"I have (found) the subcommittee recommendation ... supported by documentary evidence as well as expert and personal testimonies that remain unrebutted by competent evidence..."

-- Sen. Grace Poe, on why she signed the Senate report recommending plunder and graft charges against Vice President Jojo Binay

SEN. Grace Poe, joining the call in the Senate for charges of corruption to be filed, said evidence against the vice president was "unrebutted."

Anti-Binay charges weren't directly answered in the Senate, where Binay never appeared but merely sent aides and self-serving statements, which disputed but didn't tear down.

Refusing to present his case or join a formal debate, he flew to Cebu and other urban centers, evading confrontation and making general denials. And "non sequiturs," such as: he's being harassed and persecuted, his accusers have a political ax to bury in his back, he's being denied due process. His blast at the report ("one-sided") didn't follow as well.

"Unrebutted"? Not formally disputed at a forum where accusers and accused met. Surely, not "refuted," if we understand it the way most English teachers distinguish "unrebutted," not contradicted, from "unrefuted," not proven to be false or wrong.

Is that good or bad for Binay who in May would want voters to vote him to the highest office of the land?


If voters think the accusations now stand the way Poe sees them, supported by evidence and not contradicted, they might reject Binay. Why elect a man on whose integrity a huge shadow of doubt hangs?

But if voters think the charges against Binay must be proven in a court of law or at least in a forum where they can assess accusations and answers, then Binay might have succeeded in seeking the vote with no clear resolution of his innocence or guilt.