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 142 of 421 FirstFirst ... 4292132138139140141142143144145146152192242 ... LastLast
Results 1,411 to 1,420 of 4205
  1. Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Quote Originally Posted by CoDer View Post
    ala cuevas na ang entire defense ngayon, may lumalakad daw sa mga senador ayaw namang pangalanan ang source.
    tig P100M daw.......

    Defense: Palace offered P100-M per senator to skirt TRO | ABS-CBN News

    Defense: Palace offered P100-M per senator to skirt TRO

    MANILA, Philippines - The defense on Sunday alleged that Malacanang offered P100 million for senators to skirt around the Supreme Court-issued temporary restraining order on the subpoena issued on Chief Justice Renato Corona’s alleged dollar accounts.

    Citing sources, defense lawyer Dennis Manalo said Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa has been contacting senator-judges not to honor the halt order.

  2. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Defense is preempting yun decision ng mga senstors Tom re TRO..

    desperate time need desperate move

  3. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    maiba naman....totoo kaya etong claim ng isang nag post dito? may 2 anak daw sa labas si thief justice

    Chief Justice Renato Corona wants to project the image that he is a loving husband to his wife, Cristina. The fact is, the Chief Justice has not only betrayed the public trust but most importantly, has betrayed his marital vow.

    If the Chief Justice is man enough, He should admit the fact that he has a long-standing romantic relationship with a gentle lady named EVA with whom the Chief Justice has two (2) illegitimate sons. EVA also hails from Batangas and had her education from Assumption College just like his wife Cristina who also graduated earlier from the same school.

    For Chief Justice Renato C. Corona not to mention his children with EVA as if they do not exist at all, is the highest form of ignominy and immorality that he can commit not only against his legitimate wife and family but against his oath as the highest magistrate of the land.

    An inquiry into his relationship with EVA and his illegitimate children in connection with the on-going impeachment trial becomes extremely necessary in the light of the properties given by the Chief Justice to them. EVA, who has previously undergone a heart bypass operation, is known not to have worked from the time she had this romantic liaison with the Chief Justice nor does she have any known business of her own and yet, EVA is luxuriously living in the United States, together with her two (2) illegitimate children with the good Chief Justice.

    The SALN of CJ Corona does not indicate any such properties.

    And the reason for the frequent trips of CJ Corona to the United States, the latest of which was late last year, was to visit EVA and his children with her. That CJ Corona could afford to support the kind of luxurious lifestyle of EVA and her children in the U.S. is certainly for the Chief Justice to explain considering his small salary.

    A simple investigation on the identity and circumstances of EVA can easily be done by a simple inquisition in Batangas as well as from the classmates, relatives and friends of EVA and of CJ Corona.

    I know these facts because EVA is a relative of mine and it pains me immensely to see the Chief Justice professing his love for Cristina on nationwide television when he has confessed to my relative that he loves her far more than his wife. In fact, the Chief Justice made EVA believe that he was already separated from his wife Cristina. This probably explains why for the longest time, the Chief Justice has not reported in his SALN the fact of Cristina's working in government and the fact that Cristina has not signed the SALNs as his wife.

    Betrayal of public trust? This is a small matter than what the Chief Justice has done to his wife and family which constitutes the highest form of immoral act - BETRAYAL OF MARITAL TRUST.

    Real name of CJ Corona's girlfriend - Eva Auria; She hails from Rosario, Batangas; She graduated from Assumption College (not from Maryknoll College) She has two (2) sons with CJ Corona who are now in their teens; She is residing now in the United States. CJ Corona's wife, Cristina, knows about the elicit relationship of her husband with Eva. To know more about the details on Eva, a simple investigation of Eva's background in Rosario Batangas and Assumption College would elicit the necessary informations. Eva has plenty of properties in the US. They keep secret the exact address. The bagman of CJ Corona (who facilitates the transfer of funds from Corona to Eva is "Abet" who is a relative by affinity of Eva, being married to a stepsister of Eva. (The wife of Abet has the same mother as Eva but different Fathers). The biggest delivery to Eva involves the bribe money given by the Aguirres of Banco Filipino.

    If the bank accounts of CJ Corona and his wife are opened, it will not be a surprise to see a running balance of not less than P200M. The bribe from the owner of the previously closed alone was a whopping P200M. And most money went to Eva through the Assistance of Abet.

    The sons of Corona carry the name of the mother. But CJ Corona has openly recognized Ate Eva's sons as his. A simple search at the NSO using "Renato C. Corona" would readily reveal this. For a time, when Eva was still in the Philippines, Renato and Eva lived as husband and wife. In fact, all our relatives in Rosario, Batangas and in the United States, knew the long-standing relationship. We all thought that Renato was already separated from Cristina. Some of Renato's relatives in Tanuan, Batangas where he hailed from, know about this relationship. Some friends of Renato have seen the 2 sons and have been their ninongs. All our relatives thought really that Renato will never deny his relationship with Ate Eva. Sana hindi nya gagawin iyon kasi kawawa sya at ang mga bata.

    By: PedestrianObserverGB

  4. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    halatang di na kaya ng defense team ang kaso ng amo nila...nasa panic mode na sila at kung anong conspiracy theory yung latest presscon nila

  5. Join Date
    Jul 2010
    akala ko nga eh haharapin ni CORONA ang mga accusations sa kanya, nagkukubli naman pala sa SC at mukhang doon na din nakatira yung asawa nya. kung naiisip nya na tapusin ang laban at lumabas ang totoo pwede nya hamunin ang prosecutors then ilabas nya lahat na hinihingi na docs. nakakahiya ngayon tumakbo na sya sa SC para ibasura ang impeachment case nya!!! nasa neutral side nga tayo kung ganyan naman ang nakikita mo sa nasasakdal ano pa iisipin mo? sana lang walang magpagamit na sect o grupoi para sa interest ng isang tao.

  6. Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Patay ang defense nito. Ano ba ang nakain nila? Nakinig nanaman ba sila sa sutsut ni Tatad?

    Sirang-sira na kayo defense panel, you will resort to blackmailing the Senate ha?

    How desperate.

  7. Join Date
    Sep 2003
    o....may coup daw
    na-coup po!

    The Daily Tribune - Without Fear or Favor

    Aquino’s Senate allies to stage coup vs Enrile

    Talks of an impending leadership coup in the Senate erupted yesterday afternoon, eve of the scheduled all-senators’ caucus where the issue of whether to heed the Supreme Court’s (SC) temporary restraining order (TRO) on the opening of Chief Justice Renato Corona’s dollar accounts before the impeachment court will be discussed.

    Yesterday, a Tribune source at the House of Representatives revealed that the coup against Enrile is in the offing and that the Senate president might be ousted today before the resumption of the impeachment trial.

    According to the source, no less than Malacañang is involved in the plan to oust Enrile as President Aquino was upset after Enrile asked his colleagues to respect the ruling of the SC in issuing a TRO as requested by officers of the Philippine Savings Bank (PSBank) with regard to the disclosure of the supposed dollar accounts of Corona. Some senators, when reached by reporters to validate the information, denied any knowledge although one of them, Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III, confirmed receiving “rumors” on the alleged coup plot.

    Enrile is sitting as the presiding officer in the Senate impeachment court.

    “Yes I heard those rumors. (But) I have no details. Just rumors,” Sotto said. The Senate majority leader said he has yet validate this “coup talks” with colleagues, adding that he doesn’t have an idea as to what could have triggered this time the alleged plot to oust Enrile. “I (really) don’t know. Perhaps, they are not happy with the way the Corona trial is going,” he said.

    Administration ally, Sen. Francis Pangilinan dismissed the alleged ouster move against Enrile, even branding this as “totally baseless”. Pangilinan said such kind of talks could have been just fanned by those out to “taint the impeachment trial with politicking and the spreading of baseless rumors of power grab.”

    “That’s not true. The proceedings have been handled very well by the Senate president. There is no reason for him to be replaced. This is totally baseless,” he said. “Perhaps there are those who are so desperate that they wish to tarnish the image of the impeachment court by spreading vile unfounded rumors,” he added. “I heard that (brewing coup plot against Enrile) from media, and yeah it sounds like a certified rumor because of the TRO issue,” Pangilinan added.

    Senators Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III, Loren Legarda and Gregorio Honasan also denied such allegation, even agreeing that now is not the right time for any revamp in the leadership of the upper chamber.

    Honasan remained skeptic whether Enrile will be replaced, adding that nobody has talked to him or approached him regarding the alleged change in the Senate leadership. He added that it won’t benefit the country if the Senate will have a change in leadership in the middle of an already protracted impeachment trial.

    Pimentel also debunked any ongoing efforts to depose Enrile from his current standing the Senate, saying that if and when there is indeed any plan, he would have known about it. “They don’t have the numbers. Whoever that group that would push for that (coup),” Pimentel said, hinting that his vote is considered a “swing vote.”

    “In deference to the Supreme Court, the interpreter of the Constitution and the guardian of our basic rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, this chair would suggest and recommend to this impeachment court and the two sides of the case and the panel to take heed,” Enrile was quoted saying during the trial. “They can’t get the support of JPE (Enrile) and they now plan to forcibly remove him from his post,” the source told the Tribune. “They are not happy with the extent of liberality Enrile granted the prosecution with regards to the presentation of evidence. They want Enrile to force through the baring of the supposed dollar accounts of the CJ (Corona),” the source added.

    Asked if the plotters could muster the required numbers, the source said the allies of Aquino in the Senate are banking on those who voted to subpoena the Chief Justice’s bank records, which have been opposed by the defense panel as they consider those to be evidences for article 2.4 of the Articles of Impeachment, pertaining to ill-gotten wealth, which had been barred by the Senate from being pursued.

    “They (coup plotters) believe that they can get the numbers based on the votes among Senator judges who sided for the opening of Corona’s bank records,” the source said. The votes of thirteen senators or majority of the total numbers of senators are required to unseat and replace Enrile.

    The Tribune tried to get the side of the defense panel as to the implication of Enrile’s ouster on the impeachment trial but they refused to issue any statement.

    “We hear the rumors going around but we cannot verify it yet,” a member of the defense panel requesting anonymity told the Tribune. “So, we cannot make any comment yet.”

    Amid these purported coup plot, Sen. Joker Arroyo said the upper chamber, sitting as an impeachment court, should respect the TRO issued by the high court.

    “To begin with, it is temporary, the permanent ruling will come later after all sides are heard. The SC is not free to abdicate its constitutional duty to act and decide what has been brought before it arising from the impeachment trial.

    “Nor can the Senate assert this if per chance it does wrong during the trial, such wrong cannot be corrected. If such were permitted, that makes the Senate when acting as impeachment body, infallible. The Constitution does not countenance this,” he said in a statement.

    “What cannot be challenged is the Senate’s final decision of conviction or acquittal,” Arroyo added.

    The defense panel said the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, is courting contempt citation should it defy the SC ruling stopping the disclosure of Corona’s dollar accounts at the Philippine Savings Bank.

    Enrile refused to comment on the TRO saying that this would be tackled in a caucus.

    The High Court, voting 8-5, issued last Thursday a TRO against the disclosure of Corona’s supposed foreign currency deposits at the PSBank. The court also gave all parties 10 days to comment on the ruling.

    Upon learning of the ruling, Enrile on Thursday recommended to all parties, including the impeachment court, “to take heed and let us discuss other issues other than foreign currency deposits... and which we will discuss that in due time.”

    Jimeno also said it is the PSBank which is in position to comment on the TRO since it was issued in its favor and not in favor of Corona. “If none of them yields, that will result in a stalemate. It will have to be decided on the streets because there’s nobody else that will make the decision,” she said, noting that 7,000 to 10,000 joined the Iglesia ni Cristo-led rally infront of the Supreme Court last Thursday.

    She said the three branches of government operate under a system of checks and balances, and the TRO issued by the tribunal is part of this. “Clearly, what the Supreme Court is doing is constitutional... but if the Senate defies the TRO, it was indicating it was immune from checks,” she said.

    “That is not allowed by our system of checks and balances. No one branch is allowed to be absolute in its power,” she said.

    But administration allies Sens. Franklin Drilon and Francis Pangilinan said the SC should not dictate on the impeachment court.

  8. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    i think the writer is just trying to steer the pot Ninez is a well know PNoy critic. she was also the one who started the same rumour when the impeachment trial was about to start.

  9. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    interesting article....


    CJ Corona being tried by the sovereign people

    By: Neal H. Cruz
    Philippine Daily Inquirer
    12:53 am | Monday, February 13th, 2012

    “If the recorded income can’t support the expenditure, then there’s presumption of ill-gotten wealth”—Supreme Court decision, 2003

    Guess who was the ponente of that decision?

    Answer: Justice Renato Corona. In that landmark Supreme Court decision, Corona, as the ponente, declared that because the burden of proof lies with the accused in any ill-gotten wealth case, the Court should “disregard technicalities” and conclude that the assets in question were ill-gotten if their combined value was beyond the disclosed income and assets in his tax returns or statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN). In fact, that’s the reason it is also called “unexplained wealth.” If the accused cannot explain where his wealth came from, then it is presumed ill-gotten.

    That was why the very first thing that Corona’s defense team did at the start of the Senate impeachment trial was to have Article 3, which is on ill-gotten wealth, excluded from the trial. They know that their client is vulnerable here. So the trick was to prevent the presentation of evidence on ill-gotten wealth.

    Note that in its petition to the Supreme Court, the defense not only asked that the bank be prevented from disclosing the dollar accounts but to also issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a preliminary injunction against the trial itself. The Supreme Court wisely did not tackle these petitions but tackled only the petition of the Philippine Savings Bank (PSBank) for a TRO against the release to the impeachment court of the records of Corona’s dollar deposits. But it will tackle the other petitions next. Maybe it is just waiting for the Senate’s reaction.

    This has stirred another lively debate: Can the Supreme Court intervene in the impeachment trial? The pro-Corona side says Yes, it can intervene because of its power of review. The anti-Corona side says No, it cannot because the Constitution gave the Senate the sole power to try and decide impeachment cases. The senator-judges will decide in caucus Monday morning whether or not to obey the TRO.

    As I see it, the pertinent provision of the Constitution is clear that the Supreme Court cannot meddle in impeachment proceedings. The Senate sits as an impeachment court pursuant to its exclusive constitutional mandate under Section 3(6), Article XI of the Constitution to hear and decide impeachment cases. This provision states: “The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment.”
    Hence, when the Senate sits as an impeachment court, it is performing a constitutional check upon the members of the Supreme Court pursuant to the doctrine of checks and balances. An impeachment proceeding is a remedy for offenses against the people and results in the removal of impeachable officials from their positions for violating the mandate that public office is a public trust.

    A constitutional expert gave me his views on the issue. I will quote his views here:
    “Impeachment is the only check under the Constitution on the unelected justices by the people through their representatives in the Senate. The reason for this basic checks-and-balances is to prevent the abuse of the security of tenure granted by the Constitution to public officers who are required to be independent by the very nature of their office such as Supreme Court justices.

    “More importantly, the Constitution does not merely treat impeachment as a method of checks and balances, but as an instrument of enforcing or ensuring public accountability. Thus, the Constitution places the provision on impeachment not in Articles VI, VII and VIII but in Articles XI on Accountability of Public Officers. This placement is clearly intentional and meant to signal the importance of accountability of public officers and the importance of impeachment in exacting that level of accountability.

    “In view of the special purpose of an impeachment in the life of a nation, the impeachment court and the necessary powers it exercises cannot be treated as a mere switch that could simply be turned on or off, as Father Bernas seems to suggest. Rather, the impeachment court is sui generis (unique, or of its own kind), or unlike anything else in the Philippine constitutional and democratic government. It is a deeply sovereign function exercised by their Senate representatives.

    “During Day 14 of the impeachment trial on Feb. 8, 2012, Senator-Judge Teofisto Guingona III explained the nuances of the impeachment process and the character of the impeachment trial in this wise: First, the Senate as an impeachment court is not co-equal with the other branches of government since the impeachment process is the people’s way of making public officials accountable, and this is reposed in Congress.

    “Second, since the impeachment court is independent, the Supreme Court cannot and should not impose its will on said impeachment court considering that the Senate and the Supreme Court are co-equal only when the Senate is exercising its legislative powers.

    “Third, the Senate as an impeachment court has the sole power to try and decide cases on impeachment.”
    To summarize and to make simpler the special category of the impeachment court, Chief Justice Corona is being tried before and by the sovereign people. The members of Congress are only their representatives elected with millions of votes. None of the 15 justices has been elected, not even as barangay tanod. How can they tell the elected representatives of the people what to do?

    Lastly, how can the Supreme Court act objectively on the impeachment case against Corona when he is a member of the Supreme Court, in fact, its chief? Even subconsciously, they will try to protect him, and themselves. The honorable and sensible thing it should have done was to keep away from the impeachment case.

  10. Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Kung ano-ano na ang squid tactics ng defense ngayon ah.

    Ganyan talaga pag cornered na. Baka naman mamayang hapon eh walkout drama gawin ng mga yan.

Impeachment against CJ Corona..