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 831 to 840 of 4211
-
January 28th, 2012 12:09 AM #831
-
January 28th, 2012 11:04 AM #832
Ang mas matindi, gov't employee na hindi nagbabayad ng buwis! Kasi exempted....
GSIS lalaki ng suweldo kaya lugi na ngayon!
Mahirap kasi masanay sa malaking kita pero hindi naman justifiable kasi once na ma-correct yan, aktibista at unyon labas. So habang andyan si Pnoy sana ayusin na niya yan!Last edited by Ry_Tower; January 28th, 2012 at 11:08 AM.
Fasten your seatbelt! Or else... Driven To Thrill!
-
January 28th, 2012 11:07 AM #833
-
January 28th, 2012 11:09 AM #834
-
January 28th, 2012 01:28 PM #835
-
January 29th, 2012 01:27 AM #836
yes bro., i'm a gov't employed lawyer na connected sa judiciary. personally, ang saloobin ko about this impeachment case against CJ Corona is that, at the beginning, I sympathized and supported him, bago pa magsimula ang impeachment trial, thinking that the charge against him was politically motivated. why, ano ba ng pinagmulan nito? from the very beginning, the pres. elect did not respect him kasi nga, midnight appointee daw si CJ. At nagsabi pa sya na mas bubutihin nya pang mag-take oath sa brgy. captain kaysa kay cj. but with due respect to mr. president na binoto ko rin nong 2010 pres. elections, hwag nya naman sanang personalin si cj, kasi nagkataon lang na applicant sya in that position at na-resolve na ng supreme court yong issue wheteher or not the outgoing pres. GMA could appoint a CJ considering the fact na mako-compulsory retire na si former CJ Puno on May 17, 2010, March 2010 pa po naresolve ng supreme court yon issue na yan. kaya di rin ako natuwa sa present administration because they are not respecting the decisions of the supreme court/judiciary which is the last bulwark of democracy. That's why I am one of those who said that "we must uphold the rule of law and not the rule of yellow. pero ngayong nagsisimula na ang impeachment proceedings, medyo nakukumbinsi rin ako na baka nga may valid ground din to impeach the cj because of his unexplained wealth, in relation to his SALN, etc. so, ngayong andyan na yan, we'll just let the decision to the impeachment court but i'm just praying na sana naman, the rule of law and justice will prevail at hwag yong pamulitika, kawawa naman kasi si cj pag nagkataon, just like the poor convicts, i do believe po na may mga taong nagdurusa sa piitan na walang kasalanan. pero kung talagang mapatunayang may sala sya, aba eh, dapat lang syang ma-impeach. this is just my unbiased honest opinion po as a lawyer who also have the duty to assist in the administration of justice.
-
January 29th, 2012 02:35 AM #837
BTT na tayo..........
pati pala si cuevas, di sang-ayon sa inuugali ni brenda sa senado......
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/135913/...-sharp-amazing
Frowns on Santiago’s tirade
In the current Corona impeachment trial, the man has been generally polite with his counterparts from the prosecution, whose years of law practice are easily dwarfed by his own.
Cuevas said he sympathized with prosecutors whenever they got scolded during the televised trial. He said he particularly felt bad when Tupas and private counsel Arthur Lim were castigated by a fuming Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago on separate occasions last week.
“I could not affix my stamp of approval on that kind of an actuation,” he said. “Para bang hiniya mo ’yung mga tao eh naghahanap-buhay yan. Masasabi mo naman nang maayos. (That amounted to embarrassing a man who was only trying to make a living. What was said could have been said nicely.)”
-
January 29th, 2012 01:53 PM #838
Sorry to say, but as a member of the legal profession, I find it hard to think that the very people appointed to interpret and defend the Constitution are the ones mainly responsible for subverting what was clearly prohibited.
Dinaan lang in Justice Bersamin sa "elegant prose" ang ponencia which allowed the appointment of CJ Corona. What a letdown.
-
January 29th, 2012 02:54 PM #839
-
January 29th, 2012 06:37 PM #840
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/01...wrong%E2%80%99
MANILA, Philippines -- A lawyer has criticized plans of the prosecution to call to the witness stand more than 100 witnesses, including journalists and justices of the Supreme Court.
In his Facebook account, lawyer Ted Te said: “Putting media practitioners as well as sitting Supreme Court Justices as possible witnesses is just simply horribly wrong. Not only does it leave the trial open to a challenge that it was, after all, the institution of the SC itself that is now being tried, it also opens a door that should, at the moment, remain closed.”
He said bringing justices to the court also weakens the institutions put up by the Constitution. He said the magistrates should collectively decline such a plan.
“Similarly, calling media practitioners to testify on work product is indicative of a short cut approach to finding the truth; much of the work that media has done in reporting these matters is already part of the public consciousness and may already be considered subject of the collective, institutional and even personal knowledge of the Senate, acting as jury; there is really no need to call media practitioners to testify,” he said.
Several journalists have already asked the prosecution team not to present them as witnesses, including Marites Vitug and Criselda Yabes.
The journalists are only two of the more than 100 witnesses that the prosecution wants to testify in the eight articles of impeachment against Chief Justice Renato Corona.
‘Let us not drag the media into the picture’
In a separate statement, the defense also criticized the plans of the prosecution.
The “prosecution has pierced the veil of confidentiality with the [income tax returns], let us not drag the media and place it on the witness stand. The Media is not on trial here. Prove your case by doing your work in research and litigation,” defense spokesperson and lawyer Karen Jimeno said.
She said the media has three basic roles, which is to inform, educate and entertain, “even if some have gone further, they have a unique role.”
The defense lawyers also took exception to the plan of the prosecution to subpoena the magistrates.
“Is the Prosecution saying they need the other Justices to rat against the Chief Justice and against each other on how they voted on a particular case?” lawyer Rico Quicho asked.
Jimeno added this would step on the time-honored confidentiality in the disposition of cases.
‘Think out of the box’
Te, who is in the United States on a scholarship, also questioned why the prosecution would need around 100 witnesses.
He said it is indicative of two things.
“It believes that its case is so weak that it needs that many witnesses to prove something that should be, on its face, already self-evident, and it hopes that, along the way, someone will do a Clarissa Ocampo and turn the tide irreversibly in its favor,” he said.
Ocampo was the whistle-blower who said that then President Joseph Estrada was the one who signed the “Jose Velarde” accounts, where jueteng money was supposedly deposited.
“Either way, it doesn't look good for the prosecution simply because disclosing its own belief that it takes that many witnesses to prove that Corona is unfit to continue as Chief Justice sends to the Senate the wrong message--that perhaps the truth isn't as clear and that perhaps the doubt should be resolved in favor of retaining him in office,” Te said.
He said it’s not too late for the prosecution to rethink its strategies.
Somewhat expected from a rushed car from a first time carmaker
Xiaomi E-Car