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 285 of 421 FirstFirst ... 185235275281282283284285286287288289295335385 ... LastLast
Results 2,841 to 2,850 of 4205
  1. Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    1,326
    #2841
    Quote Originally Posted by shadow View Post
    As you've said the law mandate that office of the ombudsman can investigate on mere suspicion or report so we don't need to worry that BIR can do the same to us since they don't have the same mandate as the ombudsman...

    Saka I don't think AMLC illegally obtained the documents, can AMLC even obtain bank documents illegally, eh banks reports to them suspicious or P500k and more deposits...
    no doubt na automatic aakyat sa AMLC yung transaction for flagging... pero yung ilabas ng AMLC sa Ombudsman.. did it follow protocol? yun ang question... although nasagot na kanina (as per testimony of Ombudsman) na sya ang nag request ng letter...

    so moot point na yan..

    ang next point na naiisip ko... which i think defense really screwed up... may TRO sila in effect on PSBank regarding FCD accounts.. dapat di na nila challenge yun Ombudsman et al na ilabas yun... but andyan na yan..

    question ko lang.. by making the subpoena on Ombudsman related to the USD accounts.. is that a tacit waiver na pupuwede na ilabas yun in open court kahit na may TRO in effect?

    For Ombudsman.. yes.. may waiver sa SALN... but.. the TRO came in after the waiver was executed (I am assuming SALN waiver was for 2010 year and filed in 2011.. while TRO was issued in 2012 lang)... so.. issue ba yun?

    to lawyers here.. hope you can educate us here in the forum...

  2. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    3,872
    #2842
    Quote Originally Posted by wowiesy View Post
    no doubt na automatic aakyat sa AMLC yung transaction for flagging... pero yung ilabas ng AMLC sa Ombudsman.. did it follow protocol? yun ang question... although nasagot na kanina (as per testimony of Ombudsman) na sya ang nag request ng letter...

    so moot point na yan..

    ang next point na naiisip ko... which i think defense really screwed up... may TRO sila in effect on PSBank regarding FCD accounts.. dapat di na nila challenge yun Ombudsman et al na ilabas yun... but andyan na yan..

    question ko lang.. by making the subpoena on Ombudsman related to the USD accounts.. is that a tacit waiver na pupuwede na ilabas yun in open court kahit na may TRO in effect?

    For Ombudsman.. yes.. may waiver sa SALN... but.. the TRO came in after the waiver was executed (I am assuming SALN waiver was for 2010 year and filed in 2011.. while TRO was issued in 2012 lang)... so.. issue ba yun?

    to lawyers here.. hope you can educate us here in the forum...
    Firstly, the SC's TRO was directed against the impeachment court and not the Ombudsman, so it does not cover the acts of the Ombudsman in obtaining records related to the supposed dollar accounts. When the defense called the Ombudsman as a witness, they did not know what she was prepared to state in open court and that's what got everyone in the defense team scrambling because there was now testimonial evidence which relates to the existence of the dollar accounts and the amounts which were being deposited and/or withdrawn.

    Second, as to your point regarding procedural due process, the CJ's rights were not violated as the Ombudsman was still doing fact-finding to determine whether or not there's probable cause to initiate a case against Corona. As Enrile pointed out to Justice Cuevas by reading the pertinent provision of the Constitution, the Ombudsman has the power to request ANY government agency for assistance, as well as for pertinent records and documents.

  3. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    34,159
    #2843
    simply put defense was caught with their pants down. they called on the ombudsman to show there was persecution by this administration against the CJ but they didn't expected that AMLC reports/documents...

    did I get it right bro altis? that's the only reason why I think they subpoena the ombudsman but I might be wrong though baka meron naman silang strategy...

  4. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    3,872
    #2844
    ^ you got it, bro.

  5. Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    952
    #2845
    grabe.. nag dudugo ilong ko.. ahihihihi!

  6. Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    22,710
    #2846
    I was laughing myself silly when I read the papers this morning... the Defense really stepped in the poop this time...

    They're already having a hard time justifying the peso accounts (whatever source... not declared in the SALN)... now the dollar accounts are out for everyone to see... legitimately and despite the TRO.

    $12 million. That's about half-a-billion pesos? Easy peasy. We can explain, your honors...

    Ang pagbalik ng comeback...

  7. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    3,872
    #2847
    ^ Still waiting for the explanation from the CJ, more than 3/4 of the way into the impeachment proceedings.

    Funny, why does Corona take Conchita Carpio-Morales to task for doing her job? He could have simply replied to her letter and stated how and why she was wrong in the first place.

  8. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    3,872
    #2848
    Something for the defense to think about:

    Source: Inquirer.net
    Date: May 16, 2012

    MANILA, Philippines—A bad law.

    That was how the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) described on Tuesday, the decision of the defense panel to summon Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales to testify on the $10-million in bank accounts that Chief Justice Renato Corona supposedly owned.

    Trixie Angeles, spokesperson of the IBP Impeachment Watch, noted that the allegations pertaining to Corona’s purported multiple dollar deposits were not covered by the verified impeachment complaint that the House of Representatives filed in the Senate.

    “When we heard that the defense was going to address the matter of the $10 million, we had the position that it’s good theater, but bad law,” Angeles told the Philippine Daily Inquirer.

    “The (dollar accounts) had not been placed in issue. It does not appear in the charges of the prosecution and the prosecution admitted it,” she said.

    “The question now is that if this was not put in issue, can you consider a person guilty over an (alleged offense) that has not been brought before the impeachment court, but was brought by the accused himself in the Senate?”

    Angeles said it was a “calculated gamble” when the defense “chose to answer” clamor for the Chief Justice to appear in the witness stand.

    “Taking the witness stand on the sole issue of (the dollar accounts) would have appeared to be safe except for the fact that there are other matters that they could not control,” she said.

    In demanding Morales’ testimony, Angeles said the defense apparently failed to consider that “the public weighs in the opinion” of the senator-judges and that “the public makes judgment based on impressions.”

    “In this case, even without validations of the AMLC (Anti-Money Laundering Council) report, people are already convinced about Corona’s guilt,” she said.

    The IBP official noted that while the probative value of the AMLC documents that Morales presented was debatable, the Ombudsman’s revelations might have “persuasive value” among the senator-judges, majority of whom were not lawyers.

    “The question is not whether or not evidence is relevant. The issue here is this was not among the charges enumerated by the prosecution. This is really not included (in the impeachment complaint),” Angeles said.

    Angeles also underscored the importance of summoning AMLC executive director Vicente Aquino since Morales herself did not have “personal knowledge” of how the documents were prepared.

    “AMLC officials should be present because only them could validate (the authenticity and contents of) the documents. It’s clear that the Ombudsman did not have personal knowledge. But now that the (senators) have heard Morales’ testimony, (I think) not all (of them) will appreciate that in that sense,” she said.

  9. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    34,159
    #2849
    Quote Originally Posted by Altis6453
    ^ Still waiting for the explanation from the CJ, more than 3/4 of the way into the impeachment proceedings.

    Funny, why does Corona take Conchita Carpio-Morales to task for doing her job? He could have simply replied to her letter and stated how and why she was wrong in the first place.
    Nakakatawa mga spokeperson ng defense, bakit daw hinde sinabi Sa lettter Kay corona na galing Sa AMLC Yun nakuha ng ombudsman, eh sabi agad nila walsng jurisdiction ombudsman Kay corona eh, they didn't even ask for bill of particulars Kung Ano ba dapat explain niya, ayan tuloy sumabog Sa mukha nila Yun AMLC report

  10. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    3,872
    #2850
    ^ The predicament of the defense is this:

    (i) they cannot come out with documents to discredit or impeach the testimony of Omb. Conchita Morales since this would likely open CJ's dollar deposits as well as the AMLC report to more scrutiny. The most Justice Cuevas could get from Morales was that she did not have personal knowledge of how the AMLC's report (re: Corona's dollar accounts) was prepared. Note, however, that he could not quite get a statement from Morales that the report was false unless he presented such document in court.

    (ii) they will not call any representative from the AMLC because they likely have the documentary trail of transactions from the accounts owned by the CJ. Again, to do so would be adverse to their interest if they don't know what the report contains.

    (iii) if they do try to present the AMLC's report for purposes of discrediting it, they will have a problem in overcoming the presumption of regularity of the acts of government agencies. They can't even attribute grave abuse of discretion at any point because, as pointed out before, the banks are required by law to flag transactions involving certain amounts and to inform the AMLC of these transactions. This means, the CJ was not even targeted in particular. It was the amounts which got him on the AMLC's radar to begin with.

    The noose is getting tighter, folks.
    Last edited by Altis6453; May 16th, 2012 at 12:13 PM.

Impeachment against CJ Corona..