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 136 of 421 FirstFirst ... 3686126132133134135136137138139140146186236 ... LastLast
Results 1,351 to 1,360 of 4205
  1. Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    22,710
    #1351
    Well... everyone knows it's a gift... I've seen units go for deep discount, but deep discount has never meant eight digit discounts!

    The dollar accounts are a tricky business. I know there's a law regarding this, but if it's a matter of criminal interest, then the SC cannot issue a TRO, right? They have no jurisdiction over an impeachment court?

    Whether or not they are right in terms of the law, the SC should completely inhibit itself from this case to preserve its air of impartiality.

    Ang pagbalik ng comeback...

  2. Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    26,770
    #1352
    Quote Originally Posted by niky View Post
    Well... everyone knows it's a gift... I've seen units go for deep discount, but deep discount has never meant eight digit discounts!

    The dollar accounts are a tricky business. I know there's a law regarding this, but if it's a matter of criminal interest, then the SC cannot issue a TRO, right? They have no jurisdiction over an impeachment court?

    Whether or not they are right in terms of the law, the SC should completely inhibit itself from this case to preserve its air of impartiality.

    Based from what i have read in the papers, SC is the sole interpreter of the law and have jurisdiction even with the impeachment court.

  3. Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    26,770
    #1353
    Judges who voted to issue TRO on Ogie's petition:
    1.) Justices Teresita J. Leonardo de Castro
    2.) Arturo D. Brion
    3.) Roberto A. Abad
    4.) Jose Portugal Perez
    5.) Lucas P. Bersamin
    6.) Martin S. Villarma Jr.
    7.) Bienvenido L. Reyes
    8.) Jose Castral Mendoza.

    Judges voted against the issuance of TRO:
    1.) Justice Antonio Carpio
    2.) Justices Mariano C. del Castillo
    3.) Diosdado M. Peralta
    4.) Ma. Lourdes P. Sereno
    5.) Estela Perlas Bernabe.

    8-5.

  4. Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    26,770
    #1354
    I will fight to my last breath - Corona
    By Christina Mendez (The Philippine Star) Updated February 10, 2012 12:00 AM




    MANILA, Philippines - Chief Justice Renato Corona dug in yesterday for a protracted battle as details of his bank accounts began to trickle out in the Senate impeachment court.

    “They can take my body, but not my soul,” Corona stressed when he gave the go-signal to his lawyers to file with the Supreme Court (SC) last Wednesday a motion seeking to stop his impeachment trial.

    Defense counsel Ramon Esguerra told The STAR Corona is determined to fight until his last breath.

    “Kahit patayin ninyo ako, lalabanan ko kayo, hanggang sa huling hininga (Even if you kill me, I will fight you, until my last breath),” Esguerra quoted Corona as saying.

    Defense panel spokesman Tranquil Salvador III said the Chief Justice is taking the developments “well, under the circumstances.”

    Asked about Corona’s morale after the opening of his peso bank accounts, another defense lawyer, Jose Bodegon, said Corona is doing okay.

    “It (bank accounts) can be explained,” Bodegon said.

    As the impeachment trial heads into its fourth week, Corona vowed that the fight would continue amid the various witnesses and evidence presented against him by the prosecution on issues about his statements of assets, liabilities, and net worth (SALNs).

    The impeachment trial went into a critical stage this week when the Senate issued a subpoena to bank officials to bring to court Corona’s alleged bank accounts.

    The defense panel has been objecting to the presentation of Corona’s bank statements, saying it was beyond the scope of Article 2 of the impeachment complaint that accused Corona of failing to disclose his SALN.

    Esguerra said this last development prompted the defense lawyers to seek redress from the SC where they filed a motion for TRO.

    He said that Corona had vowed not to resign.

  5. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    1,270
    #1355
    an interesting article....the last paragraph says it all

    from: Rules are not made to be broken | Inquirer Opinion


    Rules are not made to be broken

    By: Raul C. Pangalangan
    Philippine Daily Inquirer
    9:56 pm | Thursday, February 9th, 2012

    The brawl over impeachment court subpoenas is no simple black-and-white battle of the forces of light versus the forces of darkness, of the anti-Corona versus the pro-Corona camps, where each side single-mindedly throws everything including the kitchen sink against the enemy and runs roughshod over respected rules in the legal equivalent of ubusan ng lahi. Remember this: This historic impeachment will reinforce or destroy rules that will bind us long after Chief Justice Renato Corona’s tenure ends.

    We love the stance of the partisan or advocate who wants the quick score for his client right here, right now. But the Senate sits as judge. Not for it the narrow and short-term agenda of the partisan, but the high moral road, broad-minded and with depth of conscience. For them, the battle over subpoenas shouldn’t be a barren contest over technicalities.

    Rules of evidence are not just about finding the truth. They actually balance the pursuit of the truth against other values: husband-wife and parent-child confidentiality; bank secrecy and the reliability of our banking system; the separation of powers scheme in our system of government. Whoever says “the truth must out whatever the cost” still needs to explain what outweighs that cost: the erosion of family and love, the risk of a bank run, or the short-circuiting of constitutional checks and balances.

    In traditional constitutional law, we call this the logic of “pre-commitment.” We bind ourselves in advance to certain rules so that, faced with the temptings of the moment, of “hydraulic pressures” that bear on the here and now, we do not lose sight of larger principles, distant, yes, but more enduring. In the classic words of Benjamin Cardozo, we have constitutions precisely to protect us “against the assaults of opportunism, the expediency of the passing hour… the derision of those who have no patience with general principles.”

    Even the great Cardozo would salute the Senate on this point. Remember Day 1 of the trial. The Senate denied the prosecution’s motion to compel the Chief Justice and his family to testify. The Chief Justice was protected by his constitutional right against self-incrimination, the principle that eschews the sheer cruelty of being forced to testify against oneself, one that Torquemada’s Inquisition and the Stalinist show trials routinely flouted. His wife was shielded by “marital privilege” because, among other grounds, forcing spouses to testify against one another strains the family, a “basic social institution” that forms the “foundation of the nation.” How else can husband and wife freely confide in one another if their pillow talk can be subpoenaed? The children were also accorded their “filial privilege” which accepts the reality that loved ones tend to cover for one another, and the “incentive to perjure” is inimical to truth-seeking.

    Twice this week, the Senate confronted more such dilemmas. On Monday, it was good news for the prosecution: the Senate will compel the banks to disclose information about the Corona bank accounts. On Wednesday, it was the defense’s turn to hear good news: the Senate rejected the prosecution’s request to compel sitting Supreme Court justices to testify and open the Supreme Court’s confidential records.

    Both times, the Senate performed a delicate-balancing act. In its Monday ruling, the Senate carefully said it wouldn’t allow a fishing expedition and would subpoena only those documents strictly related to the SALNs, the core of the second article of impeachment.

    But most important of all, the Senate went to great lengths to assure the public not to worry about the secrecy of their bank deposits. This is a principle not to be taken lightly. The Bank Secrecy Law long ago encouraged people to put their savings in banks where they can be lent to investors to generate more wealth for the country. Otherwise, they will lie idle inside a wooden baűl, sterile, attractive only to thieves, and vulnerable to fire. We the public all have a stake in bank confidentiality.

    Unfortunately for the Chief Justice, the Bank Secrecy Law lists several exceptions, and one of them significantly is “in cases of impeachment.” Thus the Senate’s wording: “[N]ondisclosure of information… is still the general rule [and there is a subpoena only because of the] impeachment proceedings and for no other reason.” To use a metaphor from the Erap impeachment, the second envelope must be opened.

    On the other hand, the Senate also refused to subpoena the Supreme Court justices and their records. The Senate order was cleverly written. It affirmed several times that it respects the judiciary, that it will scrupulously stick to its own turf and won’t venture into the Court’s, and won’t pull rank despite its extraordinary perch as “the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment.”

    So you think the Senate was being so deferential to the Supreme Court? Not quite. It was actually telling the Supreme Court that it expects the same deference in return now that the Chief Justice and PSBank have asked the Court to step in. After all, if their friendly justices really wish to testify, no order from the Senate is needed. And as Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile himself suggested, whatever facts these justices will recount on the witness stand are already available in the public documents. Denying the subpoena presents no practical setback to the prosecution, but it offers a principled jab should the Supreme Court be minded to circle the wagons around its Chief (pardon the mixed metaphor).

    The Senate decision not to issue subpoenas to the Court is a classic pre-emptive strike. The Supreme Court should read between the lines of the Senate order and, having done that, see the writing on the wall.

  6. Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    22,710
    #1356
    Quote Originally Posted by Retz View Post
    Based from what i have read in the papers, SC is the sole interpreter of the law and have jurisdiction even with the impeachment court.
    Yet the impeachment court is fully au fait with the constitution... is the SC TRO the same?

    With every partisan maneuver the SC tries, it undermines its own authority even more. We're going to need an overhaul of the legal system when this is all over.

    Ang pagbalik ng comeback...

  7. Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    3,221
    #1357
    Quote Originally Posted by niky View Post
    Yet the impeachment court is fully au fait with the constitution... is the SC TRO the same?

    With every partisan maneuver the SC tries, it undermines its own authority even more. We're going to need an overhaul of the legal system when this is all over.
    hehehe i doubt if it will change after the impeachment(convicted or not). its in the system. and the one running the govt will always take care of his/her vested interest.

  8. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    1,270
    #1358
    kung pinakulong yung SALN cheater ng SC...eh dapat ipakulong narin yung biggest SALN cheater na yan

    raissa robles Corona-led Supreme Court OK’d jail for 2 SALN cheats

  9. Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    26,770
    #1359
    ipa impeach din ang 8 justices that voted in favor of the TRO.

    8 mahistrado ng SC na pumabor sa TRO sa CJ accounts nais ding ipa-impeach ni Farińas

  10. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    36,799
    #1360
    Quote Originally Posted by Retz
    ipa impeach din ang 8 justices that voted in favor of the TRO.

    8 mahistrado ng SC na pumabor sa TRO sa CJ accounts nais ding ipa-impeach ni Farińas
    Saka na yan, Huwag talon talon, si corona muna

Impeachment against CJ Corona..