Donate

KWEBA ni BAROK

Panelo Says ‘Go Back to Law School,’ Santiago Says ‘See You in Class’—Enrollments Now Open!

Published by

Louis ‘Barok’ Biraogo

on

Panelo Says ‘Go Back to Law School,’ Santiago Says ‘See You in Class’—Enrollments Now Open!

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — February 14, 2025

DARK clouds gather over Manila as Vice President Sara Duterte finds herself entangled in the latest political telenovela: Mga Batas na Hindi Ko Sinusunod (Laws That I Don’t Follow). Enter Salvador Panelo, a seasoned lawyer who has never met a Duterte he wouldn’t defend, and Jaime Santiago, an NBI chief who just invited Panelo to law school remedial classes. Will justice prevail, or will we all just end up debating whether threats are still threats if delivered in a Zoom call? Tune in next for another thrilling episode of Legal Shenanigans: Philippine Edition.

Panelo’s Legal Circus: Enroll Now, Logic Not Required, Common Sense Not Included

Salvador Panelo, known for his… creative legal interpretations (and fashion choices), has declared that NBI Chief Santiago should “go back to law school.” A bold move, considering Santiago has a more decorated legal career than a Supreme Court judge’s bookshelf. But let’s examine Panelo’s key legal insights:

  1. “There can be no crime of a ‘threat’ from the grave.”
    Well, yes, Salvador, the dead can’t commit crimes. But the problem here is that VP Duterte is, as of last check, still very much alive—a fact corroborated by her continued ability to make politically inflammatory statements. This defense would make sense only if Duterte were speaking via séance.
  2. “VP Sara did not publicly and tumultuously incite the people.”
    Panelo is arguing that since Duterte didn’t whip up a mob right there and then, she couldn’t possibly be guilty of inciting sedition. This is like arguing that if you tell someone to rob a bank via email instead of yelling it in a crowded room, it doesn’t count.
  3. “This is a demolition job to stop her 2028 Presidential bid.”
    Ah, the classic “This is all politics!” argument, a staple in the Philippines’ Guide to Evading Accountability. By this logic, any criminal charge against a politician is merely an elaborate scheme to deny them their God-given right to seek higher office.

Santiago’s Law School Smackdown:  Field Trip Edition, Logic Required

NBI Chief Jaime Santiago, clearly not one to be outdone in the legal education arena, suggested that Panelo should sit in with first-year law students. This is a level of academic shade rarely seen outside of Ivy League rivalries. Santiago’s key points:

  1. “The threat was made while she was still alive.”
    A strong counterpoint, considering laws generally apply to living people. (Ghost legislation is still a work in progress.)
  2. “She was inciting, not leading a riot.”
    Sedition doesn’t require Duterte to personally wield a pitchfork; simply encouraging unrest qualifies. It’s like claiming you’re not responsible for a food fight just because you only threw the first banana.
  3. “Her words led to actual public disturbances.”
    Ah, causation. Apparently, after Duterte’s colorful press conference, groups began forming at Edsa Shrine. Whether these were political supporters or people hoping for a live re-enactment of Game of Thrones remains unclear.

The “Threat from the Grave” Debate: Legal Lunacy at Its Finest

Ladies and gentlemen, we have reached the pièce de résistance of this case: whether one can issue a credible threat from beyond the grave. It is a philosophical and legal dilemma that could make even Plato reconsider his career choices.

Panelo argues that since Duterte’s threat involved what would happen if she were assassinated, it somehow doesn’t count. Following this logic:

  • If you tell your lawyer to sue someone in case of your untimely death, your lawyer should just assume you were joking.
  • If a villain in a spy movie says, “If anything happens to me, the files will be leaked,” the CIA should ignore it because, well, dead men tell no tales.

Santiago, playing the role of the rational adult, points out that the threat was made before Duterte met an unfortunate fate—meaning she was, in fact, very much capable of committing a crime. If threats only counted after death, the mafia would have a field day rewriting their legal strategies.

The Political Circus: Who’s Really Winning?

This entire legal saga isn’t really about whether Duterte violated the law. It’s about whether the law even matters when politics is involved. Duterte’s supporters claim this is all a scheme to prevent her from running for President. The administration argues that, actually, threatening the sitting President should have consequences.

Meanwhile, legal analysts and law students across the country are torn between disbelief and amusement. Twitter is having a blast. And somewhere in the Malacañang Palace, a speechwriter is drafting a statement that will definitely contain the phrase “rule of law.”

The Legal Smackdown: Who’s Got the More Convincing Spin?

  • Legally speaking, Santiago and the NBI have a solid case. Threats and inciting sedition are actual crimes, and Duterte’s colorful comments fit the bill.
  • Politically speaking, Panelo has the upper hand in the court of public opinion. Nothing says “victim of oppression” like being the daughter of a former President who once threatened to kill criminals on live TV.

Legal Drama Hack: Quick Fixes for Your Jurisprudential Melodrama

  1. Panelo should teach a new law school course: “Creative Legal Defenses 101”, with special lectures on “Why the Law Doesn’t Apply to My Client” and “How to Win Arguments Using Pure Confidence.”
  2. The NBI should add a “Criminal Law for Ghosts” module. Given the current debate, it might be useful to have legal guidelines for spectral threats.
  3. VP Duterte should pre-record her future statements so her legal team can edit out the felonies before release.
  4. All political press conferences should be sponsored by a fact-checking service that buzzes like a game show buzzer whenever someone says something legally dubious.

Final Verdict: The law may be clear, but the politics will always be shadowy. In the grand tradition of Philippine politics, expect this case to be drawn out, overanalyzed, and eventually forgotten—until, of course, it becomes useful in the next election cycle.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is democracy at its most entertaining.

Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo

Leave a comment

Hello,

I’m Louis ‘Barok’ Biraogo

Let’s connect

Join the fun!

Stay updated with our latest tutorials and ideas by joining our newsletter.

Recent posts