The image is captured for editorial purpose here
The accusation may or may not be true. But the “challenge” is not legally and philosophically sound
Detractors of Philippine presidential son, Paulo Duterte, have been blowing a serious accusation that he has a tattoo on his back. That tattoo, they claim, can be a proof that he is linked to an illegal drug trade and that it bears a code indicating that he receives drug money. They demand Duterte to show the tattoo in public but he refuses.
Why are the detractors philosophically and legally illogical as regards the challenge?
In philosophy (logic) and in Law, Paulo’s challengers violate the argumentation, logical and legal rule called Onus Probandi or Burden of Proof.
Who is the holder of the burden of proof?
Answer: According to Wikipedia, “when two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.” Status quo means existing state of affairs or present situation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)
Sara, Paulo’s sister, is philosophically and legally right
“Sa akin, kung ako ‘yan, of course not. Hindi ko ipapakita because I have the right to privacy,” the daughter of President Rodrigo Duterte told reporters… (We are quoting gmanetwork.com news)
We translate: To me, in my case, of course not. I will not show it because I have the right to privacy.
“Unless there is a case about my tattoo, sinasabi ng judge ipakita mo ang tattoo mo, then that’s the time magpapakita ako ng tattoo,” added Sara, a lawyer… (We are quoting gmanetwork.com news)
We translate: Unless there is a case about my tattoo, the judge says show your tattoo, then that’s the time I will expose some tattoo.
Our firm opinion
What we point out as philosophically and legally not valid and unsound is the challenge, not the accusation. We are not sure whether the accusation can be found true or not. It’s not for the accused to testify against himself, but for the accuser to carry the proofing burden.