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%
Results 211 to 220 of 4211
-
January 2nd, 2012 06:28 PM #211
-
January 2nd, 2012 06:50 PM #212
That's just it. For Fr. Bernas, what the SC says, so it shall be.
Law students are trained very early about it (this kind of acceptance) and, unfortunately, effectively castrates people's ability to criticize or even negate a wrong that's quite palpable and done in your face --- even if it is clothed with elegant prose done by a collegial body.
Jeez. No wonder drug pushers and mules get freed by the courts even if they're actually caught en flagrante or in the act. All you have to do is weave words with what passes for logic threading the eye of a needle.
-
-
January 3rd, 2012 12:27 AM #214
-
January 3rd, 2012 12:49 AM #215
And the CJ has taken UST down with his credibility.
"What UST is saying is that they can flout their own rules because they're an 'autonomous' institution. There is no quarrel with academic freedom. UST should be clear with its rules and state in what instances do they give exemptions," she said.
She added: "In the case of CJ Corona, a lecture was enough (instead of a dissertation) and the 5-year residency requirement, to qualify for honors, was disregarded. Now we know."
-
January 3rd, 2012 04:32 PM #216
Autonomy does basically mean you don't have to follow the rules. Why do you think so many Universities are working at trying to achieve it?
In the case of Corona... it's not surprising that he was given credit for teaching in lieu of taking a subject (it's pretty common for professionals who lack college credits but whose "industry experience" does make them valuable lecturers), but I'd have to see all the details and UST's handbook to judge whether it was an egregious abuse of autonomy or not. Although giving honors to someone who doesn't meet all the requirements... that's unusual for a prestigious university like UST.
Not that giving honors or degrees as political favors is unusual in the Philippines...
The problem is, there is a loophole there where it states that you can make appointments in cases wherein service will be interrupted to the detriment of the institution... "prejudice public service".
The bigger problem is... the loophole allows for only temporary appointments in such cases, so, by law, all those midnight appointees should be removed from office anyway... right?
The question is... did the SC declare that it was constitutional to appoint CJ temporarily, or permanently?
Ang pagbalik ng comeback...
-
January 3rd, 2012 04:41 PM #217
-
January 3rd, 2012 04:43 PM #218
That's what I'm trying to say. The Constitution is largely couched in generalities and motherhood statements. But, when it comes to prohibited acts, I don't see why it cannot be understood for its ordinary meaning.
The SC completely disregarded the plain meaning of prohibited appointments under the Constitution and clothed with the legality of GMA's midnight appointment of Corona thru draftsmanship.
The SC will not cease to function all because the CJ has retired. It has, in fact, continued to function as a collegial body and as an institution whilst the CJ is not available either due to sickness or otherwise. There was no need to insist on the appointment at all.
-
January 3rd, 2012 04:51 PM #219
Pero pakingan mo excuse ng mga opposition... You cannot blame the CJ on the decisions and rulings of the SC because they were acted/decided/voted by a collegial body.
Flip flopping on the final ruling past its subscribed period? You cannot blame CJ on that... It was decided by the collegial body.
But the SC cannot without CJ for a short period of time.
-
as an aside, in the olden days, anyone who does not move 'ala luksa during Holy Week, especially...
Traffic!