The SC decision re use of video/audio tapes

I'm pessimistic that the pro-impeach people will get a fair decision based on the item below.

Already, there are perceived indications that when the impeachment case goes to the high court, the Gloria-appointed justices will be ruling in Gloria's favor whether upholding the majority's acts or even throwing the case back to the House for Congress to decide on it, while claiming this to be beyond them, being a political question is explosive enough to start the street fires going.

But the indications are there. Just a few weeks ago, the high court ruled on a libel case, saying a video or an audiotape — which was not even illegally wiretapped — is inadmissible as evidence unless the tape is first authenticated by the proper persons, which would be the media outfit, which would hardly do it for the accuser. This, incidentally, was the ruling being used by the majority to dismiss the complaint on substance.

Meaning, the video should be authenticated by the one who made the tape, which would be the media outfit. But why would this media outfit help authenticate their own tapes for the accuser when yung accuser mismo ang nag-file ng libel case laban sa kanila.

Or why would ISAFP authenticate the tapes when delikado yan sa boss nila? And Vidal Doble is a lost cause now because Soc Villegas backstabbed him and handed the guy over to ISAFP's "rescue team." Bumaliktad na si Doble ala Udong Mahusay.

The SC decision also reminded me of the conditions set by Jonathan Tiongco for the GLORIAGATE tapes to be considered "material" evidence.

Here's more on crazy Jonathan Tiongco.

Related:
- GMA the sigurista appoints 8 Justices to SC before elections
- Don't expect too much from the Supreme Court