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 206 of 421 FirstFirst ... 106156196202203204205206207208209210216256306 ... LastLast
Results 2,051 to 2,060 of 4205
  1. Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    619
    #2051
    Ang hilig talaga magtapon mga lawyer ni noynoy.... Para sila nagiging basurero nito. hahahahha

  2. Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,326
    #2052
    Quote Originally Posted by CoDer View Post
    Normal practice sa mga Justices yang mga dissenting opinion. At pino promulgate ng SC yang mga dissenting opinion hence making it public document.

    Nagka labo-labo lang sila ng time nung nilalakad ang TRO ni Gloria kaya nagka ganyan. Remember bawal mag away-away mga Justices, pag may disagreement ka pwede kang mag file ng dissenting opinion.

    Walang agent na angle sa justices ng SC parte ng rules nila yang mga pag file ng dissenting opinion. Nagka taon lang na may irregularities sa mga nangyari nung pag file ng TRO.

    Now the question is...

    Why SC release a resolution barring its employee and justices from responding to a subpoena or volunteer themselves as witnesses unless they got a waiver from en banc?

    I know that dissenting opinion is SOP sa SC... it's how a justice justifies or explains his vote... shempre may sarili syang basis at dun nya ipinapaliwanag yung kanyang basehan kung bakit sya hindi sang ayon sa majority sa division or en banc...

    ang napapaisip ako ay yung level ng kwento na naipalabas... yung detalye ng kwento.. kadalasan na nabasa ko na mga dissenting opinion is purely theoretical... legal theory or legal jurisprudence talaga... wala pa akong nabasa na nailabas sa dissenting opinion even a hint na may maniobra sa loob, be it in the justices themselves or sa proseso sa loob... maaaring i consider na in a way ay "old boys club" ang sc since di rin lahat ay maaaring ma appoint na SC justice.. they have their mga norms and traditions...

    I don't suppose na ngayon lang nagkaroon ng maniobra sa SC (my opinion... maaaring mali ako)... pero ngayon lang (at least sa kaalaman ko) na may Justice na talagang naglabas ng mga ongoings within the SC through the dissenting opinion...

  3. Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,326
    #2053
    Quote Originally Posted by CoDer View Post
    Now the question is...

    Why SC release a resolution barring its employee and justices from responding to a subpoena or volunteer themselves as witnesses unless they got a waiver from en banc?
    ito naman.. the beauty of the innovation of GMA era.. lahat (kahit si PNoy, no matter how hard they deny it).. nagagaya sa mga nagawa ni GMA.. noong binawalang lumabas ang all military and cabinet officers na lumabas sa senate / congressional inquiry in aid of legislation and of course re election... ginaya din ng SC..

    SC is now on a self preservation mode... again, hindi kasalanan ni GMA na 9 ang na appoint nya sa 9 years nya sa panunungkulan, pag di sya nag appoint tuwing may bakante, it will be a dereliction of duty... kung ma impeach ang 9 na ipinaupo ni GMA, PNoy will be the one appointing their respective replacements, does it follow that lahat ng na appoint nya ay aayon kay PNoy para ibalik sa kanila ang Hacienda Luisita or itaas to 10B ang just compensation?

    again.. ang sagot dyan.. baguhin ang constitution... baguhin ang proseso sa pagluklok ng mga judges at justices...

  4. Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    22,710
    #2054
    Quote Originally Posted by wowiesy View Post
    again.. ang sagot dyan.. baguhin ang constitution... baguhin ang proseso sa pagluklok ng mga judges at justices...
    Hear, hear.

    It's unconscionable that one branch of the Government gets total control over the selection and appointment of the members of the branch that is supposed to act as watchdog over it.

    Ang pagbalik ng comeback...

  5. Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,828
    #2055
    Quote Originally Posted by wowiesy View Post
    ito naman.. the beauty of the innovation of GMA era.. lahat (kahit si PNoy, no matter how hard they deny it).. nagagaya sa mga nagawa ni GMA.. noong binawalang lumabas ang all military and cabinet officers na lumabas sa senate / congressional inquiry in aid of legislation and of course re election... ginaya din ng SC..

    SC is now on a self preservation mode... again, hindi kasalanan ni GMA na 9 ang na appoint nya sa 9 years nya sa panunungkulan, pag di sya nag appoint tuwing may bakante, it will be a dereliction of duty... kung ma impeach ang 9 na ipinaupo ni GMA, PNoy will be the one appointing their respective replacements, does it follow that lahat ng na appoint nya ay aayon kay PNoy para ibalik sa kanila ang Hacienda Luisita or itaas to 10B ang just compensation?

    again.. ang sagot dyan.. baguhin ang constitution... baguhin ang proseso sa pagluklok ng mga judges at justices...
    Ayun lamabas din ang issue ng Hacienda Luisita.

  6. Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,326
    #2056
    Quote Originally Posted by CoDer View Post
    Ayun lamabas din ang issue ng Hacienda Luisita.
    again.. regardless if it was GMA.. PNoy... as long as you have the constitution as is... may possibility for a sitting president to pack the SC with all justices... requirement lang sa constitution is dumaan sa JBC... na politically composed din (or is it politically compromised).. even then, wala ng ibang provisions sa make up ng SC... like ilan ang dapat age between so and so... para mabilang and anticipate yung mga retirement.... it's probably (but perhaps unlikely?) na sabay mag retire (due to age<?>) say, ang 5 to 6 justices within a span of a 3 - 4 years... di pa kasama yung mga magkakasakit at mamamatay na justice habang nanunungkulan... walang rules sa JBC na nagsasabi na dapat ganito ang make up ng SC justices...

    kung lalagyan ng rules.. magiging mas malinaw... shempre nasa rules na naman uli yan kung may maniobra pa rin o wala...

    sa current setup... mathematically possible na makapag appoint ng 5 - 6 justices isang presidente... and that scenario makes it possible uli na kumikiling ang mga justices ayon sa sino ang nag appoint sa kanila...

  7. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    3,872
    #2057
    Quote Originally Posted by niky View Post
    Hear, hear.

    It's unconscionable that one branch of the Government gets total control over the selection and appointment of the members of the branch that is supposed to act as watchdog over it.
    Well, not totally. Meron din check and balance sa mga appointment sa judiciary.

    Appointees to the judiciary (from lower court judges to SC justices) are selected by the President from a list prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council whose members are the Chief Justice, a member of Congress, the Secretary of Justice, the IBP President, a professor of law, a retired member of the SC and a representative of the private sector.

    The last four, I think are appointed by the President subject to the consent of the Commission on Appointments.

    It's really the quality and character of the appointments to the judiciary the past 9 years that's really unconscionable. Yes, the President is required under the law to make an appointment in the event of a vacancy. If he or she starts appointing persons with no honor or integrity, that's when law and justice is truly subverted.

  8. Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,828
    #2058
    Quote Originally Posted by wowiesy View Post
    again.. regardless if it was GMA.. PNoy... as long as you have the constitution as is... may possibility for a sitting president to pack the SC with all justices... requirement lang sa constitution is dumaan sa JBC... na politically composed din (or is it politically compromised).. even then, wala ng ibang provisions sa make up ng SC... like ilan ang dapat age between so and so... para mabilang and anticipate yung mga retirement.... it's probably (but perhaps unlikely?) na sabay mag retire (due to age<?>) say, ang 5 to 6 justices within a span of a 3 - 4 years... di pa kasama yung mga magkakasakit at mamamatay na justice habang nanunungkulan... walang rules sa JBC na nagsasabi na dapat ganito ang make up ng SC justices...

    kung lalagyan ng rules.. magiging mas malinaw... shempre nasa rules na naman uli yan kung may maniobra pa rin o wala...

    sa current setup... mathematically possible na makapag appoint ng 5 - 6 justices isang presidente... and that scenario makes it possible uli na kumikiling ang mga justices ayon sa sino ang nag appoint sa kanila...
    Malinaw na bawal ng mag appoint ang outgoing president 2 months bago sya umalis. She already has the majority of Justices on her side. Why still force a CJ appointment which she's no longer legally allowed according to the constitution? Why?

    Nililihis mo eh, tapos bigla mong tumbokin ang Luisita. Ang layo.

  9. Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    619
    #2059
    Article 2 may decide Corona's fate
    by Jojo Malig

    MANILA, Philippines – It's Article 2 or bust.

    Chief Justice Renato Corona's future in the Supreme Court could be decided by impeachment complaint's Article 2, law experts said Tuesday.

    Atty. Raul Pangalangan, former dean of the University of the Philippines College of Law, told ANC that the article, which pertains to Corona's alleged failure to disclose to the public all of his assets, liabilities and net worth, as required by the Constitution, is the make-or-break issue in the impeachment complaint.

    "Prosecution strongest in Article 2, weaker on Articles 3 and 7 both on factual and legal (angles)," he said.

    House prosecutors have managed to bring under public eye the alleged undeclared properties of Corona, as well as contents of his bank accounts that were allegedly not disclosed in the Chief Justice's statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth (SALN) that he is required to file every year.

    Prosecutors have yet to get their hands on Corona's alleged dollar accounts at Philippine Savings Bank, which has secured a temporary restraining order (TRO) from the Supreme Court.

    Pangalangan, however, clarified that the information regarding Corona's alleged properties and bank accounts have yet to be formally accepted as evidence by the Senate impeachment court.

    The defense wants the information thrown out because it was allegedly disclosed illegally.

    "Difficult scenario for the prosecution. There is a pending motion by the defense to strike out ill-gotten evidence. Most of what they alleged is article 2. If the prosecution is putting most of its eggs in article 2, then we have perfect nightmare for the prosecution," Pangalangan said.


    'Fruit of poisonous tree'

    Senator-judge Francis Escudero, however, said in an earlier interview with dzMM that the defense can't use the "fruit of the poisonous tree" legal doctrine in the Corona case.

    Prosecutors have also cited a 2006 Supreme Court ruling on a case filed by former President Joseph Estrada against the Sandiganbayan, which said that the "fruit of poisonous tree" principle does not apply to the Bank Secrecy Law that covers peso accounts.

    Atty. Tony La Viña of the Ateneo School of Government echoed Pangalangan's analysis of the Corona case.

    "Article 3, there's nothing there. Article 2, there have been accounts not disclosed [and] I will be open to what the defense will show by way of explanation. Article 7, there is something to be rebutted," he said.

    Article 3 accuses Corona of violating the Constitution and betraying the public trust in allowing the Supreme Court to act on mere letters filed by a lawyer that caused the high court to "flip-flop" on decisions.

    It also alleges that Corona has "excessive entanglement" with Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo because the former President appointed Corona's wife to office.

    Article 3 also claimed that the Chief Justice talked to litigants on cases pending before the Supreme Court.

    Article 7 of the impeachment complaint, on the other hand, accuses Corona of betraying public trust by allegedly working behind the scenes for the Supreme Court to grant a temporary restraining order on the government's travel ban against Arroyo and her husband.

    Prosecution rests case

    Prosecutors rested their case on Tuesday and formally dropped the 5 other articles in the impeachment complaint.

    It will next be the defense's turn to show evidence and present witnesses to counter the prosecution's allegations in the 3 remaining articles of impeachment.

    La Viña said he was surprised with the prosecution's decision to resting its case early. "I was surprised. The prosecution raised a lot of expectation weeks ago."

    "I've always thought much of impeachment is about policy," he said.

    He added that the prosecution did not really need to present more witnesses and in the end, it was about argument -- which he believes the prosecution fell short.

  10. Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    21,346
    #2060
    brenda: "blah-blah-blah-blaaaahhh! rat-tat-tat-tat-tat-taaaaaatttt!"

Impeachment against CJ Corona..