New and Used Car Talk Reviews Hot Cars Comparison Automotive Community

The Largest Car Forum in the Philippines

View Poll Results: Senate's verdict on CJ

Voters
69. You may not vote on this poll
  • Guilty!

    58 84.06%
  • Not Guilty

    9 13.04%
  • i couldn't care less

    2 2.90%
Page 20 of 422 FirstFirst ... 101617181920212223243070120 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 4211
  1. Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    26,787
    #191
    Quote Originally Posted by glenn manikis View Post
    1. manny pacquiao.....
    2. lucy torres
    3.

    langhya, pang opening prayers cguro pwede pa.

  2. Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,513
    #192
    hindi naman kailangan ng strong evidence to convict eh... pwedeng pwede na sila... he..he... sigurado pa tayo na magaling mag boxing si manny at magsayaw naman si lucy... he..he...

  3. Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    26,787
    #193
    kulang pa sa ngayon ang majority vote to impeach cheap justice corona.

  4. Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,958
    #194
    Quote Originally Posted by Retz View Post
    sino ba ang mga tatayong lawyers for the prosecution panel?
    The FIRM gets the confidence of the prosecution/administration.

  5. Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,958
    #195
    Quote Originally Posted by greenlyt View Post
    so anong batas ang gagawin ng mga congressman? or e-amend yun Omnibus Election Code: isisingit ang "Supreme Court People" .

    and if i may quote:

    WHEREAS, the Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines provides:.

    "SEC. 261. Prohibited Acts - The following shall be guilty of an election offense:.

    XXX XXX XXX

    "(g) Appointment of new employees, creation of new position, promotion, or giving salary increases - During the period of forty five (45) days before regular election and thirty days before a special election"

    so imbes na ganito lang: "Appointment of new employees" magiging ganito: "Appointment of new employees and Supreme Court People" para maliwanag
    there is a difference between EMPLOYEES and OFFICERS. SC Justices comprise the latter. If the law does not mention or has failed to mention OFFICERS, and the silence created ambiguity, then the SC steps in to construe what the law is and what it should be.

  6. Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    24,726
    #196
    Quote Originally Posted by ab_initio View Post
    there is a difference between EMPLOYEES and OFFICERS. SC Justices comprise the latter. If the law does not mention or has failed to mention OFFICERS, and the silence created ambiguity, then the SC steps in to construe what the law is and what it should be.
    Or in other words, they can interpret it the way they want. Ambiguous naman eh.

    Yan ang naging problem dyan IMO. Pero officer or hindi, employee pa rin naman diba? In any case, the decision was not convincing beyond reasonable doubt din IMHO.
    Fasten your seatbelt! Or else... Driven To Thrill!

  7. Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,958
    #197
    Quote Originally Posted by Ry_Tower View Post
    Or in other words, they can interpret it the way they want. Ambiguous naman eh.

    Yan ang naging problem dyan IMO. Pero officer or hindi, employee pa rin naman diba? In any case, the decision was not convincing beyond reasonable doubt din IMHO.

    They don't speak "beyond reasonable doubt" or any quantum of proof when they interpret the law. it is about serving the ends of justice.

  8. Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    24,726
    #198
    Quote Originally Posted by ab_initio View Post
    They don't speak "beyond reasonable doubt" or any quantum of proof when they interpret the law. it is about serving the ends of justice.
    Well that's what they are saying.
    Fasten your seatbelt! Or else... Driven To Thrill!

  9. Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    26,787
    #199
    malungkot ang pasko ni cj corona.

  10. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    40,038
    #200
    Quote Originally Posted by ab_initio View Post
    They don't speak "beyond reasonable doubt" or any quantum of proof when they interpret the law. it is about serving the ends of justice.
    whose justice? theirs?

Impeachment against CJ Corona..