New and Used Car Talk Reviews Hot Cars Comparison Automotive Community

The Largest Car Forum in the Philippines

View Poll Results: Senate's verdict on CJ

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%
Page 121 of 421 FirstFirst ... 2171111117118119120121122123124125131171221 ... LastLast
Results 1,201 to 1,210 of 4205
  1. Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Kala ko yung PSBank ang nagfile ng for TRO sa SC. Kasi they can be sued by CJ if linabas yung $$$ records niya w/o expressed consent. Patay rin yun kaso ng prosecution sa article 7 dahil kailangan nila yung SC records sa pagkupit ni CJ. Nadenied ni JPE yung subpoena.

  2. Join Date
    Sep 2005
    CJ to SC: Ipatigil na yang impeachment na yan. At mag inhibit yung di pabor sa akin

  3. Join Date
    Sep 2005
    ... deleted
    Last edited by CoDer; February 9th, 2012 at 08:48 AM. Reason: tab not working

  4. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Quote Originally Posted by jansky
    lumabas na ung unang laman ng acct nya.. susunod paano nila papatunayan na galing sa ilegal ung pera..
    Hinde na kailangan patunayan, Meron presumption of ill gotten dahil wala sa SALN...burden of proof to prove its not ill gotten sa defense na...

  5. Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Should SC stop Corona’s impeachment?
    By: Artemio V. Panganiban
    Philippine Daily Inquirer

    As part of these checks and balances, the power to impeach the highest executive and judicial officials is granted “exclusively” to the House while the power to try and decide is lodged “solely” in the Senate. Why then should the impeached officials, especially the justices, be allowed to reverse impeachment actions against them? That would be self-serving. So, the common sense answer is: No, the Supreme Court cannot and should not stop impeachment proceedings.

    Full Story:
    Should SC stop Corona

  6. Join Date
    Sep 2005
    sasabihin nyan tumama sa lotto!

    meron pang raffle na pinalanunan yan diba.. yung sa PSBank.. swerte naman sa raffle ni CJ!

    Quote Originally Posted by shadow View Post
    Hinde na kailangan patunayan, Meron presumption of ill gotten dahil wala sa SALN...burden of proof to prove its not ill gotten sa defense na...

  7. Join Date
    Oct 2011
    What exactly is the bank secrecy law covering foreign dollar account? ngayon ko lang din nalaman ito.

  8. Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Quote Originally Posted by marg View Post
    Halatang may tinatago si Thief Justice.
    Wow, new word ah, "thief justice".

  9. Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Quote Originally Posted by shadow

    he's right, from what I understand and from this simple mind I have, it is Senate that is co equal with the two branches, which yun ang sabi niya but while sitting as an impeachment court they are not Senate/Senators anymore, the reason why they took another oath..

    and it just common sense, Senate as an impeachment court is above and supreme over the two branches since if it;s not, then they can't hear or even try the head of the other branches..

    another common sense, if they are not supreme and above the two branches, then bakit pag nag decide sila ng guilty talsik either ang President ng Republic or Chief justice ng supreme court... they can't do that if they are still co equal with them...
    It is the constitution that gave the power and responsibility to the senate as an impeachment court. It is also the constitution that also LIMITS the consequences of a guilty verdict ( removal from office and ineligibility for government office ). They ( Senate as an impeachment court) are only tasked to decide on the case at bar. Sa decision nila i take the position na yes, sila ang supreme - d pwede ireview ng Supreme Court. di rin provided ng constitution na pwede ireview ng SC ang decision ng Impeachment court.

    But as to how they arrive to a decision, i believe they still have to abide by the law at all times. Where the law does not provide exemptions, you can not make one for yourself. While it is also the constitution that provides for the bill of rights and holds due process to be of utmost importance, just because the respondent hasn't waived his rights, it doesnt mean na impeachment court can do everything that violates the rights and protection of the constitution and relevant laws afforded to the respondent.

    Andysn na tayo na nakikita natin na may limitations ang batas. Solution then is to have the law amended (attention congress who prioritize non legislative functions ) or have the supreme court declare the covering provisions or the whole law as unconstitutional. May proseso pa rin.

  10. Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by shadow View Post
    Hinde na kailangan patunayan, Meron presumption of ill gotten dahil wala sa SALN...burden of proof to prove its not ill gotten sa defense na...
    hindi na ba kailangan ng proof ng prosecution kung saan galing ung ganong kalaking pera.. ??? so mga ganong ebidensya is acceptable na sa court..

    parang si Juan kumikita ng 500 pesos sa isang bwan, pero ang laman ng banko nya 5,000.. hindi na ba hahanapan kng saan nanggaling ung 5,000??? paano sya nagkaroon ng 5,000..parang kinalabasan pang huhusga agad kumbaga convicted agad sa pagnanakaw pero wala namang ebidensya...

    so sa tingin ko ang burden nasa prosecution pa rin until such time na maglabas ng ebidensya kung saan nanggaling ung pera ni CJ. pag meron ng ebidensya tsaka naman patutunayan ng defense kung baket hindi naman nakaw..

Impeachment against CJ Corona..