
Originally Posted by
yebo
i'm no marcos fan, in fact i was at edsa 1.
but the thing with the law kasi is this, and this is why the courts can not jail imelda: how can you convict the wife (and the children) when it was the husband (and father) that did the stealing. pag ang tatay ba gumawa ng crime and patay na ang tatay e ikukulong mo yung asawa at anak? they can't make anything stick to her. all the evidence point to ferdinand marcos, all evidence against imelda are circumstancial. they can't possibly jail her for having 3000 pairs of shoes. they first have to prove that she used people's money to buy those shoes. and they can't. her defense, she got the money from her husband. can't find anything wrong with that no?
if she (and her children) stay out of jail, does it mean that edsa 1 failed? i think not. it only means that justice is blind (if you have the money to hire good, expensive, well connected lawyers of course!), that it will not convict an accused when there is no (or direct) evidence. di ba yun naman ang isa sa pinaglaban natin nuon, fair justice. if imelda takes advantage of that fair justice now do we say then that she should not be given that right? can't have double standards no? yun lang nga justice is, still, more fair to others than most. e may pera sila pambayad sa abugado e. can't complain there i guess.