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 2,171 to 2,180 of 4211
-
March 1st, 2012 06:09 PM #2171
-
-
March 1st, 2012 07:57 PM #2173
Kulungan ni Aguirre, handa na sa Senado
Thursday, 01 March 2012 12:10
Kinumpirma ni Senate Sergeant at Arms chief retired General Jose Balajadia na nakahanda na ang kulungan ng Senado sa oras na magpasya ang impeachment court na ikulong ang na-contempt na si Atty. Vitaliano Aguirre matapos ang ginawang pambabastos sa impeachment trial kahapon nang magsalita si Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago.
Ayon kay Balajadia, ang kulungan noon ni dating AFP Comptroller Jacinto Ligot ang magiging kulungan ni Aguirre kung saka-sakali.
Kompleto aniya ang kulungan na isang uri ng silid na may CR, higaan at aircon ngunit walang telebisyon bagama't papayagan pa rin ang detainee na magdala ng cellphone o laptop.
Sa darating na araw ng Martes pa magpapasya ang impeachment court kung ano ang magiging kaparusahan ni Aguirre pero ayon kay Balajadia, dalawang bagay ang maaaring parusa sa abogado at ito ay pagmultahin o kaya ay makukulong ng hindi lalagpas ng 10 araw tulad ng sinabi ni Sen. Pia Cayetano.
-
Tsikoteer
- Join Date
- Mar 2004
- Posts
- 434
March 1st, 2012 08:39 PM #2174
-
March 2nd, 2012 12:17 AM #2175
-
March 2nd, 2012 02:29 AM #2176Originally Posted by CoDer
Don't count brenda out. She's even saying that the private prosec is mentally retarded in one of her interviews. Imagine that... comming from a brenda.
aguirre replied........"ayoko nang patulan yan. diyan siya bihasa eh...."
ha-hah!
-
Tsikot Member Rank 2
- Join Date
- Nov 2002
- Posts
- 1,326
March 2nd, 2012 07:48 AM #2177Paniwala ko, kahit PSBank galing ang leak.. the fact na leak ito .. bokya din.. if they found out about the accounts from a subpoena.. then yun ang legal... pero the fact na leaked ito, whether galing AMLC, BSP or PSBank, illegal pa rin..
magiging legal lang kung yung information was derived from a subpoena... or, kung voluntarily divulged by the respondent..
in which case, it makes it more important yung pre trial... kelan ba nag oath taking mga senator judges as an impeachment court? dapat from that time on, pwede na sila humingi ng mga subpoena, kahit di pa sila nag start ng televised / media covered hearings...
granted walang formal na pre trial.. where else could they get the information / evidence through legal means? perhaps a congressional investigation in aid of legislation and reelection?
prosec / government should realize by now, mas madaling mag allege, kumpara sa mag prove ng kaso...
by doing trial by publicity, they were trying to shift the burden of proof to the respondent... since hindi dumating o lumabas yung milagrong "big bomb" na inaasahan ng prosec, ayan sabog lahat..
i think aside from the amendment of the constitution, the rules of impeachment for both senate and congress should be revisited and revised...Last edited by wowiesy; March 2nd, 2012 at 07:58 AM.
-
March 2nd, 2012 08:50 AM #2178
-
Tsikot Member Rank 2
- Join Date
- Nov 2002
- Posts
- 1,326
March 2nd, 2012 09:09 AM #2179REPUBLIC ACT NO.1405
AN ACT PROHIBITING DISCLOSURE OF OR INQUIRY INTO, DEPOSITS WITH ANY BANKING INSTITUTION
AND PROVIDING PENALTY THEREFOR *
SECTION 1. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Government to give encouragement to the people to deposit their money in banking institutions and to discourage private hoarding so that the same may be properly utilized by banks in authorized loans to assist in the economic development of the country.
SECTION 2. All deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking institutions in the Philippines including investments in bonds issued by the Government of the Philippines, its political subdivisions and its instrumentalities, are hereby considered as of an absolutely confidential nature and may not be examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official, bureau or office, except upon written permission of the depositor, or in cases of impeachment, or upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials, or in cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation - [emphasis supplied - wowiesy].
SECTION 3. It shall be unlawful for any official or employee of a banking institution to disclose to any person other than those mentioned in Section two hereof any information concerning said deposits.
SECTION 4. All Acts or parts of Acts, Special Charters, Executive Orders, Rules and Regulations which are inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed.
SECTION 5. Any violation of this law will subject offender upon conviction, to an imprisonment of not more than five years or a fine of not more than twenty thousand pesos or both, in the discretion of the court.
SECTION 6. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
Approved, September 9, 1955
Your honor, this representation is of the position, that there is no distinction between private individual source or public official source, in so far as the leak is concerned. The fact that the account numbers (without admitting that such account numbers exist, nor that such account numbers are indeed owned by the respondent) have been known to the prosecutors prior to this proceeding, may be construed as prima facie evidence, that this information was acquired through illegal means. Having established that this was acquired through illegal means your honor, we move that said request for subpoena not be granted, and if it is already granted, that it be quashed, and assuming that Presiding Officer denies motion to quash, that all evidence and information derived from these accounts be deemed inadmissible for being illegal in nature.
The annex may not be offered as evidence, but the information purpotedly being asked of which is alluded to by the annex, is grossly illegally acquired and should therefore be treated as such...
hehe.. trip lang po... medyo iba ang gising ko ngayong umaga... =)
-
Tsikot Member Rank 2
- Join Date
- Nov 2002
- Posts
- 1,326
March 2nd, 2012 09:29 AM #2180In addition, RA9160 or the Anti Money Laundering Act provides, in Section 9:
When reporting covered transactions to the AMLC, covered institutions and their officers, employees, representatives, agents, advisors, consultants or associates shall not be deemed to have violated Republic Act No. 1405, as amended; Republic Act No. 6426, as amended; Republic Act No. 8791 and other similar laws, but are prohibited from communicating, directly or indirectly, in any manner or by any means, to any person the fact that a covered transaction report was made, the contents thereof, or any other information in relation thereto. In case of violation thereof, the concerned officer, employee, representative, agent, advisor, consultant or associate of the covered institution, shall be criminally liable. However, no administrative, criminal or civil proceedings, shall lie against any person for having made a covered transaction report in the regular performance of his duties and in good faith, whether or not such reporting results in any criminal prosecution under this Act or any other Philippine law. - [ emphasis supplied - wowiesy ]
When reporting covered transactions to the AMLC, covered institutions and their officers, employees, representatives, agents, advisors, consultants or associates are prohibited from communicating, directly or indirectly, in any manner or by any means, to any person, entity, the media, the fact that a covered transaction report was made, the contents thereof, or any other information in relation thereto. Neither may such reporting be published or aired in any manner or form by the mass media, electronic mail, or other similar devices. In case of violation thereof, the concerned officer, employee, representative, agent, advisor, consultant or associate of the covered institution, or media shall be held criminally liable.
by making it appear that bank documents ang source ng info nila on the account numbers, it makes their information doubtful for legality, they run the risk of getting everything declared inadmissible... but, if they walked through the process of discovery under the impeachment court, at least, covered na ng exemption ayon sa batas... clear as sunshine pa na magiging admissible ang evidence... sure na ma elect pa sila nyan as senators kung sakali...
again... all these discovery... pre trial dapat... by dispensing with pre trial... napilitan mag short cut ...
in addition uli... the emphasized portion of Section 9 of the AMLC Law somehow creates a grey area... bawal nga i divulge and criminally liable ang nag divulge... pero kumambyo naman na kung good faith ang ginawa, and in the performance of duties ay hindi rin administratively / criminally liable ang nag divulge ng info...
now... with this grey area, distinction ba here is good faith ba and still within the performance of duties yung ginawa ng AMLC / BSP audit team? What I mean is yung pagpasa ng info (account numbers, etc) to the prosecution? I will stipulate of course na yung audit na ginawa nila sa PSBank ay part ng job nila and there is presumption of regularity. However, when they passed that information to the prosecution, kahit pa man impeachment nga yun... for me its a gray area... what the prosecution should've done, to erase any iota of doubt about how they got their information, was let it come out during the impeachment proceedings mismo.. and not prior...
yan ang napapala ko sa mga napanood kong episodes ng The Practice dati.. heheLast edited by wowiesy; March 2nd, 2012 at 09:40 AM.
Somewhat expected from a rushed car from a first time carmaker
Xiaomi E-Car