Actually I became interested in editing this very short article amid Wikipedia s invitation for us to participate in the survey ending November 3 when all newspapers were flooded with Burlesque King Nograles was forced to run naked in the hotel Now I was not a Wikipedian then but when the landmark acquittal suit was published I took time to edit this tersely Nograles placed 2nd to my 1975 counsel in civil case Atty Henry R Villarica 92 35 higher than Ferdinand Marcos 92 35 trimmed from 99 due to Marcos blunder in political law subject in an En Banc review of his test results 1939 Villarica owns more than 100 pawnshops and is a very close friend business assoc of my brother in gold and they have 41 2 ha Sta Maria Bulacan fighting cock farm I don t know Ateneo Law School Nograles but due to the bar rating 2nd place he is so brilliant Now in my 6 500 edits I happened to have seen and edited like this controversy in bios of USA Senators etc So I just follow the Wikipedia pattern The difference between Dante Tinga and Nograles is that the former was cleared by the Court but the Nograles issue of censoring publication by libel lawsuit vs the naked running was condemned after Court acquittal for lack of evidence In Nograles the acquittal is best Wikipedia evidence to go forth with the edit on Nograles bio naked thing Remember the Beatrix of the Netherlands IP address fiasco caught by Wiki scanner On August 31 2007 Queen Beatrix s royal family affirmed that Prince Friso of Orange Nassau 38 and his wife Princess Mabel Wisse Smit edited the entry on Wikipedia which described Mabel s relationship with slain drug baron Klaas Bruinsma using the queen s palaces computer The changes were found by Dutch media using Wiki Scanner the entry which states Mabel provided incomplete and false information about Bruinsma was changed to just incomplete information in January 2006 My point is in Tinga and Nograles irrespective of Court acquittal or clearance the publication of the bribe and Nog s U P Oblation run respectively with reliable sources licenses us editors to add the thing On short edits I respect IT and other editors since it is a matter of style If I were not a judge or lawyer or if I were not an A B communication editor then like IT and math editors I would edit with a sentence or 2 But I keep my edits to 3 sentences for this reason links die in time due to pay per view and scholars or readers of Wiki must be provided with a choice to read more meats or essential ingredients Also the libel suit was filed by Nograles et al and the subject is the naked run Now Nograles withdrew due to affidavit of desistance but the other complainant did not and the Court decided based on trial s evidence So with more reasons must the edit be there and at the very least even a sentence but the essentials of the naked run ought to be there Final point I do not personally know Tinga but in 1978 I hired a lawyer of Santiago Tinga Fornier Law Office to handle my simple Malolos case Tinga became congressman and had been well known for this controversy it is of judicial notice in IBP Personally I ignored these until Douglas Anama my text mate the husband of Felipa Borlongan Anama our Assistant Clerk of the Supreme Court with the equivalent salary and rank of CA Justice repeatedly approached me to consult dwarves due to their case which Tinga decided against him that s his family home Tinga is not the only one who had these bribery things Ynares Santiago and M Nazario remember the Ramos notable contempt fine shared the pie My point is the Court would instead put to rest the issue by fine or contempt But for us editors we just follow the pattern in USA bio of senators and public figures Hence my edit is well copy pasted from Wikipedia good articles on sub section controversies But of course with all due respect to your edits Sorry for my TLDR but it is so informative Cheers