10 Tips for Properly Addressing People

 Dr. Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope, PhD, EdD

When meeting someone for the first time, whether in a professional setting, social engagement, or even virtual interaction, the way we address them sets the tone for the relationship. Words, after all, are not merely sounds—they are signals of respect, acknowledgment, and intention. In a time when rapid communication often leads to informality and casual speech, refined etiquette in addressing others remains a timeless pillar of human interaction.

Understanding the Importance of Proper Address

In sociological and psychological terms, the way we speak to others—especially how we address them—can either build rapport or create social distance. According to Goffman (2008), the performance of identity during interaction is shaped significantly by how we frame our communication, including greetings and salutations. A proper address becomes an act of social alignment, a silent affirmation that we recognize the other person’s social status, role, and humanity.

Moreover, social psychologists have consistently emphasized that respect is not merely a passive value but an active behavior demonstrated in daily exchanges (Brown, 2010). Whether you’re a business leader addressing a new colleague or a student engaging with a professor, the choice of title and tone serves as a soft power that influences perception and receptivity (Spencer-Oatey, 2011).

Below are ten practical and timeless tips to help ensure that you address others appropriately across different contexts:

 

1. If in Doubt, Keep it Formal

The safest course of action when you’re uncertain how to address someone is to start with formality. First impressions matter, and using a formal title shows respect and deference. It also allows the person addressed to invite a more casual tone, if desired. As Forni (2010) emphasized, civility begins with the acknowledgment of another’s dignity, which formality conveys.

Example: Saying “Nice to meet you, Sir” shows a cautious courtesy. If the person prefers informality, they will often correct you with a “Please, call me Bill.” This exchange creates a smooth transition from formality to familiarity.

 

2. Use Mr., Mrs., Miss, or Ms. When You Know Their Last Name

Using a title with a surname demonstrates awareness of social conventions and respect for personal boundaries. This is especially important in traditional cultures, including the Philippines, where age and position are highly respected in language (Agoncillo, 2009).

For instance, “Hello, Mrs. Francisco!” is respectful and appropriate, especially in business or formal introductions. If and when the person invites you to call them by their first name, you can then adjust. Otherwise, continue with their preferred salutation.

 

3. Use Professional Titles Where Applicable

Acknowledging academic or professional titles such as Dr., Professor, Attorney, Engineer, or even “Your Honor” reflects recognition of someone’s achievements and role. Not only does this communicate respect, but it also reinforces professional boundaries (Jackson, 2012).

Whether you are meeting a medical doctor or a Queen, the rule remains: address the person by the title they have rightfully earned. Knowing titles in advance is an easy way to avoid social faux pas and immediately gain credibility.

 

4. If You’re Still Unsure, Ask Politely

Sometimes, the most respectful action is to simply ask how someone wishes to be addressed. While it may seem awkward, it’s more courteous than assuming.

For example: “Is it okay if I call you Rachel?” This opens the door to clarity, comfort, and mutual agreement. According to Holmes and Stubbe (2011), respectful communication includes negotiating relational norms rather than enforcing them.

 

5. Sometimes First Names are Acceptable

First-name basis is often appropriate in informal settings such as parties, weddings, or when introduced in a relaxed environment. Cultural norms play a huge role here. In many Western societies, first names are used more liberally, even in professional settings, compared to Eastern cultures (Tsui & Nunan, 2010).

Example: At a wedding dinner, someone might say, “Hi, I’m Princess. This is my husband, Raymond.” You can usually reply with your first name as well—creating a friendly atmosphere without rigid formality.

 

6. Sometimes, Only Last Names Should Be Used

In formal business settings or academic conferences, it is best to use titles and last names. Using “Ms.,” “Mr.,” or “Dr.” helps maintain professional decorum. The title “Ms.” in particular is recommended for women, regardless of marital status, offering both inclusivity and neutrality (Ehrlich, 2009).

This approach aligns with professional etiquette guides, which advocate formal address until familiarity is clearly established.

 

7. When Writing Email or Letters, Start Formal

Whether you’re writing an email to a company executive or a recommendation letter, always begin with formal address. In professional writing, the tone must be respectful and reflect the hierarchy, especially in initial correspondence.

As Crystal (2011) notes, electronic communication has not eliminated the need for courtesy—it simply changes the platform through which it is conveyed. For example, opening with “Dear Dr. Santos” or “To Attorney Lopez” is still preferred over “Hey” or just the first name.

 

8. Be Mindful of Nicknames and Pseudonyms

Some individuals may prefer being addressed by their nickname or pseudonym, especially in artistic or literary circles. However, discernment is key—what’s appropriate among close friends may not be suitable for professional interactions.

Nicknames such as “Pop Tart,” “Buddy,” or “Sis” can be endearing but might come off as unprofessional if used in the wrong setting. Research by Giles and Ogay (2010) on communication accommodation theory stresses that adapting our speech patterns—including the way we address others—can enhance communication or cause tension, depending on how it’s received.

 

9. Be Consistent in Your Address

Inconsistency in how you address someone can signal a lack of sincerity or attention. If you begin by calling someone “Mr. dela Cruz,” do not switch to “Buddy” unless invited. Being consistent shows mindfulness, especially in hierarchical or diplomatic environments.

Studies on workplace communication suggest that consistent use of proper address builds trust, particularly among cross-generational or multicultural teams (Thomas, 2012).

 

10. Do Your Homework Beforehand

Whenever possible, research the name and title of the person you are about to meet—especially if it’s a scheduled meeting or formal engagement. A little preparation avoids awkward moments and conveys professionalism.

This is particularly important in global or multicultural contexts, where addressing someone incorrectly may be viewed as ignorance or disrespect (Gudykunst & Kim, 2011). Think of a diplomatic meeting: no Klingon leader would call Captain Kirk anything other than “Captain,” after all.

 

Final Thoughts: Courtesy as a Cultural and Moral Currency

Properly addressing individuals is more than a social protocol—it’s a reflection of our values, awareness, and empathy. It is a reminder of the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” In both social and professional life, beginning a conversation with the right words sets the stage for trust, collaboration, and mutual respect.

Whether you're a student, diplomat, or meeting a neighbor, these principles remain timeless. In a world increasingly informal, those who master the art of address shine with a subtle elegance and an unmistakable respect for others.

 

References

Agoncillo, T. A. (2009). History of the Filipino People. Quezon City: Garotech Publishing.

Brown, P. (2010). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.

Crystal, D. (2011). Internet Linguistics: A Student Guide. Routledge.

Ehrlich, S. (2009). Representing Rape: Language and Sexual Consent. Routledge.

Forni, P. M. (2010). Choosing Civility: The Twenty-Five Rules of Considerate Conduct. St. Martin’s Griffin.

Giles, H., & Ogay, T. (2010). Communication accommodation theory. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of communication. Wiley-Blackwell.

Goffman, E. (2008). Interaction Ritual: Essays in Face-to-Face Behavior. Aldine Transaction.

Gudykunst, W. B., & Kim, Y. Y. (2011). Communicating with Strangers: An Approach to Intercultural Communication. Routledge.

Holmes, J., & Stubbe, M. (2011). Power and Politeness in the Workplace: A Sociolinguistic Analysis of Talk at Work. Routledge.

Jackson, J. (2012). Culture, Identity, and Language Learning. Routledge.

Spencer-Oatey, H. (2011). Intercultural Interaction: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Intercultural Communication. Palgrave Macmillan.

Thomas, K. (2012). Diversity dynamics in professional teams. Journal of Organizational Culture, 11(4), 45–59.

Tsui, A. B., & Nunan, D. (2010). Classroom Discourse Analysis. Routledge.

 

From the Island to the Nation: My Journey of Silent Leadership

*Dr. Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope, PhD, EdD, DM

I was in my third year of college, pursuing a BS in Accountancy at the University of the East–Caloocan, when I first realized how unpredictable the path of leadership could be. The corridors of UE were alive with the usual energy of young people chasing dreams, but for me, they became the starting point of a journey that would test not only my abilities but the very essence of who I was. That year, I ran for President of the Central Student Council.

It was not simply about winning an election. For me, it was about embracing the responsibility to serve—to represent, to listen, and to lead.

At the time, I was already deeply involved in the student movement. Rallies, debates, and organizational struggles were familiar terrain. Yet what strengthened my resolve was knowing that I was not just another student in the crowd. I belonged to the University Scholars in Accountancy, Batch 3—a distinction that demanded more than academic excellence. It required discipline, balance, humility, and integrity. In the midst of the campaign—when the noise of politics seemed to drown out almost everything—I encountered something that would stay with me for the rest of my life.

A Prophecy in the Classroom

One afternoon, my classmates rushed toward me with news that made me pause. They told me that our psychology professor, Mrs. Cynthia Aznar, had spoken about me in front of the class. Comparing the candidates in the student council election, she said I was the superior choice. She then told the class to remember my name because, one day, I would become one of the country’s silent great minds.

Then she made an analogy that struck me more deeply than I allowed anyone to see: "If thrown onto an island, he will not only survive—he will build a new kingdom for him to lead.”

At the time, I laughed it off. I was only a teenage student juggling a political campaign and academic responsibilities. But somewhere inside me, her words planted a quiet seed.

They became a kind of secret compass—one that would guide me later, when life began to throw me into storms and islands of uncertainty.

From Student Leadership to Public Service

That analogy followed me far beyond the walls of UE Caloocan.

Life indeed placed me on many “islands”—situations where survival required more than courage; it required vision. One of the most defining of these came when I entered public service as a Municipal Councilor of San Mateo, Rizal.

San Mateo was no paradise. It faced serious challenges: the pressures of rapid urban development, issues of public safety, and the everyday struggles of ordinary citizens seeking a better life.

Yet I treated the municipality as my island—not a place merely to endure, but a place to build.

In the council, I authored ordinances that sought to balance progress with responsibility. I advocated for accountability and integrity in governance. Public service, for me, was never about political prestige; it was about leaving behind policies and decisions that would meaningfully improve the lives of the community.

The Educator and the Scholar

In time, my journey brought me back to the halls of education—this time not as a student, but as a teacher.
I embraced scholarship with the same discipline that once guided me as a young accountancy student. Through perseverance and commitment to learning, I pursued and earned multi-disciplinary doctorate degrees in fields that deepened both my knowledge and my sense of responsibility to society.
These academic pursuits were never simply personal achievements. They became tools of service.

With a background that bridged accounting, education, philosophy, and public leadership, I came to see the Philippines through multiple lenses:

• the accountant’s precision,
• the educator’s patience,
• the strategist’s foresight, and
• the public servant’s sense of duty.

In every classroom where I taught, I carried with me the quiet prophecy of Professor Aznar—to build wherever I was placed, to lead even in isolation, and to create meaning in the face of adversity. Teaching future leaders, mentoring law enforcement officials, guiding athletes, and writing political analyses became new avenues for service. My doctorate degrees were not merely academic titles; they represented a commitment to prove that a Filipino scholar can reach the heights of learning and return that knowledge to the nation.

The Silent Great Mind

Looking back, I often reflect on the phrase “silent great mind.” It is an unusual description, because society often equates greatness with noise—with headlines, applause, and recognition.
But my journey has taught me something different.
Greatness is not always visible. Sometimes it lives in quiet decisions no one witnesses, sacrifices that go unrecorded, and footsteps left not on marble floors but in the lives of people who were guided, helped, or inspired.

As an educator, I see this truth every day.
A single word of encouragement can change a student’s direction. A single lesson can awaken a dormant passion. Teaching may not make headlines, but it builds nations. Perhaps this was what Professor Aznar saw in me all those years ago—not the excitement of a student election, but the quiet endurance of someone willing to build, guide, and serve.

The Island as a Symbol

When Professor Aznar compared me to someone who could survive on an island and build a kingdom, she was not speaking about geography.
She was speaking about resilience and vision.

Throughout my life, I encountered many islands:

• The island of youth activism, where I learned that idealism must be balanced by responsibility.
• The island of San Mateo, where policies and ordinances—though seemingly small—could shape the lives of thousands.
• The island of law enforcement and public safety, where I sought to bring integrity to institutions often resistant to reform.
• The island of sports and education, where discipline and perseverance were instilled in the next generation.
• The island of academia, where my multidisciplinary doctorate degrees enabled me to bridge knowledge across fields.
• And today, the island of national responsibility, where, through the 1st Philippine Pro-Democracy Foundation, I advocate for a progressive, responsible, and organized democracy, unity, sustainable development, patriotism, and moral renewal.

Each island carried both challenge and opportunity.
And on each one, I chose to build—not for myself alone, but for the community and the nation.

Who I Am Today

Today, as Dr. Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope, I see my life as the unfolding of a prophecy spoken long ago.
I am no longer simply the student council candidate of my youth. I am the public servant who worked for San Mateo, the adviser who helped shape law-enforcement initiatives, the mentor who guided athletes, the political analyst who critiques governance in pursuit of reform, and the educator who molds future leaders through the power of knowledge.

The scholar in accountancy became an academician.

The student leader became a municipal councilor.

The quiet thinker in the classroom became an analyst and educator seeking to awaken the conscience of the nation.

I remain the young man who once walked the halls of UE Caloocan—but I am also the man who has endured storms, survived islands, and continues to build kingdoms not of power or wealth, but of integrity, unity, and service.

A Reflection Forward

Sometimes, when I pause and reflect, I think of Professor Aznar. I wonder if she knew how deeply her words would resonate decades later. Perhaps she did. Perhaps teachers often see possibilities in their students long before those students can recognize them in themselves. Her analogy was not merely a compliment—it was a challenge.

A challenge to survive every island life presents.

A challenge to build wherever I am placed.

A challenge to lead with responsibility, even when leadership feels lonely.

And so the journey continues—not for glory or applause, but for the fulfillment of a life dedicated to service.

Because in the end, survival alone is not enough.
The true measure of leadership lies in the ability to transform survival into creation, isolation into community, and struggle into legacy.

I was once a young man told that I would become a silent great mind.

Today, I embrace that silence. It allows me to think deeply, act wisely, and build steadily.

And if history remembers me at all, I hope it will not be for the noise I made but for the quiet footprints I left behind: footprints of integrity, scholarship, service, and enduring love for the Filipino nation.

_____

*About the author:

Dr. Rodolfo “John” Ortiz Teope is a distinguished Filipino academic, public intellectual, and advocate for civic education and public safety, whose work spans local academies and international security circles. With a career rooted in teaching, research, policy, and public engagement, he bridges theory and practice by making meaningful contributions to academic discourse, civic education, and public policy. Dr. Teope is widely respected for his critical scholarship in education, management, economics, doctrine development, and public safety; his grassroots involvement in government and non-government organizations; his influential media presence promoting democratic values and civic consciousness; and his ethical leadership grounded in Filipino nationalism and public service. As a true public intellectual, he exemplifies how research, advocacy, governance, and education can work together in pursuit of the nation’s moral and civic mission.

VIEWS: 1.01M

Democracy is not always the Voice of God

A so-called democratic government is not perfect but it is more favourable than a tyrannical dictatorship. The real essence of democracy must prevail as the majority of the populace wishes. This is the main purpose of the election process. Right or wrong after that said day as more majority shall prevail. If the right or wrong decision of the majority is the subject of the judgement, we will know after the term of office.

Since time and memorial, the basis of electing leaders here in our nation is transactional compounded with personality and not analytical. Transactional for the reason that people elect officials base on favours that could be return and compounded with personality on the basis that such candidates are either relatives or popular. On the other hand, when we say analytical, electing leaders should be base on principles and abilities of such to honestly serve the constituents. All the elections, gave us the opportunity to change this wrong habit but apparently it did not happen and just basically repeating history. The candidates that have the qualification and intellect were defeated by even more popular candidates lacking experience, intellect or ability. With this, we can call democracy as democrazy.

In a Christian dominated country like the Philippines, the most important teachings of the Bible are the supremacy of God in the kingdom of man. The Bible clearly teaches that God changes times and seasons.   God sets up kings. God removes them from power.  The wisdom of those who are wise comes from him. God gives knowledge to those who have understanding. (Daniel 2:21) Furthermore, this is the decision of the alert and watchful angels. So then, let all people everywhere know that the Supreme God has power over human kingdoms and that God can give them to anyone that God chooses—even to those who are least important. (Daniel 4:17). God cannot deceive and God cannot lose. God puts and eliminates the kings. The victory of any candidate does not mean that it is the will of God. This is the will of the people. God created man with freedom of choice and respect the freedom of God.

During elections, we always hear the saying in Latin, "Vox populi, VOX DEI," or 'the voice of the people is the voice of God.' This election overuse saying maybe not exactly politically correct but biblically right. The voice of the people may not always reflect the voice of God. The people paid no attention to Samuel, but said,   No! We want a king, so that we will be like other nations, with our own king to rule us and to lead us out to war and to fight our battles.  Samuel listened to everything they said and then went and told it to the Lord. (1 Sam. 8:19-21) But it worked out nicely the reign of Saul. Removed him and replaced his appointed king. In this story the voice of the people are not expressions of the voice of God.

Let us look at another biblical story, when Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!”   All the people answered, “His blood is on us and on our children!”  Then he released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified.  (Matthew 27:24-26).

It is not a Biblical premise that the majority is right or the minority is wrong. “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life and only a few find it. (Matthew 7:13-14)

Democracy at the time of the prophet Samuel has resulted in predicaments. Democracy at the time of Pilate also brought more frictional predicaments. Democracy is great if the practice of freedom is within the dimensions of righteousness. For example, does it make sense for Israel to seek the king that is not yet ready to rule the dominion? Is it righteous for the Pilate to sentence to death a person without sin or a crime simply because the public wants? Will it be correct and morally sound to give the leadership of our country to someone who lacks the experience, qualification, intellect, morality and ability? That's democracy, as long as the quantitative majority rules even if qualitative minority have the sense of the right direction they are still to be considered as Rejects of the Democratic Process.

Unreasonable risk to democracy is the wrong that can be considered right or correct based on the decision numerical supremacy. And the right may be considered wrong because it is not popular. A democracy that lacks sense and define reasons will always result to political and economic tragedies. The practice of democracy should be on the border of righteousness that is guided by principles and idealisms. Thus, reasonable minority is much stronger than the more popular decision of the majority.

Dr. Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope

National President

1st Philippine Pro-Democracy Foundation, Inc.

drteope@yahoo.com

Dealing with an Office Gossip

Can you keep a secret?

By Dr. Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope

 

I’ve often found myself sitting quietly in a corner of an office, a town meeting, or even a family gathering, listening—not just to the words being spoken, but to the tone, the raised eyebrows, and the subtle shift in a person’s voice when the conversation changes direction.

It almost always begins innocently: “Did you hear what happened to…?” Or worse, “Don’t say I told you this, but…” And just like that, we’re no longer in a conversation—we’re in a performance. One person holding the attention of the group with a morsel of someone else’s life, delivered like currency. Welcome to the world of gossip.

Merriam-Webster defines a gossip as someone who habitually reveals personal or sensational facts about others. But if you ask me—someone who has seen it unfold across classrooms, council chambers, and community centers—gossip is not just a definition. It is a quiet war on dignity.

I remember a colleague once who seemed to know everything about everyone. At first, she was magnetic. People would lean in when she spoke, half-shocked and half-entertained. But over time, something shifted. You could see the discomfort on people’s faces when she entered the room. No one wanted to be her next topic.

Why did she do it? Looking back, I don’t think it was cruelty. I think it was a longing for relevance—a desperate attempt to feel powerful in a space where she otherwise felt invisible. Gossip, for many, becomes a tool for gaining attention and influence they haven’t earned through work or character. It’s easier to be “the one who knows” than to be the one who leads.

But what is the cost of that false power? It’s steep.

I’ve seen talented people withdraw from leadership roles because of whispered slander. I’ve seen good teams fall apart over misunderstandings rooted in half-truths and rumor. And worst of all, I’ve seen organizations that could have thrived sink into mistrust and silence because no one dared challenge the gossip head-on.

Because gossip, by its nature, is slippery. It’s vague, veiled in suggestion rather than proof. It dances on the edges of truth, making it hard to confront directly. And yet, confront it we must.

There’s a quiet strength in refusing to engage. I discovered this through personal experience. Years ago, I made the mistake of laughing along with a “harmless” remark about a colleague. That laugh felt small in the moment—but it gave the gossip water to grow. Days later, the same story had mutated, with my name attached as one of the “sources.” It was a painful lesson: silence can be complicity.

So now, I’ve learned to say, firmly but kindly, “I’d rather not talk about someone who’s not here to defend themselves.” It often surprises people. Occasionally, it even inspires them to pause. And more often than not, it breaks the chain.

There’s also something powerful about asking for clarity. When someone offers a vague comment—“You know what they say about her…” or “I heard something, but it’s not confirmed”—I respond with, “Can you be specific? Are you sure that’s accurate?” You’d be amazed at how quickly a gossip retreats when faced with the expectation of accountability.

But what if you become the target?

It’s happened to me. I heard from a friend that someone had been spreading false assumptions about my decisions as a community leader. I didn’t confront with anger. I asked for a conversation. I calmly stated what I’d heard and made it clear that if there were questions about my leadership or personal life, I preferred they ask me directly.

It wasn’t easy. I had to swallow my pride and resist the urge to strike back. But it brought clarity—and strangely, a kind of peace. The person apologized. Not everyone will, but some do.

And for those who gossip because they genuinely don’t know any other way to feel seen, I’ve found that giving them recognition—real, earned recognition—can begin to change them. A compliment on a job well done. A thank-you for a helpful act. Slowly, you redirect their craving for validation into something more meaningful.

The truth is that gossip thrives in environments where individuals feel powerless, insecure, or unheard. If we want to stop it, we don’t just silence it—we create a new culture.

A workplace, like a garden, grows what it’s nurtured with. Light encourages flowers; shadows, weeds. If we want respect, honesty, and collaboration to grow, we must be willing to be the light. One person’s courage to push back against gossip gives others permission to do the same. Over time, that becomes a norm. That becomes culture.

And so I ask you to look around your circle—your office, your neighborhood, even your family—and notice who the gossip is. But don’t just judge them. Ask what kind of soil is allowing them to grow. Then ask yourself, what are you planting?

Change begins with a single voice that says, “No more.”

Let that voice be yours.

_______________________________________________________________

Dr. Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope is a scholar of public ethics, leadership, and human behavior. Through his reflections and writings, he encourages dialogue, integrity, and the courage to do what is right even when it’s inconvenient.

 

Force to Resign or Impeach

The Filipino people are now monitoring the impeachment trial every day. Some people seem to be having fun, learning something, laughing, and being confused. By the way, people from all around the world wrote their comments, like we were watching a boxing match. Occasionally the prosecution and defense teams' punches and counter-punches are deadly, and occasionally they are unfair. Both sides want to knock each other out as soon as possible, even in the first round. Some people think that the fight's referees and judges had already made a bet. So, if the fight goes the distance, the jurors' objectivity will be taken into account.

If you were an objective observer with critical thinking skills, you might be able to come up with your thoughts on how the prosecution made its case and how the defense presented the law. Regrettably, not all our fellow citizens have received the necessary training to think critically and make fair decisions. The way that the idea of "idiotization" of the big media networks affects our daily life. This is shown in how our voters choose the leaders of our country. On that note, how people think about how the electorate chooses our leaders also shows how they feel about challenges facing the country.

The current system produces a perception among the ignorant majority. Idiotized majority in a way, that these people were made to believe that President is popular based on 1000 respondents representing 91 Million Filipinos, that these people were also given false hopes that for them to climb up out of poverty is fall in line in game show that gives thousand and millions of pesos, that people were given the impression that there is no terrorism despite the beheading of nineteen soldiers in Basilan, and the sporadic ambushes and killings of military personnel and some civilian sympathizers by CPP/NPA/NDF and MILF, that people were made to believe that by watching these giant networks, they can forget the predicaments in their daily lives, that these people made to understand that electing the popular rather that the credible would uplift their lives, that people were given false hope that for them to be Millionaire, they need to bet on LOTTO, while some PSCO officials were using the government funds in a questionable manner as investigated by the Senate in their inquiries, and that these people were blinded in the reality of the “matuwid na daan”, despite the numerous unconstitutional decisions and blunders such as the giving of financial aid to the enemies of the state and the recent railroading of the Corona impeachment.

Those are the only few signs that an idiotized majority exists. I am confident that you can identify additional examples beyond the ones I have mentioned. But the last thing I listed, the Corona impeachment, is quite scary.

Some biased and sponsored media are currently spreading the idea that Corona is a hindrance to national development because he is a puppet of the former administration. But will that be enough to kill him? No, the answer is no. That's why the 188 congressmen who signed the impeachment complaint had eight articles of impeachment. They said that the Chief Justice should be removed from office because he doesn't have the moral authority to lead the judiciary.

I was astonished that the prosecution chose to show Article 2 of the Articles of Impeachment instead of Article 1 during the impeachment trial. The defense team objected, but as usual, the Senate didn't want to hear arguments based on law, logic, and common sense. According to Article 1, the ruling is to keep going with the presentation of evidence and witnesses. Upon presenting these witnesses to the court, it became evident that many senator-judges had lost their objectivity. The first witness, who is the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court, asked the Supreme Court for permission to turn over the Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN) because there is a resolution in the office where she works that says she can't share the SALN without permission. The Senator-Judges had many arguments that were only meant to underscore the point that the witness had to turn over the SALN. One senator says that the Impeachment Court is significantly better than the Supreme Court when it comes to impeachment trials. Many smart people laughed at the comment. The impeachment trial is filled with comedic moments. Senator Joker Arroyo is the only Senator-Judge I know who is a true statesman. He asked for just one day so that the witness might approach the Supreme Court for permission to avoid a battle royale between the two branches of government. He even showed that there is a petition in the Supreme Court to suspend the impeachment trial since there are a lot of legal issues and arguments. But tragically, his biased coworkers didn't pay attention to this evidence. The prosecution then called several witnesses, and the defense team objected, as they normally do, but the judge always overruled them.

Some critical-thinking Filipinos have observed that the prosecution doesn't seem ready with proof for all the impeachment articles. The clearest sign is that they chose to start with Article 2 instead of Article 1. However, when they presented Article 2, their negligence became apparent. The prosecution team says that this is the first time they have seen the Chief Justice's SALN. These 188 Congressmen signed and swore that the Chief Justice was guilty based on Article 2 of the Articles of Impeachment, which says that

The respondent violated the Constitution and betrayed the public's trust by failing to disclose his assets, debts, and net worth as mandated by Section 17, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution.

How could these 188 congressmen have signed and sworn to this claim when one of them said during the trial that it was the first time they had seen the SALN? Signing the impeachment charge is perjury for these congressmen. It is basic sense that they cannot prove that the Chief Justice did not tell the public about his statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth when they have not seen the Chief Justice's SALN.

Based on the premises mentioned above and the way the prosecution acted in court and in the media, it appears that the person who planned this Corona impeachment affair didn't achieve his real goal. Based on my simple view, the actual goal is not to send Corona to court for impeachment. The person behind this plan didn't anticipate the Chief Justice would fight to the end, but they did want him to step down. They believed that Chief Justice Corona was a weak public servant who would be affected by the numerous media attacks that insulted and misrepresented his family. This is the reason the prosecution employs the devious tactic of summoning the Chief Justice's family as witnesses. They hope that it will make the Chief Justice feel worse and make him resign if he sees his family member being insulted by the prosecution during cross-examination. But it didn't happen; the impeachment court turned down the prosecution's request to summon the Corona family members based on legal principles.

People will clearly see that the prosecution is not prepared for the impeachment trial, as evidenced by the current situation. They mistakenly believe that the Chief Justice will resign due to mental stress and the public humiliation of his name in the media and society. Even before the impeachment trial starts, the big news networks have already found the Chief Justice guilty. The prosecution even paid for private lawyers to work for them. The prosecution is making it very apparent that they don't have the legal tools to hold the Chief Justice accountable.

The impeachment trial raises the question of how the prosecution will handle the damage done by wrongly believing the Chief Justice would resign. Can they find more proof to back up all of the claims made in the eight articles of impeachment? Many questions will come up because of this. The 188 congressmen who are part of the prosecution team were mistaken in getting involved in this impeachment process. Clearly, they are exploiting this process to secure re-election or advancement. We truly don't know what will happen next. For example, there are reports of Jose Maria Sison coming back to our country, rumors of a revolutionary government, proof of a slow communist invasion, the Mindanao sub-state, and so on. But there are no winners in this impeachment trial; everyone loses. The question is who lost the most?

The Filipino people are the biggest losers. Every day, the Filipino people struggle to procure food. But tragically, the bulk of people who are dumb are only amenable to the old saying, It's acceptable. The telenovelas produced by the major networks caused the uninformed majority to wait either a week or a day for the next episode. We don't know what this government will do or what the outcome will be in this CORONAVELA. Filipino fans were merely told to wait and see what would happen. ABANGAN ANG SUSUNOD NA KABANATA…

 

Dr. Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope

National President

1st Philippine Pro-Democracy Foundation, Inc.

Good Congressmen to Expose Evil Chief Justice?

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

In just a wink of an eye, the quote by Edmund Burke, which I heard in a TV station that happens to own a monopoly of business in our country, ironically enough, was in the same week that a group of congressmen of this nation delivered their statements on TV stating that they already impeached a very corrupt, irresponsible, and unqualified Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, in the person of Renato Corona. The Burke quotation and the statement of these Congressmen did not collide in my mind until I started thinking about a part of the statements—that not only was it the most ridiculous statement a person could ever make but perhaps also one of the most dangerous statements ever spoken.

Democracy aside, there were a couple of things in the congressmen’s statements that have to be noted. On one hand, the Congressmen were welcomed and applauded by the people who really like to kiss their ass for the reason of survival, but still in their statements they terrorized the judicial branch of the government, as well as the dignity of their chamber where they are elected, whereby the magical impeachment case, which I called the CORONA PHENOMENON, was expeditiously signed by 188 Congressmen, in record time, without any due process and deliberation, and the Chief Justice was impeached in the House of Representatives, in the most horrible fashion I have ever witnessed on media. They were insulting, rude, and demeaning to a forum wherein the advocacy itself is focused on the promotion of justice and the triumph of good over evil.

On the other hand, congressmen made a few statements that made me pause and think. The statement manifests that the impeachment process is a healthy practice of democracy for the Filipino people. Nothing new here, we all knew that. And while he was somewhat polite in his approach to the subject, it was not news. Another factor of their statements worth noting is when they stated that they and their country will not wait to be given the tools needed to have an objective and clean justice system. My shocking thoughts: what is their authority and wisdom to come up with such a statement? They believe that it is their right to develop and progress like every other nation in the world. The President for them deserves to appoint a Chief Justice that will truly work for the development of the nation.

Another noteworthy moment was when the leader of the Congressmen discussed the merit and evidence of the impeachment, even if the Senate impeachment court has not yet convened to start hearing the case, as if this Congressman, who according to the Senate President must study law further. Maybe such an early presentation of evidence would change the mindset of the people through the media that the Chief Justice is indeed guilty. The fact that the defense panel is a group of high-caliber lawyers, not to mention the petitions of independent-minded lawyers to stop the impeachment process based on irregularities and technicalities.

But still with the tough task to face, these 188 congressmen stand on their ground that eloquently understands the eight grounds for impeachment, enumerated as follows:

I. Respondent betrayed the public trust through his track record marked by partiality and subservience in cases involving the Arroyo administration from the time of his appointment as Supreme Court justice, which continued to his dubious appointment as a midnight chief justice and up to the present.

II. Respondent committed culpable violation of the Constitution and/or betrayed the public trust when he failed to disclose to the public his statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth as required under Section 17, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution.

III. Respondent committed a culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayed the public trust by failing to meet and observe the stringent standards under Article VIII, Section 7 (3) of the Constitution that provides that “[A] member of the judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence” in allowing the Supreme Court to act on mere letters filed by a counsel , which caused the issuance of flip-flopping decisions in final and executory cases; in creating an excessive entanglement with Mrs. Arroyo through her appointment of his wife to office; and in discussing with litigants regarding cases pending before the Supreme Court.

IV. Respondent betrayed the public trust and/or committed a culpable violation of the Constitution when it blatantly disregarded the principle of separation of powers by issuing a “status quo ante” order against the House of Representatives in the case concerning the impeachment of then Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez.

V. Respondent committed culpable violation of the Constitution through wanton arbitrariness and partiality in consistently disregarding the principle of res judicata and in deciding in favor of gerrymandering in the cases involving the 16 newly created cities and the promotion of Dinagat Island into a province.

VI. Respondent betrayed the public trust by arrogating unto himself and to a committee he created the authority and jurisdiction to improperly investigate an alleged erring member of the Supreme Court for the purpose of exculpating him. Such authority and jurisdiction is properly reposed by the Constitution in the House of Representatives via impeachment.

VII. Respondent betrayed the public trust through his partiality in granting a temporary restraining order (TRO) in favor of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her husband, Jose Miguel Arroyo, to give them an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice, and in distorting the Supreme Court decision on the effectivity of the TRO in view of a clear failure to comply with the conditions of the Supreme Court’s own TRO.

VIII. Respondent betrayed the public trust and/or committed graft and corruption when he failed and refused to account for the judiciary development fund (JDF) and special allowance for the judiciary (SAJ) collections.

Here is where the evil comes in. If they are really good people that do something so that evil will not triumph, I just like to ask back the questions to them about the grounds of betrayal of public trust.

• Who among these 188 so-called good Congressmen did not practice midnight appointments among their preferred people when they were not yet legislators, when they were heads of executive departments, GOCCs, or local government officials?
• Who among these 188 so-called beneficial Congressmen discloses to the public his statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth as required under Section 17, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution?
• Who among these 188 so-called good Congressmen is a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence?
• Who among these 188 so-called good Congressmen is really independent and cannot be influenced by the leadership of the executive department?
• Who among these 188 so-called good Congressmen is not receiving kickbacks and commissions from contractors when they are utilizing their pork barrel?
• Who among these 188 so-called good Congressmen have bought their houses, cars, and condominiums out of their sweat and not through corruption?
• Who among these 188 so-called good Congressmen did not lobby for a TRO in the judicial department in some cases involving their men and close relatives?
• Who among these 188 so-called good Congressmen did not lobby for positions in the executive department to designate their people in vital offices?

If all these 188 so-called good Congressmen would answer NO, then I say, go on with advocacy, clean this nation, and save us from evil men. On the other hand, when these 188 so-called ethical Congressmen signed the impeachment complaint, there was an outburst of laughter from the few principled Filipinos. The educated body of people who read the complaint knew the absurdity of the statement, but the numerous laughter didn’t take into account the ramifications of the whole thought.

Now how does the theater of good men step up and take a stand for the people in our nation who cannot stand up for themselves? The 188 congressmen of this country cannot face their own mirror before filing a complaint. We pray that the citizens of our country can set themselves free of such narrow-minded and uneducated thinking of some of our elected Congressmen. And we must pray that many will not suffer under the regime of self-interest before national interest. Perhaps evil will triumph when good men cannot do anything through no fault of their own but through the fault of those in power who reject reason and wisdom. History has previously shown us examples of demented and closed-minded dictators in leadership positions. But the question is, do we still have good men in government who will take action to prevent evil from triumphing? Face the mirror and ask yourself.