The Implicitness Fallacy: Text, Trust, and the Curatorial Politics of Legal Suspicion
L.U.M.A.B.A.N. KA NG PATAS, ATTY. BAGARES.
Anthony Parlade
Naging curious ako dito sa mga argumento ni Atty Romel BAGARES, lalo na nang ipinipilit nyang ilusot ang ipinapahiwatig daw ng RA 9851.
Pahiwatig? Implied?
IMPLICIT ka dyan.
Like I said I am not a lawyer but I really wonder what kind of lawyers we have to NOT understand simple provisions of our laws, domestic laws specifically.
I followed the argumentation below and I am convinced something is off with this Atty Bagares, so I checked LinkedIn.
I am not IMPLYING anything but this is what is EXPLICIT about his profile.
- He is a product of UP Law (2003)
- Professional Lecturer - PUP & Judicial Academy, SC
- Member of UP Law Christian Fellowship
Great. Impressive.
I scrolled further and this is what his profile says:
- He attended the Advanced Summer Course in Human Rights litigation from Central European University.
Wow, even better. We can depend on him to defend OUR HUMAN RIGHTS.
But wait. He also attended this one.
Summer Course in Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (2007) at the University of Utrecht.
Nalintikan na. Ganda na sana eh dumikit pa talaga sa kampo ni Joma SISON.
Magkaklase pa 'ata sila ni Atty Cristina CONTI, ng Lupon ng mga Mananaggal ng Bayan (LUMABAN), ang Communist cell na nagpapatakbo sa National Union of People's Lawyers (NUPL).
Kasama nila siempre si:
- Atty Neri COLMENARES,
- Atty Caloi ZARATE
- Atty Renee CO
- Atty Tony LA VIÑA
- Atty Sol TAULE
- Atty Terry RIDON
- Atty Al CINCO, etc.
Mga abogado ng NPA yan. Yong isa naging Fiscal pa, muntik na maging Judge. Buti hindi sya natuloy for dishonesty when he applied as Judge, kasi nakita records na hindi nya sinama sa application nya. Siempre.
Napakahaba pa ng listahan na nito.
Isama ko na ba ang UP Cebu Atty na nagdraft ng Decision ni Judge sa Proscription ng CPP, na ang sinasabi ay "hindi terorista ang CPPNPANDF kasi wala sa By-Laws nila ang pagpabagsak at pananakot sa gobyerno..." or something to that effect?
I am not IMPLYING anything here except what is EXPLICIT in their ways.
These people will only defend the human rights of persons they can use to advance their agenda.
Some of them are our friends, I know. But be careful, they will swallow you alive. Lalo yang makapapal mag lipstick. Yak!
The law is clear. If things are not written in RA 9851, it cannot be IMPLIED.
If that is allowed by our Justices, what happens to "beyond reasonable doubt?"
Saludo kay Justice LEONEN.
Lawyers with their warped thinking make it difficult for our country to move forward.
Kaya ang gulo gulo ng bayan.
Maging mapanuri.
Do not assume anything. The CPP members are masters of deception.
We blink. We die.
If in doubt, ask the National Task Force to End Local Communist Armed Conflict .
---
The Implicitness Fallacy: Text, Trust, and the Curatorial Politics of Legal Suspicion
Amiel Gerald A. Roldan™
May 18, 2026
The claim “L.U.M.A.B.A.N. KA NG PATAS, ATTY. BAGARES” frames Atty. Romel Bagares’s invocation of implied provisions in RA 9851 as legally unsound and politically motivated; a careful textual and doctrinal reading shows RA 9851’s express language limits recognition of belligerency and requires statutory grounding for criminalization, while professional affiliations alone do not constitute legal proof of bias.
Context and scope
This essay collates the rhetorical premise in the user’s text, situates it against RA 9851’s express provisions, and evaluates the argumentative moves (textualism vs. purposivism), evidentiary standards, and the rhetorical use of professional biography as political inference.
Textual core: what RA 9851 actually says
RA 9851 is titled Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity and explicitly states that its application “shall not affect the legal status of the parties to a conflict, nor give an implied recognition of the status of belligerency.” This clause is a textual constraint on any inference that the statute implicitly recognizes belligerency.
Table: Claim versus statutory text and implication
| Claim | User evidence | Statutory text | Legal implication |
|---|---:|---|---|
| RA 9851 implies recognition of belligerency | Atty Bagares’s alleged argument (implied) | Statute forbids implied recognition of belligerency. | Textual bar to inference; court must justify any non-textual reading. |
| Lawyers’ affiliations = political bias | LinkedIn affiliations (user report) | Professional training/affiliation not proof of criminal complicity. | Biographical facts are circumstantial; require corroborating conduct. |
| Courts accept implication beyond text | Concern about judicial reasoning | Jurisprudence requires statutory interpretation principles and fair-trial safeguards. | Judges may use purposive tools but must respect express limits. |
Doctrinal analysis: textualism, purposivism, and burden of proof
- Textualism: Under a strict textualist approach, if RA 9851 does not state a rule, courts should not infer it, especially where the statute expressly disclaims implied recognition. This supports the user’s insistence on written law.
- Purposivism and IHL: International humanitarian law (IHL) principles and treaty obligations can inform interpretation, but they cannot override an express statutory prohibition on implied recognition without legislative amendment.
- Standard of proof: Criminal and proscription contexts demand high standards; “beyond reasonable doubt” governs criminal guilt, while administrative or proscription measures require clear statutory authority and procedural safeguards.
Rhetoric and evidentiary caution
The user’s rhetorical strategy—cataloguing education and affiliations—is persuasive but not dispositive legally. Professional training in human rights or humanitarian law is not evidence of criminal intent or organizational membership. Accusatory inferences risk conflating advocacy with complicity; courts and policy bodies must rely on admissible evidence, not associative guilt.
Conclusion and practical takeaway
Legally, RA 9851’s text constrains implied recognition of belligerency; interpretive arguments must reconcile treaty context with express statutory language. Politically, scrutinize arguments on their legal merits and demand evidentiary support rather than associative insinuation. Confirm factual claims about individuals with primary sources before drawing legal or moral conclusions.
RA 9851 expressly forbids any implied recognition of belligerency; arguments that read an implicit grant of status into the statute must overcome that textual bar and be grounded in clear doctrinal, evidentiary, and treaty-based reasoning—not in associative biography or rhetorical insinuation.
---
Curatorial frame
This short curatorial frame treats the user’s premise—“L.U.M.A.B.A.N. KA NG PATAS, ATTY. BAGARES”—as a cultural object: a performative accusation that mixes statutory interpretation, professional biography, and political anxiety. As a gatekeeper of discourse, the curator asks three questions: (1) What does the text of the law actually permit? (2) What interpretive methods are legitimate in this context? (3) When does biography become evidence? RA 9851’s declaration explicitly states that its application “shall not affect the legal status of the parties to a conflict, nor give an implied recognition of the status of belligerency.” This textual clause is dispositive for any claim that the statute itself implies belligerency.
Comparative table: Claim vs. Statute vs. Evidentiary standard
| Claim | User evidence | Statutory text | Evidentiary bar |
|---|---:|---|---|
| RA 9851 implies belligerency | Atty Bagares’s alleged argument | Statute forbids implied recognition. | Must show clear legislative intent or binding treaty override |
| Lawyer’s affiliations = bias | LinkedIn affiliations listed by user | Training/affiliation not proof of guilt. | Requires admissible conduct-based evidence |
| Courts accept implication | Concern about jurisprudence | Judges may use purposive tools but must respect express limits | Judicial reasoning must be transparent and textually anchored |
Critical, humane reading
- Textual primacy: Where a statute explicitly disclaims an implication, interpretive moves that assert an implied status face a heavy burden.
- Purposive supplementation: International humanitarian law and treaty norms can inform interpretation, but they cannot nullify an express statutory prohibition without legislative or constitutional reconciliation.
- Biographical caution: Professional education or human-rights training is not probative of criminal association; conflating the two risks guilt by association and corrodes civic trust.
- Procedural stakes: In criminal or proscription contexts, standards of proof and procedural safeguards (fair trial, beyond reasonable doubt, transparent proscription criteria) must govern outcomes.
Disconfirming the alternative on its merits
The alternative claim—that RA 9851 implicitly recognizes belligerency and that professional affiliations justify suspicion—fails on two grounds: (1) textual: the statute expressly forbids such implication; (2) evidentiary: biography is circumstantial and insufficient to meet criminal or proscription standards. Any judicial acceptance of an “implied” reading without clear legislative or treaty basis would be an interpretive overreach and a dangerous precedent for associative adjudication.
---
Selected references
- Republic of the Philippines. (2009). Republic Act No. 9851: Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity. Lawphil Project.
- Supreme Court E-Library. (2009). Republic Act No. 9851. Supreme Court of the Philippines.
- Chan Robles Virtual Law Library. (2009). Republic Act No. 9851. Chan Robles.
---
Footnote markers: Key statutory quotations and claims above reference RA 9851’s Declaration of Principles and State Policies; see sources cited.
---
*** credit to the owners of the photo & articles otherwise cited
If you like my any of my concept research, writing explorations, art works and/or simple writings please support me by sending me a coffee treat at my paypal amielgeraldroldan.paypal.me or GXI 09053027965. Much appreciate and thank you in advance.
Amiel Gerald A. Roldan™ ' s connection to the Asian Cultural Council (ACC) serves as a defining pillar of his professional journey, most recently celebrated through the launch of the ACC Global Alumni Network.As a 2003 Starr Foundation Grantee, Roldan participated in a transformative ten-month fellowship in the United States. This opportunity allowed him to observe contemporary art movements, engage with an international community of artists and curators, and develop a new body of work that bridges local and global perspectives.Featured Work: Bridges Beyond Borders His featured work, Bridges Beyond Borders: ACC's Global Cultural Collaboration, has been chosen as the visual identity for the newly launched ACC Global Alumni Network.Symbol of Connection: The piece represents a private collaborative space designed to unite over 6,000 ACC alumni across various disciplines and regions.Artistic Vision: The work embodies the ACC's core mission of advancing international dialogue and cultural exchange to foster a more harmonious world.Legacy of Excellence: By serving as the face of this initiative, Roldan's art highlights the enduring impact of the ACC fellowship on his career and his role in the global artistic community.Just featured at https://www.pressenza.com/2026/01/the-asian-cultural-council-global-alumni-network-amiel-gerald-a-roldan/
Amiel Gerald A. Roldan™ curatorial writing practice exemplifies this path: transforming grief into infrastructure, evidence into agency, and memory into resistance. As the Philippines enters a new economic decade, such work is not peripheral—it is foundational.
I'm trying to complement my writings with helpful inputs and prompts. Bear with me as I am treating this blog as repositories and drafts.
Please comment and tag if you like my compilations visit www.amielroldan.blogspot.com or www.amielroldan.wordpress.com
and comments at
amiel_roldan@outlook.com
amielgeraldroldan@gmail.com
A multidisciplinary Filipino artist, poet, researcher, and cultural worker whose practice spans painting, printmaking, photography, installation, and writing. He is deeply rooted in cultural memory, postcolonial critique, and in bridging creative practice with scholarly infrastructure—building counter-archives, annotating speculative poetry like Southeast Asian manuscripts, and fostering regional solidarity through ethical art collaboration.
Recent show at ILOMOCA
https://www.facebook.com/share/v/16qUTDdEMD
https://www.linkedin.com/safety/go?messageThreadUrn=urn%3Ali%3AmessageThreadUrn%3A&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pressenza.com%2F2025%2F05%2Fcultural-workers-not-creative-ilomoca-may-16-2025%2F&trk=flagship-messaging-android
Asian Cultural Council Alumni Global Networkhttps://alumni.asianculturalcouncil.org/?fbclid=IwdGRjcAPlR6NjbGNrA-VG_2V4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkDDM1MDY4NTUzMTcyOAABHoy6hXUptbaQi5LdFAHcNWqhwblxYv_wRDZyf06-O7Yjv73hEGOOlphX0cPZ_aem_sK6989WBcpBEFLsQqr0kdg
Amiel Gerald A. Roldan™ started Independent Curatorial Manila™ as a nonprofit philanthropy while working for institutions simultaneously early on.
The Independent Curatorial Manila™ or ICM™ is a curatorial services and guide for emerging artists in the Philippines. It is an independent/voluntary services entity and aims to remain so. Selection is through proposal and a prerogative temporarily. Contact above for inquiries.
LanguageLoginCreate connection,Value conversation.For youWho we areMeet the teamICM cultureHow to applyStoriesContact usLanguageManage your cookie preferencesPrivacy & Cookie PoliciesTerms of useGlobal code of conduct & ethicsAll rights reserved Amiel Gerald Roldan® 2026***Disclaimer:This work is my original writing unless otherwise cited; any errors or omissions are my responsibility. The views expressed here are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of any organization or institution.Furthermore, the commentary reflects my personal interpretation of publicly available data and is offered as fair comment on matters of public interest. It does not allege criminal liability or wrongdoing by any individual.
Comments
Post a Comment