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 22 of 421 FirstFirst ... 121819202122232425263272122 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 4205
  1. Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,828
    #211
    Quote Originally Posted by Altis6453 View Post
    Here's a reproduction of his column, "The Sounding Board" today care of Inquirer.net:




    Quite interesting was that, in a previous column Fr. Bernas has said he wouldn't pass upon the merits of the Articles of Impeachment but eventually did so in today's edition.

    Also, Fr. Bernas recognized that the appointment of Corona during the 60 day prohibitive period during elections to be wrong and yet he accedes to it because the Supreme Court says that the appointment is valid despite the clear language of the Constitution which says:

    "Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a President or Acting President shall not make appointments, except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety."

    When courts of law, most especially the SC, starts to use constitutional draftsmanship to twist the import and meaning of the Constitution in order to circumvent what is prohibited, it has effectively subverted its judicial power in order to accommodate the rise to power of a single person who, in this case, happens to be the incumbent Chief Justice.

    Just reading the above provision over and over, you can't help but feel that the SC is telling us, "you're dumb if you think this applies to us".
    That's the reason why majority don't buy the SC's take on the legal CJ appointment inspite it being done within the prohibited period.

    SC: No the prohibition doesn't apply to us.

    People: Who will benifit the decision?

    SC: US!

    Nganga!

  2. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    3,872
    #212
    Quote Originally Posted by CoDer View Post
    That's the reason why majority don't buy the SC's take on the legal CJ appointment inspite it being done within the prohibited period.

    SC: No the prohibition doesn't apply to us.

    People: Who will benifit the decision?

    SC: US!

    Nganga!
    That's just it. For Fr. Bernas, what the SC says, so it shall be.

    Law students are trained very early about it (this kind of acceptance) and, unfortunately, effectively castrates people's ability to criticize or even negate a wrong that's quite palpable and done in your face --- even if it is clothed with elegant prose done by a collegial body.

    Jeez. No wonder drug pushers and mules get freed by the courts even if they're actually caught en flagrante or in the act. All you have to do is weave words with what passes for logic threading the eye of a needle.

  3. Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    22,342
    #213
    Quote Originally Posted by CoDer View Post
    That's the reason why majority don't buy the SC's take on the legal CJ appointment inspite it being done within the prohibited period.

    SC: No the prohibition doesn't apply to us.

    People: Who will benifit the decision?

    SC: US!

    Nganga!
    Yun na nga eh, tapos ipipilit nila na walang controversy sa ganito. Too self-serving.

    They should have practiced the virtue of being unselfish.

  4. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    3,872
    #214
    Quote Originally Posted by Ry_Tower View Post
    Yun na nga eh, tapos ipipilit nila na walang controversy sa ganito. Too self-serving.

    They should have practiced the virtue of being unselfish.
    Or, the esteemed justices of the SC could've practiced a little common sense in construing the language of the Constitution.

  5. Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,828
    #215
    And the CJ has taken UST down with his credibility.

    "What UST is saying is that they can flout their own rules because they're an 'autonomous' institution. There is no quarrel with academic freedom. UST should be clear with its rules and state in what instances do they give exemptions," she said.

    She added: "In the case of CJ Corona, a lecture was enough (instead of a dissertation) and the 5-year residency requirement, to qualify for honors, was disregarded. Now we know."

  6. Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    22,710
    #216
    Autonomy does basically mean you don't have to follow the rules. Why do you think so many Universities are working at trying to achieve it?

    In the case of Corona... it's not surprising that he was given credit for teaching in lieu of taking a subject (it's pretty common for professionals who lack college credits but whose "industry experience" does make them valuable lecturers), but I'd have to see all the details and UST's handbook to judge whether it was an egregious abuse of autonomy or not. Although giving honors to someone who doesn't meet all the requirements... that's unusual for a prestigious university like UST.

    Not that giving honors or degrees as political favors is unusual in the Philippines...

    Quote Originally Posted by Altis6453 View Post
    "Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a President or Acting President shall not make appointments, except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety."

    When courts of law, most especially the SC, starts to use constitutional draftsmanship to twist the import and meaning of the Constitution in order to circumvent what is prohibited, it has effectively subverted its judicial power in order to accommodate the rise to power of a single person who, in this case, happens to be the incumbent Chief Justice.

    Just reading the above provision over and over, you can't help but feel that the SC is telling us, "you're dumb if you think this applies to us".
    The problem is, there is a loophole there where it states that you can make appointments in cases wherein service will be interrupted to the detriment of the institution... "prejudice public service".

    The bigger problem is... the loophole allows for only temporary appointments in such cases, so, by law, all those midnight appointees should be removed from office anyway... right?

    The question is... did the SC declare that it was constitutional to appoint CJ temporarily, or permanently?

    Ang pagbalik ng comeback...

  7. Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,828
    #217
    Quote Originally Posted by niky View Post
    Autonomy does basically mean you don't have to follow the rules. Why do you think so many Universities are working at trying to achieve it?

    In the case of Corona... it's not surprising that he was given credit for teaching in lieu of taking a subject (it's pretty common for professionals who lack college credits but whose "industry experience" does make them valuable lecturers), but I'd have to see all the details and UST's handbook to judge whether it was an egregious abuse of autonomy or not. Although giving honors to someone who doesn't meet all the requirements... that's unusual for a prestigious university like UST.

    Not that giving honors or degrees as political favors is unusual in the Philippines...



    The problem is, there is a loophole there where it states that you can make appointments in cases wherein service will be interrupted to the detriment of the institution... "prejudice public service".

    The bigger problem is... the loophole allows for only temporary appointments in such cases, so, by law, all those midnight appointees should be removed from office anyway... right?

    The question is... did the SC declare that it was constitutional to appoint CJ temporarily, or permanently?
    The problem is that the provision only allow temporary appointment.

    The SC claimed that they are not covered by that law thereby making CJ appointment legal and permanent.

  8. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    3,872
    #218
    Quote Originally Posted by niky View Post
    Autonomy does basically mean you don't have to follow the rules. Why do you think so many Universities are working at trying to achieve it?

    In the case of Corona... it's not surprising that he was given credit for teaching in lieu of taking a subject (it's pretty common for professionals who lack college credits but whose "industry experience" does make them valuable lecturers), but I'd have to see all the details and UST's handbook to judge whether it was an egregious abuse of autonomy or not. Although giving honors to someone who doesn't meet all the requirements... that's unusual for a prestigious university like UST.

    Not that giving honors or degrees as political favors is unusual in the Philippines...



    The problem is, there is a loophole there where it states that you can make appointments in cases wherein service will be interrupted to the detriment of the institution... "prejudice public service".

    The bigger problem is... the loophole allows for only temporary appointments in such cases, so, by law, all those midnight appointees should be removed from office anyway... right?

    The question is... did the SC declare that it was constitutional to appoint CJ temporarily, or permanently?
    That's what I'm trying to say. The Constitution is largely couched in generalities and motherhood statements. But, when it comes to prohibited acts, I don't see why it cannot be understood for its ordinary meaning.

    The SC completely disregarded the plain meaning of prohibited appointments under the Constitution and clothed with the legality of GMA's midnight appointment of Corona thru draftsmanship.

    The SC will not cease to function all because the CJ has retired. It has, in fact, continued to function as a collegial body and as an institution whilst the CJ is not available either due to sickness or otherwise. There was no need to insist on the appointment at all.

  9. Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,828
    #219
    Quote Originally Posted by Altis6453 View Post
    That's what I'm trying to say. The Constitution is largely couched in generalities and motherhood statements. But, when it comes to prohibited acts, I don't see why it cannot be understood for its ordinary meaning.

    The SC completely disregarded the plain meaning of prohibited appointments under the Constitution and clothed with the legality of GMA's midnight appointment of Corona thru draftsmanship.

    The SC will not cease to function all because the CJ has retired. It has, in fact, continued to function as a collegial body and as an institution whilst the CJ is not available either due to sickness or otherwise. There was no need to insist on the appointment at all.
    Pero pakingan mo excuse ng mga opposition... You cannot blame the CJ on the decisions and rulings of the SC because they were acted/decided/voted by a collegial body.

    Flip flopping on the final ruling past its subscribed period? You cannot blame CJ on that... It was decided by the collegial body.

    But the SC cannot without CJ for a short period of time.

  10. Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    26,770
    #220
    nag resign na ba?

Impeachment against CJ Corona..