New and Used Car Talk Reviews Hot Cars Comparison Automotive Community

The Largest Car Forum in the Philippines

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567
Results 61 to 68 of 68
  1. Join Date
    Jun 2011
    sir i think 100 percent magiinhibit po si CJ CORONA... BEC. OF DELICADEZA...

    AT DAPAT LANG... pag hindi cya nag inhibit lalo lang ma AAKUSAHAN ANG S.C. NA ISANG ARROYO COURT...

    and i dont think the magistrates will FAVOR the arroyos without clear legal basis.....

    panahon na ni pnoy ngayon... may media pa... may mga tsikoteers pa na naka bantay...

    suicide sila pag pinaboran nila si gma ng walang malakas at legal na basehan...

  2. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Quote Originally Posted by glenn manikis View Post
    sir i think 100 percent magiinhibit po si CJ CORONA... BEC. OF DELICADEZA...

    Problem is, if he did have delicadeza, he would have stepped down upon the assumption of PNoy's administration given the circumstances surrounding his appointment.

  3. Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Quote Originally Posted by vinj View Post
    Problem is, if he did have delicadeza, he would have stepped down upon the assumption of PNoy's administration given the circumstances surrounding his appointment.
    alam nyo po ayan kasi ang pinaka aasam asam ng isang abogado... ang maging CHIEF JUSTICE...

    pero in my own opinion... dapat sana nag hintay NAlang ng 2 buwan ang s.c.. para wala ng ganito na AKUSAHAN NA MAKA ARROYO SI CORONA... ano ba naman yung 2 months? dapat hinintay nalang nila si pnoy ang nag appoint ng CJ... ANG grounds kasi ng magistrates dun eh... hindi daw covered ang CHIEF JUSTICE SA BAN NA YUN.... KAHIT HINDI PA COVERED... PARA WALA NALANG DUDA ang taong bayan....

  4. Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Quote Originally Posted by glenn manikis View Post
    crap decision? nabasa mo man lang po ba?

    timeline? sir pag TRO AND INJUNCTION PO ANG FILE... sa batas po natin ang s.c. is giving only 24 hrs. TO set the petition for tro for hearing, then they should immediately decide... kahit san ka po mag file ng tro sa judiciary kung may MERIT eh magkaka tro po talaga yan... pag kayo nag file ng PEtition for tro kahit sa lower court eh immediately or upon motion the court will set it for hearing the next following day....
    kaya nga po nag fifile ng tro ang isang party para maiwasan ang irreperable injury that could occur...
    Unfortunately for you, I have read some of the cr*p decisions. Surprised? Did you?? So don't go around assuming, ok??

    The SC decided on the TRO knowing it could have caused irreparable injury(by letting Gloria escape). Not issuing the TRO and hearing both sides before making a decision would not result in a irreparable injury (Gloria's life was not in danger).

    There is a difference between reasoning and rationalization. The SC is rationalizing.

    Have you examined the timeline of all their recent actions? I'm not talking about just this cr*p decision. Please post again once you have.

  5. Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Quote Originally Posted by niky View Post
    The real problem is what's legal... not what's just.

    If we went by what's "just", then the SC has made many "unjust" decisions.

    But if we go by legality, the SC's decisions have been legal, within the bounds of the law. That there is much room for interpretation in said laws is hardly the fault of the SC.

    That's why I don't agree with Franklin Drilon's statement... where he said that Corona should inhibit himself due to his past record, even if his votes have been made with full cognition and in full compliance of the technicalities of the law involved. Bull! What use are laws if we ignore them? We would be no worse than a fascist dictatorship in that regard.

    But then, there's a precedent. The proclamation of Cory as President without an election was not technically legal. The proclamation of Gloria, despite Erap not officially abdicating, was not legal at all. Politicians find ways to do what they want by ignoring laws at will.

    Gloria herself was a different case... she managed to find loopholes within loopholes that allowed her to build a power base that is still benefiting her long after her term expired. One can imagine that the systems she set in place with her political selection of presidential pardons and her "midnight appointments" were all leading up to this moment. She knew that the next administration would try to get at her, so she got ready.
    These statements show a lack of appreciation of the leeway the Supreme Court has in subverting the rule of law just because it can interpret laws the way it wants to.

    Look at the carving out of the congressional district for Dato Arroyo. Or as you pointed out the proclamation of Arroyo (EDSA 2) which was affirmed by the Supreme Court even though there was no clear basis in the constitution. Or its move to exempt itself from releasing SALNs like every other government official (even the President). ALL THESE ARE LEGAL. How? Because the Supreme Court chose to make them so and not because these are "technically" or "not technically" legal.

    To paraphrase an aphorism, "The Supreme Court is not final because we are infallible, but is infallible only because it is final."

  6. Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Quote Originally Posted by glenn manikis View Post
    sir its not like a position paper... lahat ng bagay na isunulat dun sa petition to the comment hangang sa reply sa petition, rejoinder, memo, etc. etc... ay tina tacle sa decision... and explain din yan point by point.... at kung ano ang ginamit na basehan sa batas... hindi po parang position paper lang yan... iniisa isa yan.... inilalatag ang evidence ng petitioner then ilalatag din ang evidence ng respondent then ididiscuss dun kung ano ang tama at mali... kaya pwede natin makita kung talaga bang unjust ang decision... and its not hard to find errors... at alam naman natin lahat kung ano ang tama at ang mali... at kung may batas nga ba dun....
    most of the decisions you can say that and they want you to believe that. but there are instances like the one already mentioned by sir creepy. they come up with a decision and then justify it and make it all look legal.

    corona should inhibit himself already and completely give up his appointment as chief justice to save the sc from further criticisms.

  7. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    i'm starting to believe that Corona is unprofessional not fit to assume the CJ of SC position...


    [SIZE=3]Corona snubs anti-corruption pact signing[/SIZE]
    Posted at 12/10/2011 1:48 AM
    Updated as of 12/10/2011 6:06 PM

    MANILA, Philippines - Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona was nowhere to be found at an agreement-signing event between government agencies that seeks to reaffirm the Aquino administration's campaign against corruption.

    Corona, who was openly criticized by President Benigno Aquino during the First National Criminal summit last Monday, instead sent a representative, Supreme Court Administrator Jose Midas Marquez, to sign the agreement.

    Marquez received a cold treatment from Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales during the event.

    "Corruption kills... It kills education, health and promotes violence," she said.

    The gathering was the first of its kind under the Aquino administration.

    Presidential Executive Secretary Jojo Ochoa, who was present during the agreement-signing, said part of Aquino's efforts to stamp out corruption in the government is bringing former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo before the bar of justice.

    "It shows that the President has the passion and the poliltical will to institute reforms," he said.

    The campaign is receiving support from a former Arroyo ally, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile.

    "It is the duty of the president to see to it that laws are implemented," Enrile said.

  8. Join Date
    Oct 2002

    [SIZE=3]Supreme Court has only itself to blame[/SIZE]

    By: Solita Collas-Monsod
    Philippine Daily Inquirer
    11:16 pm | Friday, October 14th, 2011

    Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona’s “unprecedented” diatribe against the executive and the legislative branches (or some members thereof)—accusing them of disrespect and lack of civility—may have earned thunderous applause from the hometown crowd of judges he was addressing, but it is doubtful whether he will get much sympathy from many others.

    Don’t get me wrong. The Supreme Court is a coequal branch of government. It is independent, by constitutional mandate, which means, among other things, that it has fiscal autonomy, and we should all defend it from any and all attempts—by whatever quarter—to undermine that independence.

    But respect has to be earned, it cannot be demanded. (I will say something about civility later.) And if the CJ thinks there has been disrespect, it behooves him to examine whether the behavior of the high court during his watch merits respect in the first place, heeding the Biblical exhortation: “And why do you take note of the grain of dust in your brother’s eye, but take no note of the bit of wood which is in your eye?”

    This is not to say that the Executive and the Legislature’s failings are as a grain of dust, but the reader (and it is hoped, the CJ) gets the drift. And since Corona doesn’t seem to think there is any bit of wood/beam/plank (depending on the Bible version) in the Supreme Court’s eye, maybe we can help.

    Let’s start with the appointment of Corona himself as chief justice. That was clearly a midnight appointment, specifically barred by the Constitution. But what is now known as the Corona Court essentially not only chose to distort the letter and the spirit of the constitutional provision against midnight appointments, it also overturned previous high court precedents on the matter, thus giving itself the first blow to its reputation (already not of the highest) and its credibility. The Corona Court started off on the wrong foot.

    In the next 17 months, it continued on the same respect-obliterating, public trust-violating course. Some examples:

    There’s the case involving former Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez, where the Corona Court issued a status quo ante order (which stopped Congress in its tracks of impeaching Gutierrez), within one or two days after receiving her petition. The only trouble was that it turned out that the Court voted on it without, it seems, even reading it. How do we know that? From the routing slips: voting took place in the morning, the documents were received only in the afternoon or the next day. Corona, in defending his Court, wondered why it took six months before anybody complained. The answer is simple: nobody found out until later that a vote was taken without the documents being read.

    Then there is the plagiarism (the practice of taking someone else’s work and passing them off as one’s own) case brought up by certain UP law professors against Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo. The Corona Court investigated, and found—disregarding the overwhelming evidence to the contrary—that Justice Del Castillo did not plagiarize (nor, apparently can any justice do so).

    To add insult to injury, it vented its ire against the UP law faculty who had supported the complaint. And worse, it also turned on AJ Ma. Lourdes Sereno, the most junior justice at the time. Her “sin” apparently was that she had documented (in her dissenting opinion) the many instances of plagiarism that her colleague had committed. And this is where the lack of civility, which Corona deplored in the Executive and Legislature, came in: Sereno herself was accused of plagiarism by another justice (Roberto Abad)—an accusation, which was totally baseless, as Sereno herself proved. How can Corona accuse his critics of lack of civility, when he allows it to happen in his own Court? Another blow to the Corona Court’s credibility and respectability.

    And then there is the Lauro Vizconde accusation, which made the headlines, that AJ Antonio Carpio campaigned among his colleagues for the acquittal of Hubert Webb. Vizconde was very confident, because he said that this was told to him personally by another justice—who he later identified as CJ Corona. Corona denied it. But Vizconde, who apparently has a witness ready to support him, refused to back down. Interestingly, the Court declared that Carpio did not talk to any justice regarding the Webb case—but stopped short of getting to the bottom of the Vizconde-Corona conversation.

    Or how about the Hacienda Luisita case, where the Corona Court revoked the hacienda’s Stock Distribution Plan, with Corona himself going further and saying that it was unconstitutional—and then all but negated the decision by decreeing that the farmers should be asked to vote anyway (with everything that implies bribery and intimidation against easy, hungry targets). Giving with one hand, taking away with the other.

    And last, but not least, is the Corona Court’s flip-flopping. Last Sept. 7, it denied with finality (for the second time) PAL’s motion for reconsideration on the high court decision declaring illegal the 1998 termination of flight attendants and stewards. I took my hat off to the high court—the decision was a step toward the redemption of the Corona Court. But, as we all know, it recalled that decision in less than a month, under the most questionable of circumstances. (My column last Thursday in another newspaper discussed these circumstances.) The resulting rainstorm of criticisms has not abated.

    And Corona wonders at the lack of confidence in, and disrespect for, his Court?

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567
Corona voted in favor of GMA in all 19 cases brought before SC