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 198 of 421 FirstFirst ... 98148188194195196197198199200201202208248298 ... LastLast
Results 1,971 to 1,980 of 4205
  1. Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    619
    #1971
    coder and altis,

    Ayaw nyo lang intindihin yung pinupunto ni gringo.... S

    Baka dito mahimasmasan kayo......

    Is De Lima ignorant or just incompetent?
    November 12th, 2011...Take note nung date ah.....

    Is De Lima ignorant or just incompetent? | Inquirer Opinion

    Justice Secretary Leila de Lima was quoted as follows: “Between national interest and one’s constitutional rights, which is more important? It’s certainly the interest of the state.” (“DOJ: No need for treatment overseas,” Inquirer, 11/9/11) I am not a fan, supporter, defender or what-have-you of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. I have been reading the statements of De Lima since she assumed office and, as a Philippine and US practicing lawyer, I could no longer keep silent on her ignorance, or incompetence.

    The constitutional Bill of Rights was copied by the Filipinos from the American constitution and it is suggested that, before she opens her mouth on a very basic or fundamental matter or issue—i.e., which is more important or better, which prevails or is paramount, the State’s interest or an individual’s constitutional rights—De Lima should read on US history, purpose, jurisprudence and/or rationale of the Bill of Rights, and surely she will find that the Bill of Rights was included in the US constitution to protect the individual citizens from the vast and enormous resources of government, which government could definitely use to bring criminals to justice without violating the Bill of Rights.

    Or is it that like many government officials, De Lima wants “shortcuts” or, worse, she doesn’t know how to use the immeasurable government resources to do her duty of prosecuting law offenders? In what school did she study law? Particularly, who taught her constitutional law? When she was the head of the Commission on Human Rights, did she obtain any conviction for human rights violation?

    President Aquino, do you need a mere rubber stamp of a Cabinet secretary or one who is knowledgeable and competent to effectively assist you in governance? Just asking.

    —VIC VELASQUEZ,
    1729 W.24th,
    Houston, Texas 77008

  2. Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,828
    #1972
    ^ Balikan mo ang pangyayari nung bago nag pakamatay si Reyes at alamin mo kung sino yung mga gigil na gigil sa pag iibestiga.

    Iba ang batas sa US. kung dun pwede ang same *** merriage eh dito bawal yan.

    Anak ng tokwa day magkaiba ang constitution ng pinas at US.

  3. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    3,872
    #1973
    ^^*tomboy,

    Since you're into quoting opinions, I'll take your Mr. Velasquez (who probably is not a constitutional law expert) and raise you an article of Dean Raul Pangalangan of the U.P. College of Law:


    Passion For Reason
    Fearless stand on airport standoff
    By: Raul C. Pangalangan
    Philippine Daily Inquirer
    10:23 pm | Thursday, February 23rd, 2012
    *10share170*154
    If there was one defining moment thus far in the impeachment trial, it was the Wednesday exchange between Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile and a witness, Justice Secretary Leila de Lima. It demonstrates precisely why this impeachment trial is political to its core, and why it calls upon us, the people, to exercise our “sovereign prerogative of choice.”
    De Lima had just explained why she blocked former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s exit at the airport, saying that the Supreme Court’s temporary restraining order was conditional and its conditions hadn’t yet been met. Enrile then asked De Lima a seemingly innocuous but loaded question: Had those conditions already been satisfied, would she have bowed before the high court’s TRO? De Lima’s response: “Maybe, or maybe not…”
    That was a truly bold statement. Leila de Lima spoke the truth as she felt it in her heart, but really she could have played it safe. She could have taken the path of least resistance and said: Why, of course, yes, your honor, I would have respected the TRO!
    After all, the watch list order is now overtaken by actual arrest warrants issued by the courts. So even if indeed defiance was truly her state of mind during the drama at the airport, by Wednesday this week when she was testifying, she already had the luxury of invoking those arrest warrants.
    I could have more easily imagined her statement being said outside a court, in a press conference perhaps, or in a public rally. But not in an impeachment trial where she was testifying as a witness and was “open season” for rebuke from the senator-judges.
    But Leila de Lima chose to be honest and candid. After all, everybody knew what Arroyo really had in mind when she attempted to exit the country for non-extradition states on the eve of being charged with nonbailable crimes. Everybody, that is, except apparently the Supreme Court justices who preferred to ignore the elephant in the room. Had our justice officials buckled down during that fateful evening at the airport, the government’s anticorruption campaign would have collapsed like a pack of cards.
    It fell upon De Lima to make the tough call. It took a lot of guts to block Arroyo at the airport. But it took real daring to sit on the witness stand before the Senate and declare under oath that, yes, maybe she might have defied the Supreme Court TRO.
    She just as soon offered a solid explanation: “[B]ecause my view is that the TRO was improper in the sense that a TRO … is [merely] supposed to preserve the status quo pending the disposition of the merits of the main petition.” In other words, a TRO should be merely temporary, but in this case, granting the TRO effectively rendered the trial on the merits inutile. What’s the point of trying the accused when the accused has fled beyond reach of the court?
    The Wednesday hearing was telling in yet another way, and that is its stark contrast with the previous day’s hearing which saw Enrile’s famous Castilian temper bared in full against the prosecution. Contrast the kid-glove treatment of Secretary De Lima with the bare-knuckle handling of the prosecution counsel. Even after she declared that maybe she might have defied a valid TRO, Enrile, instead of painting her into a corner using the oft-cited mechanical notion of the “rule of law,” actually showed her a way out. The grizzled veteran of many a legal battle instead suggested that, Ah, that is why you have now filed a motion for reconsideration!
    Can you beat that? What began as an act in contempt of the Supreme Court was suddenly a principled position now channeled through proper procedure. The clenched fist suddenly morphed into a hand salute!
    The second contrast was Enrile’s strictness on Monday in striking out evidence on the special favors that Chief Justice Renato Corona received from Philippine Airlines, a party-litigant before the Supreme Court. Had he been minded to, Enrile could have allowed that evidence. After all, the platinum card with oodles of freebies compromised the “cold neutrality of an impartial judge” required of Corona. Instead, Enrile read the rules as literally as possible and asked if the PAL VIP card was ever mentioned in the slew of allegations in the impeachment complaint.
    Compare that to Enrile’s broad and liberal reading of the rules during De Lima’s testimony. On Thursday, he partially rejected former Justice Serafin Cuevas’ objection on hearsay evidence. Enrile ruled that impeachment proceedings are an exception, citing not any statute or case-law but an academic work by American author Raoul Berger.
    But Enrile is right: The hearsay evidence rule is meant to insulate the so-called “jury of one’s peers” from improper testimony. The senators are judges who are empowered to decide what evidence to hear and what punishment to impose, not jurors who are supposed to decide only questions of fact. By their electoral mandate, they are supposed to be able to judge for themselves what to believe and what not to believe.
    But all that aside, why be so strict one day, and liberal the next?
    The watch list order that prevented GMA from escaping justice may have been listed as merely the seventh article of impeachment, but it was that showdown that actually triggered the entire impeachment saga. Corona’s first offense was in becoming a midnight Chief Justice, but the people gave him the benefit of the doubt. When he led the Supreme Court to allow GMA to leave, he resolved the doubt against himself.
    * * *
    (sorry mods-was posting via mobile device)

  4. Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    584
    #1974
    di ko malaman altis at coder kung sumang-ayon kayu kay tomboy ng sinabi nya na based ang ating consti sa US consti... kasi si enrile nag rule about the hearsay issue of de lima was based on the observations of the two books of the US impeachment proceedings.

  5. Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    26,770
    #1975
    Justice Sereno to testify against Corona?

  6. Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    22,710
    #1976
    Quote Originally Posted by tomboy View Post
    coder and altis,

    Ayaw nyo lang intindihin yung pinupunto ni gringo.... S

    Baka dito mahimasmasan kayo......

    Is De Lima ignorant or just incompetent?
    Well... Gringo is an expert on using extra-judicial and illegal methods to further his political position, now, isn't he?

    -

    It's half-and-half, but De Lima was well within her powers on the watchlist order. Arroyo was not denied access to adequate health care... Come on... a bone biopsy needs to be done overseas? Anyone remotely familiar with the procedure would tell you that's laughable. That's like saying you have to go to Hong Kong to have wart removal, or to the US to have Lasik surgery.

    Ang pagbalik ng comeback...

  7. Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,828
    #1977
    Quote Originally Posted by MrQ5 View Post
    di ko malaman altis at coder kung sumang-ayon kayu kay tomboy ng sinabi nya na based ang ating consti sa US consti... kasi si enrile nag rule about the hearsay issue of de lima was based on the observations of the two books of the US impeachment proceedings.
    And he also ruled out Sen Cayetano when she cited out a US SC ruling because Philippine Law is not at all similar to US Law. But in the case of Impeachment proceeding when he said that the hearsay rule does not strictly apply because this is not a Criminal Proceeding and mentioned two books to support his claim.

    Cuevas since the beginning of this case is insisting that a Proof beyond reasonable doubt should be applied but just as Enrile said this is not a Criminal case. Now Cuevas and Brenda can book a hotel and be done with it.

  8. Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,828
    #1978
    Quote Originally Posted by Retz View Post
    Justice Sereno to testify against Corona?
    She won't. She will merely clarify the issues surrounding her dissent. Pero mukhang mahihirapan silang invite si Sereno at this point, pinagbawalan na sila eh.

    But Serenos dissent is more than enough. Yung sinasabing majority dapat ang bigyan ng pansin according to brenda... Ok sana yung kung walang binangit na irregularities sa dissent ni Sereno. Sira-ulo talaga tong si brenda.

  9. Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    26,770
    #1979
    Quote Originally Posted by CoDer View Post
    She won't. She will merely clarify the issues surrounding her dissent. Pero mukhang mahihirapan silang invite si Sereno at this point, pinagbawalan na sila eh.

    But Serenos dissent is more than enough. Yung sinasabing majority dapat ang bigyan ng pansin according to brenda... Ok sana yung kung walang binangit na irregularities sa dissent ni Sereno. Sira-ulo talaga tong si brenda.

    Yup, I think may en banc session pa ang supreme court just to decide if they will allow a fellow justice to testify in the impeachment court.

  10. Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    26,770
    #1980
    Tingin ko hangan three(3) articles na lang ang i-presenta ng prosecution.

Impeachment against CJ Corona..