanilla Ice hair look-a-like days. Given this information, should I be branded as guilty of amassing ill-gotten wealth? To the prosecution team in the on-going impeachment trial of Philippine Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona (CJ), the answer appears to be Yes. Prosecutor Jose Justiniano presented witness Mariano Dimaantal, Chief of the Malacaang Office Records, to attest to the veracity of the CJs Statement of Assets, Liability and Net worth (SALn) being presented by the prosecution. The SALns being attested to are from 1992 to 2002, this is the period prior to the CJ being appointed to the Supreme Court as a member of the High Tribunal. It is interesting to note that the pertinent Article of Impeachment being deliberated upon merely charges the CJ of having violated the Constitution of failing to disclose to the public his SALn. Never mind that the period of SALn being presented is outside of the CJs tenure at the Supreme Court, what I find amusing is the justification of the prosecution to use the SALns being presented to show the trend [in Coronas wealth] over the years. Prosecutor Justiniano, when asked to explain the relevance of the SALns outside of the period of the CJs tenure in the Supreme Court, said that these will be used and compared with his financial status when he worked for former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA) and when he was appointed to the Supreme Court by her. This gives the impression, of course, that the increased assets of the CJ throughout the years are ill-gotten which was made possible by his close association with GMA. Lets even put aside for now the fact that it has not been proven yet that the assets being pointed to were ill-gotten, let us focus for now the insinuation that the increase in assets were caused by the CJs association with GMA. The argument and logic being presented by the prosecution seems smacking of the logical fallacy called Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. The fallacy is to assert that because two events occur together, they must be causally related. Its a fallacy because it ignores other factors that may be the cause(s) of the events. To illustrate this point, I would like to point out that the United States of America is populated by approximately 79% whites. In addition, the United States of

America also has approximately a 400% violent crime rate. If we are to apply the logic that the prosecution seems to embrace, given that the US, a country predominantly populated by whites, has a high average violent crime rate, does this mean that whiteness causes violent crime? The fact remains that the prosecutions basis for the charge of amassing ill -gotten wealth through his stature and close connection to GMA is merely a suspicion. Defense counsel Serafin Cuevas was correct to point out to the prosecutor: [By your logic], you and I can be sentenced to death by mere suspicion? Were dealing here with the fate and future of the Chief Justice. [We are not basing case] on what is suspect, I am also bewildered, as Justice Cuevas is, why the prosecutions plea is based on mere suspicions and not ultimate facts as the Rules of Pleading state that: A pleading is verified by an affidavit that the affiant has read the pleading and that the allegations therein are true and correct of his knowledge and belief. If the prosecution charges the CJ of illegally amassing wealth as proven by the comparison of his SALns from before he was appointed to the Supreme Court up to during his tenure at the High Tribunal, then doesnt this imply that they really had no basis to verify their allegation because prior to the Senate impeachment trial, they never had any access to the CJs SALn? How can the complainants have attested to the veracity of the prosecutions pleading if they could not have any correct knowledge of the allegations? The main charge is the failure of the CJ to publicly disclose his SALn and that he is suspected to have amassed ill-gotten wealth which the prosecution said they intend to prove by showing the trend of the CJs increasing assets from his pre-Supreme Court years to his Supreme Court tenure. How could it be possible to correctly allege to have amassed ill -gotten wealth because of his positions at the Supreme Court from 2002 up to the present when the complainants never had access to the CJs SALns for that period? From the prosecutions line of attack, I see that contrary to their claim that they hold smoking gun evidences, their case seems more like cold as ice. I really commend CJ Corona for keeping his cool while he gets vilified with these half-baked allegations. He keeps his composure when its time to get loose; magnetized by the mic when he kicks his juice. If there was a problem, yo hell solve it, check out the hook while his DJ revolves it, Ice Ice Baby! By Hector Gamboa SEEEEE: red herring (checked) - cum hoc ergo propter hoc (checked) - causal oversimplification (checked) - ignoratio elenchi (checked) When the intensity of emotional conviction subsides, a man who is in the habit of reasoning will search for logical grounds in favor of the belief which he finds in himself. ~ Bertrand Russell A SOUND REASONING is not exclusive to the logicians, philosophers, or scientists. Everyone can be rational because it is inherent, as human being, to seek the truth based on reason and common sense. One does need a degree in PhD to be rational, but an attitude with decency, nobility and humility to seek the truth that illuminates the condition of humanity and the highest good of the society. Every day, we are barraged by fallacious arguments from newspaper to television, from social media to a daily conversation. In social network, for instance, we are quick to react to any popular issue, as if our mind is programmed to respond and virally spread any hot topic without rationalizing whether the given data possesses an epistemic value or denuded with meaning and substance.

What is a fallacy and how does it affect our logical reasoning amidst the insalubrious prt-porter information being guzzled on us by social media, mass media, and mass culture? THE CORONA FALLACY (Definition and Etymology) Fallacy, from Latin fallacia literally means deceit, is an error of reasoning or inference, either deceptive or contradictory in context and substance. There are various kinds of fallacies that can be found in any argument, written or verbal. The most recent one is derived from Chief Justice Renato Coronas testimony before the impeachment trial court on May 22, 2012 before the Philippines Senate. His testimonial discourse, with all due respect to the Chief Justice, is laden with fallacious inferences and suppositions in an attempt to deviate the allegation against him on undeclared assets and hidden dollar accounts. By definition, The Corona Paradox (The Corona Fallacy), as coined by this writer, is a complex fallacy that circumnavigates on circuitous irrelevant issues, culminating in a new supposition that leads to self-contradiction (ad absurdum) and implausibility (ad ridiculum) of the proposed argument. It is a digression from the main thesis, which begets more fallacies in the process of reasoning, thus subverting the veracity of the argument with absurd and contradictory inferences and conclusions. This kind of fallacy is common among politicians and government officials who are caught in the quagmire of corruption, sex scandals, lies and deceits. Instead of giving a straightforward answer to the allegation against them, they engage in a litany of denial by redirecting the issue either toward their self-serving repertoire of achievements or to their political opponents as an orchestrated black propaganda or smear campaign against them. Example Don Jos: Captain Pedro, why dont you expose your unexplained wealth and dollar accounts to the townsfolk of our barrio? Captain Pedro: Thats a blatant lie, Don Jos! Im an honest man, I have done many good things to the barrio, and the whole townsfolk can attest to that. Besides, you are up for revenge against me when I favored to divide your 99-hectare rice farm to the farmers. I earned my familys wealth through hard work, my wifes inheritance, and from my mother (tears begin to well up from Captain Pedros eyes). However, to satisfy your idiotic curiosity, Ill sign a waiver for the investigation of my dollar accounts, but Ill only release it only to the barrio if you also sign yours so that the townsfolk will also know of your hidden dollar accounts. Now, the Captain of this barrio wishes to be excused from any of your nonsense scrutiny. Explanation In this argument, Captain Pedro committed fallacies after fallacies in an attempt to deviate the accusation against him on his unexplained wealth and dollar accounts. The first fallacy is Argumentum ad Verecundiam (argument from modesty, or out of authority) when Don Pedro bellied his opponents invoking his authority as captain of the barrio against his accuser(s) or my words against theirs. The second fallacy is Argumentum ad Populum (popular opinion or belief of the people) when Captain Pedro appealed to the kind indulgence of the townsfolk who could attest to his achievements, and as an honest captain of the barrio. The third fallacy is Argumentum ad Hominem when Captain Pedro attacked Don Joss character as vindictive because he divided the latters rice farm to the farmers.

The fourth fallacy is Argumentum ad Misericordiam (Appeal to Pity) when Captain Pedro cried after mentioning his mother, seeking sympathy not only from Don Jos but also to the townsfolk of the barrio. The fifth fallacy is The Red Herring (leading to a completely different argument) when Captain Pedro came up with a new supposition to cover up the allegation against him by proposing to sign waiver for the investigation of his dollar accounts on condition that Don Jos should also sign a waiver to expose his own dollar accounts. The sixth fallacy is the Tu Quoque (they are doing it, so Im doing it too) when Captain Pedro implied that Don Jos should call it quits (psychological blackmail by selfabsolution) because he had also a hidden dollar accounts (psychological blackmail by implication). In this manner, Captain Pedro indirectly admitted the accusation against him (a contradiction to his claim that the allegation against him was a blatant lie and that he was an honest man) with the intention to implicate Don Jos of his own wrongdoings (transference of guilt). Consequently, Captain Pedro was shackled by his own self-contradiction and the absurdity of the condition of his argument. THE BIRTH AND HISTORY OF 'THE CORONA PARADOX' On May 22, 2012, millions of Filipinos watched the televised testimony of the chief justice of the Philippine Supreme Court, Renato C. Corona, before the Senate impeachment court due to an allegedly undeclared assets and dollar bank account deposits on his SALN or Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth. In an attempt to diverge the accusation against him, Corona attacked the incumbent President of the Philippines, Benigno S. Aquino III, who allegedly orchestrated the impeachment against him as a reprisal to his decision to divide the 6,435-hectare Hacienda Luisita (partly owned by the family of the President) to the farmers. After an emotionally charged three-hour testimony: from a self-assured posture to a livid voice, from lachrymose eyes to a docile face, Corona culminated his argument with a proposal that would dramatically change the 40th impeachment hearing of his case. He stunningly broached a scheme to sign a waiver authorizing the investigation of all his dollar accounts. And it was during that particular gripping moment, when Corona flailed his pen in the act of signing the waiver, that the audience inside the Senate amidst millions of televiewers, who were favorably awed by his seemingly good-natured intent, seemed to pause in eternal silence--but not for long. After signing the waiver, Corona unexpectedly hurled a tsunamic statement that stunned the audience, transmogrifying their emotional expectations into a bleak landscape of disgust and dismay. He proposed that he would only release his signed waiver if Senator Franklin Drilon (member of the Senate impeachment court) and all the 188 lawmakers had already signed theirs in exposing their respective dollar accounts to the public. Then, in a dignified and imperious demeanor, he invoked his authority as Chief Justice of the Philippines by excusing himself from the impeachment hearing, pending the signatures of the 188 lawmakers. Consequently, that defiant gesture had infuriated the Senate President, Senator Juan Ponce Enrile, calling Coronas act as disrespect of the Senate impeachment court. On May 28, 2012, he was found guilty and was removed from his office as Chief Justice of the Philippine Supreme Court when the Senate voted 20 to 3. Corona could have won the sympathy of the Filipino people (they could have understood, forgiven, and, in due time, forgotten the allegations against him) had he signed with pure intention and submitted his waiver with no terms and conditions. But it was too late to swallow back what he had already spitted out in the Senates courtroom.

Arguably, his challenge that the lawmakers should also sign their respective waivers to expose their hidden dollar accounts hints a psychological blackmail by self-absolution and by implication (transference of guilt to the accusers or, in this case, the lawmakers) in his favor. His proposal elicits an implicit suggestion to be absolved from the issue of dollar accounts, as if he was blatantly asking the lawmakers to acquit his case (psychological blackmail by self-absolution) because they, too, have their own hidden dollar accounts (psychological blackmail by implication). The outright contention of the argument to redirect his own culpability t oward the lawmakers is a digressive paradox of self-contradiction (ad absurdum) leading to an indirect admission of his own guilt (a contradiction to his testimony that all allegations against him were fabricated lies and that he was an innocent man with clear conscience). Worse yet, the improbability (ad ridiculum) on the condition of the waiver educes a stalemate response since-- as already expected by Corona--he lawmakers will not execute their own waiver because, in the first place, they are not on trial but Corona himself. In the end, Corona was trapped by the dilemma of his own convoluted fallacies, or shall we say, The Corona Paradox! THE TRUTH AND THE ELEGANCE OF REASONING The elegance of reasoning is intricately woven within an objective proposition of facts and coherent statements, not by a pullulated travesty of emotional appeals and strategic psychological intimations. One can cry over the death of ones mother or sibling, but it will not illuminate the Truth if it does not address the real issue. Emotional sentiments cannot substitute the epistemic value of the truth because they are subjective and affective experience. Anyone can twist the truth but not the contingent elements that surround it, i.e., (1) the knower, (2) the inextricable occurrence of the object to be known, and (3) the empirical existence between the knower and the object to be known within space and time. No one can prevent any individual from seeking the object of the truth; neither can anyone hide it unless he or she is a Super Human Being who can magically deface the occurrence of the truth within time and space. The Truth illuminates the human intellect to seek its presence with grace, probity and rationality, and not the human intellect to create the Truth in order to illuminate its presence for personal interests. The truth exists because it is simultaneously and universally felt and perceived by intelligent beings that live within the perimeters of its ontological presence. The Truth may be quantifiable but not mutable! Sillada, Danny Castillones. The Corona Paradox (The Truth and the Elegance of Reasoning). Manila Bulletin (Manila) 11 June 2012: F1-2. Print.