Impeachment against CJ Corona..

**Retz** · May 23rd, 2012 10:40 PM

pumirma na ung isang babaeng congressman sa waiver.

**chua_riwap** · May 23rd, 2012 11:31 PM

si ferriol.

**Sweetlucious** · May 23rd, 2012 11:48 PM

If some of you hates the face of atty. roy, mine is tupas. His face and actuations really got my goat. Especially when asked if he will sign the waiver, he also got the looks of someone who is hiding something.:shocked2:

**111prez** · May 24th, 2012 12:38 AM

mas nakakainis ang mukha ni arthur lim

:hysterical:

**Sweetlucious** · May 24th, 2012 12:53 AM

But si tupas iba talaga. Kung si cuevas nakikipag-argue galing mismo sa sarili yung sinasabi, pero si tupas parang contestant ng family feud na gameshow, tingin muna sa kakampi kung meron silang suggestion, then pagkatapos titig kay enrile hinihintay yun "SURVEY SAYS" !!!

**andywesteast** · May 24th, 2012 01:17 AM

Originally Posted by rna800

Around 1:30pm, while we were in the car, we were tuned in DZMM and Julius Babao was interviewing Sgt. at arms Jose Balajadia and asked what happened.

He said when Corona suddenly stood from the witness stand and headed for the door and heard the order of JPE, he tried to stop him. He noticed that Corona was heading towards the EXIT where VIP's and Senator's go out. He said he even allowed Corona's car to be parked in his own parking spot. He didn't see any heated arguments between the Senate guards and the bodyguards of Corona. I forgot what he said in between but I heard Balajadia saying "Please." When he caught up with Corona, Corona asked him "Am I being arrested?" Balajadia said, "Sir, in any court, the judge has the final say and the order is to bring you back to the witness stand." Then Balajadia said Mrs. Corona talked and asked "Is this Martial Law?" He didn't reply anymore. The next thing he heard was that people are saying give him a chair. He didn't know what happened next and when he saw CJ, he was already on a wheelchair.

Julius Babao also asked if he noticed anything unusual with CJ, either pale or looked dizzy, during their talk, he said CJ looked normal and he didn't notice anything unusual. Julius asked how long does he think their conversation was, he said not more than 2 mins. He even shared that later he learned that before the order of closing of the gates, CJ's car was "unti unti ng lumalabas."

The Exclusive video of your narration:

Tatakas talaga si Thief Justice.

**explorer** · May 24th, 2012 05:12 AM

actually, kahit nakatakas si thief justice sa loob ng senate building at nakasakay na sa sasakyan nya...di parin sya makalabas sa compound..yung members ng corona resign movement nilock lahat ng steel gates ng senate compound after na di sila pinapasok dahil nagka denggoyan sa tickets seats.

**explorer** · May 24th, 2012 05:16 AM

langya....planned pala talaga yung pag walkout....

The World Tonight - Amateur video shows scenes after Corona walkout - ANC

**Retz** · May 24th, 2012 09:12 AM

paano kaya gagaling ang wala naman sakit?

**Altis6453** · May 24th, 2012 09:37 AM

From Interaksyon.com
May 24, 2012

Corona Testimony: Duty vs. Privilege

How can I describe the performance of Chief Justice Renato Corona last Tuesday?

It was emphatic, emotional, a mixture of personal, impersonal and neutral commentaries, combative and feisty. Evidentiary-wise however, it was just oral testimony without presentation of any documentary proofs ( unless the defense-lawyers will have the written-guide read by the Chief Justice marked as an exhibit and offered as evidence, but even then it is still a memorandum just to refresh memory which is therefore self-serving.).

Because of this, the acceptability of his story will depend upon how much he had contradicted the evidence of the prosecution or how much he can make further explanations during cross-examination. If people think that the performance was dismal, such conclusion might just be premature. There is still time to recover if indeed it was an average performance. His direct testimony is not yet finished and, in the cross-examination, he can still potentially perform brilliantly given the preparation time accorded the Chief Justice and his defense-lawyers.

But what struck me most was his continued invocation on the absolute confidentiality of dollar deposits under Republic Act No. 6426 as an exception to the requirements of the Constitution on the public declaration of net worth by a Chief Justice, among other officials. He is the Chief Justice and his opinion definitely should be given great respect. But great respect does not translate to correctness. Is his assertion correct?

The requirement to publicly declare a public official’s net worth is an explicit command of the Constitution. It is provided in Section 17 Article XI of the Constitution which pertinently provides that “ A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities and net worth.” Submission of a declaration has also been construed as submission of a correct and truthful declaration because allowing an inaccurate submission as compliance is a mockery of the requirement.

In Enriquez vs. Enriquez ( GR NO. 139303 August 25, 2005), the Supreme Court explained that the word “shall” must be understood in its ordinary acceptation and therefore is given a “compulsory meaning and is generally imperative and mandatory.” To highlight the significance of this disclosure- duty, it is placed in that part of the Constitution on “Accountability of Public Officers”. It is therefore a fundamental provision at the heart of public service that safeguards public office as a public trust ( Section 1 Article 7 of the Constitution).

The requirement is therefore a CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY. It is not a privilege.

The absolute confidentiality of dollar deposit is a private privilege created not by the Constitution but by a mere statute, a creation of national legislation. It is Republic Act No. 6426. This statutory privilege is a valid one, but to extend its statutory force as qualifying or making an exception to the mandate of the Constitution is a basic error. Exceptions to provisions of the Constitution can only be made also by the Constitution and not by a mere statute. Legally, national legislation that contravenes the Constitution has always been struck down as void and without effect. This is so because , as enunciated by the Supreme Court in Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS, 267 SCRA 408),

A constitution is a system of fundamental laws for the governance and administration of a nation. It is supreme, imperious, absolute, and unalterable except by the authority from which it emanates. It is the fundamental and paramount law of the nation….. The fundamental conception is that it is a supreme law to which all other laws must conform and in accordance with which all private rights must be determined and all public authority administered.

It is clear that a CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY of a public officer is so fundamental such that it cannot be circumscribed, qualified , superseded or rendered ineffective or nugatory by a mere STATUTORY PRIVILEGE. Anything that is protective of public interest for the paramount good must prevail over private privileges merely providing personal protections.

In this case, duty must win over privilege.

I wonder if any SC lawyer would care to comment on this?