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 217 of 421 FirstFirst ... 117167207213214215216217218219220221227267317 ... LastLast
Results 2,161 to 2,170 of 4205
  1. Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    22,710
    #2161
    Quote Originally Posted by CoDer View Post
    Now you know how the senate play it dirty when they take a side.

    Enrile is basically laying down the groundwork for the defense as far as the in-admissibility of the bank records are concern. Cuevas said they will go to the SC if the impeachment court will allow the PS Bank records to be admitted as evidence.

    Ano yung pinag pipilitan uli ni honasan regarding bill of rights kay de lima?
    The problem is, Enrile has the law on his side. If those bank records were attained through illegal means, that means that government officials have been pursuing extra-legal avenues in pushing this case. They shouldn't have had to stoop to that... they could have asked for the bank records in the pre-trial.

    Ang pagbalik ng comeback...

  2. Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    3,221
    #2162
    Quote Originally Posted by niky View Post
    The problem is, Enrile has the law on his side. If those bank records were attained through illegal means, that means that government officials have been pursuing extra-legal avenues in pushing this case. They shouldn't have had to stoop to that... they could have asked for the bank records in the pre-trial.
    thats the problem, walang pre-trial. at yun ang cons na sinasabi ng mga lawyer observers.

  3. Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,828
    #2163
    Quote Originally Posted by niky View Post
    The problem is, Enrile has the law on his side. If those bank records were attained through illegal means, that means that government officials have been pursuing extra-legal avenues in pushing this case. They shouldn't have had to stoop to that... they could have asked for the bank records in the pre-trial.
    Of course he has. He also has the power to contempt if he doesn't like the answer. You have to understand that Enrile shares the sentiments of Joker, when Joker claimed that Malacanang sent BSP to pin down Corona. Even if it was a regular audit conducted by BSP. Dyan pa lang nag kaka alaman na.

    Pre-trial? Defense will sing the same tune. How did they know the specific account numbers to subpoena your honor? Did they ask madam auring your honor? Or somebody gave them the specific account numbers your honor? If its the latter your honor then we move that it be stricken off the records because its a clear violation of the Bank Secrecy Law.

  4. Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,828
    #2164
    Quote Originally Posted by niwde11 View Post
    thats the problem, walang pre-trial. at yun ang cons na sinasabi ng mga lawyer observers.
    Then the senator can vote to acquit Corona on that ground. Ang concern ko lang naman dito is that the vendetta of some senators.

    I'm baffled by the claim of Joker and was surprised that Enrile shares the same sentiments. I know for a fact that BSP conducts a regular audit and that they tag along with the a BSP member who is AMLC specialist to simply check for compliance.

    How did I know this? My client has a small Bank composed of 6 branches.

    But to say your telling a lie and the other is telling the truth on the bat and issue a treat of contempt is something else. I have said in the past that if its proven that the leak came from BSP then Corona is off the hook.

    But to associate BSP's regular audit as Admin way to pin down those who go against them is disturbing.
    Last edited by CoDer; March 1st, 2012 at 02:21 PM.

  5. Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    22,710
    #2165
    But bank secrecy has no place in an impeachment court, right? All they would have needed is confirmation that the accounts existed, and even without the numbers, they would have been able to force the banks to divulge. They would still have been stymied at the dollar account, but the peso accounts are more than enough.

    There's no denying this was a witch-hunt on the part of the administration. The voting record of Corona pro-Arroyo or pro-PAL was already a questionable tack to push, unless they could have gotten Justice Sereno's testimony on the dissenting opinion.

    Personally, I think the SALN article tells it all. I'd vote guilty as a judge if only for that. But the prosecution is so inept that, if I were in the swing votes, I'd be inclined to vote innocent, simply because of the way they've handled the case and the shaky foundations of the other allegations.

    Ang pagbalik ng comeback...

  6. Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,293
    #2166
    Akala siguro ng yellow army ay maprepresure nila si Corona sa trial by media... Sila ngayon ang naging kawawa.

  7. Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,828
    #2167
    Quote Originally Posted by niky View Post
    But bank secrecy has no place in an impeachment court, right? All they would have needed is confirmation that the accounts existed, and even without the numbers, they would have been able to force the banks to divulge. They would still have been stymied at the dollar account, but the peso accounts are more than enough.

    There's no denying this was a witch-hunt on the part of the administration. The voting record of Corona pro-Arroyo or pro-PAL was already a questionable tack to push, unless they could have gotten Justice Sereno's testimony on the dissenting opinion.

    Personally, I think the SALN article tells it all. I'd vote guilty as a judge if only for that. But the prosecution is so inept that, if I were in the swing votes, I'd be inclined to vote innocent, simply because of the way they've handled the case and the shaky foundations of the other allegations.
    You're correct except for the dollar account the issue surrounding the subpoena is that Enrille want a specific account numbers stated in the subpoena, that's why the prosec were forced to issue a supplemental pleading but to their stupidity they attached those annex.

    I'm baffled by the move of Enrile since it was done during the ERAP case. But he will just want to make it difficult to a point that you must violate the bank secrecy law to get a subpoena.

    Now you will be disturbed by the statement of Cuevas. He said that they will go to the SC if the impeachment court will allow the admission of those bank docs as evidence. In that case Leal is a small price to pay to avoid a clash with SC.

  8. Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,828
    #2168
    Quote Originally Posted by jonski View Post
    Akala siguro ng yellow army ay maprepresure nila si Corona sa trial by media... Sila ngayon ang naging kawawa.
    Syempre pagtulongan ba naman sila. Akala ko nga malala si Drilon tulad ng sabi ng mga pro Corona.

    Prosec are so dumb and weak that the seasoned and caliber lawyers of defense threatens to go to SC if the bank docs will be admitted as evidence.

    How's that for sound argument.

  9. Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,326
    #2169
    Quote Originally Posted by CoDer View Post
    Then the senator can vote to acquit Corona on that ground. Ang concern ko lang naman dito is that the vendetta of some senators.

    I'm baffled by the claim of Joker and was surprised that Enrile shares the same sentiments. I know for a fact that BSP conducts a regular audit and that they tag along with the a BSP member who is AMLC specialist to simply check for compliance.

    How did I know this? My client has a small Bank composed of 6 branches.

    But to say your telling a lie and the other is telling the truth on the bat and issue a treat of contempt is something else. I have said in the past that if its proven that the leak came from BSP then Corona is off the hook.

    But to associate BSP's regular audit as Admin way to pin down those who go against them is disturbing.

    di ko ma gets... why is there a distinction between BSP or PSBank as far as kung kanino nanggaling yung info ng mga bank accounts? pag BSP ba, it makes it illegal? meaning pag PSBank nanggaling legal? I would think the proper way to have done it, was through subpoena, okay una walang definite account numbers, pangalan lang... kung truthful ang PSBank, ilalabas nila yun... they also have to certify na yan din lahat ng accounts under a certain name at wala ng iba.. from that point, they could only list down peso accounts, they can mention naman na as far as FCD accounts, they are barred under certain RA kaya they can neither confirm nor deny that Corona has any accounts with their bank... kung ipilit nila FCD, tatakbo naman talaga sa SC si Corona e... karapatan nya yun at di yun maipagkakaila sa kanya... sa peso accounts, may exemption sa impeachment.. tama lang na ilabas ng bank yun.. but then by prematurely revealing the prosecutor's cards, they now run the risk of it being declared inadmissible..

    the fact that these accounts were known to the prosecutors before requesting for subpoena, di ba that makes it an illegal source of info na? whether BSP ba o PSBank galing ang leak? malinaw naman sa RA na exempted sa bank secrecy ang peso deposits kapag impeachment.. so that should've been the way...

    now for Enrile to insist na dapat specific, I think hindi dapat agad kumagat ang prosecution doon... sinusubukan lang naman sila.. bumigay agad sila.. even if they already had a hint of the account numbers, prudence and diligence dictate na they have to take a step back to gain 2 steps at that point.. noong nilabas nila yung mga account numbers, natural ang kasunod na tanong ay saan nila nakuha ang info nila... their source being illegal, of course they risked having all these being declared inadmissible...

    dyan lalabas na talaga wala silang legal strategy sa impeachment court.... strategy na lang talaga nila ay yung ipabulalas sa taong bayan through the media coverage ang mga alam nila... by doing that.. they are not promoting the rule of law.. rule of mob pa rin ang prino promote nila...

  10. Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,326
    #2170
    Quote Originally Posted by niky View Post

    There's no denying this was a witch-hunt on the part of the administration. The voting record of Corona pro-Arroyo or pro-PAL was already a questionable tack to push, unless they could have gotten Justice Sereno's testimony on the dissenting opinion.
    di lang sila (prosec) swabe... the fact na 2010 pa nakuha yung info oct / sept 2010... they rammed the 188 signatures through Congress in December... they had the info na with them for 2 months..

    perhaps the attempt to put other articles in the impeachment complaint was a ploy to "cover" the circumstances sa pagkakuha nila ng bank accounts info ni Corona... although from the point of view of politics... mas madaling mapa paniwala ang masa kung ang ipaglalandakan nila ay yung pagkampi ni Corona kay GMA... since at that time hindi nila pupuwedeng ilabas through whatever expose ang mga bank accounts ni Corona..

    during the impeachment court.. naging loose na nga Enrile .. pinabayaan basahin yung mga balances kahit di pa na determine kung admissible o inadmissible ang evidence... now lalabas sayang ang oras ng court na ipinabasa pa lahat yun, yung pala may risk na inadmissible pala.. all it did was to inform the public... pero sa botohan, lalong magiging gray area...

Impeachment against CJ Corona..