Impeachment against CJ Corona..

[niwde11]

para lang yung sinabi ni rolex suplico yan.
congress ang naging hadlang sa impeachment ni GMA.
congress din ang daan para naman sa impeachment ni CJ.
so congress now is the most powerful branch of govt?
nope. it is still the president coz he can delay their pork barrel.
if you still believe "the end justifies the means" we have nothing to argue.
but, i still believe "you dont burn the house if you want to kill a rat". (figuratively lang ho).

[CoDer]

Amusing line of arguments.

[niky]

unlike niky on a fence, i'm hiding behind it with an accuracy as50 sniper rifle ready to engage its target. there you go problem solved. puro wise guys kasi mga naka upo eh. as in really, wa-is to d bone

Shhh... it's just a dummy. I'm hiding in the trees behind the fence with a bow and arrow...

if you still believe "the end justifies the means" we have nothing to argue.

"The end justifies the means":

Marcos dictatorship. Political stability, billions upon billions of dollars in debt due to corruption.

People Power 2: Removal of inefficient President with very corrupt friends, breaking the rule of the constitution and installing another set of corrupt friends and relatives.

GMA win versus FPJ: Avoiding repeat of Erap, calling the validity of the electoral exercise into question, making a local warlord nearly untouchable, more billions wasted due to corruption.

-

"The end justifies the means" never works out quite like you expect. Which is why I've been against this impeachment from the start. You take shortcuts because "The end justifies the means", and you won't get the ends you want. I'm only on the fence because despite the deficiencies, the action was done legally (delayed pork barrel... boohoo... like that hasn't been the practice of every single administration ever since... majority party members get theirs first. Always.) and it's up to the Senate court now to decide the merits of the case.

[4JGtootsie]

To answer your questions:

1. Short of a coup de état and the usurpation of government power by one person, there is no instance under the Constitution which allows a single person or entity to exercise executive, legislative and judicial powers.

> Excercise no. but influence yes.

2. You must have the short-sightedness of equating CJ Corona with the entire judiciary. Corona is one justice out of fifteen composing the SC and, if he leaves the Court due to death, resignation, impeachment or permanent disability, it will not result in the dissolution of the Court or its abolition. The Constitution provides for the removal of a SC Justice thru impeachment. So, are you implying that the exercise of such remedy is tantamount to usurping judicial power?

> Entire judiciary of course not. You have answered one of the grounds of CJ impeachment. What is common to Corona, Castillo and Merciditas and the rest of the GMA appointed Justices that doesnt approve the whims of PNoy.
Answer is impeachable.

I think the only ones who are afraid of Corona's conviction are those whose interests lie in him continuing as CJ.

3. There's no denying the balance of power in government is very important. If PNoy commits an impeachable offense, then by all means let Congress impeach him. Then again, are you even sure he has done so? All you have is the non-sequitur conclusion that PNoy has seized control of all three branches of government. If that were the case, we won't even have to go through an impeachment trial.

> Do you think Pnoy has a hand in the filling of impeachment of CJ Corona?
> Do you think Pnoy has no ally in the Senate?
> How many appointed SC justices believe that a TRO against GMA is necessary?

[Altis6453]

> Excercise no. but influence yes.

So that answers your original question. Mere use of influence is not the equivalent of control or possessing the powers exercised by other branches of government.

>
> Entire judiciary of course not. You have answered one of the grounds of CJ impeachment. What is common to Corona, Castillo and Merciditas and the rest of the GMA appointed Justices that doesnt approve the whims of PNoy.
Answer is impeachable.

And I suppose it would be equally acceptable to just let those who were guilty of election fraud and perpetrators of graft and corruption for the past ten years go scot-free with the same people you mentioned ( Merceditas and the other SC Justices)? If you are so-minded, then file a complaint for impeachment against the President.

>
> Do you think Pnoy has a hand in the filling of impeachment of CJ Corona?
> Do you think Pnoy has no ally in the Senate?
> How many appointed SC justices believe that a TRO against GMA is necessary?

> Yes. I think that's common knowledge.
> Yes. They ran under the Liberal Party, did they not?
> Maybe that's a question you should be asking the SC.

[shadow]

Altis, didn't we go through with this last election? Its Gordon or nothing for them...

[4JGtootsie]

[QUOTE=Altis6453;1900916]So that answers your original question. Mere use of influence is not the equivalent of control or possessing the powers exercised by other branches of government.

Influence according to webster =power or capacity of causing an effect in indirect or intangible ways




And I suppose it would be equally acceptable to just let those who were guilty of election fraud and perpetrators of graft and corruption for the past ten years go scot-free with the same people you mentioned ( Merceditas and the other SC Justices)? If you are so-minded, then file a complaint for impeachment against the President.

Two people Usec Puno, Llamas. More recent. Pinagtanggol pa niya. Ano ba yan.



> Yes. I think that's common knowledge. GREAT
> Yes. They ran under the Liberal Party, did they not? DRILON et al.
> Maybe that's a question you should be asking the SC. NO NEED

[4JGtootsie]

Altis, didn't we go through with this last election? Its Gordon or nothing for them...

Ayaw ka kasi maniwala eh. Sana nag Gibo ka nalang masaya ka pa!

[Altis6453]

[quote=4JGtootsie;1900944]

So that answers your original question. Mere use of influence is not the equivalent of control or possessing the powers exercised by other branches of government.

Influence according to webster =power or capacity of causing an effect in indirect or intangible ways




And I suppose it would be equally acceptable to just let those who were guilty of election fraud and perpetrators of graft and corruption for the past ten years go scot-free with the same people you mentioned ( Merceditas and the other SC Justices)? If you are so-minded, then file a complaint for impeachment against the President.

Two people Usec Puno, Llamas. More recent. Pinagtanggol pa niya. Ano ba yan.



> Yes. I think that's common knowledge. GREAT
> Yes. They ran under the Liberal Party, did they not? DRILON et al.
> Maybe that's a question you should be asking the SC. NO NEED

I think its contradictory that you use control and influence interchangeably, but if you insist:

CONTROL - to have power over: rule

I answered your post as to "what'll happen if the three branches of government gets controlled by one entity?

Ok, if Puno and Llamas are your best examples, what do you make of Benjamin Abalos? The Ampatuans? Not to mention all the former AFP chiefs who received pabaons during GMA's term?

I agree that Puno should be sacked for blatant incompetence. Llamas, for being in flagrante delicto. But these guys are amateurs compared to the class acts and rogues GMA coddled over the years.

[umi001]

subjective na yan. wala naman nakasaad sa constitution na ito ay pag aralan ng let say at least dalawang buwan bago pwede pumirma doon sa articles of impeachment.

ako nga eh, isang oras bago ang takdang examinasyon sa klase tska ako nag aaral. sa awa ng diyos, ako ay pumapasa.

No offense intended, but I would hope that our congressmen would consider the articles relating to the impeachment of the highest judicial official of the land, a head of one of the three branches of goverment, with a bit more care than a student studying for exams in school.