New and Used Car Talk Reviews Hot Cars Comparison Automotive Community

The Largest Car Forum in the Philippines

Page 18 of 25 FirstFirst ... 8141516171819202122 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 247
  1. Join Date
    Sep 2003
    There is a request from Pandak's camp to withhold her mug shots from the public.

    Bakit? Eh nung kay Erap eh, mug shots of former President Joseph Estrada were publicly released when he was booked on plunder charges at the PNP Camp Crame in 2001, just a few months after he was ousted.

    Ang sabi pa ni Topacs, “the former President is also a woman. She’s not in her best appearance. Of course, women have their needs, men have their needs,”

    Topacs......ayusin mo na lang itlog mo.......

  2. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    from: ‘Midas touch’ not working on SC justice

    ‘Midas touch’ not working on SC justice
    By Jerome Aning
    Philippine Daily Inquirer
    3:42 am | Sunday, November 20th, 2011

    While the Supreme Court upheld on Friday its temporary restraining order (TRO) on the government’s inclusion of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her husband Jose Miguel “Mike” Arroyo in the immigration watch list, the TRO was not really effective yet because one of its conditions was not met.
    This was the contention advanced by Associate Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno in her dissenting opinion, in which she chided Court Administrator Jose Midas Marquez for incorrectly interpreting the high court’s resolution. Marquez is also the acting chief of the tribunal’s Public Information Office (PIO)
    In her nine-page dissent, copies of which were made available late Friday afternoon, Sereno contended that the TRO issued on Nov. 15 remained ineffective because the Arroyo couple had failed to comply with Condition No. 2—that “the petitioners shall appoint a legal representative common to both of them who will receive subpoena, orders, and other legal processes on their behalf during their absence.”
    In a press conference on Friday, Marquez announced the high court’s rejection of the executive branch’s appeal to reconsider the issuance of the TRO and said it “remained in full force and effect.”
    Sereno, however, disagreed, saying: “Contrary to this interpretation, as stated, it was the understanding of a majority that the TRO is ‘suspended pending compliance’ with our earlier resolution. The operational ineffectivity of the TRO is implied—for it is a basic principle that the failure of petitioners to comply with one of the conditions in the resolution dated Nov. 15, 2011 is a jurisdictional defect that suspends, at the least, the effectivity of the TRO. Therefore, the TRO, until faithful compliance with the terms thereof, is legally ineffective.”

    Clerical error

    The former first couple were given five days to submit the name of their legal representative. They did so on the same day, Nov. 15, in separate documents granting special power of attorney to Ferdinand Topacio, Mike Arroyo’s lawyer.
    The couple’s designations were later certified by the Supreme Court’s clerk of court.
    The certification was done shortly after the copy of the TRO was issued and a few hours before the couple’s scheduled flight to Singapore that immigration officials, on the instruction of Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, thwarted. The couple had also posted a P2-million cash bond, another condition in the TRO.
    But in her dissenting opinion, Sereno noted a clerical error in the document submitted by Arroyo, where she said she was designating Topacio “to produce summons or receive documentary evidence.” (The same error was also in Mike Arroyo’s submission, but Sereno did not cite this in her dissent).
    The justice said the clerk made a mistake, “considering the way the TRO was rushed,” in issuing the certification despite noncompliance by the Arroyos with one of the strict conditions imposed by the Court.
    “Nevertheless, good faith and all, the legal effect of such noncompliance is the same—petitioners cannot make use thereof for failure to comply faithfully with a condition imposed by this Court for its issuance,” she said.

    Voted 6 times

    Sereno recalled that the justices voted six times to deliberate on the various petitions on the table during their special session on Friday morning.
    The first vote was on whether the Nov. 15 resolution granting the TRO would be reconsidered or not. The Nov. 15 vote was upheld 8-5.
    The issue for the second vote, proposed by one of the justices, was on whether the TRO issued by the clerk of court should be recalled for failure to comply with Condition No. 2.
    On this matter, Sereno said, the vote was 7–6, finding that there was no compliance with the second condition of the TRO.
    The seven were Justices Sereno, Antonio Carpio, Roberto Abad, Martin Villarama Jr., Jose Mendoza, Bienvenido Reyes, and Estela Perlas Bernabe.
    Villarama and Abad were among the eight justices who voted to issue the TRO on Nov. 15 and who again voted to uphold it on Friday.
    The third vote proceeded from the result of the second vote—whether, considering that the high court found that there was failure to comply with a condition imposed by the earlier resolution, it should explicitly state that the TRO was thereby suspended pending compliance with Condition No. 2.
    The justices, voting 7-6, decided there was no need to explicitly state the legal effect on the TRO of the noncompliance by petitioners with Condition No. 2, Sereno recalled.
    She explained: “The majority argued that such a clarification is unnecessary, because it is clear that the TRO is conditional, and cannot be made use of until compliance has been done. It was therefore the sense of the majority that, as an offshoot of the winning vote that there was failure by petitioners to comply with Condition No. 2, the TRO is implicitly deemed suspended until there is compliance with such condition. Everyone believed that it would be clear to all that a conditional TRO is what it is, conditional.”
    The fourth vote was on whether the high court would direct the public respondents to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for failure to comply with the TRO and to comply with it. The vote was unanimous.
    The fifth vote was on whether Justice Secretary Leila de Lima should be ordered to also show cause why she should not be held in contempt for showing disrespect for the tribunal. The vote on this was 9-4.
    The sixth vote was on whether to reset the Nov. 22 schedule of the oral arguments. This was unanimously denied.
    In Friday’s resolution by the majority upholding the TRO, the Arroyos were told to “commit to the Court that [they] shall instruct [their] legal representative to amend [their document giving Topacio special power of attorney]: ‘to receive summons or documentary evidence’ and forthwith submit this compliance with the Court.”

    ‘Be careful’

    Thus, Sereno said, Marquez erred when he told reporters that the TRO remained in effect.
    She admonished Marquez: “The Court Administrator cum Acting Chief of the PIO is hereby advised to be careful not to go beyond his role in such offices, and that he has no authority to interpret any of our judicial issuances, including the present resolution, a function he never had from the beginning.”
    She also told the clerk of court to be more careful in certifying compliance with the high court’s conditions: “[I]t is hereby clarified that it is mandatory for the clerk of court to ensure that there is faithful compliance with all the conditions imposed in our Nov. 15, 2011 resolution, including our second condition, before issuing any certification that the compliance with the TRO has been made, and only then can the TRO become effective.”
    Contacted for comment, Marquez stood by his pronouncement that the TRO, as agreed by the majority, remained in full force and effect.
    “Yes,” he replied via text message in answer to the question of whether he stood by what he said despite Sereno’s citation of a clerical error.
    “As much as we should all respect the dissenting opinion of the good Justice, I announced the majority opinion which prevails and should be complied with. I also appreciate the advice for me to be careful in announcing Court orders and decisions,” he added.

  3. Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Quote Originally Posted by vinj View Post
    LOL, kapikon na eh. Lagi nalang ospital ang takbuhan nilang lahat. Magpatayo na kaya ng hospital na kulungan or pag hospital arrest, dapat sa ward ng public hospital para maranasan nila ang pagdurusa ng taong bayan dahil sa poor healthcare system natin.
    Magandang ideya yan, para maranasan nila actual problems ng taong ginulangan nila. Mahabang pila, mabaho, kulang sa tao at gamit, matataray yung ibang tao etc.

    Dadalawin ko pa sila!

  4. Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Quote Originally Posted by chua_riwap View Post
    There is a request from Pandak's camp to withhold her mug shots from the public.

    Bakit? Eh nung kay Erap eh, mug shots of former President Joseph Estrada were publicly released when he was booked on plunder charges at the PNP Camp Crame in 2001, just a few months after he was ousted.

    Ang sabi pa ni Topacs, “the former President is also a woman. She’s not in her best appearance. Of course, women have their needs, men have their needs,”

    Topacs......ayusin mo na lang itlog mo.......
    Yung itlog na lang ni Topacs ang i-post sa net.

    If putol na ha....

  5. Join Date
    Sep 2011
    If correct itong Philconsa member mapapadali pag-alis ng bansa ni GMA. Grabe nagulangan sila ng dalawang girlalu. Ramona and Gloria!

    Court moves on Gloria case illegal – Philconsa

    The Daily Tribune - Without Fear or Favor

    By Charlie V. Manalo

    Pampanga Rep. Gloria Arroyo’s lawyers charge that the electoral sabotage case filed against the former president and several others as having been railroaded has been validated by a Philippine Constitution Association (Philconsa) member.

    Lawyer Mariano Tajano yesterday said that the entire court proceedings that took place Friday, from the raffling of the case to the issuance of the warrant of arrest, are all illegal.

    At the weekly Kapihan sa Annabel’s, Tajano, disclosed that the Executive Judge of the Pasay City Regional Trial Court (RTC), along with RTC Branch 112 Judge Jesus Mupas to whom the case was raffled, erred when this Arroyo case was immediately submitted for raffling, with the judge issuing a warrant of arrest four hours later.

    The same judge who will be trying Arroyo was recently found by the appellate court as having committed grave abuse of discretion in another case, and the Court of Appeals overturning Mupas’ decision was upheld by the Supreme Court (see related story).

    Tajano pointed to Rule 112, Section 5 of the Rules of Court, which he said “explicitly provides that once an information is filed before the court, the Executive Judge notifies both the contending parties of the scheduling of the raffle and gives them five days to prepare,” said Tajano.

    “After the case is raffled, which is done publicly, the judge to whom the case falls, is given 10 days to review and examine all the documents submitted so he can determine whether there is basis for the commission of the offense.”

    “If he finds there is probable cause, then he issues a warrant of arrest,” Tajano explained.

    But in the case of Mrs. Arroyo, Tajano said it was rather questionable for the Pasay city RTC Executive Judge to immediately raffle the case only minutes after the information was filed by the legal team of the Commission on Elections (Comelec).

    “And after the case fell on the lap of Judge Mupas, it only took him about three hours to review and examine the voluminous documents submitted to him which he used as the basis for issuing the warrant of arrest,” said Tajano.

    “Those acts are illegal. Everything was done with undue haste,” said Tajano as he stressed that the Arroyos should have been given the protection the law accords them.

    With charges being leveled of railroading the case against the former president, along with the Arroyo camp questioning the case on a jurisdictional issue, Malacańang clarified yesterday that public officials can be tried before regular courts if they are accused of crimes that do not specifically fall within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan, such as plunder and violations of anti-graft laws.

    Undersecretary for Political Affairs Ibarra Gutierrez said the filing of a case for electoral sabotage with a regular court against Mrs. Arroyo is consistent with Section 268 of the Omnibus Election Code, or Batas Pambansa 881, which specifically vests RTCs with jurisdiction over election offenses, including electoral sabotage.

    Gutierrez made the clarification in reaction to the claim of Arroyo’s legal counsel that she should have been charged before the Sandiganbayan rather than a regular court as she is a public official.

    Gutierrez said the filing of an electoral sabotage charge against Arroyo and the subsequent issuance of a warrant of arrest “is not political persecution nor political vendetta, as her camp maliciously tries to portray it, but part and parcel of the Aquino administration’s resolve to obtain justice for wrongdoing and crimes that took place under the previous administration.”

    “This is justice and the rule of law at work,” Gutierrez said, adding that Arroyo “would be accorded due process.”

    On Friday, one of the Arroyos’ counsels, lawyer Ferdinand Topacio charged that the electoral sabotage case against Mrs. Arroyo has been railroaded, saying it was part of a grand design of the administration to pin down the former leader.

    “The judge will have to be a superman to read and analyze the voluminous documents within four hours,” said Topacio as he noted that two of the Comelec commissioner who did not participate in the voting admitted they have not even finished reading the resolution yet for them to cast a vote.

    Topacio added that that Andal Ampatuan Sr. himself cleared the Arroyos of alleged poll fraud in the 2007 polls as the former Maguindanano governor belied the claims of his former subordinate, Norie Unas, who had accused the former president of ordering the rigging of the May 2007 elections.

    In his affidavit, Ampatuan said Unas was too sick at that time to work for him adding there was no need for such an instruction in his province where people are supportive of the party that nurtures them and that one-man rule is not and never will be an option for his administration.

    Aside from the motion to quash the arrest warrant which the Arroyo camp is reportedly set to file, Tajano said the former president may still have a legal remedy, which is for the Supreme Court (SC) to act on their petition to have the joint Comelec-DoJ panel declared unconstitutional which would render the information filed by the Comelec before the Pasay City RTC, null and void from the beginning.

    “Should the SC declare the joint Comelec-DoJ panel unconstitutional, it would render all the information the Comelec filed before the court, void ab initio,” Tajano averred.

    Asked if he thinks the joint panel is indeed unconstitutional, Tajano said the rules governing the Comelec provide that all investigation regarding election-related offenses should be strictly under the domain of the election body.

    “I don’t know where the joint Comelec- DoJ panel got its authority,” Tajano said.

    With regard to the jurisdiction over the case, Tajano said that the accused being former and incumbent government officials, the proper venue for the case should have been the Sandiganbayan and not a regular court.

    The lawyer for Mrs. Arroyo Saturday challenged a court’s jurisdiction to order her arrest on vote-rigging charges as she spent a second day under police guard in hospital.

    The ailing 64-year-old faces a possible life sentence if convicted by the lower court in Manila, after a tumultuous week in which the government went head-to-head with the SC to stop her leaving the country.

    The lower court ordered her arrest on Friday after the government filed charges that she ordered 2007 senatorial elections rigged to ensure her allies won, alleging she conspired with a feared warlord to tamper with the vote.

    The arrest was the culmination of a campaign by President Aquino to hold Arroyo to account for alleged corruption, but her lawyers said Saturday she would continue a legal battle to invalidate the charges against her.

    Lawyer Raul Lambino said the lower court would hear a motion on Monday to lift the arrest warrant on the grounds that the criminal suit should have been filed elsewhere.

    “We feel that there has been a violation of due process when they railroaded this case and filed the information at a wrong court,” he said during a TV interview.

    The Arroyo camp earlier suggested the case should be dealt with by a special court, called Sandiganbayan, which handles cases involving public officials.

    “We have already filed our corresponding motions questioning the jurisdiction of the regional trial court,” Lambino said.

    “The court should not have issued a warrant of arrest.”

    A second lawyer from the Arroyo camp, Topacio, said he would also ask the SC on Monday to declare illegal the work of an investigative body which gathered the evidence for the criminal charge against her.

    Once that is achieved, the arrest warrant would lose its legal basis, he told reporters outside the hospital where Arroyo was under police guard.

    “She was treated with respect and dignity (during the arrest), but we only wish they respected her rights under the Constitution,” Topacio said.

    Both lawyers said the former president, who has undergone three unsuccessful spinal surgeries this year for a rare bone disease, was holding up relatively well after she was arrested in her hospital bed.

    However, Topacio said: “The doctors said she should not yet leave the hospital. She’s under additional strain.”

    A spokesman for Aquino, who is on the Indonesian island of Bali for an East Asia summit, said that he would not object to her remaining in hospital rather than going to jail if her lawyers sought a court ruling to that effect.

    “If they do that, we will not object,” spokesman Ricky Carandang said. He added that Aquino had missed a summit gala dinner Friday evening because he was constantly on the phone to officials in Manila as events unfolded.

    The two lawyers said police were scheduled to take Arroyo’s fingerprints and mugshot ahead of trial, and Topacio said her camp had appealed to police and the court not to release the photograph to the public.

    With AFP

  6. Join Date
    Dec 2005

    Try, try and try....

    Iyong isa,- nakalusot na....


  7. Join Date
    Oct 2002

    Justice Sereno’s dissenting opinion

    11/20/2011 | 07:45 PM

    A day after the high court issued the TRO lifting the travel ban on the former First Couple, Supreme Court Associate Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno filed her dissenting opinion to the ruling because former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo allegedly made “inconsistent, and probably untruthful statements," about her plans to go abroad for medical treatment.

    President Benigno Aquino III’s first SC appointee questioned the majority’s issuance of the TRO by citing four issues.

    Sereno first called attention to the “very stringent rules in issuing a TRO," particularly on getting the application “verified." She pointed out in her dissent that the high court has strict regulations concerning its employees’ right to travel. She then asked, “Why is the majority not even willing to hear the government before issuing the TRO, when, in the supervision of its judiciary employees, a mere administrative officer of the Supreme Court, and not a judicial officer, may deny the right to travel?"

    Second, Sereno said Mrs. Arroyo had presented to the SC “inconsistent, and probably untruthful statements." Her dissenting opinion cited documents submitted by Arroyo's doctors belying her claims of threat to life. She also noted that the list of countries the former President had wanted to visit kept on changing, adding that Arroyo had even planned participating in two conferences abroad.

    It seems incongruous for petitioner who has asked the Department of Justice and this Court to look with humanitarian concern on her precarious state of health, to commit herself to attend these meetings and conferences at the risk of worsening her physical condition," Sereno said.

    Third, the dissenting Justice said “an explanation from [Arroyo] must be heard on oral argument" as to why the Representative of the Second District of Pampanga was questioning the constitutionality of an administrative order that she herself had issued when she was President.

    Lastly, Sereno in her dissent stressed that the high court should hear the side of government before allowing the Arroyos to leave the country – just in case the former First Couple did not return, because the Philippines “has not had much success in waging international campaigns to recover the Marcos ill-gotten wealth or effect the arrest of many criminal escapees."

    Sereno said while Mrs. Arroyo’s right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, “[t]his does not mean, however, that the State should be deprived of the opportunity to be heard on the question of whether it has certain rights that must be protected vis-a-vis persons under investigation during a preliminary investigation."

  8. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Quote Originally Posted by Ry_Tower View Post
    Magandang ideya yan, para maranasan nila actual problems ng taong ginulangan nila. Mahabang pila, mabaho, kulang sa tao at gamit, matataray yung ibang tao etc.

    Dadalawin ko pa sila!
    Obviously they never had to line up or experience public health care. Dalhan mo ng bulaklak? Yung may stand at ribbon pa? :D

  9. Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Quote Originally Posted by vinj View Post
    Obviously they never had to line up or experience public health care. Dalhan mo ng bulaklak? Yung may stand at ribbon pa? :D
    May kasama pang placard!

  10. Join Date
    Nov 2007

De Lima order to hold Arroyo is it unconstitutional ?