Why do pro-GMA personalities assure us that there’s nothing alarming about the “state of national emergency” when the thing itself is called an “emergency?”
Why do we call military officials who want to join the celebration of EDSA 20 called “misguided officers?”
Why are warantless arrests given to sociologists and lawyers and not to cheating presidents and fugitive agriculture undersecretaries?
Why is the highlight of EDSA 20 the declaration of state of national emergency?
Why do administration lawmakers chose to have lunch in Malacanang instead of looking into the legality of the state of national emergency?
Why does NBN 4 chose to interview pro-GMA congressmen who seem have exhausted legal dictionaries in order to justify the state of national emergency instead of interviewing Randy David and the rest of the “warantless arrest” victims?
Why the administration cabinet does insists that everything is under control when PGMA herself is obviously terrified of what’s happening around the heavily guarded Malacanang Palace?
Why is it that the first thing administration lawmakers say is that the state of national emergency helped stabilize foreign investors instead of considering the stability of our nation? Isn’t it that they should first look into the 1) validity, legality, and morality of PGMA’s mandate 2) alleged corruption of the First Family and 3) the location of Joc-Joc Bolante?
Why do we call military officials who want to join the celebration of EDSA 20 called “misguided officers?”
Why are warantless arrests given to sociologists and lawyers and not to cheating presidents and fugitive agriculture undersecretaries?
Why is the highlight of EDSA 20 the declaration of state of national emergency?
Why do administration lawmakers chose to have lunch in Malacanang instead of looking into the legality of the state of national emergency?
Why does NBN 4 chose to interview pro-GMA congressmen who seem have exhausted legal dictionaries in order to justify the state of national emergency instead of interviewing Randy David and the rest of the “warantless arrest” victims?
Why the administration cabinet does insists that everything is under control when PGMA herself is obviously terrified of what’s happening around the heavily guarded Malacanang Palace?
Why is it that the first thing administration lawmakers say is that the state of national emergency helped stabilize foreign investors instead of considering the stability of our nation? Isn’t it that they should first look into the 1) validity, legality, and morality of PGMA’s mandate 2) alleged corruption of the First Family and 3) the location of Joc-Joc Bolante?
No comments:
Post a Comment