Sino Mauuna Mag-Resign: si Merci or si Ghadafi?

[buriroy]

I think it's a toss-up: yung isa may "toyo", at yung isa naman may "topak".

The world would certainly be a better place kung mawala na mga 'to.

Pero sa tingin ko matatagalan pa. Kayo ano sa tingin nyo?

[cast_no_shadow]

I think it's a toss-up: yung isa may "toyo", at yung isa naman may "topak".

The world would certainly be a better place kung mawala na mga 'to.

Pero sa tingin ko matatagalan pa. Kayo ano sa tingin nyo?

Merci will be impeached.. about the lunatic ghadafi i dont think so..

[dcph172]

neither. if meron man, si ghadafi siguro. :D

[oliver1013]

Obvious ba? Siempre si Ghadafi..Basta lahing pinoy matigas ang mukha E bata pa ni GMA mas matigas pa!!

[sgt_taga]

sus! tinatanong pa ba yan?

siyempre yang taga Libya.

[Isuzoom]

ang abnoy...

[chua_riwap]

lord have merci.......

[vito corleone]

neither

ghadafi is afraid he'll be persecuted once he is removed from power

merci is afraid she'll be prosecuted once she is removed from power

they'll both be removed from post by outside force; not from their own initiative

[CVT]

Walang mag-re-resign sa dalawang iyan...

Parehong makakapal ang mga mukha nila!!!...

12.5K:soccer:

[Monseratto]

Mag people power ulit kung ayaw buksan yung secret envelope...tapos ang kapalit isang pandak.

[Monseratto]

I tend to agree with this, puro reklamo ng mga leftist militants ang ginamit as basis but no direct evidence. Merci is undergoing a sustained trial by publicity demolition job from the parties allied PNoy. Lahat ng mga politicians na contra-merci are from the Liberal Party, Bayan, Anakbayan...Hope they won't waste public time and money when the impeachment trial gets underway.

Miriam: I don't see probable cause in Merci's case
abs-cbnNEWS.com
Posted at 03/02/2011 7:43 PM | Updated as of 03/03/2011 1:41 PM


MANILA, Philippines - With the way things are going at the House Justice Committee, there may not be a case to impeach Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez, Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago said.

"They are just enumerating what are their grievances. But what is the evidence that she has betrayed the trust given to her by the appointing authority. You cannot change the Ombudsman just because you don't like how she decided on a case. You have to show that she decided the cases not on its legal merits," she said.

Santiago said she is not defending Gutierrez, but "it seems to me that there is no probable case against the Ombudsman."

She said the lawmakers "are not even sure what their evidence is. They are talking in generalities."

She stressed that the public, including the lawmakers, should take an impeachment process very seriously. It should not be made as a venue to vent one's anger over how the official proceeded with one's case, she added.

"So this is an attempt to avenge themselves on Mrs. Gutierrez because she was appointed by Pres. Arroyo, so let's just call it by its proper name: this is an anti-Arroyo movement -- so we can all take sides. But my advice is this: Do not choose a legal issue to cloak or disguise a political issue so that the public will not be misled," she warned.

Santiago noted the lower House should ensure that their case is strong. It will not bode well with the public if it fails in the end, she stressed.

"If we are going to distract the resources of the government and the time and energy of our officials in the two houses of Congress from urgent legislative issues, then we may as well be sure that we get the necessary majorities in both the House and the Senate. We better count our noses now," she said.

This is precisely the reason why she could not understand the Justice committee's rationale in proceeding with the hearings even without a final decision from the Supreme Court on the matter.

"Kaya ang rash judgment ng mga ito, para bang hindi sila makahintay. Ano ba talaga at kailangang ngayong ngayon na? And we watch them in television. I am sorry to say, or maybe you should ask the audience, why am I not impressed. Pwede bang magbasa muna tayo tungkol sa impeachment, yung mga legal documents about the impeachment, its contexts and its protocols in political science," she said.

She noted that some are just using the process for grandstanding.

"It is not a matter of melodrama or theatrics in front of the television cameras. We should make sense. If something is already in the record, you don't have to read it and bore everyone to tears in this Republic. So I'm afraid that the presence of TV is already changing the complexion of the impeachment process," she said.

[oliver1013]

Edcel Lagman is that you

[Monseratto]

PNoy is so obsessed to rid of Merci that he is even blaming her for the hostage bus drama...like as if all legal cases in the Philippines are reknowed for being quickly and expeditiously resolved. So if you're unhappy with the way your cases are going, you can have the judges and prosecutors impeached.

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakin...hostage-fiasco

Aquino: Ombudsman should also answer for hostage fiasco
By Philip Tubeza
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 12:09:00 03/10/2011

SINGAPORE—President Benigno Aquino III on Wednesday night said that Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez should also be made to answer for the Luneta hostage-taking incident last August in which eight Hong Kong residents were killed.

Mr. Aquino said the hostage-taker, former Senior Inspector Rolando Mendoza, "lost hope" and held hostage the Chinese tourists because the office of Gutierrez, who is facing impeachment in Congress, did not act on his appeal to have the order dismissing him from the police service rescinded.

The Office of the Ombudsman received Mendoza's case although the complainant did not show up. It issued a dismissal order against Mendoza but the policeman appealed, Mr. Aquino noted.

"But nine months later, (the Ombudsman) had yet to act on his motion for reconsideration. What's more, while there was still no final resolution, he couldn't appeal to a higher court," the President said. "That's why Mendoza eventually lost hope."

Aquino said he summoned the deputy ombudsmen and the special prosecutors but they told him that it was Gutierrez, not they, who had jurisdiction over the case.

The President said Congress would be the one to decide if Gutierrez should be impeached.

"What we are just saying is that we've been asking for a long time why there are these cases (in the Ombudsman) which were not been acted upon," Mr. Aquino said.

"Here, we will use the powers given by law to make accountable not just the Ombudsman but everyone who should answer for their shortcomings," he said.

"There is a process that we will follow but at the end of the day, it cannot be that they will evade again the issues that have been with them for a long time, Mr. Aquino added.

[Altis6453]

For those who understand what impeachment of a public official is about, IT IS NEVER ABOUT THE LEGALITIES.

The Senate may have their rules of procedure governing impeachment but that doesn't mean the Senator Judges can't bend or even disregard their own rules completely if they have the numbers to convict Merci.

[claRkEnt]

lord have merci.......

sa tagalog, "Dyos ko, iyo na si Merci. Kunin mo na"

[Lucius]

I don't care.

World War III na dami pa kasi nila arte

[Monseratto]

Here is the 1-page complaint filed by losing Liberal Party Senatorial bet Risa Hontiveros against the Ombudsman. If only we can file the same against the whole Philippine Goverment.

http://propinoy.net/2011/03/02/full-...tas-gutierrez/

Text of the Impeachment Complaint filed on July 22, 2010

Republic of the Philippines

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

15TH CONGRESS

Quezon City



IN RE IMPEACHMENT OF OMBUDSMAN

MA. MERCEDITAS NAVARRO GUTIERREZ



RISA HONTIVEROS-BARAQUEL,

DANILO D. LIM, FELIPE PESTAÑO,

and EVELYN PESTAÑO,

Complainants.

x———————————————x

IMPEACHMENT COMPLAINT

COMPLAINANTS RISA HONTIVEROS-BARAQUEL, DANILO D. LIM, FELIPE

PESTAÑO, and EVELYN PESTAÑO, through undersigned counsel, respectfully state that –

PREFATORY STATEMENT



The Office of the Ombudsman was created under Article XI of the 1987 Constitution as an independent office intended to serve as “protector of the people” principally through taking prompt action on complaints filed against public officials and other employees of the government.



The primordial purpose of the Office the Ombudsman is to enforce public accountability among public officials, through, among other measures, investigating on its own, or upon complaint of any person any act or omission by a public official that appears to be “illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient,” and, in appropriate cases, instituting the corresponding directives to or initiating prosecution of the responsible officials.



The Ombudsman is thus vested with expansive authority and broad discretion in fulfilling its mandate of enforcing public accountability within the ranks of the government service. It is expected not to merely stand as a passive receiver of complaints from the public, but to take a proactive role in rooting out corruption and impropriety in government. It is empowered not merely to enforce the express commands of black letter law but to take action on any act or omission that may be “unjust, improper, or inefficient.”

For in the end, the Office of the Ombudsman is envisioned as the ultimate bulwark that the Filipino people may rely on against government abuse and official corruption, from the lowest to the highest echelons of the public service.



Sadly, the current holder of this crucial Office, Ma. Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez – in the nearly five years since her appointment to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of the previous Ombudsman, Simeon V. Marcelo – has failed to live up to this role.

During her watch, the Office of the Ombudsman, far from being an effective and reliable recourse for ordinary citizens seeking succor and relief from government abuse, has become a place where complaints of official wrongdoing go to languish, wither, and ultimately be forgotten. In many instances, some of which will be discussed in this Impeachment Complaint, Ombudsman Navarro-Gutierrez has unconscionably neglected to ensure that prompt and effective action is taken on complaints from the public filed with her office.



Similarly, the Office of the Ombudsman, under the stewardship of Navarro-Gutierrez, has become alarmingly and unjustifiably passive in taking on prominent issues involving corruption and malfeasance at the highest levels of government. Instead of instituting investigations on its own, as it is expressly empowered – in fact, arguably required – to do so by the Constitution, it has sat quietly even in the face of the most scandalous reports of official impropriety, waiting for private citizens, or other government offices, to take up the very causes it was created to address. This Impeachment Complaint will likewise take up some of these instances.



Finally, the effectiveness of the Office of the Ombudsman under Navarro-Gutierrez in holding erring public officials to account by instituting successful prosecutions before the appropriate courts and tribunals has likewise degraded to a distressing and unacceptable degree. As this Impeachment Complaint will again show, an empirical and objective assessment of the performance as prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman under Navarro-Gutierrez, clearly establishes an intolerable, if not criminal, level of incompetence.

[oliver1013]

If it's related to making life hard for GMA and her cohorts I'm all in...Pabawiin niyo naman taumbayan kahit sa pang inis lang, these f*ckers got away with a lot of BS, sa panginis nalang ang bawi pag bigyan nyo na

[chua_riwap]

sa tagalog, "Dyos ko, iyo na si Merci. Kunin mo na"

he-heh!

gayahin nya kaya si reyes?

[Stoner]

I guess this is what you could define as textbook 'kapit-tuko'.

Survival tactics I presume.

That and pure thickness of face.... which our society seems not to be lacking of, what with our countrymen's undisciplined driving, riding, and walking.