“Ang bobopols talaga nila, noh?!” — Lawyer on critics considering RevGov an act of terrorism under ATA?

Just recently, the talks of RevGov has been making some noise social media, drawing mixed reactions from netizens.

While the Duterte supporters simply ignored the RevGov rumor, the wokes and the supporters of the Dilawans were obviously alarmed.

So alarmed that the critics of the administration have conflicting opinion on the issue.

Exhibit A. Atty. Macalintal, VP Leni Robredo’s election lawyer, hold the opinion that in the event RevGov is declared, Leni Robredo will become the new President.

Exhibit B. JC Punongbayan, a contributing writer of Rappler and UP School of Economics teaching fellow argued that RevGov might be considered as an act of terrorism under the the ATA (anti-terror act).

In a Facebook post with the title “Revgov at ATA”, Atty. Nick Nañgit of the FB page Nick Nañgit – NCN Law shared his legal views on the hotly debated topic on socmed lately, RevGov and ATA or anti-terror act.

Atty. Nick opened the FB post wondering who were the masterminds behind the RevGov rumor. ‘May kumakalat na revgov kemerut. Sino kaya nagpasimuno niyan?’

Right off the bat, Atty. Nick called the netizen “stupid” who said that RevGov can be considered as an act of terrorism. Why? Because the word RevGov, Atty. Nick argued is a broad term, especially when there is no violence against the public. He asked how can RevGov falls under the definition of terrorism? He said this could only mean that the netizen, which is none other than JC Punongbayan, and Rappler did not understand ATA (anti-terrorism act).

‘At itong T@NG@NG ito, pwede raw ikonsiderang terorismo ang revgov, gayung napakalawak ng salitang revgov, pero kung wala namang karahasan sa publiko e papano papasok sa depinisyon ng terorismo? Ibig sabihin, hindi niya at ng sinungaling na R@ppl3r naiintindihan ang ATA!’

Atty. Nick remarked that he found it very funny that the critics of ATA are now using it to shoot down RevGov by categorizing it as an act of terrorism. He reckoned that previously, they want ATA declared unconstitutional or invalid? If that is the case, Atty. Nick asked the critics what law they would use now to counter RevGov? He wondered if the critics of ATA now will now withdraw their SC petition because of necessity?

‘Ang pinaka nakakatawa pa ay bakit gagamitin nila ngayon ang ATA para ikonsiderang terorismo ang revgov, e di ba nga gusto nilang ipadeklarang “invalid” o “unconstitutional” yan? Kung gayun, anong batas ang gagamitin para kontrahin ang revgov? Ano, iaatras nyo na ang mga petisyon nyo sa Korte Suprema, kasi kakailanganin nyo yan diba?’

Atty. Nick recalled how the critics of the Safe Spaces Act made a fool of themselves by attacking it without understanding the law so they simply borrowed the opinion of others. Atty. Nick asked if cases were filed? He ended by calling the critics “bopols” or dumb.

‘Para lang yung nagkemerut din ng Safe Spaces Act, di naman naiintindihan ang batas na yun kaya kumukuha ng opinyon ng iba. Anong nangyari, may isinampa ba? Ang bobopols talaga nila, noh?! 🤣😂🥴’

Your comment?

Source: Nick Nañgit – NCN Law

Add Comment