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 263 of 421 FirstFirst ... 163213253259260261262263264265266267273313363 ... LastLast
Results 2,621 to 2,630 of 4205
  1. Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,828
    #2621
    Quote Originally Posted by Retz View Post
    supalpal si recto kay cuevas.
    Actually cornered lang si Cuevas sa bank deposit, kaya palag agad pag nababangit ng sen judges yang mga deposit.

    Enrille: That's the heart of the matter.

  2. Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    587
    #2622
    magkakavertigo si cuevas pag nakakarineg ng bank deposit inquiry hahaha

  3. Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,509
    #2623
    naku sir hindi po ba ang LAKI LAKI pala ng mga natatangap na bonus at allowances ng isang CHIEF JUSTICE... million million pala... may bentahan pa ng lupa worth 34M.... pati asawa nya milyon milyon ang natatangap.... at nag uumpisa palang ang depensa sa pag prisinta ng evidencia nila.... kaya uminit ulo ni justice cuevas kasi naman hindi pa nga nangangalahati ang depensa sa pag prisinta may opinion agad itong si recto.... HINDI KASI abogado si recto kaya hindi nya naiintindahan.... kung baga prosecution palang ang nag presinta ng side nila.. eh may opinion agad itong evat boy natin...

  4. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    3,872
    #2624
    The non-inclusion of certain assets (i.e. property, cash) in the SALN is a no-win situation for the defense in view of the numerous jurisprudence promulgated by the SC wherein public officers were dismissed from the service for filing an untrue or inaccurate SALN. Kung isa man o isang daan ang hindi naka-declare sa SALN, it doesn't matter.

    The issue is not about good faith, negligence or inadvertence but DISHONESTY which the Supreme Court declared as a "grave offense" in the 2008 case of Ombudsman v. Peliño. Surely, the CJ and his battery of lawyers cannot claim or feign ignorance of this?

    If government employees of lower rank (i.e. court sheriffs, clerks, interpreters) can be dismissed for such dishonesty which the SC previously declared to be a "grave offense", is the Chief Justice not subject to the same if not higher standard?

  5. Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,509
    #2625
    Quote Originally Posted by Altis6453 View Post
    The non-inclusion of certain assets (i.e. property, cash) in the SALN is a no-win situation for the defense in view of the numerous jurisprudence promulgated by the SC wherein public officers were dismissed from the service for filing an untrue or inaccurate SALN. Kung isa man o isang daan ang hindi naka-declare sa SALN, it doesn't matter.

    The issue is not about good faith, negligence or inadvertence but DISHONESTY which the Supreme Court declared as a "grave offense" in the 2008 case of Ombudsman v. Peliño. Surely, the CJ and his battery of lawyers cannot claim or feign ignorance of this?

    If government employees of lower rank (i.e. court sheriffs, clerks, interpreters) can be dismissed for such dishonesty which the SC previously declared to be a "grave offense", is the Chief Justice not subject to the same if not higher standard?
    sir ano G.R. NO. nyan or case no.?

  6. Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,326
    #2626
    Quote Originally Posted by glenn manikis View Post
    naku sir hindi po ba ang LAKI LAKI pala ng mga natatangap na bonus at allowances ng isang CHIEF JUSTICE... million million pala... may bentahan pa ng lupa worth 34M.... pati asawa nya milyon milyon ang natatangap.... at nag uumpisa palang ang depensa sa pag prisinta ng evidencia nila.... kaya uminit ulo ni justice cuevas kasi naman hindi pa nga nangangalahati ang depensa sa pag prisinta may opinion agad itong si recto.... HINDI KASI abogado si recto kaya hindi nya naiintindahan.... kung baga prosecution palang ang nag presinta ng side nila.. eh may opinion agad itong evat boy natin...
    perhaps impatient na ang senator judges? nakakapagod din ang nakaupo siguro... tipong gusto ay sagutin lang diretsahan at wag na pasikot sikot pa?

    but i think kailangan i law ng defense ang groundwork leading to the eventual testimony of Mrs. Corona or CJ Corona himself...

    better for the other guys to answer sa mga relevant sa kanya kanyang respective involvement sa kaso.. mas objective.. rather than lahat yun ay kay CJ Corona manggaling during his testimony... mag mukhang self serving.. and will also need to be corroborated by the other witnesses.. so tama lang...

    if the prosecution (with all their kapalpakan) took all of how many weeks... hindi kaslanaan ng defense kung tumagal ng ganoon (considering nag cut na ng ilang articles ang prosecution)... i think the defense (in the spirit of due process) should be given the leeway (the same leeway na ipinapabasa na sa records and evidence na ni hindi pa ipina pa admit as such)...



    Altis6453

    Re: Impeachment against CJ Corona..
    The non-inclusion of certain assets (i.e. property, cash) in the SALN is a no-win situation for the defense in view of the numerous jurisprudence promulgated by the SC wherein public officers were dismissed from the service for filing an untrue or inaccurate SALN. Kung isa man o isang daan ang hindi naka-declare sa SALN, it doesn't matter.

    The issue is not about good faith, negligence or inadvertence but DISHONESTY which the Supreme Court declared as a "grave offense" in the 2008 case of Ombudsman v. Peliño. Surely, the CJ and his battery of lawyers cannot claim or feign ignorance of this?

    If government employees of lower rank (i.e. court sheriffs, clerks, interpreters) can be dismissed for such dishonesty which the SC previously declared to be a "grave offense", is the Chief Justice not subject to the same if not higher standard?
    sa isang banda.. tama din.. kung maliit na empleyado nasibak.. bakit ang CJ hindi... ang question.. who will initiate charges against ALL THE REST of the bureaucracy ??

  7. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    3,872
    #2627
    Quote Originally Posted by glenn manikis View Post
    sir ano G.R. NO. nyan or case no.?
    GR No. 179261, po.

  8. Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,509
    #2628
    Quote Originally Posted by Altis6453 View Post
    GR No. 179261, po.
    sir if you have time try reading the decision carefully and you can see that dismissal was not merely based on The non-inclusion of certain assets on the saln.... kasama na din dyan ang unexplained wealth etc.... kung unexplained wealth talagang dismissal from service ang penalty nya... same goes with the sheriff etc...

    quote ko lang ang isang portion ng decision

    thus, we do not subscribe to PELIÑO's argument in her Comment,[54] borrowed from the appellate court’s pronouncement, that the FIO complaint, apart from alleging non-disclosure of material facts in the SALNs, did not show any other positive or specific unlawful acts on her part that will support the charge of dishonesty, grave misconduct, lack of integrity or untrustworthiness. Her failure to disclose in her personal data sheet and her SALNs that CUAKI was her son constitutes an act of deception and dishonesty, in that by not disclosing the fact, she is effectively shielding herself from a possible charge of immorality or falsification. Moreover, the non-disclosure of a substantial number of properties opens her to a charge of harboring unexplained wealth, since the acquisition of the undisclosed properties was manifestly out of proportion to her salary as earlier on demonstrated herein.

    Considering PELIÑO’s high rank and delicate office, the gravity of the charges against her – dishonesty, grave misconduct, accumulation of unexplained wealth and perjury, and the possibility of filing other charges as a result of her admissions in her pleadings, such as immorality, falsification and/or use of falsified documents – which merit dismissal from service as the corresponding penalty, it may not be said that the Office of the Ombudsman exercised its discretion in a despotic and arbitrary manner; preventive suspension was an option which it could properly exercise under the circumstances.
    Last edited by glenn manikis; March 23rd, 2012 at 08:26 PM.

  9. Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    3,828
    #2629
    Quote Originally Posted by glenn manikis View Post
    naku sir hindi po ba ang LAKI LAKI pala ng mga natatangap na bonus at allowances ng isang CHIEF JUSTICE... million million pala... may bentahan pa ng lupa worth 34M.... pati asawa nya milyon milyon ang natatangap.... at nag uumpisa palang ang depensa sa pag prisinta ng evidencia nila.... kaya uminit ulo ni justice cuevas kasi naman hindi pa nga nangangalahati ang depensa sa pag prisinta may opinion agad itong si recto.... HINDI KASI abogado si recto kaya hindi nya naiintindahan.... kung baga prosecution palang ang nag presinta ng side nila.. eh may opinion agad itong evat boy natin...
    Naku hindi totoo yan, hindi umabot sa 21M ang total na sahod ni CJ sa loob ng ilang taon. Malaking bahagi nyan eh hindi part ng take home pay nya.

    Pero tama ka marami ngang pera ang CJ mo may ilang dollar account pa nga eh. Pero bat di nai declare yan?

    O diba nasa kanya pala daw ang pera ng BGEI na mahigit 10 years ng hinahanap ng mga incorporator. Nakaw yan!

  10. Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    4,509
    #2630
    Quote Originally Posted by CoDer View Post
    Naku hindi totoo yan, hindi umabot sa 21M ang total na sahod ni CJ sa loob ng ilang taon. Malaking bahagi nyan eh hindi part ng take home pay nya.

    Pero tama ka marami ngang pera ang CJ mo may ilang dollar account pa nga eh. Pero bat di nai declare yan?

    O diba nasa kanya pala daw ang pera ng BGEI na mahigit 10 years ng hinahanap ng mga incorporator. Nakaw yan!
    sir wait po muna natin explaination ng depensa dyan... bago natin sabihin na nakaw po yan.... simple lang po yan...

Impeachment against CJ Corona..