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

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%
Page 130 of 421 FirstFirst ... 3080120126127128129130131132133134140180230 ... LastLast
Results 1,291 to 1,300 of 4205
  1. Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,828
    #1291
    Quote Originally Posted by shadow View Post
    add mo pa yun tamang amount ng properties.
    Correct.

    For reference.



    Cash lang yan, pero sobra pa sa lampas ng nai declare nya sa 2010 SALN nya.

  2. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    20,069
    #1292
    Quote Originally Posted by CoDer View Post
    Butata nanaman si Cuevas. Naka hanap tuloy ng butas mga senador.
    ano na naman nasabi ni cueva?
    Signature

  3. Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    619
    #1293
    Ang tibay ni george ty. Ayaw maequitable bangko nya.

    Ilabas na yung cctv kung sino si short lady.

    Masaya nangyayari ngayon. Ang gulo-gulo. hahahahah

  4. Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,828
    #1294
    Quote Originally Posted by boybi View Post
    ano na naman nasabi ni cueva?
    Kung pwede ba daw nilang request yung monthly balance ng account ni Corona BPI. Sabi tuloy si Osmena sali na lahat ng account ni Corona sa BPI.

  5. Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,828
    #1295
    Quote Originally Posted by tomboy View Post
    Ang tibay ni george ty. Ayaw maequitable bangko nya.

    Ilabas na yung cctv kung sino si short lady.

    Masaya nangyayari ngayon. Ang gulo-gulo. hahahahah
    Anong Ty pinagsasabi mo? Anong impeachment ba pinapanood mo? Decision ni Garcia ang pagtakbo sa SC. At walang nakitang short lady sa CCTV.

  6. Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    619
    #1296
    ^
    Sino may-ari ng psbank.

    Sabi nung namamahala nung cctv pag formally pinabusisi ng senate yung cctv sasabihin nila kung sino si short lady. Ayaw pa magcomment eh.

  7. Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,828
    #1297
    Si Ty ba ang nakasalang sa witness stand? Sino ang nasa witness stand na nag sabihin he sought the opinion on the SC regarding the subpoena on dollar account?

    Little lady is irrelevant at this point because the document submitted to the court are the subpoenaed documents.

  8. Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    619
    #1298
    Ikaw naman. "You dont bite the hand the feeds you."

    Alangan naman icompromise nya pagiging presidente nya. At sa tingin mo hindi sya kinausap ni owner george.

    Relevant si short lady. Si enrile na nga nagsabi dapat makasuhan sya.

  9. Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,828
    #1299
    Quote Originally Posted by tomboy View Post
    Ikaw naman. "You dont bite the hand the feeds you."

    Alangan naman icompromise nya pagiging presidente nya. At sa tingin mo hindi sya kinausap ni owner george.

    Relevant si short lady. Si enrile na nga nagsabi dapat makasuhan sya.
    Irrelevant.

  10. Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    736
    #1300
    Quote Originally Posted by Retz View Post
    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
    Para naman syang hindi former Supreme Court Chief Justice sa comment nya e. Please be informed that former Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban concurred in the Supreme Court decision in Francisco Jr. vs. House of Representatives [G.R. No. 160261. November 10, 2003], which reads in part:

    "Judicial Restraint

    Senator Pimentel urges this Court to exercise judicial restraint on the ground that the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, has the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. Again, this Court reiterates that the power of judicial review includes the power of review over justiciable issues in impeachment proceedings.

    On the other hand, respondents Speaker De Venecia et. al. argue that “[t]here is a moral compulsion for the Court to not assume jurisdiction over the impeachment because all the Members thereof are subject to impeachment.”[125] But this argument is very much like saying the Legislature has a moral compulsion not to pass laws with penalty clauses because Members of the House of Representatives are subject to them.

    The exercise of judicial restraint over justiciable issues is not an option before this Court. Adjudication may not be declined, because this Court is not legally disqualified. Nor can jurisdiction be renounced as there is no other tribunal to which the controversy may be referred.”[126] Otherwise, this Court would be shirking from its duty vested under Art. VIII, Sec. 1(2) of the Constitution. More than being clothed with authority thus, this Court is duty-bound to take cognizance of the instant petitions. In the august words of amicus curiae Father Bernas, “jurisdiction is not just a power; it is a solemn duty which may not be renounced. To renounce it, even if it is vexatious, would be a dereliction of duty.”

    Even in cases where it is an interested party, the Court under our system of government cannot inhibit itself and must rule upon the challenge because no other office has the authority to do so. On the occasion that this Court had been an interested party to the controversy before it, it has acted upon the matter “not with officiousness but in the discharge of an unavoidable duty and, as always, with detachment and fairness.”[129] After all, “by [his] appointment to the office, the public has laid on [a member of the judiciary] their confidence that [he] is mentally and morally fit to pass upon the merits of their varied contentions. For this reason, they expect [him] to be fearless in [his] pursuit to render justice, to be unafraid to displease any person, interest or power and to be equipped with a moral fiber strong enough to resist the temptations lurking in [his] office.”

    x x x x x x x x x x x

    Respondents Speaker de Venecia, et. al. raise another argument for judicial restraint the possibility that “judicial review of impeachments might also lead to embarrassing conflicts between the Congress and the [J]udiciary.” They stress the need to avoid the appearance of impropriety or conflicts of interest in judicial hearings, and the scenario that it would be confusing and humiliating and risk serious political instability at home and abroad if the judiciary countermanded the vote of Congress to remove an impeachable official.[137] Intervenor Soriano echoes this argument by alleging that failure of this Court to enforce its Resolution against Congress would result in the diminution of its judicial authority and erode public confidence and faith in the judiciary.

    Such an argument, however, is specious, to say the least. As correctly stated by the Solicitor General, the possibility of the occurrence of a constitutional crisis is not a reason for this Court to refrain from upholding the Constitution in all impeachment cases. Justices cannot abandon their constitutional duties just because their action may start, if not precipitate, a crisis.

    Justice Feliciano warned against the dangers when this Court refuses to act.

    x x x Frequently, the fight over a controversial legislative or executive act is not regarded as settled until the Supreme Court has passed upon the constitutionality of the act involved, the judgment has not only juridical effects but also political consequences. Those political consequences may follow even where the Court fails to grant the petitioner’s prayer to nullify an act for lack of the necessary number of votes. Frequently, failure to act explicitly, one way or the other, itself constitutes a decision for the respondent and validation, or at least quasi-validation, follows.” [138]

    Thus, in Javellana v. Executive Secretary[139] where this Court was split and “in the end there were not enough votes either to grant the petitions, or to sustain respondent’s claims,”[140] the pre-existing constitutional order was disrupted which paved the way for the establishment of the martial law regime.

    Such an argument by respondents and intervenor also presumes that the coordinate branches of the government would behave in a lawless manner and not do their duty under the law to uphold the Constitution and obey the laws of the land. Yet there is no reason to believe that any of the branches of government will behave in a precipitate manner and risk social upheaval, violence, chaos and anarchy by encouraging disrespect for the fundamental law of the land.

    Substituting the word public officers for judges, this Court is well guided by the doctrine in People v. Veneracion, to wit:[141]

    Obedience to the rule of law forms the bedrock of our system of justice. If [public officers], under the guise of religious or political beliefs were allowed to roam unrestricted beyond boundaries within which they are required by law to exercise the duties of their office, then law becomes meaningless. A government of laws, not of men excludes the exercise of broad discretionary powers by those acting under its authority. Under this system, [public officers] are guided by the Rule of Law, and ought “to protect and enforce it without fear or favor,” resist encroachments by governments, political parties, or even the interference of their own personal beliefs."

    You can read the whole decision here: Francisco Jr vs The House of Representatives : 160261 : November 10, 2003 : J. Carpio Morales : En Banc : Decision

Impeachment against CJ Corona..