PNoy government: A dictatorship in the making or democracy in action

 

By Raïssa Robles

In recent days, President Benigno Aquino III has been likened to a monarch, dictator Ferdinand Marcos, Fidel Castro and even Hitler.

How did PNoy – long tagged as a “Retard”,  “Abnoy” and “malambot” suddenly transition into an evil super-brained bad-ass who’s supposed to be “smarter than Marcos”?

Listen to how Noynoy critic Senator Joker Arroyo puts it. He told reporters:

The way I look at it, Noynoy is smarter than Marcos because Marcos had to issue Proclamation No. 1081 to usher in martial law. Noy doesn’t have to do anything except to muscle in on everyone.

Marcos used poverty and communism as his excuse to commit abuses. We have a one-man government now since Noy has subjugated the House and is on his way to doing so to the judiciary.

 

Noy-composite-forSC

Sen. Joker’s statements made me wonder why he had such a drastic change of mind on what a Philippine president can do and cannot do.

When his chief benefactress Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was President, Sen. Joker kept his silence when she “subjugated” the House into blocking all the impeachment complaints against her. Sen. Joker also kept silent when Mrs Arroyo bent the Judiciary to do her will in several instances. Perhaps he was practicing that secret martial arts style called “The Sleeping Dragon.”

The statements of Sen. Joker and other Arroyo allies have really made me wonder just how the Executive Branch is supposed to relate  to the other two branches of government – Congress and Judiciary – no matter who the sitting President is. And where the impeachment of a Supreme Court Chief Justice fits in all this.

Let’s listen to what the man on the spot, Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona, has to say. In a recent speech, following his impeachment by the House of Representatives dominated by PNoy’s Liberal Party,  Corona implied that what Aquino did to him was evil:

At kung sakaling magtagumpay ang impeachment na ito laban sa akin, ano sa palagay ninyo ang mangyayari? Simple lang po mga mahal kong mga kababayan — kay Ginoong Aquino na ang gabinete, kontrolado na niya ang kongreso, at hawak na niya ang Korte Suprema. Paulit-ulit na lang nilang isinisigaw ang checks and balances ng three co-equal branches of government, ngunit ang kanilang mga pagkilos ay patungo sa pagsakop sa buong sistema at kapangyarihan ng pamahalaan. Itong mga itinatanim niyang gawain ay siguradong mamumunga lamang ng isang diktadura; isang diktadura na nagmula sa paglilinlang at paglalason sa pag-iisip ng ating mga kababayan.

In other words, Corona implied it was very wrong for PNoy to control Congress. And should PNoy succeed in booting him out, Corona warned PNoy would end up controlling the judiciary as well – and that would result in a dictatorship.

Corona as well as other lawyers have also raised an important question regarding the impeachment charges against him. They said rulings by SC members on cases cannot ever be questioned because the Supreme Court IS the final arbiter on the Constitution.

In other words, how can a member of the highest court violate the Constitution when he is supposed to be THE final authority on the Constitution?

If that is so, why then did our Constitution specify “culpable violation of the Constitution” as one of the grounds for impeaching an SC justice?

When and how does an SC justice seriously violate the Constitution he has vowed to protect?

Corona for obvious reasons hasn’t explained the circumstances that would cause a violation.

No one has explained how our 3 gov’t branches ought to interact

We have recently been reminded by constitutional experts that the Presidency, Congress and Judiciary are separate, co-equal bodies independent of each other.

What they have not explained to the public during this brewing controversy is how the President is supposed to interact with the other two branches of government – within the bounds of the Constitution and the Rule of Law.

I personally witnessed such inter-action when the Senate reconvened in 1987 after a 15-year absence due to Marcos’ Martial Law. The first Senate President Jovito Salonga described relations between the Senate and the Presidency as one of “critical collaboration”.

This was demonstrated when the Senate refused to extend the Military Bases Agreement with the United States despite pleas from then President Corazon Aquino.

When I started covering the Senate in 1987, my law professor-dad handed me a really old book which he said would help me understand the way our presidential form of government is supposed to work. Sen. Joker knew my dad — they defended We Forum publisher Joe Burgos together.

My father told me when he handed me the book that while certain powers of the Presidency had been cut somewhat and certain powers added to the Judiciary and Congress, relations among the three branches of government had reverted back to how they were before 1972.

The book is called The Republic in Action and was written by one of the foremost Constitutionalists then – Senator Arturo Tolentino. The interesting thing about this book published in 1962 was that Tolentino wrote it for high school students, not for law students or lawyers.

Tolentino wanted people like you and me to understand how our government works.

Ours is a representative democracy

Tolentino began by using the Greek philosopher Aristotle’s classification of three kinds of governance – the one-man rule or monarchy; the rule by a single class or a few persons which Tolentino called an “aristocracy or oligarchy”; and thirdly, the rule by the people themselves or a democracy.

Tolentino further explained there were two types of democracy. First is a direct or pure one where the people governed themselves directly (such as in Switzerland and ancient Greece). Second is a “representative democracy” like the Philippines where citizens are represented by those they elect.

Tolentino added that:

When a person seizes the powers of government and ignores the voice of the people or of their representatives, the government is converted into a dictatorship. If the supreme concern of such a dictatorship is the welfare of the state as an entity distinct and apart from the people, its government becomes a totalitarian government.

I know Tolentino’s explanation sounds very simplistic to lawyers and political scientists. But I think it suffices for quickly understanding what a democracy is all about.

Even the first declaration of principle in our 1987 Constitution states:

The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.

How do we now reconcile this concept of sovereignty residing in the people with the warning aired by Fr. Joaquin Bernas  following reports that the surveys seemed to support PNoy’s moves?

Bernas, who helped draft our present Constitution, cautioned that “you cannot always trust what the populace is supporting.”

Why our type of government is called presidential

From our Civics or Social Studies classes, many of us have learned the two types of government – the presidential and the parliamentary. Fr. Bernas and the other constitutional framers chose to revive the presidential form where the government practically revolves around an office occupied by one individual with wide powers – the Presidency.

So wide are the powers, Tolentino said, that -

The President exerts a tremendous influence in legislation.

In other words, on Congress, a co-equal branch of government.  The President’s influence on Congress extends beyond legislation and includes other functions   such as its power to impeach. Tolentino described impeachment as Congress’ exercise of “its judicial function.”

Congress has the power to impeach a President and any member of the SC.

In turn, the President has the power to influence Congress in various ways – which are merely implied in the Constitution. Tolentino  explained that one way is through :

The operation of the party system (which) provides another method by which the President can influence legislation. This method is specially useful in the case of measures recommended by him, or administration measures. The President is usually the titular head of the party in power. This party controls both houses of Congress, usually, and the leaders of Congress belong to the same party. The President can enlist the help of the legislative leaders to push through administration measures.

Given Tolentino’s explanation, what did CJ Corona mean when he said -

kay Ginoong Aquino na ang gabinete, kontrolado na niya ang kongreso….

Does this mean it is unconstitutional for PNoy – or any President for that matter – to “control” Congress through his political party mates? Or is this really how a President can effectively govern?

Tolentino also disclosed that:

If there is some difficulty for the legislative leaders alone to obtain approval of administration measures, then the President may call the members of Congress who belong to his party to a meeting, known as party caucus. In such meeting, he appeals to them and convinces them to support the administration measures. If the party caucus decides that such measures should be passed, the majority members of the Congress vote for their approval….Because of party discipline, usually none of the majority members votes against the decision of the party caucus.

CJ Corona’s impeachment by Congress was secretly decided in a Liberal Party caucus. But the opposition party allied with Mrs Arroyo branded that as a very bad thing to do. Even if they often decided political moves that way, too.

It seems though from Tolentino’s explanation that this is to be considered normal practice in our kind of presidential form of government.

One more thing. The Liberal Party-led House leadership decided to strip the committee chairmanship from a member who did not vote along party lines in the impeachment. Arroyo’s allies branded that as turning Congress into PNoy’s rubber stamp. But Tolentino said it was part of cracking the party whip.

The same thing also happened in 2005 following the embarrassing revelations on the “Hello Garci” wiretapped tapes where a voice that sounded like Mrs Arroyo asked a poll official whether she would win the 2004 elections by over a million votes.

Administration allies who demanded Arroyo’s resignation were also stripped of their House positions.

Interestingly, Tolentino raised another form of “legal” persuasion that any Philippine President has at his disposal – the “pork barrel”. Tolentino explained:

To a great extent, the influence of the President in lawmaking will depend upon his personal qualities as a leader. He can confer individually with members of Congress and persuade them to vote for an administration measure. He may influence them by the use of patronage. This means that he may give some favor or concession to a member of Congress, by the appointment of a recommendee of that member to some position in the government. He may also influence him by the release of funds for the construction of some projects sponsored by such member.

Pork barrel is a dirty word to many Filipinos. I don’t like pork barrel myself because it often ends up in the lawmaker’s pocket. When I was covering the Senate, then Senator Vicente Paterno explained to me how he reconciled himself with using pork barrel. He said that used properly, it is “the democratization of patronage.”

Pork barrel is supposed to be a way for the most far-flung districts in the country to get hold of extra funds from the national government.

In the case of Corona’s speedy impeachment, House Minority Floorleader Edcel Lagman claimed that lawmakers were blackmailed into supporting it because they were threatened with or they feared the loss of their pork barrel.

To the public, that smacked of bribery.

But if you really take a pragmatic look at it, pork barrel is part of the wheeling and dealing in Congress. Unless the Supreme Court rules it is unconstitutional.

Probably one of the canniest politicians to use pork barrel was Mrs Arroyo. However, it seems Arroyo’s allies expect PNoy not to use it because of his Matuwid na Daan.

My hubby Alan and I were debating what the difference was in Arroyo’s handing out cold cash (you remember, to Pampanga Governor Ed Panlilio) and Aquino’s use of pork barrel. He pointed out to me that in Arroyo’s case, it was intended to directly benefit her because she was saving herself from being ousted from the presidency. And it was in cash with no issued receipt.

Aside from trying to influence Congress to do his bidding, Tolentino said:

The President may resort to public opinion. This is known as bringing the issue to the people. In speeches and newspaper statements, he may tell the people the reasons for his desire to have an administration measure enacted. He may induce the people to express their views on the measure. If public opinon is strongly in favor of the President’s stand, the members of Congress may ultimately approve the measure.

This is precisely what PNoy is doing now with Corona’s impeachment case. However, Fr. Bernas said he found PNoy’s speeches disturbing because

In his speeches, he sounds like Fidel Castro.

After PNoy gave a speech lambasting Corona to his face and Corona declined to react, Bernas praised Corona because

He does not go down to the level of the president’s ranting.

Last week, though, Corona branded PNoy “greedy”, a “dictator” and “a king”.

Hmmm. Is that tantamount to an unofficial judicial ruling on the powers of  the presidency under the present Constitution?

Personally, I’m not bothered by what’s happening because I’ve seen much, much worse. I’m also inclined to believe that when you’re doing government spring-cleaning, you’re bound to let a lot of dust fly.

If there is any good that Corona’s impeachment has done so far, it is to make Filipinos like me think about democracy.

What exactly is a democracy? Is what is happening part of a vibrant democracy? Or are we really experiencing what Corona warned is a “creeping dictatorship?”

Is this a dictatorship or is this democracy,  functioning the way it’s supposed to?

_______________________________________

Read Chief Justice Renato Corona’s post-impeachment speech delivered on December 16, 2011:

AKO ANG UNANG TAGAPAGTANGGOL NG HUSTISYA

Isang mainit at mapagpalayang hapon po sa ating lahat!

Tunay na hustisya, kadakilaan ng Kataastaasang Hukuman, at kalayaan ng hudikatura, tatlo pong prinsipyo na nagbibigay sa akin – sa ating lahat – ng lakas at tapang na harapin ang hamon at pagsubok na bunga ng masamang pulitika.

HINDI PO TAYO PAPAYAG NA LAPASTANGANIN AT ALIPUSTAHIN ANG DEMOKRASYA, AT ANG KORTE SUPREMA!

Sa isang iglap, nasampahan po ako ng isang impeachment complaint ng mababang kapulungan na kontrolado ng Liberal Party ni Ginoong Aquino at ng kanyang mga kaalyado. Sa sobrang bilis, parang wala po yatang nakaintindi o nakabasa man lang ng halos animnapung pahinang reklamo o habla. Isang

daan, walumpu’t walong kinatawan ang basta na lamang lumagda rito para isulong ang aking impeachment. Kinikilala natin ang proseso ng Saligang Batas para sa mga reklamo laban sa mga miyembro ng Korte Suprema. Ngunit ang hindi natin kinikilala ay ang pag-abuso ng kapangyarihan at proseso para samantalahin ang lahat ng paraan, makapagtalaga lamang sila ng sarili nilang mga mahistrado sa Korte Suprema.

Itong impeachment ay dala ng kasakiman na magkaroon ng isang Korte Suprema na kayang diktahan, na nakukuha sa tingin, at magkakandarapang ipatupad ang kanilang bawat hiling.

Tila yata’y napipikon at hindi sila makapagtalaga ng kanilang punong mahistrado kung susundin ang ating umiiral na Saligang Batas. Kaya pati ang inyong lingkod, hadlang daw sa kaunlaran ng bayan at pagpapatupad ng mga ipinangako sa kampanya!

Pasadahan po natin ang mga walang katuturang paratang ng ating mga magigiting na mambabatas. Walo (8) po ang hinain na paratang laban sa akin. Kaagad, makikitang dalawang uri ang bintang na nilalaman nito: sa isang banda, ‘yung mga reklamong tumutukoy sa mga personal kong kilos, at sa kabilang banda naman, ang mga reklamo na tumutukoy sa mga opisyal na pagkilos o hatol ng Korte Suprema.

Mariin kong itinatanggi ang mga bintang na may katiwalian sa mga pansarili kong kilos. Hindi po totoo ang sinasabing ayaw ko raw ilabas ang aking Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth. Ito’y isang dokumentong sinusumite ko taun-taon ng walang patid. Malaking kasinungalingan ang paratang na ito.

Ako raw po ay isang midnight appointee.Dapat raw po, hindi ko tinanggap ang paghirang sa akin. Bakit po ba, para si Ginoong Aquino ang makapagtalaga ng kaniyang sariling chief justice na hawak niya sa leeg? Mapapa-iling ka talaga. Ang pagtatalaga sa inyong lingkod ay dumaan sa isang masusing proseso na ayon sa ating Saligang Batas. Kasama po dito ang proseso ng Judicial and Bar Council na noon ay pinangungunahan ng dating Punong Mahistrado Reynato Puno. Matagal na po itong pinagpasyahan ng Korte Suprema. Matagal nang tapos ito. Kung may reklamo man sila sa hatol ng Korte Suprema, sana ay noon pa, ipinaglaban na nila.

Binubuhay ito para painitin ang damdamin ng ating mga kababayan at mawalaan tayo ng tiwala sa Korte Suprema at hudikatura. Di po ba’t may kasabihan na “ang isang kasinungalingan, kapag inulit ng inulit, pagtagal, ay siyang tinatanggap bilang katotohanan?” Paano po naman naging kasalanan ang pagtanggap ng isang dakilang karangalan tulad nito? Ito ay isa lamang pong paninira ng aking katapatan sa katungkulan, kasama na po ang puri at dangal ng Kataas taasang Hukuman.

Nguni’t ang kasukdulan ng pambabastos, sa aking pananaw, ay ang pagdawit ng aking maybahay sa reklamong ito. Baka akala nila na sa ganitong paraan ako po’y madaling susuko. Mapalad po ako na mayroon akong isang mabait at matatag na kasama sa buhay, na siya ring pinagkukunan ko ng lakas at inspirasyon. Mahal na mahal kita, Tina.

Walang katotohan ang kanilang mga paratang – puro kasinungalingan. At patutunayan namin na ito ay isang pagblackmail lamang. Lingid po yata sa kanilang kaalaman na si Ginang Corona ay una pang naitalaga bago ako naging mahistrado. Bakit, hindi po ba dito sa kasalukuyang administrasyon, mayroong isang mag-asawa, kasama ang kanilang mga anak, na may matataas na puwesto?

Ang mga natitirang paratang ay ukol naman sa mga pasiya at iba pang matagal nang patakaran ng Korte Suprema. Alalahanin po natin na ayon sa ating Saligang Batas, ang Korte Suprema ay binubuo ng isang punong mahistrado at labing-apat na katulong na mahistrado. Mayroon po lamang kaming tigiisang boto, at ito po ay pantay-pantay. Ang aking boto ay kapareho lamang ng boto ng pinakahuling naitalagang mahistrado. Ang pwersa at bisa ng aking pananaw ay kapantay lamang ng pwersa at bisa ng pananaw ng kahit sino mang mahistrado. Pantay-pantay po kaming lahat dito.

At sa mga isyu na sinasabi nilang kaugnay sa dating pangulo, wala po kaming kinakatigan dito sa hukumang ito. Ang aming pasiya ay pasiya ng buong Korte Suprema at resulta ng mga indibidwal na opinyon. Ang opinyon ng isang mahistrado ay hindi desisyon ng Korte Suprema. Kahit sinumang abogado ay magsasabi sa inyo na hindi po pwedeng yapakyapakan ang karapatan ng sinuman sa ilalim ng Saligang Batas, habang hindi mo pa napapatunayan na siya ay nagkasala. May mandato ang korte na ipagtanggol higit sa lahat ang karapatang pang-tao ng indibidwal kontra sa labis-labis na kapangyarihan ng pamahalaan, lalong-lalo pa kung wala pang naisasampang kaso. Matagal na itong prinsipio at hindi na kailangang idebate. Ito ang tinatawag na PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE and RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS.

Isampa ang tamang kaso sa loob ng wastong oras, na may tamang ebidensya, para walang magawa ang korte kung di hatulan at ipakulong ang nagkasala sa lipunan. Panagutin natin ang dapat managot, pero idaan natin sa wasto at tamang proseso sa ilalim ng Saligang Batas. Ano po ba ang napakahirap intindihin sa bagay na ito?

Ibang-iba po ang palakad sa gabinete, sapagkat doon, lahat ng miyembro ay mga alalay, alagad at utusan ng pangulo. Sa loob ng gabinete, ang utos ng hari, hindi nababali. Dito po sa Korte Suprema, ang pananaw ng punong mahistrado ay isa lamang. Gaya nga ng sinabi ko, kami ay patas at pare-pareho lamang na nagbibigay halaga at respeto sa opinyon ng bawat isa. Wala po kaming tungkulin at balak na maging sunod-sunuran sa isa’t-isa.

Ngayon, ipagpalagay na natin na malimit kasama ko ang mayorya sa botohan, maari ba namang magmistulang pagkampi ito, samantalang nakararami kaming sumasangayon sa isang pananaw? Kasalanan po ba na ako’y kasapi ng mayorya ng Korte sa iilang mga kaso? Marami din naman pong kaso na nasa menorya ako sapagka’t natalo sa botohan ang aming pananaw. Ito ang magpapatunay na walang nagdidikta ng boto dito sa Korte Suprema.

Kaya nga po dito natin makikita ang likas na talino at sadyang makatarungan na sistema ng hustisya sa ating saligang batas: labing-lima po kami sa Korte Suprema, upang masiguro na mangibabaw ang pananaw ng mas nakakarami. Hindi maaring magtagumpay ang pananaw ng nag-iisang mahistrado.

Samakatuwid, itong mga paratang ng pagkiling laban sa akin ay bunga lamang ng malisya at kathang-isip. Malamang, umaasa ang mga kalaban ng Korte, na ako at ang ibang 14 miyembro na di nila kayang diktahan, ay magbibitiw sa tungkulin.

At kung sakaling magtagumpay ang impeachment na ito laban sa akin, ano sa palagay ninyo ang mangyayari? Simple lang po mga mahal kong mga kababayan — kay Ginoong Aquino na ang gabinete, kontrolado na niya ang kongreso, at hawak na niya ang Korte Suprema. Paulit-ulit nalang nilang isinisigaw ang checks and balances ng three co-equal branches of government, ngunit ang kanilang mga pagkilos ay patungo sa pagsakop sa buong sistema at kapangyarihan ng pamahalaan. Itong mga itinatanim niyang gawain ay siguradong mamumunga lamang ng isang diktadura; isang diktadura na nagmula sa paglilinlang at paglalason sa pag-iisip ng ating mga kababayan.

At ngayon, sasabihin ko po sa kanilang lahat: ako’y tumututol sa walang-tigil na pangaalipusta, pangduduro at pananakot. Ako’y tumututol sa dahan-dahang binubuong diktadura ni Pangulong Benigno Simeon Aquino III.

Kahapon lamang, iginigiit ng palasyo na hindi raw ang Korte Suprema o hudikatura, at ako lang daw, ang tinitira dito sa impeachment. Ito po’y malaking kasinungalingan, dahil hindi ako naniniwala na si Renato Corona lang ang tumututol sa diktadura. Walang katotohanan na si Renato Corona lamang ang gusto nilang tanggalin sa Korte Suprema. Naniniwala po ako na tayong lahat ang kinakalaban, pati na ang mga walang-malay nilang tagahanga. Sapagkat ang tunay na layunin ay wasakin ang hudikatura, wasakin ang ating demokrasya, at pairalin ang utos ng mahal na hari. Ito ang patutunguhan ng baluktot na “Daang Matuwid.”

Matagal na po akong nagtitimpi. Hindi ko po maintindihan kung bakit nanggigigil ng husto sa akin ang mahal nating pangulo, magmula pa po sa kanyang pagkaluklok sa pwesto.

Tuwing kami’y nagkikita, lubos kong pinararamdam na kami’y dapat mag-ugnayan, magsama at magtulungan para sa bayan.Marami po tayong problema. Nandiyan po ang mabagal na takbo ng ekonomiya, kawalan ng trabaho, kahirapan at kagutuman. Mukhang hindi po niya naintindihan.

Kamakailan lamang, tinuya na naman po tayo ng harap-harapan. Tulad ng tunay na Kristianong Batangueño, tayo po ay nagpigil, at ito po ay ating pinalampas.

WALA PO AKONG KASALANAN SA INYO, GINOONG PANGULO. WALA PO AKONG KASALANAN SA TAONG-BAYAN.

Sabi nila, sarili ko lang daw po ang nakataya dito. Ang pinaglalaban po natin dito ay ang kalayaan ng Korte Suprema, kalayaan ng hudikatura, at ang pagtanggol ng demokrasya sa ilalim ng Saligang Batas. Hindi po ako papayag na sumuko sa matinding pagtatangka na mapasailalim ng ibang sangay ng pamahalaan ang Korte Suprema. Una akong tututol. Una akong lalaban.

Ginoong Pangulo, ako po ang primus inter pares dito sa Korte Suprema. Ang ibig sabihin po nito, kung kailangan ipaglaban ang Korte Suprema, ako ang uuna.

Huwag na po nating isubo ang Korte Suprema sa ano pang pagsubok o batikos ng mga mapagsamantala. Yaman din lang na ang ipinaglalaban dito ay ang Korte Suprema at ang demokrasya, karangalan at katungkulan ko po na labanan itong impeachment para sa ating lahat. Haharapin ko nang buong tapang at talino ang mga walang basehang paratang na ito, punto por punto, sa Senado. Handanghanda akong humarap sa paglilitis.

Mga kasama, matapat kong sinasabi sa inyo, mahimbing ang tulog ko at tahimik ang aking konsyensya dahil sa pagpapatupad ng lahat ng aking mga tungkulin. Ako’y nanatiling matapat sa Panginoon, sa aking sarili, sa batas, at sa sinumang tao.

Para sa mga ngayon pa lang nakakarinig ng aking panawagan, inaanyayahan ko kayong makiisa sa amin. Ngayon pa lamang ay taospuso na ang aking pasasalamat sa inyo sa inyong pagtaguyod, pakikiisa at pagpapalakas ng aming loob.

Mga minamahal kong kababayan, sa aking pagharap sa isang mapanganib na katunggali, ang aking tanging sandigan ay ang inyong pakiki-akibat, at ang paninindigan para sa Lumikha at sa ating bayan. Buong pagkukumbaba kong hinihiling ang inyong pang-unawa, subalit higit sa lahat, hinihiling kong samahan ninyo ako sa aking laban at mission.

Muli, isang maganda at maalab na hapon po sa inyong lahat. Sana’y pagpalain po tayong lahat ng Maykapal.

 

431 Responses to “PNoy government: A dictatorship in the making or democracy in action”

Read below or add a comment...

  1. 86
    Chars says:

    Raissa I think that mr.joker arroyo should retire from politics just like miss defensor Santiago,they are in politics for such a long time ,why people keeps on voting for them as senators is beyond me.i like our president now ,he never waiver in his beliefs ,he is for the truth and right now his conviction about mr.corona never change from the day he took his oath until now that mr.corona was impeached,I hope that he could really push the Philippines in the right direction .

  2. 85
    Mel says:

    ‘Aquino reflecting on his first 21 months in office that followed a landslide election win.’


    President Aquino says in command of Philippines

    Manila, Philippines – President Benigno Aquino III admits he needed weekend escapes from the job’s pressures when he started as the Philippines’ president, but nearly two years on he exudes passion and says he is firmly in control.

    … the economy is on the right track, citing a series of international credit ratings upgrades and the rise of the Philippine stock market to record highs…

    … luring foreign manufacturers and other investors to the Philippines, extending health cover, cutting government waste and expanding an incentive scheme to keep millions of poor children at school.

    World Bank country director Motoo Konishi said …

    “Besides having strong macroeconomic fundamentals, the country is benefiting from political stability and a popular government seen by many as strongly committed to improving governance and reducing poverty,” he said.

    … nation’s most reputable polling groups on Thursday also found Aquino was holding onto the support that carried him to the biggest election win in modern Philippine politics.

    One of the country’s biggest conglomerates, Ayala Corp, announced last week that its real estate arm would invest $1.4 billion over the next five years on projects within the country’s financial district …

    Source: by Karl Malakunas
    Agence France-Presse

    11:12 am | Sunday, March 25th, 2012

    ——

    The following quotes are in the context of the above article.

    “The first three months we were all looking towards Friday,” Aquino said. “When Friday came there would at least be a small break in between the discovery of other problems.” – PNoy.

    “We are trying to get the kingpins of corruption,” – PNoy.

  3. 84
    somaliapilipins says:

    “Personally, I’m not bothered by what’s happening because I’ve seen much, much worse. I’m also inclined to believe that when you’re doing government spring-cleaning, you’re bound to let a lot of dust fly.”

    raissa, do you honestly believe that Abnoy “government spring-cleaning”? should’nt he start with H-A-C-I-E-N-D-A L-U-I-S-I-T-A? maybe that will make your president more credible.

    what’s your president currently doing anyway? dating that korean girl and making kilig-kilig of masang pinoy? media stunt? diverting peoples attention from H-A-C-I-E-N-D-A L-U-I-S-I-T-A? maybe he mis-took running a country as showbiz thing?

    • 84.1
      • 84.1.1
        Rolly says:

        Example: I got my share but have no money to run it, mapipilitan akong humanap ng kapitalista, or maybe sell it. Sino ang bibili? Marami. We’ve seen this scenario in the past, especially during Marcos regime’s Land Reforms. Sino sa palagay natin ang nakinabang sa mga lupain o sakahin na ipinamihagi?

        It would be easier for the owners of Hacienda Luisita to totally dispose the land…walang sakit ng ulo. But then, they will be accused of abandoning their tenants.

    • 84.2
      risk says:

      I know that you are mad at Pnoy just because the candidate you were rooting for lost. That’s patronage politics talking there. I think you are the abnoy here

    • 84.3
      Santiago Katumbal says:

      Brad Somo at sa lahat ng trolls ni Lola G,

      Halatang kasapi ka ng propaganda machine ng Arroyo Empire…

      Yan lang ba script nyo? Paulit ulit na lng… Kumita n yan noong 2010 election… Para kyong mga sirang plaka!!

      You knew that NOBODY believes on your PROPAGANDA.. Pls pls stop wasting your time… Maglako ka n lng mani sa quiapo, at least, galing sa malinis na pera ang kinita mo (right now, you are being paid by BLOOD MONEY)…

      ————-

      Fyi, Keywords to detect a G Troll –
      ~ PNoy abNoy
      ~ Hda. Luisita
      ~ plummeting economy (or the like)

  4. 83
    JLSantos says:

    Did Fr. Joaquin Bernas disclose that he is the uncle of the son-in-law of GMA?

    • 83.1
      Santiago Katumbal says:

      Never, never, never trust a person wearing something white & long… They have been lying to humanity for a very, very long time…

  5. 82
    Leona says:

    Just to share a reality: There is no such thing as clean politics! It is impossible to find it in all the galaxies in the creation. Why, even some of the Angles up there with the Creator fought the Boss and they became what? So, anybody who start talking idealisms on clean politics is wasting his/her time on it. Sabi ni Mr. Neri, moderate lang. Maybe it can be.

  6. 81
    Mel says:

    Witness says IBP head got P.5M from Mike Arroyo in 2001

    The whistle-blower said that in coming forward, he only wanted to help President Benigno Aquino III bring justice and order to the country. “I do not ask for anything in return; nobody promised me anything or instructed me to make this narration,” he said.

    A former employee of LTA Inc., which is owned by the family of Jose Miguel “Mike” Arroyo, has surfaced with a story of a decade-old incident wherein he said he was given P500,000 by Arroyo’s comptroller, Ma. Victoria “Vicky” Toh, for deposit to Libarios’ bank account.

    Source: Philippine Daily Inquirer 1:05 am | Thursday, January 26th, 2012

  7. 80
    budoyabnoy says:

    THE REAL SCORE OF THE IMPEACHMENT CASE…..HACIENDA LUISITA AND THE OLIGARCHY OF THE AQUINO COJUANCO CLAN

    CHECK THIS VIDEO…

    http://thepoc.net/commentaries/14040-on-the-aquino-cojuangco-viral-video.html

  8. 79
    jimmycoz says:

    Wow, after reading all the comments halos dumugo ilong ko sa tindi ng english niyo. :D Joking aside, Pnoy,s style of politics is amazingly effective. He was able to amass tremendous support from the people in his quest for a better government. What he is doing now is not a dictator’s style of governing but a showing of ability to inspire and rally the people, including politicians, behind him without the use of force or threat. I am simply amazed and expecting more from him.

  9. 78
    Archie Mejia says:

    Ms. Raissa, can I have your take on Sen. Joker? What happened to him? I used to think of him as on the best, brightest, honest and honorable officials. I’m really quite disturbed that a man such of integrity and distinguished record can become like him. How? Why?

    • 78.1
      raissa says:

      Give me time.

      • 78.1.1
        Archie Mejia says:

        Thanks. I just feel so disappointed about Sen. Joker. Since I was young I believed he was one the pillars of Philippine democracy fighting for truth and justice. An example of competence with integrity we can all rely on. Haay.

        Thanks again. More power to you.

        • 78.1.1.1
          LivygurL says:

          I can agree to u guys… Sen Joker is a disgrace! whew

          • 78.1.1.1.1
            justice says:

            It’s down to supporting your family. Arroyo and Arroyo. I know how you feel. I was also in the streets in the 80′s.

      • 78.1.2
        manuel santuile says:

        I wonder what wrong with Joker Arroyo…during my college is one of the pillars for democracy…now He is worst than Miriam…am waiting for your findings on why Joker become a nuisance!

    • 78.2
      librado says:

      Now we know who the real Joke Arroyo is. He was able to fool everybody during the time he was in the opposition. The idealism, dedication, nationalism and desire for change is now just a memory. Politics corrupted Joker. Unbelievable but true! Politics changed him for the worse.

      What was rally sad was he really turned into a joker after all.

  10. 77
    mroccupy says:

    I think it’s super WRONG to justify PNoy’s actions as good by using Tolentino’s article. You’re using Tolentino’s article which appears as the “rules” on how the three banches must act. But that is just an “opinion” of Tolentino, an ally of President Marcos! We know that withholding the pork barrel of a congressman (to gain his/her support) is an example of dirty politics, but Tolentino mentions this as a way to influence the congress, and this, as you say is how things work in congress. WE know that this is dirty politics. But you, in this article, accept this act (what PNOY ALSO DOES) just because of what Tolentino wrote in his article.

    We know that what PNoy exhibited in the past few weeks is an act of being trapo. We know how dirty politics are in this country. We need change. I’m sick of it. What Tolentino wrote was how a “TRAPO” should act. Let’s not justify PNoy’s actions as good just because of this decades-old article… an article written in trapo period. LEt’s practice better politics.

    And it’s very wrong to justify the majority’s decision to remove some of their allies from the position as right by reminding us of how GMA disciplined her allies in congress by removing some people from their position, too. We Filipinos tend to use this thinking: “ginawa ito ng dating presidente, so pwede rin niya to gawin.” This must be stopped! We know that GMA became a “tyrant” or whatevr-you-call-her-bad during her time. However, this doesn’t mean that PNoy should do her actions too, to survive politics. PNoy should remain as what he promised to be. PNoy should stop dirty politics

    You people have been in this country for many years. And you accept how politics work in this country. But, people clmor for change… change in what? People ask for change, but “change in politics” is not on their list.

    Me? I’m just a teenager in here who wants change with how politics work in this country.

    BTW. DId you know that the President of the philippines is more powerful than the president of USA, in terms of their power in their own country?

    • 77.1
      raissa says:

      Dear Teenager,

      Grow up.

      Learn some more.

    • 77.2
      Johnny lin says:

      One good positive thing is your outlook of politically clean government, ideal but unfortunately does not exist anywhere or in any government. Political deals are sometimes necessary and condoned by laws. Its similar to old ways of bartering for goods.Give and take. Pork barrels are legal by law. Even in USA, legislators insert provisions in laws favorable to their locality.

      Senator Byrd was US Senate president for long time. It was known that he buit so many unnecessary highways and bridges in his rural West Virginia state for political trading. Sometimes the bridge connects nowhere. He did it to create jobs in his bailwick. Google him. Was it legal, yes.Was there proof of corruption? No, because there was no project overpricing unlike in the Philippines. It depends on the moral leadership of individual politician. Pnoy so far exemplifies such character.

      • 77.2.1
        Johnny lin says:

        @mroccupy
        Btw corruption existed in the Philippines since independence from USA. It was manageable, minimal(free meals), worsened during Marcos(millions), much more during GMA(billions) because even the clergies were bribed. Corruption could not be totally eradicated but could be reduced to a minimum and that is victory for the people if it happens. That is change too in a way that you dream of. Raissa was right, you have many years to learn more being a teenager.

        • 77.2.1.1
          raissa says:

          No.

          Corruption in the islands which became known as the PH was honed to a fine art by the Spanish colonial masters.

          Americans who brought freedom and education also brought here Tammany-style politics.

          • 77.2.1.1.1
            Johnny lin says:

            Probably correct in the literal term of corruption.
            Tammany style of corruption is akin to our current government corruption because the emphasis is employment, union contracts and judicial control for crime activities by political patronage in exchange for controll of votes. Common in big cities like New York, Chicago and Philadelphia, latter 2 run by the Democratic Party for one century now. Society of Tammany delivered votes to the Democrats in NY for jobs and criminal activities of the Irish. Spanish corruption was not about political patronage employment, contracts and criminal acts in exchange for votes but more of pampering the leader of clannish Filipinos for subservience of their constituents to their suppressive colonial rule. We did not have free government under Spain unlike after WW II.

            • Arsenio Reyes says:

              Johnny lin : It doesn’t whether corruption started with Spanish, American, Japanese, Chinese etc. There had been some efforts by the past Philippine Goverment to stop corruption. Significant is the removal of Erap and legal actions against GMA etc., and impeachment of Corona.

              Diosdado Macapagal (DM) had his chance to uncover much of the corruption during his time thru Jose W. Diokno who was appointed of DOJ secretary then. Diokno was responsible for uncovering so much evidence against Harry Stonehill who corrupted a lot of government officials.

              Unfortunately, it seems DM fired Diokno so that the “secrets” could not be revealed.

              Question : Can the Freedom of Information proposed law if passed, uncover the results of said investigation? If yes, and if the records have not been destroyed, then we will know the who’s who in corruption and they may still be alive today.

              • Johnny lin says:

                Arsenio: if you understood my posting, I was trying to describe the worsening corruption focusing after gaining Independence from USA because it was the first time we governed freely.Read it again. You are barking at the wrong tree.
                DM was corrupt too but possibly not as badas Marcos, Erap or GMA.
                That was the gist of my description of corruption, small time to bigtime from Roxas to GMA.
                Why should FOI be used to uncover Stonehill corrupt ways. After 50 yrs. It has zilch value to anybody. It might be to you for reason related to your subconscious I told you before. those involved might be dead or bedridden by now, even during DM time it was not a secret in our community the corruption in his term. You knew that too, I suspect. Very simple deduction, DM bought Forbes Park property before he lost to Marcos, aside from Greenhills houses. Sounds like Corona?

              • mroccupy says:

                i feel not welcomed here

                why not enlighten me?

              • Johnny lin says:

                @mroccupy
                Don’t feel that way. You expressed your opinion, we did too. There are always many sides of opinions or assumptions. Nobody is absolutely correct, nobody scores the exchanges.
                What you read is for you to digest. We can’t help you much on that aspect; believe it or not whatever is written by the author and those who posted. Make a reasonable conclusion.Stick to the issue, nothing personal. Good luck and keep posting, one way of learning.

              • Arsenio Reyes says:

                OK, I’m more objective than you may think otherwise. This might be the reason why I’m often misunderstood. It’s just i take all sides and learn or take up the good and the trash the bad things the way I see it but not the people who write because nobody’s perfect and that includes you and me. Nothing really personal because that would be irrelevant.

                Thanks.

              • mroccupy says:

                alright! :)

              • Leona says:

                I doubt about this FOI bill to become a law will help a lot about corruption in the gov’t. It will be just like any other law later on like the SALN law, kept, hidden and whatever but no to be pulished. It may even ironic that FOI will be having no freedom at att. Let’s see because many are weirds in the government!

    • 77.3
      Arsenio Reyes says:

      Dear mroccupy:

      “With malice towards none”, I agree in essence with your opinion.

      If we want change, it must not only appear that there are changes, there must be actual and substantial changes. Probably, other persons can do what PNoy is doing right now but there will always be the big question of “is actual change”. In the final reckoning and in the final analysis, as it is still now, it’s still the Filipino people who need to act if change is desired.

      The substantial changes seen in people power of EDSA I and II are acts of the people and not primarily by the leaders, i.e. the toppling of Marcos and Erap.

      PNoy has the power and the will to do actual changes but he must do things properly. He has that golden opportunity, the power to do good and be good.

      The problem of corruption is very pervasive more particularly in government, certainly complex and may not be substantially eradicated during PNoy’s term. It’s really quite
      difficult and perhaps need a succession of really good leaders to attain it.

      As they say, “The man who can remove a mountain must start by carrying small stones.”

      I still believe that “the Youth is the Hope of the Fatherland” as said by Dr. Jose Rizal. There are still so many idealistic youth out there who can unite, have the courage, are pure of heart and have no vested interests to fight for what is right.

      • 77.3.1
        Johnny lin says:

        Rizal has been dead for 115 years and the mountain is still there. PNoy has only been in power for less than 2 years so how could we expect him to remove the entire mountain. he is trying to move many small rocks and that is a good start compared to previous leaders who put back the rocks to the mountain cleared by Cory. It is up to the youth to continue supporting the movement for good government. We might not see the actual change in our lifetime at least we see the light now to the right direction unless future leaders would do another GMA.

        • 77.3.1.1
          Arsenio Reyes says:

          Yes, Johhny, Jose Rizal may be dead for 115 years as you say but his words and deeds are still honored by many people. In fact he is the national hero.

          Please read carefully. I said it is a difficult job for PNoy and it may take more than his term to eradicate corruption.

          Definitely, Rizal has a lot better than people today who are alive.

      • 77.3.2
        Leona says:

        Not much change will come about. Its almost asking for the impossible. Maybe, a little of it but the real change, NO. We have to content ourselves for moderate lang, sabi nga ni Mr. Neri. Maybe that will do and we have to live with it.

    • 77.4
      tony says:

      Always remember, the media is on Pnoy’s side. ABiasCBN and tabloids pretending to be broadsheets–Inquirer and Star. Accept the dictatorship, at least he is not corrupt(?). Accept the fact that our country is a banana republic and the world does not respect us.

    • 77.5
      Andie says:

      Apparently, you spend to much time spitting words instead of learning. Read the Constitution, and when I say read, I mean learn and understand it. You think you can do a better job?

  11. 76
    JoDil says:

    I enjoyed the good read as always. My usual lame argument was everything PNoy is now doing, the issue on the “pork barrel” and everything, was the same thing GMA was doing during her term. So what’s the big fuzz the GMA camp, and a lot of legal personalities entering the fray, calls foul.

    Thanks for sharing the Tolentino article at least I am now confident that everything is just how a democracy is suppose to work. Not like how some say as leading to a dictatorship.

    You’re right GMA was using her power to benefit her and PNoy uses his to ultimately benefit the people.

  12. 75
    Johnny Lin says:

    @saxnviolins and lawyers:

    Corona must inhibit while impeachment is on trial!

    Main logical reason he must inhibit is his lawyers are practicing before SC and have current pending cases. At the moment the privste lawyers are all in violation of RA 1673 Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards of Public Officers. They are trading free services on a public officer where they have personal interest.

    Avoiding impropriety is by inhibition or Corona must pay his lawyers and disclose their fees. His right to client/lawyer privilege on this matter has been waived by the lawyers when they publicly announced they were working pro bono.

    • 75.1
      Leona says:

      That is unprofessional for lawyers to give for free legal services to the CJ. He can afford to pay so he should pay. Otherwise, that is just continuing corruption. In this country, ang utang na loob ay mahabaaaaaaaaaaaaa….! If the CJ is strictly and publicly appearing as fair, honest and upright, he should PAY his lawyers so he does not have “strings attached” later on when these lawyers have cases pending in the SC! He can say “I paid you! You don’t get any partiality here in my Court!”

  13. 74
    rey says:

    joker arroyo is nothing but a grown up idiot clownnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn. wat a pig. have no respect for this joker in real life. stupid senator .

  14. 73
    baycas says:

    saxnviolins says:
    December 30, 2011 at 8:40 pm

    You mentioned Sison’s article? Yes I read it.

    He thinks the Supreme Court has jurisdiction because there was grave abuse of discretion by the House, which the Supreme Court may correct.

    I still subscribe to the reasoning of Nixon v US, however. The Supreme Court cannot exercise supervision over the very chamber (Senate) that is supposed to be judging it (supreme court).

    The Senate can decided that issue as well, whether or not there was grave abuse of discretion, rendering the articles null and void. Every court has the inherent power to correct when there is grave abuse. Superfluous lang yang Constitutional provision natin.

    SNV, maraming salamat sa mga paliwanag.

    Sa madaling salita, maaaring hilaw na “Verified Complaint” ang kasong maaaring magpatalsik kay Corona bilang Punong Mahistrado. Hindi rin siya “Resolution” sapagka’t hindi naman siya natalakay nang husto sa Mababang Kapulungan (Ito ang “pighati” ni G. Rene Saguisag sa kaniyang opinyon sa The Manila Times dahil walang debate at walang nominal voting na nangyari!)

    Dito posibleng panghimasukan ng Korte Suprema (SCORP) ang impeachment.

    Nauunawaan kita hinggil sa Nixon v. United States (ni Rehnquist, tama ba?) dahil naniniwala din ako na ang impeachment ay usapang politikal (na hawak ng lehislatura) at hindi kailanman puedeng pakialaman ng hudikatura.

    Subali’t mayroon tayong Francisco v. HOR (ni Carpio-Morales noong 2003) na siyang naghimay sa Davide impeachment. Ito’y tumukoy sa kahulugan ng katagang “initiate” at sa limitasyong isa lamang sa isang taon ang impeachment sa isang impeachable official.

    Sa ganang akin, maaari ring dinggin ang mga kasalukuyang petisyon o dili yata’y obligasyon ng SCORP (gaya nang naturan ni G. Jose C. Sison) na siyasatin ang Corona impeachment dahil may nakikitang hindi pagsunod sa alituntuning nakasaad sa Saligang Batas. Ito ay ukol sa kahulugan ng “Verified Complaint” at kung siya ba’y “maluwalhating” naisakatuparan bagaman 188 ang pumirma.

    Kung sakali, mukhang makakaantala ito sa Corona impeachment trial.

    At kung mauuna naman ang Senado na ipawalang-bisa ang Corona Articles of Impeachment gaya nang iyong nasabi, wala ng impeachment trial.

    Malulungkot malamang ang nakausap kong lolo, sampu ng kaniyang kaanak, na sabik na sabik (…na sabik) nang makapanood ng Senate impeachment trial ngayong Enero.

    • 73.1
      saxnviolins says:

      That is my disagreement with the Carpio-Morales ponencia.
      There is nothing in the Constitution that grants the Supreme Court the power to interfere in impeachments.

      The powers of the legislature are the following:

      1. To make laws (the main power)
      2. To declare war
      3. To ratify a treaty (the Senate, specifically)
      4. To impeach (initiated by the House, and tried by the Senate)

      1. The Supreme Court may declare a law unconstitutional; that is not disputed. And there is grant of this authority in the Constitution, implied in the Constitutional mandate that this be decided en banc. Article XIII, Section 6 (2).

      2. There is no grant of authority to nullify a declaration of war. Can the Supreme Court declare that there was grave abuse in the declaration of war, because the Congress wanted the Philippines to bully, say Vanuatu?

      I submit not, because war powers are the sole prerogative of the Legislature.

      3. A chamber (Senate) of the legislature, with the Executive, may forge a treaty with another country. The Constitution grants the Supreme Court the authority to declare a treaty unconstitutional.

      4. We come now to impeachment.

      There is no textual grant by the Constitution of the authority to declare an initiation of impeachment as unconstitutional. The power to initiate is reposed solely in the House. They can even impeach Corona for MBO (massive body odor).

      The review of the correctness of any initiated impeachment, is reposed in the Senate. As the only court allowed to try impeachment cases, it alone determines whether procedure has been followed or not.

      As the only court authorized to try impeachments, it alone, as well, determines the parameters of its own jurisdiction; whether or not to entertain an impeachment complaint anchored on a collegial Supreme Court decision, one based on massive body odor, or for illegal possession of an ugly face.

      In the same way that Corona argues that interpretation of the law is reposed solely in the Court, and therefore cannot be questioned before another forum (Senate), similarly, the authority to try impeachment cases, as well as what impeachment cases to entertain, are reposed solely in the Senate, and may not be interfered in by any court.

      • 73.1.1
        Johnny Lin says:

        Agree with everything except MBO, it does not betray public trust, public trash, yes
        Since SC does not have the authority to create laws reposed in the constitution like impeachment, that is proof Narvasa Court Resolution violated RA 6713 sections 2 & 5, public interest before personal interest.

      • 73.1.2
        baycas says:

        Well, Carpio-Morales’ Francisco may have spawned a problem of judicially reviewing the “political” nature of impeachments. Such judicial review is looked upon as an expanded one granted by the 1987 Constitution especially that there are existing limitations in the power of the HOR.

        These limitations include the manner of filing, required vote to impeach, and the one year bar on the impeachment of one and the same official.

        This sets us apart from US Constitution.

        I got these assertions from a law review here:

        http://ustlawreview.com/pdf/vol.L/Articles/Judicial_Review_of_Impeachment.pdf

        • 73.1.2.1
          saxnviolins says:

          I’ve read it. It is erudite garbage. May pa-history-history pa.

          Read the Francisco decision, not attempts to discuss it with erudition kuno.

          Although Carpio-Morales says Philippine impeachment is different, in the same decision, she quotes Maambong’s perorations on the floor for justification of her interpretation.

          Surprise. Maambong was quoting US rules. This is what Maambong said:

          I have been bringing with me The Rules of the House of Representatives of the U.S. Congress. The Senate Rules are with me. The proceedings on the case of Richard Nixon are with me. I have submitted my proposal, but the Committee has already decided. Nevertheless, I just want to indicate this on record.

          Did you catch the drift? The committee had already voted, and Maambong was merely perorating for the record? Justice Cecilia Palma actually ignored him.

          So Carpio-Morales was quoting an ignored statement?

          Simple lang naman di ba. Go to the definition of the word. Impeachment is akin to an indictment. When are you indicted? When the fiscal goes to court. When a complaint is filed, the fiscal still has to decide whether to charge you or not. You are said to be under investigation, but not yet indicted.

          One is impeached when the House decides to impeach. A complaint by a citizen, or one member of the House, is not a decision of the House. So how can it be said to be initiated by the House?

          In fact, the House may decide not to impeach, or even just ignore your complaint. So when is an impeachment initiated? When the articles are presented to the Senate.

          Note the resolution of the US House granting itself the power to investigate. It says:

          Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary, acting as a whole or by any subcommittee thereof appointed by the chairman for the purposes hereof and in accordance with the rules of the committee, is authorized and directed to investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States of America. The committee shall report to the House of Representatives such resolutions, articles of impeachment, or other recommendations as it deems proper.

          So the investigation (commenced by this resolution; commenced by verified complaint in the Philippines) only determines whether or not to impeach. Deciding whether or not to impeach is not impeachment. Obvious ba?

          Impeachment commences only after a decision is made to impeach. Logical di ba?

          Note the text itself of the articles of impeachment of Nixon says so.

          RESOLVED, That Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanours,…

          http://watergate.info/impeachment/impeachment-articles.shtml

          Pulpol yang decision na yan. This is a classic hometown decision, made by the very people whose conduct the Senate is authorized to try. And as CJ Rehnquist says, you cannot have the people being tried, control or supervise the body trying them. That is the height of fundamental unfairness.

          Imagine if you are the boss of the RTC which is trying you. You think the complainant will ever get a conviction?

          I hope Manong Johnny does not kowtow to the Court like Frank Drilon did.

          Better still, I hope the new composition of the Court overrules Francisco. If they do this, then they will show their independence. In fact, it may repair some of the damage done to the Court by the same Davide court that installed Goyang.

          • 73.1.2.1.1
            Johnny lin says:

            Impeachment is a process which starts when a complaint is filed in the House and ends on senate voting, successful or not. Indictment is a charge or complaint usually made by a body like a grand jury. When the charge is filed, it becomes trial process, the end of which is called a decision because it could still be appealed to higher courts while the end of impeachment is called conviction or absolution because it could not be appealed.

            • Mel says:

              @Johnny lin

              You wrote, “… the end of which is called a decision because it could still be appealed to higher courts while the end of impeachment is called conviction or absolution because it could not be appealed.”

              Since the personalities involved in these are the Phils.’ Chief Justice (Judiciary) and the Prosecuting-Solons before the Senate-Judges Chamber (Legislative) for impeachment, if CJ R Corona is found to be guilty in one, some or all of the articles – which ‘higher court(s)’ are you referring to should CJ R Corona wishes to appeal his conviction?

              If not in the Phils’ Judiciary to which CJ R Corona heads, can he go to the International Criminal Court for appeal? BTW, Senator Miriam Santiago will soon seat as a Judge in that international court.

              @saxnviolins (dated: January 3, 2012 at 8:54 pm)

              In addition to your entry of “The powers of the legislature are the following”, isn’t it part of their call is the power to abolish a law? If they can enact, they too can abolish an existing law – right? Does it only extend to Constitutional law(s) or to others as well (e.g. Republic Acts, Provincial or City ordinances…) What about, circulars or similar published by the Supreme Court? Is it a red herring that I even raise as a conjecture…

              • Johnny lin says:

                @ mel
                I was pointing to the difference between the words impeachment and indictment compared to what @saxnviolins proffered. In impeachment it does not make any difference how many articles are voted yes, they could not be appealed after senate voting. On the other hand, if one of those articles is deemed criminal like bribery or plunder, someone could bring it to Ombudsman and Sandigan after conviction only. Not on Absolution because the CJ is not removed from office so he is still subject to impeachment. Word Indictment is not used in impeachment proceedings.

              • Johnny lin says:

                @mel
                The phrase ” end with decision” refers to the word “indictment”.

          • 73.1.2.1.2
            baycas says:

            Ok, you’ve elucidated what you’ve been saying all along over at Ellenville.

            Now, we can just wait for what the Senate will start to do on January 16 and what the Supreme Court will start to do on January 17.

            As an aside, I read that:

            “The case that will test the constitutionality of the impeachment of Chief Justice Renato Corona by Congress has been assigned to Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, his closest rival for the top Supreme Court (SC) post, an insider revealed over the weekend.”

            Delicadeza…delicadeza…

            • jorgebernas says:

              Delikadiza, that gerture thief justice corona didn’t. have? Kapit Tuko ang TUTA ni Pandak… Sayang daw pakinabang niya kapag nandiyan pa siya, lakas @ dami kasi kutong niya sa loob…

          • 73.1.2.1.3
            batang proletaryo says:

            Wow!!!! Nice analysis and comment. It really was enlightening. You should teach Political Law.

    • 73.2
      Leona says:

      There are limits to “checks and balances” and this is one. Better for the SC not to attempt. Its gonna be rotten all the way if it does! Leave it as it is so as not to aggravate the whole situation for something worst we can’t imagine what and find no solution ot it.

  15. 72
    baycas says:

    saxnviolins says:
    December 29, 2011 at 7:43 pm

    Totoo lahat ng paratang.

    xxxxx

    Yung articles. Bakit summary lang? Why has it not been published in full?

    SNV, akala ko rin no’ng una. Na-scan ko lang ang nasa website ng Black and White Movement kaya ‘di na ko naghanap.

    Mayroon pala ang ABS-CBN dito:

    http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/-depth/12/13/11/impeachment-complaint-vs-cj-corona

    Mayroon din tuloy akong na-google tungkol sa “CONJUGAL ETHICS”. Ito ang link:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/75749409/Conjugal-Ethics

    —–

    Verified Complaint for Impeachment” ang ginamit nila Tupas atbp. Maaaring ma-technical lalo pa’t may nakahaing apat na petisyon na sa Korte Suprema (SCORP) laban sa impeachment ni Corona.

    Nguni’t sa bandang huli, ginamit na nila Tupas atbp. ang mga katagang “Resolution” at “Verified Complaint/Resolution”. Paano kaya hihimayin ito? Ano kaya ang kahihinatnan ng mga petisyon sa SCORP?

    Mayroong sinulat ang abogadong si Jose C. Sison ukol sa mga petisyon dito:

    http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=761260&publicationSubCategoryId=64

    Mabalik sa aking punto…sa pagkakaintindi ko sa Francisco na ang ponente ay ang dating AJ Conchita Carpio-Morales (panahon ng Davide impeachment), ang SCORP ay puedeng makialam (judicial review) sa impeachment kapag proseso ang pinag-uusapan.

    “VERIFIED COMPLAINT for Impeachment” ba siya o “RESOLUTION”? Ano ba ang ibig sabihin ng “verified complaint” at ng “resolution”? Ang “resolution” ba’y posibleng “verified resolution” din, depende sa kung papaano babasahin ang Saligang Batas.

    Maaari sigurong maitanong…

    —–

    Op kors, ang nais ko sa bandang huli, taumbayan (at hindi ang SCORP) ang magdesisyon:

    http://opinion.inquirer.net/19949/the-people-will-decide

    • 72.1
      baycas says:

      Btw, lawyer Mario Bautista of the Clarissa Ocampo fame is included as one of the private prosecutors. In fact he will be the lead private prosecutor and counsel according to Rep. Tupas in a news article.

      An octogenarian intimated that he’s looking forward to the post-MMFF “entertainment” at the Senate next year. Let’s hope Lolo will not be disappointed by the final orbiter

      • 72.1.1
        Johnny lin says:

        @Baycas
        Cuevas is the lead lawyer of Corona. House prosecutors should allow him to speak for hours and fall on his own verbose. The chances of memory lapse and misspoken arguments are great the longer he talks according to medical research of seniors. Enrile is a living example, he stutters and lost in thoughts sometimes after speaking for a while. If he is not permitted by Corona he is disrespected and insulted by his own people, so taunting him by the observers will be fair. We respect the elderlies but when they put themselves in positions they are not supposed to, its their fault. Kanta nga ni Frank Sinatra, “chew more than I could chew I did it my way” binaril sa karaoke bar

        • 72.1.1.1
          baycas says:

          Yep, I forgot about Cuevas, an elderly too.

          I was referring to another octogenarian who can’t wait for the Corona impeachment trial to start…

        • 72.1.1.2
          Leona says:

          And Frankie couldn’t also finish his piece here in Manila during his show! Elderly talaga na! May his soul RIP. Joker and Enrile are examples of seniors who should retire na…their comments are obviously staggered na…to be reformatted kung puede pa!

    • 72.2
      saxnviolins says:

      The procedure laid down in the Constitution is analogous to the procedure in a criminal case, in respect to the following points:

      1. There is a complaint, by a citizen, or a Member of the House.

      In a criminal case, there is a complaint by an individual.

      2. There is a filter, or gatekeeper to the Court, the prosecutor or fiscal. He determines probable cause, to ensure that the complaint is not vexatious, merely to harass someone.

      The House, as a whole, is the gatekeeper to the Impeachment Court (senate). it, alone, can transmit the articles of impeachment, to commence the impeachment trial.

      3. If the Fiscal find probable cause, he opens the gate to the Court, by filing the information. Before that, the Fiscal issues what is called a resolution, which is the discussion of findings, as to why he believes there is probable cause.

      The information is the official charge sheet filed in Court.

      In the House, if the the Committee finds that the complaint is sufficient in form and substance, it issues a resolution, stating so. That resolution is sent to the floor, for deliberations. If the House as a whole approves the resolution, the articles of impeachment are drawn up, and sent to the Senate for trial.

      You will note, the complaint and resolution are two different things. The complaint is an accusation or a set of accusations. The resolution is the finding that the accusations have substance, and are worth sending to the House floor, to determine whether or not to draw up the articles of impeachment for trial by the Senate.

      Here is the important distinction.

      A complaint must be verified. A resolution need not be verified, because it is a mere recital of findings regarding the complaint. The official making the resolution is not making any factual allegations. His findings are a conclusion – that the allegations flesh out an impeachable offense.

      • 72.2.1
        saxnviolins says:

        I think Tupas was anticipating at least two-thirds, so he styled the complaint as a hybrid complaint/resolution.

        Problem is, the complaint and resolution are two different things. One is an accusation, and another is a finding. But this is a complaint, which in later paragraphs, becomes a finding. That is a contradiction in terms. If you are accusing, somebody should make a finding or determination that your accusation has substance. You cannot make a finding on your own complaint.

        Tupas might have been blindsided by the following Constitutional provision:

        In case the verified complaint orresolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed. Section 4, Article XI

        Note the disjunctive. Verified complaint, or resolution. If the document is a complaint, it must be verified by the one-third needed to send the articles to the Senate. If, however, it is a resolution signed by one-third, that means a third of the House signed the finding or determination that the complaint should be sent to the Senate.

        But the finding rests on the existence of a complaint. So mayroon pa ring dapat mag-verify, with regard to the allegations.

        Tupas is now caught in a bind. If it is a complaint, then all the 188 must verify (swear to it). If it is a finding by the 188, then on whose complaint was the finding made? Mayroon pa ring isa dapat, na magreklamo, for there to be a resolution.

        Yan ang problema sa di sabog. Minsan, walang tinatamaan.

        • 72.2.1.1
          saxnviolins says:

          Wala ngang factual allegations an articles. It is all a dissection of Corona’s votes in decided cases, and legal argumentation as to why he committed an impeachable offense.

          You can summarize the allegations into four categories:

          1. Disagreement with Corona’s votes in decided cases, stating that they are pro Goyang, and therefore unconstitutional.

          2. Corona’s acceptance of his midnight appointment.

          3. Corona;s allowing his wife, who allowed the John Hay Board, to declare company perks.

          4. Corona’s non-disclosure of his SALN.

          There is nothing to try. By trial, I mean the presentation of evidence, and the direct examination and cross examination of witnesses.

          The decided cases, they have been published. So all the Senate has to do is read them, and make conclusions. The articles, in fact, make legal arguments urging a certain conclusion. Nothing to try here.

          The John Hay affair, there is the COA audit. What is there to try? Let the Senate read it and determine if allowing the wife to allow the Board to declare perks is Corona’s violation of the Constitution.

          The SALN, this is also a legal question. Corona submitted it to the Clerk of the Supreme Court, according to the Narvasa/Cory court’s resolution. Is that unconstitutional? Legal conclusion na yan, because the facts are in.

          Midnight appointment? Legal argument din yan. Corona is not denying that he accepted, so there is nothing to try. Whether or not that is in accordance with the constitution is a legal finding, not a factual finding. No need to try this issue as well, the facts are in.

          The issues are all legal (making legal findings) not factual. This can be resolved by mere submission of memoranda (papers).

          Of course, the lawyers will want to strut their stuff, so let them have a few days of oral argumentation before the Senate, where they will be grilled by the senator/judges.

          The country must not be denied its burning desire to have a political telenovela.

          • 72.2.1.1.1
            saxnviolins says:

            You mentioned Sison’s article? Yes I read it.

            He thinks the Supreme Court has jurisdiction because there was grave abuse of discretion by the House, which the Supreme Court may correct.

            I still subscribe to the reasoning of Nixon v US, however. The Supreme Court cannot exercise supervision over the very chamber (Senate) that is supposed to be judging it (supreme court).

            The Senate can decided that issue as well, whether or not there was grave abuse of discretion, rendering the articles null and void. Every court has the inherent power to correct when there is grave abuse. Superfluous lang yang Constitutional provision natin.

          • 72.2.1.1.2
            Johnny lin says:

            “The SALN…..Corona submitted it to the Clerk of SC, according to Narvasa/Cory court’s resolution. is that unconstitutional””

            This resolution is unconstitutional because the duty SC justices are to interpret the law and constitution but are not authorized to make laws or resolutions that are spelled in the constitution. The reason behind the passage of resolution or memorandum is immaterial, in this case favors only the justices out of their hidden fear. The SC DOES NOT HAVE THE legal right to change, overrule or superimposed any wordings in the constitution. There is an article in the constitution that states all public officials must declare their SALN annually. That should not be violated by any public official including justices. At the same time it is abused of the discretion by the CJ not to disclose and dereliction of duty not to repeal an illegal resolution. Also reposed in the constitution, Legislature has the sole authority to impeach.
            Since the Narvasa resolution has not been challenged before, it did not mean it was constitutional nor it could never be challenged. Since it was a tradition of the SC, it did not mean it was vested constitutionality nor essentially morally right. It is the duty of every new CJ to determine what is constitutionally provided on their personal/local rules or memorandum. Abnoy did it by collating and scrutinizing all EOs of Glue. When it is constitutionally provided, it’s President/SC CJ duty to disregard the tradition and follow the constitution. It is being challenged now as dereliction of duty by CJ Corona. PNoy reviewed Executive order of Glue and repealed those he found unwanting like EO 464, even if it is favorable to the Executive officials. Similarly, CJ should have done exactly what Abnoy did by recognition and responsible action, violation of which is betrayal of public trust in terms of negligence and incompetence. Here is one article with factual charge and substance. The other is Corona’s personally benefitting from wife’s benefits. In private or government official business, the employee is authorized to spend only for herself and clients, never to benefit any relative. Since Executive office has cases in SC, then Corona acted as client or lobbyist by benefitting monetarily or in kind or to stretch it, bribery, which is violation of publict trust thru conflict of interest.

            The Senate being the cteator of Laws would look at that Narvasa resolution as changing or superimposing words in the constitution which is a usurpation of the duties of senators. Imagine if the SC justices are tolerated to make their own resolution that are spelled out in the constititon, then SC is virtually creating their own constitutional articles independent of the nation’s constitution. They are like creating their own government. Isn’t that treason in one way ?

            The House has followed the rule of impeachment reposed to them under the constitution, the Senate has to follow same rule to make judgment. The SC could interpret the constitutionality of Narvasa resolution because it is an illegal resolution by itself created unethically by justices and could be corrected only by impeachment, constitutionally. Besides it is a conflict of interest by law that they decide the constitutionality of their own imaginary fear and they are the beeficiary. Its like baking, eating and judging their own cake as the best tasting cake in the nation. Even a child would say, it is not fair! Leon, Panday, and Jinggoy have been portraying roles dispensing justice. They could easily understand the usurpation of senators duties by the justices. Ano sila, sinuswerte?

            I rest my case and I am not a lawyer. One Hail Mary shot in the middle of a wide rim.

            • Johnny lin says:

              The SC could NOT interpret the Narvasa resolution

              • Johnny lin says:

                “Iyan ang problema ng di sabog, minsan walang tinatamaan”

                Sabi nga ni Dolphy, kaya hindi ako kumakandidato sa pulitika,
                eh kung manalo, Paano ngayon?
                Eh kung tumama ang di sabog? Importante pinaputok!

                Hindi aani kapag hindi nagtanim, minsan masalanta, minsan masagana. Ang dasal ay parating masagana.

              • saxnviolins says:

                You must be referring to this Constitutional provision:

                A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be required by law, submit</b. a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth. In the case of the President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional offices, and officers of the armed forces with general or flag rank, the declaration shall be disclosed to the public in the manner provided by law.

                Seems to me the Constitution says submit.

                The disclosure is in the manner provided by law. Supreme Court resolutions have the force and effect of law. In fact, unlike in the United States, where rules of procedure are enacted by Congress, in the Philippines, the Rules of Court are issuances of the Supreme Court. Those are the same rules that the Senate rules state are suppletory to its (Senate) own rules.

              • Johnny lin says:

                Look up RA 3019 Section 7 stating the Chief Head of an independent body, shall submit their SALN including source of income to the office of the President every April 15. CJ is an independent body. Since there is a law, SC could not create their own ruling. This is specific, the cheif head must submit to office of the president.

                What you are referring to are rules of court created after interpretation by court on certain issues of laws or articles in the constitution, isn’t it?
                SC interpret laws but dont create them; court rules become applicable only to existing laws or remain as such acting as guidelines to law by lower courts until Congress enact laws or replace by constitutional amendment overriding that particular court ruling. I think you refer to them as “precedence” when arguing a case but they are not legislated laws.

              • saxnviolins says:

                The specific controls the general.

                The Constitution mentions the Supreme Court. Your cited provision mentions head of an independent body. Clearly, the Constitution prevails, being more specific, and also being the higher law.

                There is no mention of the judiciary in your cited provision.

                What you are referring to are rules of court created after interpretation by court on certain issues of laws or articles in the constitution, isn’t it?

                By Rules of Court, I mean the Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules on Criminal Procedure, and Rules on Evidence. They are issuances of the Supreme Court, not interpretations of law.

                The preamble of the Rules of Civil Procedure states:

                Pursuant to the provisions of Section 5(5) of Article VIII of the Constitution, the Supreme Court hereby adopts and promulgates the following rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged:

                Read up.

                A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

              • saxnviolins says:

                You mentioned an old law.

                Insofar as submission of statements of assets and liabilities are concerned, that has been replaced by Republic Act 6713, enacted by the Cory Congress in February 1989.

                The pertinent provisions state:

                The Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth and the Disclosure of Business Interests and Financial Connections shall be filed by:

                (2) Senators and Congressmen, with the Secretaries of the Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively; Justices, with the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court; Judges, with the Court Administrator; and all national executive officials with the Office of the President.

                Section 8, 2, A, sixth paragraph

                With respect to promulgating rules to interpret the law, Republic Act No. 6713 provides:

                Section 10. Review and Compliance Procedure. – (a) The designated Committees of both Houses of the Congress shall establish procedures for the review of statements to determine whether said statements which have been submitted on time, are complete, and are in proper form. In the event a determination is made that a statement is not so filed, the appropriate Committee shall so inform the reporting individual and direct him to take the necessary corrective action.

                (b) In order to carry out their responsibilities under this Act, the designated Committees of both Houses of Congress shall have the power within their respective jurisdictions, to render any opinion interpreting this Act, in writing, to persons covered by this Act, subject in each instance to the approval by affirmative vote of the majority of the particular House concerned.

                The individual to whom an opinion is rendered, and any other individual involved in a similar factual situation, and who, after issuance of the opinion acts in good faith in accordance with it shall not be subject to any sanction provided in this Act.

                (c) ,The heads of other offices shall perform the duties stated in subsections (a) and (b) hereof insofar as their respective offices are concerned, subject to the approval of the Secretary of Justice, in the case of the Executive Department and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, in the case of the Judicial Department.

                Looks like Narvasa was acting according to the law enacted in Cory’s time.

                Looks also like the submission to the Clerk of Court is in accordance with the law enacted during Cory’s time.

                That law is more specific to the Supreme Court than RA 3019, and was enacted later in time than RA 3019.

                There goes another Hail Mary shot.

              • Johnny lin says:

                We started with the Narvasa Resolution which you said it was a rule of court now you are on rules of civil procedure. Which is which, make up your mind. I cant guess what you mean.
                Are you saying the Narvasa court Resolution falls under rule of civil and criminal procedutes and evidence?
                My interpretation of your state Rules of Court are Court decisions relative to the Resolution.

                The few rules on SALN are specific and accurate. Even a high school graduate can read and understand the words especially the definition of the terms, government and public officers. Juridical and all branches of government of RP are specified directly there. Did you read RA3019 sec 2 a,b,d?

              • saxnviolins says:

                So we have two Hail Mary shots.

                The SALN issue, which is covered by a Cory (Narvasa) court resolution, pursuant to a Cory law (RA 6713).

                We have the connect to the connect to the connect.

                Corona, connected to his wife, who is connected to the John Hay Board, which collegially declared a company perk. That connect to the connect to the connect is alleged as Corona’s violation of the Constitution.

                Hail Cory full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed are you among women and blessed with the Presidency is the fruit of your womb Noy.

                Holy Cory mother of Noy, pray for his dumbkopfs, now and at the hour of the impeachment trial.

                Amen.

              • Johnny lin says:

                You cited #2 applicable to associate justices only. Section #1 apllies to CJ Corona and the rest of constitutional officials., Pres, VP, Speaker, etc.

                Review and compliance pertains to the contents and form of the SALN. Narvasa Resolution pertains to Public Disclosure of SALN, different rules. Look at Public Disclosure under RA 6713. Better download the website for everybody to read. I could not do it on my phone.

              • Johnny lin says:

                Article XI section 17
                RA 3019- Graft and Corrupt practices Act
                RA 6713- Ethical Conduct of Public Officers

                Are you saying the Corrupt Act was an old law? Under Sec 2 of this law defines the terms government , public officers, gifts and persons. Both RA under Article XI

              • saxnviolins says:

                The Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth and the Disclosure of Business Interests and Financial Connections shall be filed by:

                (1) Constitutional and national elective officials, with the national office of the Ombudsman;

                (2) Senators and Congressmen, with the Secretaries of the Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively; Justices, with the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court; Judges, with the Court Administrator; and all national executive officials with the Office of the President.

                (3) Regional and local officials and employees, with the Deputy Ombudsman in their respective regions;

                (4) Officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, with the Office of the President, and those below said ranks, with the Deputy Ombudsman in their respective regions; and

                (5) All other public officials and employees, defined in Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, with the Civil Service Commission.

                The Chief Justice is a justice. He just happens to be first among equals. So section 2 covers the CJ, not section 1.

                If your interpretation is followed, that means that the Senate President is not a senator, and the Speaker is not a speaker, and they both must submit their SALN to the Ombudsman.

                Constitutional officers refers to the COMELEC, COA, etc.

                The interpretation that the CJ is not a justice borders on the facetious.

              • Leona says:

                Yes, like the mignight appointment issue, the SC “interpreted” it but actually “legislated” the Constitution. That’s the beauty of being in the high Court, you can “legislate” but say only “we are interpreting” it. What does not appear is made to appear, by “legal fiction” that’s what it is!

              • Johnny lin says:

                Same RA 3019, pay particular attention to definition of terms Section 2 (a), (b), (d). stating all government branches of RP including judiciary who are covered by this law.

              • Johnny lin says:

                One last thing, Senators are national elective officials so with your interpretation they have to submit to 2 places, Ombudsman and Senate. Thus the only conclusion is # 1 refers to Heads of constitutional bodies the top 5 officials of the land and # 2 refers to rest of senator congressmen and justices.

              • Johnny lin says:

                Furthermore under RA 6713 Rule VII, Section 1. C)(1),(2), states where to file: CJ has to file with office Ombudsman and associate justices with CC of SC. In other words, the constitutional officers or chief head of constitutional body: President, VP, Senate pres, Speaker, CJ, Presiding judge of Sandigan, Ombudsman and Comelec Chair shall file SALN in 2 places, Ofiice of the President and Ombudsman, under RA 3019 & 6713. no exception.
                If Corona as CJ did not fulfill duty last April 2011, he violated the law.
                All these acts are under Article XI of the 1987 Constitution. Verify them.

              • Johnny lin says:

                The speaker is congressman with special title, same with CJ, Chief heads of constitutional bodies because the 3 branches are constitutional bodies. My interpretation is based on the new ruling of midnight appointment of CJ made legally by SC in which they state that midnight appointees to all appointed officials exclude the judiciary because it was not specified. That is the danger of that faulty ruling, it created a lot of changes and faulty ramifications in the constitution. What is good for the gander is good for the goose.

                Who would say that layman interpretation is wrong based on that change, that is precedence from what you call SC ruling, isnt it? Check those 2RAs I referred to under Article XI. They are either contradictory, confusing or complimentary if both have sections where to file SALNs. If there is confusion, senators will rely on political vote. Hail Mary counted. You heard it from me first, the beans had been counted. The rest is for your telenovela. Eventually choice is resignation when its definite the underground guerilla approach to the senators will not materialize. Kaya delaying tactic muna. Sayang yung pinadalang Xmas gifts, pati pamilya nakinabang.

                Happy NewYear to you and family.

              • jorgebernas says:

                Of course the Supreme Court will not interprete Narvasa resolution coz it will hit them back. sila ang tatamaan dahil naging makasarili sila para sa kanilang sarili lamang….

          • 72.2.1.1.3
            Johnny lin says:

            @saxnviolins
            Ganito ang telenovela, ang titulo ay

            ANG PAGKAIN (SALN)
            Mga Gumaganap:
            A. Special chefs: 1. Executive chef—– Pesident Abnoy
            2. Sous chef———-Senate and House.
            3. Sommelier———- Supreme Court
            B. Ordinary chefs: all other public officials
            C. Sambayanang tao

            Ang Utos ng Saligang Batas(Constitution) : magluto ng cake at ipakain sa lahat ng tao. Walang lalabag, lahat kasali, walang pasubali.

            Ang ginawa ng Sommelier nagusap usap sila lamang, tutal tayo ang may hawak ng alak, yung niluto natin pagkain, atin na lamang, wag na natin ibigay sa iba. Wala silang karapatan gawin ayon sa utos ng Saligang Batas kaya lang pasaway talaga ugali nila dahil sila ang may hawak sa alak na pampagana sa pagkain. Palihim nilang ginawa at matagal ng inabuso kahit labag sa Utos. Walang nagrereklamo kasi kadalasan nababahagi nila ng alak ang executive at sous chefs na mga ganid din.

            Nakahalata ang mga tao, pinalitan ang executive chef ang ngalan ay Abnoy. Mahigpit, malinis at may paninindigan sa wastong paraan. Ayaw niya ng nagnakaw ng pagkain at alak na dapat ibahagi sa tao.
            Sinabihan ang House Sous chef na ang pinuno ng Sommelier ay tanggalin dahil hindi tama ang palakad na hindi ibahagi yung nilutong pagkain at kinakain lamang nilang pansarili. Ang sagot nila, matagal na po namin ginagawa ito at napagkasunduan namin lahat. Saka wala naman nagreklamo noon.
            Sabi ng House Sous chef, mali dahil labag sa utos. Ang mali ay mali kahit kinalakihan ninyo. Ibig ninyong sabihin dahil matagal na kayong magnanakaw at walang nagpakulong sa inyo, hindi na kayo pwedeng kasuhin? Eh ano kung walang nagreklamo noon, ako ang nagreklamo ngayon at karapatan ng Sous chef na tanggalin ang pinuno dahil hindi niya sinunod ang sinumpahan niyang tungkulin. Ang pagkain ay para sa lahat ng tao dahil utos ng Saligang Batas ito na wala sino man sa atin ang may karapatan lumabag. Wala kayong karapatang gumawa ng ibang Saligang Batas maliban dun sa pinalabas na Kautusan ng mga tao.

            Tama ba ang Sous chef o tama ang Somellier?
            Kahit munting paslit maintindihan ito.

            Ang hatol? Maysala!

        • 72.2.1.2
          saxnviolins says:

          Linawin natin pa nang husto.

          There is a complaint, and its complainant, and there is an evaluator or assessor of the complaint, who issues a resolution or a finding.

          You cannot be the evaluator of your own complaint. Yan ang problema dito sa hybrid complaint/resolution.

          • 72.2.1.2.1
            Johnny lin says:

            On the same token, one could not create, benefit from it and judge it at the same on a resolution that was already constitutionally provided.
            Sabi ko nga kung baga ang SALN ay cake, ang mga tuso niluto na, kinain para lang sa kanila ganun maliwanag yung cake para sa lahat ng tao. paano gusto nila husgain nila na di sila tuso? Sakim!

          • 72.2.1.2.2
            Johnny lin says:

            @saxnviolins
            Public relation marketing or selling snake medicine or technical lawyering will no longer be effective to savvy laymen. Its a new technological world. We understand and are abreast of every details, unlike before the advent of twitter and facebook.
            In advertising a car, what does the pitchman say: the car has pretty color, top of the line 6 speaker sound system, leather seats, MP3 and navigation, etc. It does mention the price because its expensive for what its worth, weak engine, no safety features like airbags and ABS traction which are the most important considerations in buying a car.
            You are talking about the weakness of the articles, their technicalities, complaint or resolution which is really immaterial when the 1/3 member signatures is reached Yet, rarely discussed were those charged articles with strong points you dont want people to understand them clearly. When discussed the rationale were off line like the Narvasa/Cory court resolution, making sure Cory’s name was included subtly implying she approved it, although promulgated secretly until it was exposed and the use of perks by Corona’s wife pointing it was approved by Board of Camp John Hay without emphasizing the details of conflict of interest by Corona acting as client or lobbyist on benefitting from the privilege of his wife which he should have reimbursed defining the character of a pure and independent magistrate.
            Posturing is practiced by both sides because their messages are directed to the people/mob, each side wanted to project. We understand every malicious innuendos or legal mumbo jumbo and we are warning the senators to watch their steps. Commit their mistake, we shall react.

            7 out of 10 Filipinos, and counting, are logical and independently minded, not yellowtags. Refuse walking the way to perdition is our mantra; Road to emancipation from corrupt ways is the course we want to trek with or without PNoy.

            • Roco Batungbakal says:

              @Johnny lin, I learned so much from your discussion thank you.

              I need your opinion in the scrapping of the “Truth Commission” in my point of view the SC oversteps the authority of the Executive.

              This is my point of view: Creation of a “BODY” such as the “Truth Commission” will never diminish the right of any accused accorded by law because any accused have the right to be represented in the court with the best lawyer he/she can hire and be heard fairly. Because no amount of investigation or court CAN CONVICT A CLEAN PERSON.

              With this premise, the previous administration who is the subject to be investigated by the “TRUTH COMMISSION” has the presumption of innocence. As has been said no Court can convict a clean person, therefore the action of SC junking the “Truth Commission” Unconstitutional on the argument of “EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAW” only points to the fact that the SC is protecting the previous Administration and implied that the previous Administration is guilty.

              • Johnny Lin says:

                @Roco
                Thanks, its mostly from experience in my profession in analyzing different documents from all over. My opinion on the Truth Commission was that its legal because the executive or the congress could authorize a commission. We had the Melo Commission and its purpose was to investigate extrajudicial killings by military, I believe. It was an specific investigation of a particular group, military, possibly involved in crime, murder. Truth commission was to investigate malfeasance of previous administration, an investigation of a particular group possibly involved in a particular crime, corruption. Similar motive, similar execution by Executive order. Difference,the SC was controlled by Arroyo appointees and her administration was being investigation compared to Melo, it was the same Arroyo Court but she was the one who ordered for face saving of her administration. The Melo report was never publicly revealed.
                I dont look at presumption of innocence because that premise is always present in every investigation of a person. The basic is its legality, the specific purpose and was there a precedence. The answer is yes and court rulings are always cited for precedence that is why when we read opinions from court decisions, there is always a reference to a previous court decision as guideline for judgment.

            • john says:

              count me in the 7 and counting……

              • Johnny Lin says:

                saxnviolins is hibernating because he is trying to decipher and study the rules on SALN place of filing which are both indicated in RA 6019 and RA 6713, the latter was enacted in 1989 but nothing in the law indicated that it replaced section 7 of RA 6019.
                Corona violated section 7 RA 6019 obviously. He did not file his SALN with the office of president after his CJ appoinment required by that Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

          • 72.2.1.2.3
            Mel says:

            @!saxnviolins

            and iyong sulat, “You cannot be the evaluator of your own complaint. Yan ang problema dito sa hybrid complaint/resolution”

            simple lang ang sagot ko mga kababayan. Ang ibang miyembro (bukod sa 188) ng legislatura – puwede naman silang mag file ng motion ukol sa ‘verified complaint’ laban sa kapwa nila.
            kung may isyu, iyong pumirma kasama sa 188, puwede naman magprotest DAHIL HINDI NABASA KUNO ‘ng iba’, o iyong ibang miyembro na hindi pumirma na kaalyado naman ng partido ni GMA – puwede mag file ng motion sa kanilang legislatura.

            In my opinion, due to the jurisdiction of complaints initiated, it remains within the bounds of the Legislature. The Judiciary has no jurisdiction since it is a constitutional impeachment move by Legislature (Congress) against a member (CJ) of the Judiciary branch. Otherwise, for interpretation of the constitution na naman iyan. As such, the current batch of magistrates (most) do not have the credibility nor partiality to arrive at a Scout’s Honor, an impartial and intelligent decision – at least at a common sense disposition.

            Gaya ng sabi ni @saxnviolins, “Linawin natin pa nang husto.”

            Aasahan mo ba ang Mataas NA Husgado na suriin nila kung tama ang batas o proceso na ginamit ng Legislatura na magsampa ng reklamo laban sa kanila? Naturalmente, malaking posibilidad na HINDI (at mali) ang magiging sagot nila dahil hindi lang si CJ ang ma-impeach, susunod din ang iba.

            It is a catch 22 if ever THE JUDICIARY Branch welcomes or admits to have jurisdiction of a motion (or 4) to decide on the verified complaint initiated by 188 congressmen.

            At KUNG sakali tangapin ni Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio ang motion, may posibilidad na tiwalakin niya si CJ R Corona – ang tinik ng Supreme Court.

            Guys, if you quote or rebut by quoting a certain rules of court, Republic Act or whatever BS rule(s), I rest my case and rely on my Common Sense and march with the common tao or massa to protest. I got no time to research, and at the end of the day – the Supreme Court may have its own interpretation and translation that is not Common to all.

            • saxnviolins says:

              Sinabi ko na sa itaas, hindi ako ayon sa pagsuri ng Jukuman sa iysu ng impeachment. Sa sagot ko kay Bayca2, binanggit ko ang katwiran ng Nixon v US.

              Any UP lawyer who is younger than 50 probably took his legal research and writing (freshman first sem) under Professor Myrna Feliciano. Submitting a hybrid complaint/resolution would have merited an outright grade of 5. Failing yan. I don’t know about Ateneo and La Salle, dahil baligtad; a 4 is the highest grade. Uno ang highest sa amin.

              If the student survives, by some miracle, he would have taken his practicum, where you handle actual cases for indigents, under Professor Tadiar. Professor Tadiar asked me to draft a complaint-affidavit for an indigent against the police, to be filed with the fiscal. Had I mixed my client’s role as complainant with that of the role of the fiscal, and filed a complaint resolution, I would certainly have not graduated.

              In the bar exams, the last subject on the last Sunday is legal ethics, with some form drafting thrown in. A regularly occurring requirement is the drafting of a complaint. Again, if this complaint resolution is filed, tiyak, no points for that question ang bar candidate.

              • saxnviolins says:

                Are we saying that we are more exacting on students, writing for make-believe cases (freshman and the bar candidate), but less stringent on Congressmen who are filing an actual impeachment case?

                This is the first in history. Hindi ba puwedeng ginawang pulido, at hindi ganireng dispalinghado? Yan ang kagagawan ng ating Kagalang-galang ng mga Kinatawan?

                Kung pumirma ang 188 bilang resolving officers, sino ang nagreklamo kung gayon?

              • saxnviolins says:

                Noy’s story is like the story of King Midas (not Marquez). all he touched turned to gold. But when he tried to embrace his daughter, she too, turned to gold. It was not altogether good after all.

                Similarly, all who are connected with Noy are turned to clean honest people by association with Noy. That is not entirely bad. But people are blinded by this virtue, that they cease to bother to evaluate the competence of Noy’s men.

                Everything is correct, because it is touched by Noy.

                This is Noy’s albatross. Very few exact competence from Noy’s men.

                That is my point in all my exchanges on this issue. I do not give a hoot whether Corona is a sinner or a saint. I am merely evaluating the articles of impeachment. They could have been impeaching the Pope or a dog for all I care. I would still be looking at the output.

                A popular President inspires high hopes in the people. Those hopes should not be dashed by incompetence, middling performance, or even so-so performance from the President’s men.

              • Johnny Lin says:

                Abnoy story is also like a book, everybody attached to him are pages. Some judge by its cover, others halfway thru. The better judges are the poorly educated, the people, for they read slowly and digest all the morals in the story, how they affect their lives, until closing the back cover when they decide.

              • Johnny Lin says:

                @saxnviolins
                What is required on House impeachment process to be directly sent to Senate when 1/3 of member signatories are verified?
                Complaints must be complete in form and substance, no more no less, isn’t it? There are many ways to skin a cat. Not only thru UP or Ateneo? San Beda, UST, FEU or Lyceum either? Have you heard of UMP? University of Motion Pictures, 4 of them in the Senate?

                Did the house comply? It is now up to Senate if they will pass or fail the complaints for trial. Evidences provided by both sides will be the pudding.

              • Mel says:

                @Johnny Lin
                You asked, “Have you heard of UMP? University of Motion Pictures, 4 of them in the Senate?”

                Now I am better informed! LOL!

                Pardon my ignorance, isn’t it the only award they’re missing is an OSCAR? During their heyday, almost every year they get awarded for their multi roles in a variety of action packed scripted movies. Very FAMAS err famous that they didn’t have to boast of their new reel, I mean, real life roles as the Highest Senate-Judges of the land, to direct or try a Chief Justice if he is still suited for the role of a Chief Justice.

                Now the People’s most favorite actors are exercising the peoples’ right to handle justice. May the best rules-script memorizer and pretender win!

                Hindi mo naman puwedeng sabihing ‘kangaroo court’ dahil nanduon si Miriam at si Juan. Parehong matalino at marunong… mag jess en jinggoy kung sino ang unang magtatanong kay Renato ng latin …

                Baka ma-extra ka diyan @Johnny Lin, you may have a once in a life time opportunity to ask CJ to swear the Oath with his hand flipping yours between the book. hirit…

                mabalos

              • Johnny lin says:

                @mel
                Problema gamit na libro sa lucky 9 ni Corona hindi makapal na bibliya kundi Pepe n Pilar, manipis, madaling mandaya funny you reminded me my bread and butter during schooldays

              • Mel says:

                @Johnny lin

                You wrote, “… funny you reminded me my bread and butter during schooldays”.

                LOL!!!

                Hindi lang ikaw… it was also the trend or ‘the vice’ during our high school days too! ( 70s)

                LOL!!!

                Sorry for the troll Raïssa, could’t help BUT identify with @Johnny lin’s.

              • Johnny lin says:

                @mel
                You referred to it as vice; I considered it a hobby which could be profitable or commercialized on a part time basis, low profile, stricty legal in Sin City but could be banned permanently because the odds are tipped against the house; photographic memory is a plus

                Sorry too, Raissa.

              • Johnny Lin says:

                Sa House sino alumni ng UMP?
                Mikey Arroyo, Pacman, Lucy Gomez, Gina De Venecia, Dan Fernandez, Laarni Mercado, JV Ejercito? Sino pa?

                Bagong Queen nila, GLoria Arroyo,” The Girl with the Halo Vest” drama sa airport. Title patterned after new Hollywood thriller, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.

              • Mel says:

                @saxnviolins.

                Kabayan, nakakalito naman ang mga dagdag mo.

                Gaya ng, “Any UP lawyer who is younger than 50 probably took his legal research and writing (freshman first sem) under Professor Myrna Feliciano. Submitting a hybrid complaint/resolution would have merited an outright grade of 5. Failing yan. I don’t know about Ateneo and La Salle, dahil baligtad; a 4 is the highest grade. Uno ang highest sa amin”

                FYI, I don’t know Professor Tadiar nor Professor Myrna Feliciano from Adam. But I assume they did very well when you were their student.

                Dahil nabanggit mo pa mandin ang mga ‘matataas’ na universidad sa ‘pinas para sa abogasya, gaya ng UST – nalilito na rin kung mali o tama ang PHD para kay R Corona.

                Kaniya-kaniyang paraan ng markado sa grado at proceso ng pagtapos sa mga estudyante.

                Hindi kaya iyang ang isang dahilan kung bakit may sakit ang mga hustisiya ng bayan. kung may lusot, may gusot.

                pero @saxnviolins, naliwanagan na ako sa naisulat mo, “Sinabi ko na sa itaas, hindi ako ayon sa pagsuri ng Jukuman sa iysu ng impeachment.” Ayos pala tayo, medyo mababaw kasi ang simoy ng hangin dito sa ibaba (down under) LOL!

                Guys, you may not be aware yet – but the House of Representatives’ Prosecution Team has released its reply to “[S]upreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona’s prayer that the Senate dismiss the impeachment charges filed against him. The Prosecution Team filed this reply with the Senate acting as an impeachment court on Monday, January 2, 2012″ PDI.

                @saxnviolins, napansin ko, sa iyo lang naman nanggagaling ang
                ‘hybrid complaint/resolution’ angle. Pahinga muna ako dito.

                Agayaman apo!

              • saxnviolins says:

                Kung Atenista ang gumawa ng articles, palagay mo ba kung sinubmit mo yan kay Justice Venicio Escolin papasa yang hybrid complaint resolution na yan?

              • Johnny Lin says:

                Eh kung kay Justice Leon Guerero? Ano palagay mo?

        • 72.2.1.3
          leona says:

          A good point on this. Does the Constitution clearly define what is the “complaint” or what is the “resolution” to be accomplished by the HoR? There is none. What is only understood commonly is an ordinary usual complaint or resolution (as described, i.e., by a Fiscal/prosecutor,etc.) But the Constitutional provisions does not say the “complaint” or “resolution” has to be that usually or commonly understood. Can the HorR make their “own” form of “complaint,” or “resolution” as the impeaching authority in this provision? I think they can. And how they define those words is their own. Can the HoR make it a “mixed” form-style by its title “Complaint/Resolution?” Why not? That’s their choice as the only authority. Can the SC say otherwise procedurally? I don’t think so. It’s out of their hands. Regardless of its (Complaint/Resolution) contents, whether it shows a complaint or resolution, is not important for purposes of saying it has either to be one or the other, if not, it cannot be. I don’t think such argument will hold water. How the HoR calls it and files it is fiat accompli already. That’s up to the Senate. Since the Senate rejected the motion for preliminary hearing by Mr. Cuevas, that’s the end of the matter. The Senate has already accepted the Articles of Impeachment under its form and substance = Complaint/Resolution.

      • 72.2.2
        Mel says:

        @Johnny lin & @saxnviolins

        Guys, ang hahaba ng mga exchanges ninyo. As much as I would like to participate, due to the season break – no time to join in the analysis.

        But kudos sa inyo, you still both have to get a life. Spend time with your love ones too.

        Thanks @baycas for the link on the ‘complete’ articles of the Representatives’ complaint, compared with the summary i saw days before. It was a better version since it added comprehension, background and profile info.

        Best of the new year greetings to Raïssa (her family) and to all fellow commentators (including Baltazar, atbp ).

        2011 yearender on this blog participation was very positive, mentally exercising plus educational). I’ve never read the Phils (incl. 1987 now) Constitution since college in the early 80s. But I was challenged to cross -reference to get the fundamental gist.

        Dakal Salamat ke kayu ngan!

        • 72.2.2.1
          Johnny Lin says:

          @mel
          Thanks for your concern but I have the best time of my life with my love ones since I retired early. This is my pasttime with my phone thats is why I have limited capacity using. i could not make any attachment @baycas does. use only wifi of other people cause I am always on the road travelling.
          have a prosperous safe New Year.

          • 72.2.2.1.1
            Mel says:

            Hey @Johnny Lin.

            No worries máte (ausie for buddy, friend).

            Nasa labas din kahapon waiting for the 12 midnight fireworks, tried reading Raïssa’s blog entries. Hirap basahin sa smartphone and follow the sequence of @saxnviolins and your entries – ang hahaba. But I was chuckling by myself when reading the latest & others’ replies to one another.

            Ganuon din sa iyo kabayan. may 2012 be a prosperous new year to you & your love ones – same with Raïssa’s and fellow bloggers.

            Dakal Salamat ke kayu ngan!

            • Mel says:

              correction.

              “Nasa labas din kahapon…”, should be nuong isang araw (31 Dec) for the NY Eve’s fireworks…

            • raissa says:

              Salamat Mel.

              Hope you have a Prosperous and Lovely New Year.

            • Johnny Lin says:

              Mel, holidays indeed brought you merry and cheers on postings. You and Baltazar are fond of calling us mates; Baltazar is in Singapore, are you Down Under? Abe coud better complement your last sentenceLol.

              Did everyone read on Rappler.com the latest controversy of Corona about UST summa cum laude honor and his wife’s Ombudsman letter?

              I was surprised Raissa was not among those group of journalists in Rappler(Newsbreak new medium) considering her guts and talent, equal or better than Maria Ressa, Marites Vitug, Glenda Gloria which UST debunked publicly.

              • Baltazar says:

                @Johnny lin,
                Thanks for the rappler.com tip. I’m a bit surprised by UST’s explanation about CJ’s degree. It looks like a sort of a “hybrid” of honorary and academic degrees. The Crowning Jewel had a summa cum laude honors with an academic requirement waived (ie dissertation).. plus overstaying hmm…his case is one of a kind. Anyways, at stake is the institution’s reputation.

              • Johnny lin says:

                @baltazar
                There was a column titled”one lucky guy”, its more of sarcasm than envy, citing circumstances to his rise to CJ. Corona did not have much trial or judicial experience; Political, yes and very extensive, maybe more than half of his professional career. When UST cited the reason of legal experience and MBA diplomas for waiving dissertation, it is the mother of all cacophony excuses or favoritism, unfair to other doctorate students. UST said it had the authority to change their rules but would not answer when it was announced or offered to all students. Changing kayak in the middle of a relay is always foul or Formula car during Indy 500 race; UST being also an athletic institution knows that rule.

                Corona indeed was either a lucky guy or all along proved his critics right that his legal experience was maneuvering political deals, probably bordering on illegality. Proofs coming out lately aside from the CJ midnight appointment are UST summa honor and the Bellagio penthouse sweetheart deal.

              • Mel says:

                @Johnny lin, @Baltazar

                Like you guys, I too came across the rappler dot com website thru the UST-Corona expose by Ms Vitug.

                It is BTW a beta site, not in full production as at 03 Jan when I last visited – seems like a work in progress blog site, an off-shoot of newsbreak.

                Although it has similarities with Raïssa’s .com, I choose this one to date. It wouldn’t be wise to pit one against the other by petty listing of bias and personal choice. It is good by all accounts to have a variety of resource of Phils’ social and political news trends for filipinos, both for Phils & overseas residents.

                Cheers to Raïssa and Allan for their dedication & commitment on their eBaby news and investigative website!

                Thank you.

        • 72.2.2.2
          saxnviolins says:

          I post in the early morning, when all through the House, not a creature is stirring, not even a mouse.

          Aru. Dakal a kabalen ning Tatang ko keni.

          • 72.2.2.2.1
            Johnny Lin says:

            @saxnviolins
            Aru, identifiable expression, Tatang mu from 4th district or Sexmoan town
            Me from Pampang, pampang ng Pasig.

            Did you research and compare Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act RA 6019 Section 7 to Code of Conduct and Ethics of Public Officers RA 6713 Rule VII?
            Latter did not replace the former.

            • saxnviolins says:

              My Kapampangan is rusty. I meant grandfather, which should be Apung, or I think, Indu.

              He was from Tarlac (the Ilocano side actually), like Camilo Osias. He had to learn to speak in Kapampangan, however, because the drinking buddies were Kapampangan.

              • Mel says:

                @saxnviolins,

                you’re right, Apung is for grandpa.

                kapag may inuman sa barrio, its hard to differentiate if by grog or sway ang accent… dahil lasing pareho…

                @Johnny Lin, puwede ka na ring translator.

                As for your query to @saxnviolins about ‘Did you research and compare Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act RA 6019 Section 7 to Code of Conduct and Ethics of Public Officers RA 6713 Rule VII?’

                Forget it, na HIDErnate na niya iyon…

                check u guys 2morrow.

                mabalos.

              • Johnny Lin says:

                Kapampangan side ofTarlac when it was part of Pampanga belonged to the 4th district like Santa Ana. Yes Camilo Osias spoke kapampangan. isn’t he from Camiling Tarlac, considered the father of Philippine education, former senator.?That is why you are very scholarly and a former senate staffer( thru connection or talent)?

    • 72.3
      Baltazar says:

      @baycas
      You’re such a resourceful person. Thanks for the links. I’m quite overwhelmed by the terminologies in the articles of impeachment. Tsk…tsk.., the honorable congressman Manny Pacquiao will not just have a nosebleed going through this; He’ll be practically knocked down .. and so are Leon Guerrero and Flavio (Panday) :-).
      As someone has already commented that CJ is trying to win the grass roots masses by airing his side in a pompous Tagalog, I think a good counterpoise is a Tagalog translation of the articles be released to the public – which I feel would fan the flame in favor of the prosecution.

      • 72.3.1
        baycas says:

        You’re welcome, Baltazar.

        Let’s wait for another “nose bleeding” episode when the House prosecutors “parry” or make a “counterpunch” against Corona’s lawyers’ answer to the Verified Impeachment Complaint.

  16. 71
    saxnviolins says:

    So Mike the Pig has been charged before the Sandiganbayan.

    The Sandigan is swarming with Glue men. If the President wants a fair trial, he can do a Marcos – with the help of the Congress. After all, he has the overwhelming majority, as evidenced by the articles of impeachment. Mas madali pa, because you do not need two-thirds of the Senate.

    Marcos swept away the justices in the Court of Appeals by abolishing it. He replaced it with the Intermediate Appellate Court. Same banana, different name, with a few cosmetic changes in the law. So all justices were out of office, because the office was abolished. Marcos reappointed many, but not all. With this maneuver, he achieved a free hand in reforming the Court.

    Congress can abolish the Sandigan, and create a new graft trial court, to try graft and corruption cases triable by the Sandigan. The appellate jurisdiction of the Sandigan will be handled by the Court of Appeals. I really do not agree with the stupidity of a hybrid court, that is a trial court for some officials (President, etc.) and an appellate court (appeal from the RTC) for lowly government employees.

    In fact, since much of the corruption actually occurs at the Court of Appeals (remember Sabio? Involved din si Bienvenido Reyes diyan di ba?), Noy can do a Marcos and restructure the Court of Appeals as well. Ibalik sa Intermediate Appellate Court (pronounced iyak. Kaya daw iyak ng iyak ang mga justices).

    What is the source law? Batas Pambansa 129

    With one fell swoop, you clean up the appellate courts, without need for impeachment.

  17. 70
    wan sipag says:

    sana magkaroon ng mobocracy dito sa pilipinas. at ng sa ganun magkaroon ng anarchy, im sure pag magulo na pilipinas kaming mahihirap at mga bobo abnoy at budoy ang matitira dito…. 1. dahil hindi kami matalino gagawin namin simple ang batas na iiral sa bayan. 2. dahil kami ay abnoy simple lang pananaw namin sa buhay at hindi kami ambisyoso. 3. dahil kami ay sanay sa hirap at simpleng pamumuhay gagawin namin simple struktura ng pamumuhay. walang globalisasyon hindi rin kami apektado ng krisis na dala ng globalisasyon 4. dahil kami ay mangmang hindi namin maiisip na man lamang ng kapwa.
    5. pagmangmang at bobo mas mananaig ang damdamin at totoong takot sa diyos at pananampalataya. dahil dito mananaig ang damdadamin namin sa pagmamahal sabayan na walang pagiimbot.
    6. dahil ramdam namin ang kahirapan.. mas mangingibabaw sa amin ang bayanihan.
    SANA NGA MAGKATOTOO ITO….O TINGNAN NINYO SARILI NYO BAKIT KAYO MATATAKOT SA GANITO…SIGURO AAYAW KAYO SA GANITO DAHIL IISIPIN NINYO ANG ANG INYONG MAKASARILING AMBISYON AT KINABUKASAN NG ANAK AT PAMILYA NYO…MAGANDANG FAMILY VALUE YAN PERO YAN ANG SIMPLENG SUMISIRA SA LIPUNAN…..POR DIYOS POR SANTO..HINDI KAYO DIYOS PARA DIKTAHAN ANG BUHAY NA BINIGAY SA BAWAT ISA SA ATIN. KAYA TAYO BINIGYAN NG FREE WILL PARA MAY LAYA ANG BAWAT ISA NA SUNDIN ANG TADHANA NG BUHAY KUNG ANONG MERON MAN TAYO. DAHIL SA AMBISYON NATIN NA MAGING DAKILANG MAGULANG AT KAPAMILYA GAGAWIN NATIN LAHAT KAHIT MANLAMANG SA KAPWA…SA KAGUSTUHAN NATIN MAGING PINAKA MAGALING ANG MGA ANAK NATIN SA LAHAT NG ASPETO NG BUHAY. BIBILHIN NATIN ANG LAHAT KAHIT SA ANONG HALAGA NA SYA NAMANG MAGUUDYOK SATIN KADALASAN PARA MANLAMANG AT MAGKAMAL NG YAMAN.

    NAISIP KO LANG PANO NGA KAYA KUNG PAIRALIN NATIN ANG MOBOCRACY???

  18. 69
    wil15 says:

    Hi Raissa,

    I just come across an article of Marites Vitug in Rappler entitled UST Breaks Rules to Favor Corona.

    Ms. Vitug alleges that Corona finished doctorate in civil law without dissertation and was conferred summa cum laude honors by UST in spite of completing his studies in more than 5 years, which is beyond the required maximum residency (5 years) to qualify for honors. Ms. Vitug repeatedly tried to get a copy of Corona’s dissertation from UST, to no avail.

    I wonder if you have read this.

    • 69.1
      raissa says:

      Yes.
      Recently.
      Marites and I were once together in Business Day newspaper.

      Together with two other reporters we formed the political team.

  19. 68
    ROMAN RAMA GUERRERO says:

    As a Jury System advocate. I look at this conflict as the political version of that medical condition called “organ rejection” with the organ being the SC and Judiciary fronted by Corona. This is a conflict between two different mindsets; PNoy who believes in republican democracy declares that the People as the BOSS and that public officials serve with accountability. On the other hand, by their rulings, the Corona SC has shown that they do not subscribe to that republican principle – sec. 1; art. II – as they consider themselves their own BOSS, as GMA did governed and ruled without accountability to the People just as the Spanish and American governor generals did during the colonial period. With that mind set, there is no corruption because state funds are looked into as entitlements for the colonial governors or rulers a.k..a. public officials who derive their power from the mighty 4 G’s – Gold, Guns, Goons and Girls – they buy their offices with during election. We, the People, need to excise or cut off that “decaying organ” before it brings down entire body called Philippine Democracy. Reforms such as the adoption of the Jury System should now be carried out as it is the missing third component of the American system of government we have adopted. Filipinos need to undertake a “peoples
    parallel impeachment process” to do away or “impeach” those twisted rulings contrary to republican Democracy embodied in our Constitution.

  20. 67
    Mel says:

    Hi Raïssa,

    The Epiphany is just within sight.

    Makes us all wonder who would be greeted, chastised on the day of reckoning and realization. And if the stars align on Easter, would the filipino people be ready to flagellate the guilty?

    T’was wondering, Raïssa are you currently doing an analysis OR are you going to write about the “formal Answer of Chief Justice Renato Corona to the House of Representatives’ Articles of Impeachment against him“?

    It would be great I reckon to slice, dice and stir CJ R Corona’s REPLY in your blog forum WITH your highly opinionated commentators.

    Thanks, and regards.

    • 67.1
      raissa says:

      Dear Mel,

      First I’m scheduled to take a short break with my son -a long promised one.

      Then I will do an analysis.

      Promise.

      • 67.1.1
        Mel says:

        Hi again.

        Thanks for the quick reply.

        Sorry if it sounded ‘bossy’. I sincerely didn’t mean to.

        I really hope you’ll have a quality and safe time with your son, and with the rest of your family too.

        Naging ‘tradisyon’ na kasi ang pagbukas ng website mo dito sa Aus.

        Ingat.

        • 67.1.1.1
          raissa says:

          I know, Mel.

          I’ll see what I can do :)

          But don’t worry. Next year will be pretty exciting.

          I’ll be there.

          The protagonists are still warming up.

          • 67.1.1.1.1
            Just ideas kapatid says:

            ooiiyy. you’ll be there. that’ll be nice…

            I just thought of a blog bayanihan suggestion. ideas lang po…

            - Kung matutuloy po ang article ninyo ukol kay CJ R Corona, Before the start, and during the Senate trial and proceedings. many of us will very much appreciate the progress. exciting… especially to recall entries/replies who were right and not.

            - It is a ground err cyber breaking event for all filipinos nationally and internationally.

            - a point by point commentary, analysis with your followers.
            - bloggers for and against the impeachment. Some with duplex personalities with their pseudo names taking on both sides. LOL.

            - Perhaps, the lead solon prosecutors could get some ideas from your blog.
            And the Senate can get a pulse on their performance from your ersthwhile bloggers.
            - A parallel live and online participation or resource with your kababayans on a blog’s version of commenting, debating, argumenting, pikoning, name calling… on question and answer (Q & A) sessions.

            - Maybe you as moderator (Judge) filtering through the entries/replies.
            bloggers can cite constitutional arguments, virtual evidences to prove their contentions.

            —-

            have a good break, keep safe and healthy…
            we really appreciate very much your work.

            • raissa says:

              No, me not judge.

              Me, observer.

            • Baltazar says:

              My web social meter shows 17,011 likes for this blog site.. Oh my Ms. Raissa, your “notoriety” is widespread. Enjoy the break.. I suggest no internet… no mobile phones … just use the smoke for communications LOL.
              Just like @Mel, I got addicted to the site also such that even during this holiday break, I can’t help but skim through the comments daily. Yeah, @Johnny Lin & @Saxnviolins are a cluster of thunders. And LOL, one time my wife jokingly nagged me “ano ka ba , tutulog ka na lang , Raissa ka pa dyan”. He he.. I hope addiction to this blog site will not wreck homes just as Sendong did. :-). Let me give the first bang, HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL!

    • 67.2
      gLitch_xix says:

      I would love to read what the CJ said. hmm looks like another healthy debate brewing. Welcome 2012 with a bang!

      • 67.2.1
        Mel says:

        @ gLitch_xix

        Yesterday, the defense team of CJ R Corona released his REPLY to the Articles of Impeachment by the House of Representatives now at the Senate.

        However, the point by point ‘reply’ of CJ R Corona wasn’t signed by him. It was only his lawyers who did sign.

        TODAY, the Prosecutors’ spokesperson Representative Miro Quimbo “[t]ook exception to Corona’s failure to sign and verify the answer filed by his legal defense team, saying the lack of verification may weaken the reply as it makes him unaccountable for any falsehoods in the response.

        Not really sure why the embattled Chief Justice didn’t sign his supposed replies. Since many filipinos are looking forward for his official statement to refute the accusations against him.

        Maybe a conscience stricken magistrate that caused his glitch.
        With caution, the propaganda for publicity replies may not be the same version when the trial starts.

        • 67.2.1.1
          gLitch_xix says:

          @Mel: Thanks. Something fishy is going on here. Plot thickens.. Very interesting indeed.

        • 67.2.1.2
          saxnviolins says:

          Miro Quimbo does not seem to have litigation experience.

          An answer generally does not need to be verified, except in a criminal case, when one files his counter=affidavit.

          The answer basically states that the allegations in the complaint are not true. It is he who alleges the affirmative who must prove. For it is he who states that a fact exists – the fact of theft, etc. The answering party only says that is not true. So it is party who alleges a fact who must swear that the facts have been verified, and are not a shotgun allegation culled from thin air. It is the party alleging who is invoking the jurisdiction of the court, so he must swear that this is based on fact, and not a waste of the court’s time.

          Even in philosophy, it is the theists who must prove that there is a God. The atheists need not do so. How do you prove a negative?

          Also, though not so captioned, Corona’s response is actually a motion to dismiss. A motion to dismiss essentially states that even if the allegations are true, there is no basis for removal, because it does not prove an offense.

          For instance, Corona says, I have only one vote. So even if the allegation that the decision is pro Glue is true, how is that Corona’s fault, when the whole court voted? In fact, the vote of Corona was not even needed, since the majority was already achieved without Corona’s vote.

          This is the problem with shotgun approaches, they are usually off target.

          Tupas: Ano ba? Ang tagal.

          Researcher: Sir mahirap pong asintahin (gather evidence).

          Tupas: Puwes gumamit kayo ng di sabog. Kahit papaano, may tatamaan diyan.

          Researcher: Okay sir, ito na po ang di sabog niyong articles of impeachment.

          Since they had a solid majority, floor debates would have baited Lagman et al to come up with their objections, which when corrected, would have fortified the articles of impeachment.

          • 67.2.1.2.1
            Mel says:

            For CJ R Corona not to affix his signature to his defense reply may also mean that it is subject to interpolation during the course of the hearings as to its finality.

            A poker type game that when the Prosecutor Solons brings out the onus to support/prove their complaints by Jan 2, 2012. The respondent’s team wishes to determine the strength of what the prosecutors’ facts and evidences are to support their articles for impeachment.

            True, the respondents’ request for dismissal is dependent too, come what may on Jan 2, 2012. For or for a continuance… it remains to be weighed.

            Hence, a stronger defense type of Reply would weigh dependent on the strength of the prosecutors’ card faces IF revealed. Strategy, it depends on which side you’ll bet your dog house with.

            CJ R Corona MAY claim later on that he wasn’t entirely consensual to the constructs (e.g. word for word) of the initial replies submitted initially. Meaning, subject to his future whim and caprice when pushed on a corner.

            As for Theist or Atheist, centuries old debate…
            One can’t win against FAITH. People are willing to die for blind faith.

            Shotgun approach?
            At least tumama ang isa. Parang Al Capone, na silo sa income tax evasion.

            It takes one conviction on a single article to be impeached.
            All if not a majority is so much the better.

            As for Supreme Court voting counts by majority, even if R Corona abstained or cast against on cases of late that are of national significance? CJ R Corona may not be the last to be impeached.

            Recent news are exposing that there are admin rules breaches within the Supreme Court Magistrates’ corridors on a variety of issues. Definitely, more skeletons are coming out of the back room chamber.

            PERFORMANCE BASED ISSUES on R Corona as a magistrate, associate and Chief Justice are the complaints laid out in the articles. It is now a political exercise brought on by the peoples’ representatives, by majority against the seating Chief Justice, and not the Judiciary Branch.

            I agree with the media release statements of 5 former IBP heads. “[I]t exercised its constitutional prerogative to initiate impeachment and placed the country on notice that the elected representatives of the people are holding the Chief Justice accountable for his actions as specified in the Articles of Impeachment even as the power to determine guilt or innocence devolves upon the Senate, they said.
            _

            • raissa says:

              In other words, although it’s his reply, he still retains deniability. :)

              • saxnviolins says:

                If you read the reply, most are legal argumentation, which does not require that it be sworn to.

                Like Joker said, the articles are anchored on decisions which have been published, and on audit reports.

                There are, actually, no factual allegations in the articles. There are, what is called in law, conclusions of fact – inferences, which need not be admitted nor denied. This is a basis for a motion to dismiss, as found in the Rules of Civil Procedure. It is called a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action (failure to state a claim in the US).

                In criminal procedure, it is called a motion to quash on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense. It is not an offense to vote when the Court decides.

                What are those conclusions of fact? Corona is biased, Corona is pro Glue. What are the facts that yield these inferences? That is what must be alleged in the complaint (articles).

                Corona also allowed his wife to avail of John Hay perks, authorized by a board of which she is a part.

                Really now? This is the Hail Mary shot among the articles.

                Corona is guilty of violating the Constitution, because he allowed his wife, to allow her Board, to declare perks. Note the stretch. The law is not founded on such elastic logic. Neither is English grammar, I submit.

                Culpable violation of the Constitution requires an act by the offender, Allowing his wife to allow her board to perform an act is not the act of the offender.

                So what is Corona’s reply if ever? I am not biased, I am not corrupt. Does he have to swear to the denial? No, because one need not prove a negative. Have you seen a criminal, whether murderer or rapist charged for perjury for pleading not guilty after he is proven to have murdered or raped? No sir. In fact, if the accused does not plead, the Court enters a plea of not guilty for him.

                Similarly, answers in civil cases are not sworn to. Only the lawyer signs the answer to a complaint.

                Do not read too much into this issue of whether there is deniability or not. A motion to dismiss is made by the lawyers. I have not seen any motion to dismiss that is signed by the Respondent, unless the respondent is appearing pro se (for himself).

                When the Senate questions Corona, that will be done under oath.

                There is a time and place for everything.

                Meantime, look at the substance. Is there any?

              • saxnviolins says:

                My problem with the so-called purity of Noy, and his saintliness, is that it seems that it impels many people to gloss over the incompetence of his people, just because Noy is behind them. People are too awed by the brilliance of his cleanliness, that they are willing to forgive anything related to him. It is a form of reverse guilt (in this case, virtue) by association.

                If that is the result of Noy’s saintliness, then that saintliness itself becomes a curse – a curse for the continued incompetence of his people.

                Sayang.

              • Johnny lin says:

                “my problem with the so called purity of PNOY………it is a form of reverse guilt by association” this is plain innuendo?

                Here is similar innuendo. Based on association:
                do you have a problem concluding that Corona is guilty on his own for voting 19 times in favor of GMA?

              • Mel says:

                @ saxnviolins

                aber, hindi ‘Sayang’.

                PNoy is the last if ANYONE would accuse of Corrupt, abuser of power, etc.

                With his indulgence, he has his parent’s legacy to protect and uphold. It cost his family’s generation the life of The Father and servitude of The Mother (no matter how imperfect it was) to our beloved country.

                Noy’s saintliness? Naahh.

                He’s doing the right thing that every filipino in public office and service MUST do. And it is bearing good fruits.

                He needs the overwhelming support of each and every filipino to make the Philippines a better country, and so on… to constructively criticize him and HIS APPOINTEES, to applaud his accomplishments, also to berate him if he goes astray of too much smoking.

              • boss ni Pnoy says:

                @sax
                what bothers you is not what you have just written, sa tingin ko, ito ay kung papaano ninyo malilinis ang pangalan ni gloria devil…ngayon you are exerting all efforts na magkaroon ng mantsa ang pangalan ni Pnoy to cover your asses……subalit dahil pure and simple ang core values ni Pnoy( isama mo na dyan ang pagpapahalaga nya sa prinisipyo ng kanyang ama at ina) wla kayo mahanap na butas sa kanya na kung saan aani kayo ng simpatiya ng tao. . kung kaya…gusto nyo sirain sya sa pamamagitan ng ng mga taong nakapaligid sa kanya….na may bahid ang dangal na minana kay gloria, erap, ramos at macoy. Unti unti nyo wawasakin si Pnoy by means of persuading the public sa pamamagitan ng simpleng absurd logical reasoning; “kung ang mga advisers and close allies of Pnoy are bad eggs gaya ni gloria, ibig sabihin hindi genuine ang programa nya kahit sya santo pa.” so walang kwenta kung susuportahan pa ng pinoy ang matuwin na daan nya. thus hindi na rin papansinin ng tao ang paghahangad ni Pnoy na malinis ang gobyerno at mapanagot ang mga tiwali at corrupt na opisyal. unti unti nyo ginagapang ang sentimyento ng mga ordinaryong taong katulad ko na konti ang alam sa pasikot sikot sa pulitika. your grand plan is to erode the 72% approval rating ng pangulo. then pagwala na ang peoples support automatically talo na sa numbers game ang empeachment case kahit ano pa ang ebidensya na ipakita sa senado. then pag nabsuwelto si corona panalo sigurado sa kaso si arroyo then…voila enjoy sa pagpapakasasa sa nakaw na yaman si arroyo!!!! thus WORTH IT BINAYAD NI ARROYO SA KANYANG MGA ABOGAGO AT BINAYARAN NA PROPAGANDISTS AND PAID HACKS. baka may incentives pa kayo!!! NAPANSIN KO NA SA IBA’T IBANG FORUMS AND BLOG SITES…PAREPAREHO ANG NAKIKITA KUNG PANGALAN…WALANG GINAWA KUNDI SIRAAN SI AQUINO AT PURIHIN SI GLORIA AT CORONA….BAKIT HINDI NA LANG KAYO GUMAWA NG SARISARILI NYONG SITES PARA DUN NA LANG KAYO MAGSULAT……MINSAN INIISIP KO NAGBAYAD NA RIN SIGURO SI GLORIA NG OUTSOURCING COMPANY PARA LANG SUYURIN ANG LAHAT NG FORUMS AND BLOG SITES PARA LANG GULUHIN ANG AT ILIHIS AT PAGTAKPAN ANG KATOTOHANAN. yonlang yon.

              • saxnviolins says:

                If you ever visit Ellen Tordesillas’ blog, you would have seen my posts excoriating the Glue, the appointment of Corona, etc.

                Even my first post here tore apart the ponencia of Lucas Bersamin upholding the appointment of Corona.

                But i am only reading the articles of impeachment, and its merits. That is all the Senate will decide upon. Walang personalan, walang attempts to find Corona guilty by association with the Glue.

                In one of the lectures, where he waxed poetic, Raissa’s Dad once said, a judge only looks at the allegations in the information (charge sheet in a criminal case – he taught criminal law). He is not supposed to be influenced by the fame or fortune of the accused. You will note, he said, Lady Justice is blindfolded. She only feels the weighing scale. The prosecutor puts evidence on the scale, and the defense puts its own on the other side. Where the scale tilts, that is the side that Lady Justice will uphold.

                Don’t look at Corona, whether he is a tasbu ng wetpu or not; don’t look at his association with the Glue; look at the articles and their substance. Did the House do a good job? Doesn’t the President deserve good competent men?

                If we support our President, then we should be exacting on his men; because they carry the torch for him. They will either light the Olympic flame (flame of excellence), or they will stumble and not reach the stadium.

              • saxnviolins says:

                Totoo lahat ng paratang.

                Midnight appointee si Corona. Tuta siya ni Goyang. But that is not the issue in the impeachment. The issue would be the articles.

                May nagbasa ba ng sagot ni Corona? Due process demands that. Journalistic ethics demands that as well.

                Yung articles. Bakit summary lang? Why has it not been published in full?

              • Johnny lin says:

                @saxnviolins
                Just the facts, agreeably are the best measures of judgment.
                I agree on your lawyering to look at charges and answers on face value. Mel, boss & sable look at them on laymen views
                True, Corona signature was needed. True, look at both charges and answers on their merits. False, there are no substance and factual allegations. True, some of what you said had substance, others hollow like mine or everybody else.
                Confusing, could be subconscious on your mind, is hurling innuendos or devil advocacies against PNoy, his minions and their motives. You might have written adverse opinions against Corona and Bersamin because they are factually contrarians to your legal belief but never pointed out your agreement on PNoys non legal moves.
                That is why it is better to be black or white, rather than trying sitting on wobbly fence where its easy to fall. You expressed an innuendo on Pnoy and minions but you did not answer my question on a similarly innuendo against Glue.
                Hail Mary shots: what is material is counting one lucky shot. Throwing many of them is not illegal. It does not even matter if throwing the ball is Michael, Kobe, Lebron or Kerr. Bet you have to research the last name! That is the same with reputation of lawyers on both sides. True too, the Senate impeachment is political, what it means the prosecutor aside from throwing many Hail Mary shots, their basketball rim is double the size of Corona.
                Your style of writing using Glue, Mike the Pig, Hilarious Divided reminds me of a business columnist I read before, which I would remember in due time.

              • Johnny lin says:

                Correction
                Sorry, it should be: Corona signature is not required on the answers.

              • Mel says:

                @saxnviolins

                @Johnny lin wrote, “Your style of writing using Glue, Mike the Pig, Hilarious Divided reminds me of a business columnist I read before, which I would remember in due time.”

                @Johnny lin is zeroing on you @saxnviolins. LOL!

                Huwag mo ng ibulgar @Johnny lin.

                Okay pa naman ang mga entries ni @saxnviolins.
                Magiging boring ang blog site. Unless, he’ll use another display name. LOL!

                But forensic techniques and Identifying style of writing can still expose the lnks and semblance. eg. repeat mention of ‘…ponencia of Lucas Bersamin’. @saxnviolins seems so delighted he debunked the former of …

                At least dito, both of you can either be a protagonist or antagonist. see-saw kayong dalawa…

                Have a good holiday and New Year’s celebration gentlemen!

              • Johnny lin says:

                @mel
                Just trying to sharpen the rusting profession. Not precise, for copycats exist, although early this year on Newsbreak blog I did try to identify Midas as “internet troll” and possibly “gay” thru his writings which he denied. Newsbreak did an article on the Troll issue and lately, the gay reference was proven, becoming a “you tube sensation” on how Midas effeminately reacted after knocking down the microphone
                Besides, I would not dare because @saxnviolins is a cure for Alzheimer. As they say, worthy adversary, not literally
                Happy New Year, paisans

              • Sable zablan says:

                Sax n violins,
                I bet that if u play the instruments named in your email addrsss, you started as an incompetent player. If not pitiful, laughable but not despicable. Your prejudicial view of the president’s men suggest your presidential candidate in the last election lost badly. Sorry, if you are an experienced voter, you voted incompetently.

                Most everyone who is elected or appointed to a position may start being incompetent because they have a lot to learn: they need to learn the wrongs they inherited from their predecessors and then learn to correct them as they learn to do the job competently. Competence is not expected of learners. Mock
                those who have learned their positions well and for so long and still do not do good for the country. For their competence had been misdirected to doing themselves good at the expense of
                the country.

              • saxnviolins says:

                You think what I am saying has no substance? Read the papers. Magpapalit na daw ng legal team ang Pangulo.

                Mabuti naman.

              • Johnny lin says:

                “no factual allegations in the articles”
                Failure to submit SALN and appointment of wife are factual.

                “In criminal procedure, facts charged do not constitute an offense”
                In criminal procedure there is no charge called “betrayal of public trust” which has vadt arrays of implication.

                Corona is guilty of violation because he personally benefited from the perks allowed her to use by the Board not because of the Board approval. That falls under personal discernment in blatant display of conflict of interest. If hotell receipts are presented that John Hay paid for the room and he is listed as registered guest that is proof. He should have paid his share of lodging or for drinking soda in restaurant paid by CJH for his wife. There is substance in that charge.

              • Mel says:

                @ Johnny lin.

                Bow ako sa sagot mo.

                The hospitality was there by personal ‘representation’ expenses to a Chief. Many hope it was that good (s??) and appetizing.

                Properly receipted docus, written & signed complaint(s), witnessed by a board of ???, against the better half (or worst?) of the accused – documented, sworn at, signed by and vowed in a cathedral, respectively.

                Can a wife give evidence or testify for or against her husband in a Senate Chamber for impeachment? Usually, in civil or criminal cases (I thimk), the wife can opt or lawfully elect not to.

                What is the Rules of the Senate for impeachment make of this?

              • Boss ni Pnoy says:

                @sax
                katulad ni mel hanga po ako sa mga explanation mo tungkol sa legality, merits at kung ano ano pa tungkol sa impeachment case. pero sa katulad kung araw araw na sumasakay ng jeep at padyak, the more na sinasabi nyo na mahina ang kaso laban kay corona mas tumitindi ang paniwala ko na nag propagate na nga ang lahi ni topacutes, kiss ass marquez, elena horona at atty lambitin dito kay Raissa at sa iba pang blog sites. dahil lang sa kasakiman NABUKSAN NA ANG PAN’GLORIAS BOX..di na mapigilan ang pagkalat. tst tsk tsk. it is the masses who intsalled gloria to power kaya kaming mga naghihikahos ang uusig sa kanya dahil sa paglapastangan nya sa amin. siguro nga the catholic church is not doing anything to punish her katulad ni zeus siguro MALAKING HALAGA ang dahilan…

                In classic Greek mythology, Pandora was the first woman on earth. Zeus ordered Hephaestus, the god of craftsmanship, to create her, so he did—using water and earth. The gods endowed her with many talents: Aphrodite gave her beauty, Apollo gave music and Hermes, persuasion. The gods also gave her the gift of curiosity.

                When Prometheus stole fire from heaven, Zeus took vengeance by presenting Pandora to Epimetheus, Prometheus’ brother. With her, Pandora was given a beautiful jar which she was not to open under any circumstance. Impelled by her curiosity given to her by the gods, Pandora opened the jar, and all evil contained escaped and spread over the earth. She hastened to close the lid, but the whole contents of the jar had escaped, except for one thing that lay at the bottom, which was Hope. Pandora was deeply saddened by what she had done, and was afraid that she would have to face Zeus’ wrath, since she had failed her duty; however, Zeus did not punish her, because he knew this would happen.

                para sa amin convicted na yan si corona at arroyo, try to immerse yourself in our lives…subukan nyong tahakin ang landas namin at ng maunawaan ninyo kung bakit kami ganito.

              • Boss ni Pnoy says:

                what was left in the box is very significant to us kaya ipaglalaban namin yon kahit ano pa ang mangyari kung di kaya ng senado gampanan handa kaming dalhin sa lansangan ang laban…huwag nyo kaming hamunin.

              • pelang says:

                i did read once on ellen Tordesillas’ blog, Saxnviolin even called Pinoy as Abnoy. After reading that, I don’t take him seriously anymore.

              • johnny lin says:

                @pelang
                Pardon me, to the point of not being condescending, Abnoy has been published widely in Philippine newspapers that using it sometimes may not be disrespectful intentionally but more of trying to be humorous.

                What is important is the content or ideas of comments posited in relevance to the issue of contention. Saxnviolins is a talented poster. His rationale on laws are worth reading and digesting. Unfortunately, he had stopped for reasons he only knows.

                I have read his postings too @ellen except nobody engaged him there but not in this blog.

              • Mel says:

                @ saxnviolins.

                Kudos to your inputs. I learn a mile from your educated and legal experience on this political and social milestone affecting our country.

                Si @ Johnny lin ang madalas na katapat mo. LOL!

                Ang entertaining side dishes o samples mo kung minsan – dramatic! e.g. “This is the Hail Mary shot among the articles”, jawo…

                LOL !

              • Mel says:

                @ saxnviolins
                You wrote, “Similarly, answers in civil cases are not sworn to. Only the lawyer signs the answer to a complaint.”

                If it were a criminal case, would it be mandatory for him to sign a prepared statement?

                Since we all know this is also a political case of national significance involving the branches of gov’t which has NEVER been challenged nor tried before in the Phils. Wouldn’t it be politically advantageous for CJ Corona to willingly sign his ‘own’ Reply statements to refute the ‘flimsy’ complaints?

                You know, the Phils. Senate elections are scheduled for 2013, right? Just like what @Johnny lin commented in his other releases, it would be a political suicide if the ire of the voting public goes against the seating Senator- Judges who will run again for Senate come 2013?

                In my opinion, it has come this far. It is no longer who has the best legal arguments in so far as for dismissal, acquittal or conviction. The PEOPLE’s (Legislative) Representatives are to try & SENATE Judge the highest magistrate (Judiciary) whether he is FIT, beyond Reproach or Credible to seat as The Chief Justice.

                You know, Renato Corona carries a lot of political garbage. He’s been hounded from the very beginning, before appointment as an associate and as Chief. The OFFICE HAS BEN COMPROMISED ALREADY! And his performance as Chief has been PERCEIVED TO FAVOR GMA and a select few.

                If Renato Corona is still smart a bit, he would resign by now, or at least go on leave during this episode.

                —-

                Ryan Chua of ABS-CBN News wrote, ”
                [S]enator Miriam Defensor-Santiago will make sure certain people in the administration who pushed for the government’s defiance of a Supreme Court order allowing former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to go abroad won’t get the nod of the Commission on Appointments.“.

                I guess the good Senator has no plans of running again for Senate, and she is looking forward for ICC. She doesn’t have to smooch or kiss whose a?? for political mileage nor favors.

              • Mel says:

                Hi there.

                Akala ko tinangal mo ng todo itong huling comments ko.

                Medyo maselan kasi, at parang ‘astig’ ang dating.
                o baka kaya mayruon kasing quotation weblink to another media online site. kaya na-delay ang release. LOL!

                Back from holidays? Ang bilis naman. O di maiwasan subaybayan ang mga followers mo, pati ang comment (Reply) updates for release.

                Like many of your ardent readers, hindi ko rin maiwasan buksan ang link website mo for the latest. LOL!

                You wrote, “… although it’s his reply, …”
                For a CHIEF of all magistrates not to sign his REPLY(s) whereby his future career and reputation are at stake – it is incredible. Still, he may claim it was his lawyers’ version but not entirely his own (Lorem Ipsum).

                He can opt deniability, not entirely his own testament… subject to interpretation err translation. LOL!

                At least sa blog, mabilis ang running REPLIES, ano?
                kaniya-kaniyang username pa. LOL!

                AGYAMANAK APO

          • 67.2.1.2.2
            Johnny lin says:

            @saxnviolins: please correct me if these are wrong.

            1.What are the requirements for impeachment in the House before being submitted to Senate? 1/3 House members signatures needed to send directly to Senate without passing thru Justice committee. If a congressman insists not to sign unless reading the entirety, thats his right, but it does not invalidate the rules. If rule was followed by the House to the letter, its valid. Why debate if it is not required, waste of taxpayer money and delay that would give a chance for SC to intervene unnecessarily like in Gutierrez impeachment. If it followed the rule, its valid. Example: student is complaining that the teacher gave him a failing grade for not being allowed to take final exam. He was absent 9 days. If the rule is being absent for 8 days in a 12 day class subject, the students automatically fails which the student knows before semester started, then he has no right to complain. Same thing to the House, the rules are known to them before the start of current Congress. Complainants are nit picking, not valid. Pulitika lang.
            2. Is there a rule on how long does it take to formulate the articles of impeachment? If none, its valid even if it was done in 1 day or 1month.
            3. Since it is the complainants who have to prove truthfulness, what is the big deal about rush or infirmed? As long as the articles satisfied the minimum requirement that they are complete in substance, its valid. Fortifying could be done in the Senate, anyway. Walang magawa minority, tough luck, next time pagbutihin nila sa election sa 2013 para sila maging majority. Its the rule.
            4. Does the rule in the House specify in details that each member must read every word written, sign and swore in each page, in the Impeachment before it is valid? If not, then it is valid as long as each member saw the first or last page and signed at the end. What counts is the verified signature and the tally of signatories!

            If Quimbo is inexperienced for not knowing that verifying signature is not needed because there is no written rule about it in Senate impeachment proceeding nor it is a criminal case, then the allies of Corona are also guilty of ignorance for not knowing that there is no rule in the House indicating how many days are needed to take preparing the impeachment articles.

            Shotgun lawsuit is common or the rule followed in malpractice civil case. Corona Impeachment is similar to physician malpractice lawsuit, prove negligence and incompetence.

            • Johnny lin says:

              For those who are not familiar with the basics of shotgun lawsuit:
              In malpractice, the plaintiff sues every physician, nurse, care giver or even the orderly as long as there is proven signature in the chart that he/she was part in caring of the patient during hospitalization or office treatment. Proof could be obtained during discovery process in which there are rules to be followed.It does not matter how weak is one’s participation.The target is to win monetary damage from ANYONE negligence/incompetence, who is in the shotgun lawsuit.

              In impeachment, similarly the House can charge from one article to as many as needed as long as they are complete in substance, weakness or strength of each article could be debated in Senate in case of Corona. The target is winning ONE article only for impeachment from the 8 articles. Discovery is also allowed after sending the impeachment to Senate as long as rules are followed. The prosecutors of Corona had made one discovery already in the GMA TRO thus they are going to subpoena the SC clerk of court and documents.

              • Johnny lin says:

                The difference between impeachment and medical malpractice:
                Verdict in lower court is appealable to upper courts in malpractice cases.
                Decision in Senate impeachment is final and executory, non appealable, based on Constitutional Article XI section 2-6 on public officials accountability, which states: The Senate has the sole authority to try and decide all cases of impeachment. Sole and Decide are absolutely meaningful.

                No section states that SC could intervene during or after Senate proceedings or MR is considered. Of course, Corona could rape the constitution again by claiming ” it is not written so it does not mean we could not do it since constitutionally the SC is final arbiter”. Legal mumbo-jumbo like in midnight appoinment ruling. Then the mob could decide.

              • saxnviolins says:

                I am not for intervention of the Supreme Court. In fact, I excoriated the Francisco decision penned by Carpio-Morales for the Hilarious Divided in Ellen Tordesillas’ blog.

                Don’t put straw men for you to knock down. I am not an advocate of the intervention of the Supreme Court. I believe the Supreme Court had no authority in the case of Davide, and has no authority here.

                I believe in the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Nixon v US (the impeachment of Judge Nixon, not President Nixon), where it stated that:

                Judicial involvement in impeachment proceedings, even if only for purposes of judicial review, is counterintuitive because it would eviscerate the “important constitutional check” placed on the Judiciary by the Framers. See id., No. 81, p. 545. Nixon’s argument would place final reviewing authority with respect to impeachments in the hands of the same body that the impeachment process is meant to regulate.

                Carpio-Morales disregarded this in the case of the Hilarious Divided.

                The motion to dismiss filed by Corona is before the Senate, for the Senate to dismiss, not for the Supreme Court to dismiss. Any court has the inherent power to dismiss. Whether to do so or not is within its discretion.

              • saxnviolins says:

                Discovery is a component of civil practice in the United States. That is a dead letter law in civil practice in the Philippines.

                Fortifying could be done in the Senate, anyway. Walang magawa minority, tough luck, next time pagbutihin nila sa election sa 2013 para sila maging majority. Its the rule.

                Read my post. I want it fortified for the benefit of the prosecution, not the minority.

                No, the articles cannot be fortified in the Senate, because you cannot amend the articles of impeachment, once the Respondent has answered. You sink or swim with what you alleged.

                What is wrong with rushing? Nothing, legally, but it is the identifying characteristic of a rank amateur, whether a doctor, a lawyer, or an accountant.

                An experienced professional uses a rifle, not a shotgun.

                My ex med rep brother tells me that the good physicians have nothing but contempt for doctors who employed the shotgun approach. Give the patient an antibiotic, a steroid, an antipyretic (Biogesic), and vitamin c. When the patient improved, the shotgun physician did not know what did it – the antibiotic (was it an infection?), the steroid (which revs up your system), or the antipyretic (which drops the temperature).

                My physician uncle concurs.

              • Johnny lin says:

                @saxnviolins
                What do you mean discovery is a dead letter law in RP? The clerk of court document was exposed after the impeachment was sent to Senate revealed thru SC website. This revelation
                benefits the position of prosecution on that particular TRO article, isn’t that fortification by discovery?
                I should have qualified my statement that shotgun lawsuit is common in US courts in malpractice and personal injury cases mostly because the target is someone with deep pocket for monetary gain.
                Shotgun Medicine is different from law especially in the Philippines. Practice of medicine here is usually shotgun because most physicians treat the signs and symptoms unaided by lab and xray ancillary testings due to cost to diagnose illness. They are forced by many factors especially those without extensive clinical training. Their treatment borders on preventive treatment with signs and symptoms of the disease so the disease would not get worst before patient could afford paying for testing. In fact I suspect there are a lot of people with late diagnosis of renal failure in the Philippines because of side effects from intake of Diabetis and hypertensive medicines unaided by regular kidney function testing. Compound that with shotgun medicine on compromised patients., the deadly result is unimaginable.
                Rushing is not necessary the mark of an amateur. In the 80s my lawyer friend’s son was a newly trained surgeon from John Hopkins. After one year of private practice, he was lecturing experienced elder surgeons who were doing gallbladder surgery for 2-3 hrs telling them how to do in 30 minutes. He was one of the pioneers of laparoscopic surgery. Experience does not necessary mean expertise now because of evolving technology. Before it was Underwood typewriter for legal papers, now its computerized thru computer dictaphone. Before only lawyers have copies of laws and constitutional articles for easy preference, now bloggers could access it in minutes. Thats progress, only those critical of speed because they hesitate to follow the trend, outmaneuvered opponents or for posturing purpose, are downgrading it. Like government employees, they refuse to computerize because their corrupt ways would be easily detected thru computerization.

              • Johnny lin says:

                The petition to dismiss by SC was by IBP and a couple of lawyers.
                I’m not a lawyer but I believe the SC or any lower court has no constitutional right to intervene on any impeachent process reposed to the Legislature under the constitution. I have been posting this belief eversince Gutierrez TRO, the reason which would not progress without CJ go signal. 7 out 10 Filipinos believe the same way, that is an statistic not to play around with by SC. There are limits to abuse.

              • saxnviolins says:

                In the US, discovery is a process, involving depositions (examinations under oath out of court), requests for documents held by the other party, etc. It is a lengthy process done pre-trial.

                It does not refer to the street sense of discovery, as in natuklasan.

                I was referring to the motion to dismiss by Corona before the Senate. The petition by the IBP is something I do not subscribe to, because I believe in the reasoning of Nixon v US. I will not go to the Supreme Court to hand over to them the jurisdiction; something yielded by Frank Drilon, when he was Senate president. He did it, perhaps, help a frat brotheer, the Hilarious Divided, who was also monkeying around with judicial funds.

                The doctors I was referring to were Pinoy doctors. My brother was a med rep there, covering Baguio, later Ozamiz City.

              • Johnny lin says:

                @ saxviolins
                I am basing my medical opinion from personal observation and discussion with acquaintances practicing medicine all over the philippines. There are some physicians setting up medical practice in rural areas without clinical training due to dearth of residency training hospitals. Been studying it for 3 yrs now.

                My reference to discovery and fortification is additional evidence. Are you saying any new evidence and witness discovered by House could no longer be added by prosecution to Senate? Please educate me.

              • saxnviolins says:

                The only evidence allowed is that which will prove the allegations. But one cannot make new allegations, because it would be a denial of due process. One must be apprised of what one is being accused of.

                So if one is not accused of something, and evidence of that something is adduced in the trial, it would not be admissible, for it does not prove what has been alleged. It is irrelevant evidence.

                Can the House amend the allegations? Not when an answer has been filed. Also, based on the dumb Carpio-Morales ponencia, one may file only one set of articles of impeachment per year. So, if ever, the House will have to wait for a year, to file the new allegations.

                A naughty thought.

                Considering the weakness of the articles, and the ringleaders (Neptali Gonzales III) who were once Glue men, is it not possible that the trojans did this on purpose?

                Anak ng pu. Nagoyo na naman?

                Do I hear Mike the Pig snickering?

              • Johnny lin says:

                @saxnviolins
                Well, we are on the same station, I am thinking on layman’s term, you on lawyer’s perspective. New evidence against the articles presented are acceptable which is also part of discovery process in US courts before trial agreed between lawyers while during trial any new evidence presented is subject to rule by the judge if acceptable to avoid surprise evidence. So in the Senate impeachment new evidence/ witness on the aleged articles could be presented anytime.
                Regarding new articles, that is foregone conclusion no new articles could be presented
                That ruling file one set of impeachment articles per year:
                is this whether accepted or not by House?
                Is this legislated law or constitutional article?
                How you say above, implied it was a SC ruling?
                Could another impeachment be accused agains Corona next year?
                Is the per year based on 12 months or anytime within the year? You are educating us before the trial next year.

                On your thought, its far fetched. Too much vile already.
                The recent announcement that PNoy was already gathering info to replace Corona means only 2 things:
                1 The beans had been counted and secured on one article
                2. Or feelers sent that Corona is contemplating resigning
                despite Midas posturing. The best bet is the latter for family sake and most important retain credibility whatever is left.
                If Corona is impeached what will happen to his pension?

  21. 66
    Roco Batungbakal says:

    “Pag bad ka lagot ka”, ito ang linya ni Joker Arroyo, I am highly disappointed with him, HE DOES NOT LIVE ACCORDING TO HIS SLOGAN, SINUNGALING. Yung pananahimik niya sa mga atrocity ni GMA maintindihan ko yon dahil kaapelyido niya ang apektado, but for him to criticize PNOY, when he said:

    “The way I look at it, Noynoy is smarter than Marcos because Marcos had to issue Proclamation No. 1081 to usher in martial law. Noy doesn’t have to do anything except to muscle in on everyone.
    Marcos used poverty and communism as his excuse to commit abuses. We have a one-man government now since Noy has subjugated the House and is on his way to doing so to the judiciary.”

    IS A STATEMENT OF A DELUDED MAN WHO IS TRYING TO DELUDE US, HE ONLY FOOLS HIMSELF. SAYANG ANG BOTO KO SA ‘YO.

    Totoo pala ang kasabihan “blood is thicker than water” or di kaya sadyang nakakahawa ang bulok na kamatis, O DI KAYA NAKAKABULAG AT NAKAKASIRA NG BAIT ANG PERA.

  22. 65
    rockangel says:

    Kung minsan naiisip ko, mas mainam pa nga na maging diktador si PNoy kung ito lang ang paraan para makamit ang pagbabago sa ating gobyerno, kung ito lang ang paraan para maiahon ang bansa natin sa pagkakalugmok sa kahirapan.
    Pero sa mga pananalita ni Mr. Patawa (Joker), narerealize ko na mahirap mamuno lalo na kung may mga sagabal sa mga magagandang plano mo dahil may mga opisyal sa gobyerno na ang talagang agenda ay protektahan ang personal na interes at mga kaalyado o kaibigan. Kaya hindi mabuo ang bansa natin dahil sa may mga sumusuway dahil nasasagasaan sila ng pagbabagong ito.
    Sana, manahimik na lang itong si Joker at ituon ang pansin sa responsibilidad nya bilang senador, natatawa kasi ako sa mga sinasabi nya. :)

  23. 64
    Battousai says:

    If Pnoy is a “diktador”, ano naman ang maitatawag natin kay Ginang Arroyo? siguro kung ano mang word ang mas-asahol pa sa diktador, yun na yun.

  24. 63
    cel says:

    Absolutely!!! RFC
    I’ve observed that ever since, J. Arroyo’s comments are nonsense just like that of the kids.

    For Ms. Raissa,
    Kudos to your blog, I’ve learned a lot from your revelations. May you continue
    your undaunting passion of trying to ventilate the true issues that our government and our country is facing.

  25. 62
    rockangel says:

    Ang mga pagbatikos at ginagawa ni PNoy ngayon sa aking pananaw ay pagpapakita ng kanyang katatagan at kagustuhang papanagutin ang mga tiwali sa gobyerno. ang mga banat niya kay Corona ay kritisismo na totoo at alam nating lahat noon pa man, pero si Pnoy ang naging boses natin upang harapan itong masabi kay Corona. Mas hinahangaan ko ngayon si Pnoy dahil hindi siya natakot na sa harap mismo ng mga abugado at justices at mismong sa maririnig ni Corona na sa kanyang bibig nanggaling ang mga kritisismo na ito.
    Pero si Corona, nanahimik kahit nanggigigil sa galit. Sinuspinde ang lahat ng hearings at nagbigay ng court holiday ng sa ganoon ay mayroong makikinig sa kanyang sasabihin at makapagpakita ng suporta kahit na isakripisyo ang mga taong-bayan na may transaksiyon sa araw na iyon at bumanat at gumanti ng kritisismo at magmalinis bagamat iilan lang ang napaniwala niya. Sana ginawa niya iyon at inimbitahan din nya si PNoy, ginawa rin nya ng harapan.
    Si Joker, bagay nga ang pangalan niya sa kanya, mahilig magpatawa. nagkikritiko siya sa kasalukuyang presidente pero wala naman siyang masabi o magawa sa dating pekeng presidente na kaapelyido niya. Kung minsan may mga tao at politiko talaga na kitang-kita na wala silang karangalan o dignidad at delikadeza at kitang-kita ito sa mga sinasabi nila. Matalino nga si Joker, pero lantarang bias at duwag.

  26. 61
    rockangel says:

    Mr. Corona’s speech, for me is isang malinaw na pagsisinungaling at pagpapakita na ang tingin nya sa mga tao sa paligid nya na nakikinig sa kanya ay tanga at uto-uto.
    Simpleng tao ako, hindi ako abogado, hindi ako propesyonal…pero hindi ako tanga para maniwala sa mga kasinungalingan niya.
    Talagang mahirap ang pinagdadaanan ni PNoy ngayon para matupad ang tuwid na daan….dahil lahat ng tatamaan, katulad ni Corona eh hindi aamin sa mga kasalanan nya at ipo-portray na isa siyang mabait at matuwid na tao…bagamat alam naman nating lahat na hindi ito totoo..pero alam nya kasi na marami siyang mapapaniwala at mabobola lalo na sa sangay na hinahawakan niya.
    Iyan ang hirap sa ating pilipino, kapag kasamahan na natin sa opisina, kaibigan natin o kapamilya na natin ang may nagagawang pagkakamali o kasalanan, sa halip na itama natin sila o ituwid natin sila o papanagutin sa mga pagkakasala nila, poprotektahan at susuportahan pa natin kaya ang nangyayari, ang baluktot, pinalilitaw na matuwid. Bukod sa gobyerno, dapat na ring magbago ang mga pilipino.

  27. 60

    sori ms raissa… hindi ako mag comment, hindi ko binasa ang written speech ni cj corona. kinilabutan ako hehehe!!!

    keep up the good work…more power to you…

  28. 59
    JkN says:

    Speaking of dictatorship, the supreme court is the one who should be branded as one. As the final arbiter of the law, their decisions are the law. The lawyers are prohibited to question their decisions. They are somewhat catapulted as omniscient gods of law. That is why no lawyer would go against them or criticize them. Remember what happened to atty allan paguia? NO lawyer would gamble the revocation his license just to point out the SC’s mistakes. Maybe this is why they are all rallying behind corona especially the IBP. Going against the SC would be devastating to their law careers. Whereas, giving support to the CJ would be all beneficial. If they have cases pending in the SC then CJ would likely decide in favor of them as a sign of gratitude. Public opinion is not so popular among lawyers, i think.

    • 59.1
      raissa says:

      Right you are.

      • 59.1.1

        Jkn Is very right. I do not need to say anything more.
        Except for this one sure thing. Filipino mentality is predominantly Asian by nature where Democracy Western style is not the appropriate one to give us the progress like what our other Asian neighbors are enjoying at the moment.
        We have identified so much ourselves with American way life especially in politics and this country is doing the worst that most of our leaders have been copying. Like an old way of copying through a carbon copy, what we produce is always blurry and sometimes ineligible.
        Joker Arroyo by the way, is some one who plays according to his name.

  29. 58
    gLitch_xix says:

    Halimaw mga nasa baba. (i.e. saxnviolins,johnny lin,mel)
    Very interesting exchange of opinion. I had a hard time following their trains of thought. :) nkaka excite ang magaganap na impeachment trial sa January.

    • 58.1
      raissa says:

      It might be February.

      • 58.1.1
        gLitch_xix says:

        February.. Baka abutin daw ng six months so mga August. Kelan po yung trial para kay CGMA? If the Chief Justice is in an impeachment trial, what will happen to the Supreme Court during the trial?

  30. 57
    Felimon says:

    Dear Raissa,

    Ang galing ng mga analysis mo, wala akong masabi. Sabi nga sa kanta, ADIK SA’YO!

    Ang lungkot dito sa abroad, sa pagbabasa ng Super Blog mo ay kahit papano nawawala ang homesickness ko sa atin at sa aking pamilya.

    Happy Holidays!

  31. 56
    Jejemon says:

    Very Dynamic Interactions amongst intellectuals.
    Propaganda Site or Source of enlightment depends which side of the fence you belong.

  32. 55

    I’ve been following your posts via the Corona Resign and PNoy facebook Supporters groups. After reading this post, I had to subscribe. Both you and Conrado de Quiros consistently paint clear and insightful accountings of the cancer in Filipino politics fostered by GMA and her thugs. It is people like you who speak for the collective voices of Juan & Juana dela Cruz.

    It’s important to note that the Presidents supporters’ comments vastly out number those posted by GMA’s and Corona’s supporters.

    You are putting the Maligaya in this year’s Pasko, and I salute you, Raissa!

    • 55.1
      raissa says:

      Thank you, Joe.

      • 55.1.1
        tengmengt says:

        I share Joe Cunningham’s view of you and CDQ. CDQ has resounding rhetoric and logic and you meticulously added up the evidences to present your arguments. I have no reservations commending you to friends and foes alike, knowing that you will make more mature citizens and voters out of us. Splendid work Raissa, very splendid work indeed! May this festive season bring you much joy as your take time to draw closer to those whom you love.

        • 55.1.1.1
          Johnny lin says:

          In fairness, Conrado De Quiroz is an excellent writer, activist. I follow his column too, but with reservation. The reason is, I am ambiguous with his loyalty principle. Before EDSA 1, he was Marcos speechwriter, in fact he lives in a townhome behind SM North, a government housing project of Marcos. Raissa, so far, is independent minded in my opinion.

          Currently his brother is Social Security Commissioner appointed by PNoy.

    • 55.2

      Joe Cunningham :

      The PNoy supporters probably have the numbers in comments but are not in superior in the quality of comments.

      Many are those who write criticisms against the actions of PNoy are not Pro-GMA or Pro-Corona. They are for the rule of law in the conduct of government.

      Your comment is misleading just like many and some journalists.

      I am not Pro-GMA or Pro-Corona. They should be jailed if guilty. You are most entitled to your opinion as I am entitled to it. For clarification, we are not voting in this forum so the posting numbers criteria is not a measure of right or wrong. Evidently, your slant is Pro-PNoy, that’s for sure.

      • 55.2.1

        Yes, indeed, Arsenio. I am unashamedly Pro-PNoy, kahit hindi Pinoy ako. At least he’s got the balls to do something about the blatant misuse of power in GMA’s tenure. If he manages to clean house, I suspect that foreign investor confidence will be boosted, and with it hopes for a stronger economy and better well being for Juan & Juana dela Cruz.

        I’m befuddled why anyone would defend the malfeasance of GMA and her cronies in her 9 years in power. It’s been said that, with regard to politics, you can’t keep a clean sewer, and GMA has certainly contributed an overwhelming amount of sewage.

        • 55.2.1.1

          Joe Cunningham :

          Its all right to be Pro-PNoy. In truth and in fact, nothing to be ashamed of.
          As for me, I no longer believe in any politician but not reason enoug not to hope that someday there’ll be a really good one.

          As for amassing unexplained wealth or electoral sabotage, I don’t have personal knowledge about that. Anyway, she must be held responsible if guilty.

          But for the cases of missing persons attributed to Gen. Palparan, I think she must answer for that because the accusations have long been in the news but to my mind there was no action or effort to investigate,

          I pity the families especially the parents because I’ve read the complaints for a long time already but no action until lately. I think the missing girls are dead already that’s why they could not be presented. The writ of Amparo was issued by the then CJ Davide if I’m not mistaken.

          We don’t even know what was their fault, if any. Obviously someone decided that without proper procedures. I can very well say those people may not deserve mercy. Only God can forgive them.

          • 55.2.1.1.1
            Johnny lin says:

            @Arsenio
            I am a freelancer,not purely Pro PNoy. The fact is recently I posted criticizing his post deluge partying.
            At any rate, you said above, GMA should answer for “missing persons attributed to General Palparan”. Why GMA? Poor Little Girl, it’s her fault for rogue official crime?
            You said you did not have opinion on unexplained wealth or electoral sabotage because you don’t have personal knowledge, yet later on you said “the missing girls are dead already and those accused did not deserve mercy”. You disavowed the former and affirmed the latter; do you have personal knowledge the girls are already dead?

            • First of all it doesn’t matter whether a person is Pro-Pinoy, anti_PNoy or neutral. We are talking about opinions and it is my opinion that since the girls can no longer be produced as ordered by the Court, I think they are already dead. Otherwise, the military should have long produce their bodies by order of the Court.

              I think that is a reasonable conclusion than making a conclusion on other such other cases as graft and corruption or electoral sabotage if you want to be technical about it.

              Just want to ask you an honest answer which I will accept : Do you think they are still alive?

              • Johnny lin says:

                Answer: I don’t know because there were no witnesses.
                Opinion on a subject matters in terms of being white, black or grey; no other color. Color preference varies on the subject of contention.

                What is common between electoral sabotage accusation and kidnapping accusation? Both are unproven. What is the difference? There are no witnesses yet on the kidnapping compared to electoral sabotage.

                “the supporters of PNoy have probably the numbers in comments but are not superior in the quality of comments. Many are those who write criticisms on the actions of PNoy are not Pro-GMA or Pro-Corona. They are for the rule of law in the conduct of government”
                This statement belies negative claim of Pro-GMA.
                One must assume that Pro-PNoy or Anti-Corona advocates are also for the rule of law in the conduct of Corona. Your opinion on the comparison would have been stronger if both assessments are based on explicit details, that is on the conduct in government following the rule of law; the other comparison was a vague word “quality”. One describes the characteristics of a fruit, the other is described plainly, a fruit. Similar to drug testing, its always double blind study based on equal parameters then the result becomes an honest opinion the way it is observed on specific points, otherwise it’s biased.

                Consistent reasoning in theoretical assumptions promotes independence while selective reasoning presumes prejudicial preference.

              • Its OK. You are always right in the way you think you are right. Everyone is entitled to their opinion (s).

              • Johnny lin says:

                You are correct, everybody is entitled to their own opinion on substance except belittling others. I only retorted to what you aspersed.

  33. 54
    MALYN says:

    Kung si Pangulong Noynoy ay dictator, sigurado siyento porsiyento bawat segundo, bawat menuto may nakukulong, Hindi ka puwedeng magsalita na against sa government. yon na lamang speech ni Thief Justice Corona, eh hindi yon uubra kung under dictatorship tayo, segurado nakaposas na si Corona pagbaba pa lang niya matapos mag talumpati at kabontot na niya ang sandamakmak na militar at pulis at diretso tangkal,. Yong pambabatikos Ni Joker Arroyo ni Atty Topaksio at ni Elena Horn kay Pangulong Noynoy at mas masahol pa kay Marcos , naku kulang pa siyang piringan at diretso sa bartolina. Sadyang nasa mindset na ng mga lawyer na kailangan nilang protektahan ang kanilang kabaro ni si Corona nasa mali man ito o tama. Sasabihin lang ni Corona na siya ang Unang Tagapagtanggol ng Hustisya naku nagkakamali siya Ang sabihin niya siya ang tagagpagtanggol at takbuhan ni Gloria

  34. 53
    gLitch_xix says:

    To CJ Corona, XPGMA et al:

    “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.”

    Yours,
    Abraham Lincoln

  35. 52
    wil15 says:

    Ms. Raissa,

    I am not sure if this post is relevant to the topic on hand. This is something that’s bugging me and begging for enlightenment from people, especially lawyers, in the know.

    I am not a lawyer and I am not inviting controversy. I am just wondering why some if not most lawyers seem not to be bothered by decisions of the SC which, to many of us laymen are apparently wrong. Some of them say that the SC is right even if they are wrong; that regardless of the decision we have to accept if because it is the rule of law, implying that we just have to close our eyes even if there is an obvious abuse of discretion.

    I can not understand how the SC, whose members are supposed to be the cream of the crop, can change its decision five times in a particular case. Does it mean that they have not studied the issue carefully or were there other considerations in their flip-flopping?

    The IBP as represented by their President is saying that the impeachment of SJ Corona is an attempt to destroy the SC as an institution. I am wondering why he can’t seem to distinguish between the SC as an institution and the justices manning the institution. If there is anybody who can destroy the SC, it is the member justices whose integrity and decisions are under the cloud of doubt.

    I am wondering if the mindset of some of our lawyers is a carry over from that of their college years, I can still remember during my university days when rumbles between fraternities, whose members were mostly law students, were frequent occurrences, I overheard a frat member saying ” right or wrong I am going to defend my brod”. It was a belief share by many students.

    Are some of our lawyers defending their brothers in profession, right or wrong?

    That is the question that I am eagerly waiting to be enlightened.

    • 52.1
      raissa says:

      It’s possible that fraternal ties play a role, now that you bring it up.

      It’s also possible that some lawyers are adding to their Favor Bank – hoping to collect when any of their cases land before the SC as they surely will.

      It’s also possible they see that the entire legal profession is under threat from – good heavens – a non-lawyer President.

      Quite a number of lawyers have this overarching belief that their additional four years of college entitle them to put their noses up in the air higher than the rest of us, college grads (except doctors, of course).

    • 52.2
      MALYN says:

      Dati naman mataas ang tingin at tiwala ng taumbayan sa Judiciary (SC) kaya lang naman nakakawala ng tiwala kase dahil sa nakaraang Administrasyon ni GMA. isipin nyo na lang na ng mag-appoint ng Chief Justice 2 days after election na sang-ayon sa batas ito ay hindi dapat, at ito ay labag sa batas ay ginawa pa rin ni GMA. Bakit? di ba maliwanag na sinasalawola. Kung si Mr. Corona ay may delicadeza hindi dapat niya tinanggap. bilang respeto sa susunod na administrasyon at sa saligang batas. Dahil alam niya na siya ang mapapalagay sa puwesto kaya sinamantala niya. Oh di ba.

  36. 51
    Agapito Bagumbayan says:

    Malayo sa kahulugan ng diktador s Pnoy. Yung mga nagsasabi nun ay mga asong traydor sa bayan na natangalan ng kapangyarihan kaya tahol ng tahol.

    Pero maiba ako ng konti kung may kayang magparating nito kay Pnoy paki sabi bilisan nya kumilos pag may trahedya lagi kasi sya huli o hindi lang maganda ang dating nya sa mga pahayagan lalo na kung high profile ang event. Tulad ng Luneta Hostage crisis, Typhoon Pedring Floods at ngayon sa Typhoon Sendong. Dito parang may basehan ang batikos sa kanya. Kasi nauuna pa yung mga news reporter kesa sa tulong from Naional Government.
    Yun lang ang obserbasyon ko.

  37. Mel says:

    ‘Aquino reflecting on his first 21 months in office that followed a landslide election win.’


    President Aquino says in command of Philippines

    Manila, Philippines – President Benigno Aquino III admits he needed weekend escapes from the job’s pressures when he started as the Philippines’ president, but nearly two years on he exudes passion and says he is firmly in control.

    … the economy is on the right track, citing a series of international credit ratings upgrades and the rise of the Philippine stock market to record highs…

    … luring foreign manufacturers and other investors to the Philippines, extending health cover, cutting government waste and expanding an incentive scheme to keep millions of poor children at school.

    World Bank country director Motoo Konishi said …

    “Besides having strong macroeconomic fundamentals, the country is benefiting from political stability and a popular government seen by many as strongly committed to improving governance and reducing poverty,” he said.

    … nation’s most reputable polling groups on Thursday also found Aquino was holding onto the support that carried him to the biggest election win in modern Philippine politics.

    One of the country’s biggest conglomerates, Ayala Corp, announced last week that its real estate arm would invest $1.4 billion over the next five years on projects within the country’s financial district …

    Source: by Karl Malakunas
    Agence France-Presse

    11:12 am | Sunday, March 25th, 2012

    ——

    The following quotes are in the context of the above article.

    “The first three months we were all looking towards Friday,” Aquino said. “When Friday came there would at least be a small break in between the discovery of other problems.” – PNoy.

    “We are trying to get the kingpins of corruption,” – PNoy.

  38. somaliapilipins says:

    “Personally, I’m not bothered by what’s happening because I’ve seen much, much worse. I’m also inclined to believe that when you’re doing government spring-cleaning, you’re bound to let a lot of dust fly.”

    raissa, do you honestly believe that Abnoy “government spring-cleaning”? should’nt he start with H-A-C-I-E-N-D-A L-U-I-S-I-T-A? maybe that will make your president more credible.

    what’s your president currently doing anyway? dating that korean girl and making kilig-kilig of masang pinoy? media stunt? diverting peoples attention from H-A-C-I-E-N-D-A L-U-I-S-I-T-A? maybe he mis-took running a country as showbiz thing?

      • Rolly says:

        Example: I got my share but have no money to run it, mapipilitan akong humanap ng kapitalista, or maybe sell it. Sino ang bibili? Marami. We’ve seen this scenario in the past, especially during Marcos regime’s Land Reforms. Sino sa palagay natin ang nakinabang sa mga lupain o sakahin na ipinamihagi?

        It would be easier for the owners of Hacienda Luisita to totally dispose the land…walang sakit ng ulo. But then, they will be accused of abandoning their tenants.

    • risk says:

      I know that you are mad at Pnoy just because the candidate you were rooting for lost. That’s patronage politics talking there. I think you are the abnoy here

    • Santiago Katumbal says:

      Brad Somo at sa lahat ng trolls ni Lola G,

      Halatang kasapi ka ng propaganda machine ng Arroyo Empire…

      Yan lang ba script nyo? Paulit ulit na lng… Kumita n yan noong 2010 election… Para kyong mga sirang plaka!!

      You knew that NOBODY believes on your PROPAGANDA.. Pls pls stop wasting your time… Maglako ka n lng mani sa quiapo, at least, galing sa malinis na pera ang kinita mo (right now, you are being paid by BLOOD MONEY)…

      ————-

      Fyi, Keywords to detect a G Troll –
      ~ PNoy abNoy
      ~ Hda. Luisita
      ~ plummeting economy (or the like)

  39. JLSantos says:

    Did Fr. Joaquin Bernas disclose that he is the uncle of the son-in-law of GMA?

    • Santiago Katumbal says:

      Never, never, never trust a person wearing something white & long… They have been lying to humanity for a very, very long time…

  40. Leona says:

    Just to share a reality: There is no such thing as clean politics! It is impossible to find it in all the galaxies in the creation. Why, even some of the Angles up there with the Creator fought the Boss and they became what? So, anybody who start talking idealisms on clean politics is wasting his/her time on it. Sabi ni Mr. Neri, moderate lang. Maybe it can be.

  41. Mel says:

    Witness says IBP head got P.5M from Mike Arroyo in 2001

    The whistle-blower said that in coming forward, he only wanted to help President Benigno Aquino III bring justice and order to the country. “I do not ask for anything in return; nobody promised me anything or instructed me to make this narration,” he said.

    A former employee of LTA Inc., which is owned by the family of Jose Miguel “Mike” Arroyo, has surfaced with a story of a decade-old incident wherein he said he was given P500,000 by Arroyo’s comptroller, Ma. Victoria “Vicky” Toh, for deposit to Libarios’ bank account.

    Source: Philippine Daily Inquirer 1:05 am | Thursday, January 26th, 2012

  42. budoyabnoy says:

    THE REAL SCORE OF THE IMPEACHMENT CASE…..HACIENDA LUISITA AND THE OLIGARCHY OF THE AQUINO COJUANCO CLAN

    CHECK THIS VIDEO…

    http://thepoc.net/commentaries/14040-on-the-aquino-cojuangco-viral-video.html

  43. jimmycoz says:

    Wow, after reading all the comments halos dumugo ilong ko sa tindi ng english niyo. :D Joking aside, Pnoy,s style of politics is amazingly effective. He was able to amass tremendous support from the people in his quest for a better government. What he is doing now is not a dictator’s style of governing but a showing of ability to inspire and rally the people, including politicians, behind him without the use of force or threat. I am simply amazed and expecting more from him.

  44. Archie Mejia says:

    Ms. Raissa, can I have your take on Sen. Joker? What happened to him? I used to think of him as on the best, brightest, honest and honorable officials. I’m really quite disturbed that a man such of integrity and distinguished record can become like him. How? Why?

    • raissa says:

      Give me time.

      • Archie Mejia says:

        Thanks. I just feel so disappointed about Sen. Joker. Since I was young I believed he was one the pillars of Philippine democracy fighting for truth and justice. An example of competence with integrity we can all rely on. Haay.

        Thanks again. More power to you.

      • manuel santuile says:

        I wonder what wrong with Joker Arroyo…during my college is one of the pillars for democracy…now He is worst than Miriam…am waiting for your findings on why Joker become a nuisance!

    • librado says:

      Now we know who the real Joke Arroyo is. He was able to fool everybody during the time he was in the opposition. The idealism, dedication, nationalism and desire for change is now just a memory. Politics corrupted Joker. Unbelievable but true! Politics changed him for the worse.

      What was rally sad was he really turned into a joker after all.

  45. mroccupy says:

    I think it’s super WRONG to justify PNoy’s actions as good by using Tolentino’s article. You’re using Tolentino’s article which appears as the “rules” on how the three banches must act. But that is just an “opinion” of Tolentino, an ally of President Marcos! We know that withholding the pork barrel of a congressman (to gain his/her support) is an example of dirty politics, but Tolentino mentions this as a way to influence the congress, and this, as you say is how things work in congress. WE know that this is dirty politics. But you, in this article, accept this act (what PNOY ALSO DOES) just because of what Tolentino wrote in his article.

    We know that what PNoy exhibited in the past few weeks is an act of being trapo. We know how dirty politics are in this country. We need change. I’m sick of it. What Tolentino wrote was how a “TRAPO” should act. Let’s not justify PNoy’s actions as good just because of this decades-old article… an article written in trapo period. LEt’s practice better politics.

    And it’s very wrong to justify the majority’s decision to remove some of their allies from the position as right by reminding us of how GMA disciplined her allies in congress by removing some people from their position, too. We Filipinos tend to use this thinking: “ginawa ito ng dating presidente, so pwede rin niya to gawin.” This must be stopped! We know that GMA became a “tyrant” or whatevr-you-call-her-bad during her time. However, this doesn’t mean that PNoy should do her actions too, to survive politics. PNoy should remain as what he promised to be. PNoy should stop dirty politics

    You people have been in this country for many years. And you accept how politics work in this country. But, people clmor for change… change in what? People ask for change, but “change in politics” is not on their list.

    Me? I’m just a teenager in here who wants change with how politics work in this country.

    BTW. DId you know that the President of the philippines is more powerful than the president of USA, in terms of their power in their own country?

    • raissa says:

      Dear Teenager,

      Grow up.

      Learn some more.

    • Johnny lin says:

      One good positive thing is your outlook of politically clean government, ideal but unfortunately does not exist anywhere or in any government. Political deals are sometimes necessary and condoned by laws. Its similar to old ways of bartering for goods.Give and take. Pork barrels are legal by law. Even in USA, legislators insert provisions in laws favorable to their locality.

      Senator Byrd was US Senate president for long time. It was known that he buit so many unnecessary highways and bridges in his rural West Virginia state for political trading. Sometimes the bridge connects nowhere. He did it to create jobs in his bailwick. Google him. Was it legal, yes.Was there proof of corruption? No, because there was no project overpricing unlike in the Philippines. It depends on the moral leadership of individual politician. Pnoy so far exemplifies such character.

      • Johnny lin says:

        @mroccupy
        Btw corruption existed in the Philippines since independence from USA. It was manageable, minimal(free meals), worsened during Marcos(millions), much more during GMA(billions) because even the clergies were bribed. Corruption could not be totally eradicated but could be reduced to a minimum and that is victory for the people if it happens. That is change too in a way that you dream of. Raissa was right, you have many years to learn more being a teenager.

        • raissa says:

          No.

          Corruption in the islands which became known as the PH was honed to a fine art by the Spanish colonial masters.

          Americans who brought freedom and education also brought here Tammany-style politics.

          • Johnny lin says:

            Probably correct in the literal term of corruption.
            Tammany style of corruption is akin to our current government corruption because the emphasis is employment, union contracts and judicial control for crime activities by political patronage in exchange for controll of votes. Common in big cities like New York, Chicago and Philadelphia, latter 2 run by the Democratic Party for one century now. Society of Tammany delivered votes to the Democrats in NY for jobs and criminal activities of the Irish. Spanish corruption was not about political patronage employment, contracts and criminal acts in exchange for votes but more of pampering the leader of clannish Filipinos for subservience of their constituents to their suppressive colonial rule. We did not have free government under Spain unlike after WW II.

            • Arsenio Reyes says:

              Johnny lin : It doesn’t whether corruption started with Spanish, American, Japanese, Chinese etc. There had been some efforts by the past Philippine Goverment to stop corruption. Significant is the removal of Erap and legal actions against GMA etc., and impeachment of Corona.

              Diosdado Macapagal (DM) had his chance to uncover much of the corruption during his time thru Jose W. Diokno who was appointed of DOJ secretary then. Diokno was responsible for uncovering so much evidence against Harry Stonehill who corrupted a lot of government officials.

              Unfortunately, it seems DM fired Diokno so that the “secrets” could not be revealed.

              Question : Can the Freedom of Information proposed law if passed, uncover the results of said investigation? If yes, and if the records have not been destroyed, then we will know the who’s who in corruption and they may still be alive today.

              • Johnny lin says:

                Arsenio: if you understood my posting, I was trying to describe the worsening corruption focusing after gaining Independence from USA because it was the first time we governed freely.Read it again. You are barking at the wrong tree.
                DM was corrupt too but possibly not as badas Marcos, Erap or GMA.
                That was the gist of my description of corruption, small time to bigtime from Roxas to GMA.
                Why should FOI be used to uncover Stonehill corrupt ways. After 50 yrs. It has zilch value to anybody. It might be to you for reason related to your subconscious I told you before. those involved might be dead or bedridden by now, even during DM time it was not a secret in our community the corruption in his term. You knew that too, I suspect. Very simple deduction, DM bought Forbes Park property before he lost to Marcos, aside from Greenhills houses. Sounds like Corona?

              • mroccupy says:

                i feel not welcomed here

                why not enlighten me?

              • Johnny lin says:

                @mroccupy
                Don’t feel that way. You expressed your opinion, we did too. There are always many sides of opinions or assumptions. Nobody is absolutely correct, nobody scores the exchanges.
                What you read is for you to digest. We can’t help you much on that aspect; believe it or not whatever is written by the author and those who posted. Make a reasonable conclusion.Stick to the issue, nothing personal. Good luck and keep posting, one way of learning.

              • Arsenio Reyes says:

                OK, I’m more objective than you may think otherwise. This might be the reason why I’m often misunderstood. It’s just i take all sides and learn or take up the good and the trash the bad things the way I see it but not the people who write because nobody’s perfect and that includes you and me. Nothing really personal because that would be irrelevant.

                Thanks.

              • mroccupy says:

                alright! :)

              • Leona says:

                I doubt about this FOI bill to become a law will help a lot about corruption in the gov’t. It will be just like any other law later on like the SALN law, kept, hidden and whatever but no to be pulished. It may even ironic that FOI will be having no freedom at att. Let’s see because many are weirds in the government!

    • Arsenio Reyes says:

      Dear mroccupy:

      “With malice towards none”, I agree in essence with your opinion.

      If we want change, it must not only appear that there are changes, there must be actual and substantial changes. Probably, other persons can do what PNoy is doing right now but there will always be the big question of “is actual change”. In the final reckoning and in the final analysis, as it is still now, it’s still the Filipino people who need to act if change is desired.

      The substantial changes seen in people power of EDSA I and II are acts of the people and not primarily by the leaders, i.e. the toppling of Marcos and Erap.

      PNoy has the power and the will to do actual changes but he must do things properly. He has that golden opportunity, the power to do good and be good.

      The problem of corruption is very pervasive more particularly in government, certainly complex and may not be substantially eradicated during PNoy’s term. It’s really quite
      difficult and perhaps need a succession of really good leaders to attain it.

      As they say, “The man who can remove a mountain must start by carrying small stones.”

      I still believe that “the Youth is the Hope of the Fatherland” as said by Dr. Jose Rizal. There are still so many idealistic youth out there who can unite, have the courage, are pure of heart and have no vested interests to fight for what is right.

      • Johnny lin says:

        Rizal has been dead for 115 years and the mountain is still there. PNoy has only been in power for less than 2 years so how could we expect him to remove the entire mountain. he is trying to move many small rocks and that is a good start compared to previous leaders who put back the rocks to the mountain cleared by Cory. It is up to the youth to continue supporting the movement for good government. We might not see the actual change in our lifetime at least we see the light now to the right direction unless future leaders would do another GMA.

        • Arsenio Reyes says:

          Yes, Johhny, Jose Rizal may be dead for 115 years as you say but his words and deeds are still honored by many people. In fact he is the national hero.

          Please read carefully. I said it is a difficult job for PNoy and it may take more than his term to eradicate corruption.

          Definitely, Rizal has a lot better than people today who are alive.

      • Leona says:

        Not much change will come about. Its almost asking for the impossible. Maybe, a little of it but the real change, NO. We have to content ourselves for moderate lang, sabi nga ni Mr. Neri. Maybe that will do and we have to live with it.

    • tony says:

      Always remember, the media is on Pnoy’s side. ABiasCBN and tabloids pretending to be broadsheets–Inquirer and Star. Accept the dictatorship, at least he is not corrupt(?). Accept the fact that our country is a banana republic and the world does not respect us.

    • Andie says:

      Apparently, you spend to much time spitting words instead of learning. Read the Constitution, and when I say read, I mean learn and understand it. You think you can do a better job?

  46. JoDil says:

    I enjoyed the good read as always. My usual lame argument was everything PNoy is now doing, the issue on the “pork barrel” and everything, was the same thing GMA was doing during her term. So what’s the big fuzz the GMA camp, and a lot of legal personalities entering the fray, calls foul.

    Thanks for sharing the Tolentino article at least I am now confident that everything is just how a democracy is suppose to work. Not like how some say as leading to a dictatorship.

    You’re right GMA was using her power to benefit her and PNoy uses his to ultimately benefit the people.

  47. Johnny Lin says:

    @saxnviolins and lawyers:

    Corona must inhibit while impeachment is on trial!

    Main logical reason he must inhibit is his lawyers are practicing before SC and have current pending cases. At the moment the privste lawyers are all in violation of RA 1673 Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards of Public Officers. They are trading free services on a public officer where they have personal interest.

    Avoiding impropriety is by inhibition or Corona must pay his lawyers and disclose their fees. His right to client/lawyer privilege on this matter has been waived by the lawyers when they publicly announced they were working pro bono.

    • Leona says:

      That is unprofessional for lawyers to give for free legal services to the CJ. He can afford to pay so he should pay. Otherwise, that is just continuing corruption. In this country, ang utang na loob ay mahabaaaaaaaaaaaaa….! If the CJ is strictly and publicly appearing as fair, honest and upright, he should PAY his lawyers so he does not have “strings attached” later on when these lawyers have cases pending in the SC! He can say “I paid you! You don’t get any partiality here in my Court!”

  48. rey says:

    joker arroyo is nothing but a grown up idiot clownnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn. wat a pig. have no respect for this joker in real life. stupid senator .

  49. baycas says:

    saxnviolins says:
    December 30, 2011 at 8:40 pm

    You mentioned Sison’s article? Yes I read it.

    He thinks the Supreme Court has jurisdiction because there was grave abuse of discretion by the House, which the Supreme Court may correct.

    I still subscribe to the reasoning of Nixon v US, however. The Supreme Court cannot exercise supervision over the very chamber (Senate) that is supposed to be judging it (supreme court).

    The Senate can decided that issue as well, whether or not there was grave abuse of discretion, rendering the articles null and void. Every court has the inherent power to correct when there is grave abuse. Superfluous lang yang Constitutional provision natin.

    SNV, maraming salamat sa mga paliwanag.

    Sa madaling salita, maaaring hilaw na “Verified Complaint” ang kasong maaaring magpatalsik kay Corona bilang Punong Mahistrado. Hindi rin siya “Resolution” sapagka’t hindi naman siya natalakay nang husto sa Mababang Kapulungan (Ito ang “pighati” ni G. Rene Saguisag sa kaniyang opinyon sa The Manila Times dahil walang debate at walang nominal voting na nangyari!)

    Dito posibleng panghimasukan ng Korte Suprema (SCORP) ang impeachment.

    Nauunawaan kita hinggil sa Nixon v. United States (ni Rehnquist, tama ba?) dahil naniniwala din ako na ang impeachment ay usapang politikal (na hawak ng lehislatura) at hindi kailanman puedeng pakialaman ng hudikatura.

    Subali’t mayroon tayong Francisco v. HOR (ni Carpio-Morales noong 2003) na siyang naghimay sa Davide impeachment. Ito’y tumukoy sa kahulugan ng katagang “initiate” at sa limitasyong isa lamang sa isang taon ang impeachment sa isang impeachable official.

    Sa ganang akin, maaari ring dinggin ang mga kasalukuyang petisyon o dili yata’y obligasyon ng SCORP (gaya nang naturan ni G. Jose C. Sison) na siyasatin ang Corona impeachment dahil may nakikitang hindi pagsunod sa alituntuning nakasaad sa Saligang Batas. Ito ay ukol sa kahulugan ng “Verified Complaint” at kung siya ba’y “maluwalhating” naisakatuparan bagaman 188 ang pumirma.

    Kung sakali, mukhang makakaantala ito sa Corona impeachment trial.

    At kung mauuna naman ang Senado na ipawalang-bisa ang Corona Articles of Impeachment gaya nang iyong nasabi, wala ng impeachment trial.

    Malulungkot malamang ang nakausap kong lolo, sampu ng kaniyang kaanak, na sabik na sabik (…na sabik) nang makapanood ng Senate impeachment trial ngayong Enero.

    • saxnviolins says:

      That is my disagreement with the Carpio-Morales ponencia.
      There is nothing in the Constitution that grants the Supreme Court the power to interfere in impeachments.

      The powers of the legislature are the following:

      1. To make laws (the main power)
      2. To declare war
      3. To ratify a treaty (the Senate, specifically)
      4. To impeach (initiated by the House, and tried by the Senate)

      1. The Supreme Court may declare a law unconstitutional; that is not disputed. And there is grant of this authority in the Constitution, implied in the Constitutional mandate that this be decided en banc. Article XIII, Section 6 (2).

      2. There is no grant of authority to nullify a declaration of war. Can the Supreme Court declare that there was grave abuse in the declaration of war, because the Congress wanted the Philippines to bully, say Vanuatu?

      I submit not, because war powers are the sole prerogative of the Legislature.

      3. A chamber (Senate) of the legislature, with the Executive, may forge a treaty with another country. The Constitution grants the Supreme Court the authority to declare a treaty unconstitutional.

      4. We come now to impeachment.

      There is no textual grant by the Constitution of the authority to declare an initiation of impeachment as unconstitutional. The power to initiate is reposed solely in the House. They can even impeach Corona for MBO (massive body odor).

      The review of the correctness of any initiated impeachment, is reposed in the Senate. As the only court allowed to try impeachment cases, it alone determines whether procedure has been followed or not.

      As the only court authorized to try impeachments, it alone, as well, determines the parameters of its own jurisdiction; whether or not to entertain an impeachment complaint anchored on a collegial Supreme Court decision, one based on massive body odor, or for illegal possession of an ugly face.

      In the same way that Corona argues that interpretation of the law is reposed solely in the Court, and therefore cannot be questioned before another forum (Senate), similarly, the authority to try impeachment cases, as well as what impeachment cases to entertain, are reposed solely in the Senate, and may not be interfered in by any court.

      • Johnny Lin says:

        Agree with everything except MBO, it does not betray public trust, public trash, yes
        Since SC does not have the authority to create laws reposed in the constitution like impeachment, that is proof Narvasa Court Resolution violated RA 6713 sections 2 & 5, public interest before personal interest.

      • baycas says:

        Well, Carpio-Morales’ Francisco may have spawned a problem of judicially reviewing the “political” nature of impeachments. Such judicial review is looked upon as an expanded one granted by the 1987 Constitution especially that there are existing limitations in the power of the HOR.

        These limitations include the manner of filing, required vote to impeach, and the one year bar on the impeachment of one and the same official.

        This sets us apart from US Constitution.

        I got these assertions from a law review here:

        http://ustlawreview.com/pdf/vol.L/Articles/Judicial_Review_of_Impeachment.pdf

        • saxnviolins says:

          I’ve read it. It is erudite garbage. May pa-history-history pa.

          Read the Francisco decision, not attempts to discuss it with erudition kuno.

          Although Carpio-Morales says Philippine impeachment is different, in the same decision, she quotes Maambong’s perorations on the floor for justification of her interpretation.

          Surprise. Maambong was quoting US rules. This is what Maambong said:

          I have been bringing with me The Rules of the House of Representatives of the U.S. Congress. The Senate Rules are with me. The proceedings on the case of Richard Nixon are with me. I have submitted my proposal, but the Committee has already decided. Nevertheless, I just want to indicate this on record.

          Did you catch the drift? The committee had already voted, and Maambong was merely perorating for the record? Justice Cecilia Palma actually ignored him.

          So Carpio-Morales was quoting an ignored statement?

          Simple lang naman di ba. Go to the definition of the word. Impeachment is akin to an indictment. When are you indicted? When the fiscal goes to court. When a complaint is filed, the fiscal still has to decide whether to charge you or not. You are said to be under investigation, but not yet indicted.

          One is impeached when the House decides to impeach. A complaint by a citizen, or one member of the House, is not a decision of the House. So how can it be said to be initiated by the House?

          In fact, the House may decide not to impeach, or even just ignore your complaint. So when is an impeachment initiated? When the articles are presented to the Senate.

          Note the resolution of the US House granting itself the power to investigate. It says:

          Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary, acting as a whole or by any subcommittee thereof appointed by the chairman for the purposes hereof and in accordance with the rules of the committee, is authorized and directed to investigate fully and completely whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its constitutional power to impeach Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States of America. The committee shall report to the House of Representatives such resolutions, articles of impeachment, or other recommendations as it deems proper.

          So the investigation (commenced by this resolution; commenced by verified complaint in the Philippines) only determines whether or not to impeach. Deciding whether or not to impeach is not impeachment. Obvious ba?

          Impeachment commences only after a decision is made to impeach. Logical di ba?

          Note the text itself of the articles of impeachment of Nixon says so.

          RESOLVED, That Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanours,…

          http://watergate.info/impeachment/impeachment-articles.shtml

          Pulpol yang decision na yan. This is a classic hometown decision, made by the very people whose conduct the Senate is authorized to try. And as CJ Rehnquist says, you cannot have the people being tried, control or supervise the body trying them. That is the height of fundamental unfairness.

          Imagine if you are the boss of the RTC which is trying you. You think the complainant will ever get a conviction?

          I hope Manong Johnny does not kowtow to the Court like Frank Drilon did.

          Better still, I hope the new composition of the Court overrules Francisco. If they do this, then they will show their independence. In fact, it may repair some of the damage done to the Court by the same Davide court that installed Goyang.

          • Johnny lin says:

            Impeachment is a process which starts when a complaint is filed in the House and ends on senate voting, successful or not. Indictment is a charge or complaint usually made by a body like a grand jury. When the charge is filed, it becomes trial process, the end of which is called a decision because it could still be appealed to higher courts while the end of impeachment is called conviction or absolution because it could not be appealed.

            • Mel says:

              @Johnny lin

              You wrote, “… the end of which is called a decision because it could still be appealed to higher courts while the end of impeachment is called conviction or absolution because it could not be appealed.”

              Since the personalities involved in these are the Phils.’ Chief Justice (Judiciary) and the Prosecuting-Solons before the Senate-Judges Chamber (Legislative) for impeachment, if CJ R Corona is found to be guilty in one, some or all of the articles – which ‘higher court(s)’ are you referring to should CJ R Corona wishes to appeal his conviction?

              If not in the Phils’ Judiciary to which CJ R Corona heads, can he go to the International Criminal Court for appeal? BTW, Senator Miriam Santiago will soon seat as a Judge in that international court.

              @saxnviolins (dated: January 3, 2012 at 8:54 pm)

              In addition to your entry of “The powers of the legislature are the following”, isn’t it part of their call is the power to abolish a law? If they can enact, they too can abolish an existing law – right? Does it only extend to Constitutional law(s) or to others as well (e.g. Republic Acts, Provincial or City ordinances…) What about, circulars or similar published by the Supreme Court? Is it a red herring that I even raise as a conjecture…

              • Johnny lin says:

                @ mel
                I was pointing to the difference between the words impeachment and indictment compared to what @saxnviolins proffered. In impeachment it does not make any difference how many articles are voted yes, they could not be appealed after senate voting. On the other hand, if one of those articles is deemed criminal like bribery or plunder, someone could bring it to Ombudsman and Sandigan after conviction only. Not on Absolution because the CJ is not removed from office so he is still subject to impeachment. Word Indictment is not used in impeachment proceedings.

              • Johnny lin says:

                @mel
                The phrase ” end with decision” refers to the word “indictment”.

          • baycas says:

            Ok, you’ve elucidated what you’ve been saying all along over at Ellenville.

            Now, we can just wait for what the Senate will start to do on January 16 and what the Supreme Court will start to do on January 17.

            As an aside, I read that:

            “The case that will test the constitutionality of the impeachment of Chief Justice Renato Corona by Congress has been assigned to Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, his closest rival for the top Supreme Court (SC) post, an insider revealed over the weekend.”

            Delicadeza…delicadeza…

            • jorgebernas says:

              Delikadiza, that gerture thief justice corona didn’t. have? Kapit Tuko ang TUTA ni Pandak… Sayang daw pakinabang niya kapag nandiyan pa siya, lakas @ dami kasi kutong niya sa loob…

          • batang proletaryo says:

            Wow!!!! Nice analysis and comment. It really was enlightening. You should teach Political Law.

    • Leona says:

      There are limits to “checks and balances” and this is one. Better for the SC not to attempt. Its gonna be rotten all the way if it does! Leave it as it is so as not to aggravate the whole situation for something worst we can’t imagine what and find no solution ot it.

  50. baycas says:

    saxnviolins says:
    December 29, 2011 at 7:43 pm

    Totoo lahat ng paratang.

    xxxxx

    Yung articles. Bakit summary lang? Why has it not been published in full?

    SNV, akala ko rin no’ng una. Na-scan ko lang ang nasa website ng Black and White Movement kaya ‘di na ko naghanap.

    Mayroon pala ang ABS-CBN dito:

    http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/-depth/12/13/11/impeachment-complaint-vs-cj-corona

    Mayroon din tuloy akong na-google tungkol sa “CONJUGAL ETHICS”. Ito ang link:

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/75749409/Conjugal-Ethics

    —–

    Verified Complaint for Impeachment” ang ginamit nila Tupas atbp. Maaaring ma-technical lalo pa’t may nakahaing apat na petisyon na sa Korte Suprema (SCORP) laban sa impeachment ni Corona.

    Nguni’t sa bandang huli, ginamit na nila Tupas atbp. ang mga katagang “Resolution” at “Verified Complaint/Resolution”. Paano kaya hihimayin ito? Ano kaya ang kahihinatnan ng mga petisyon sa SCORP?

    Mayroong sinulat ang abogadong si Jose C. Sison ukol sa mga petisyon dito:

    http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=761260&publicationSubCategoryId=64

    Mabalik sa aking punto…sa pagkakaintindi ko sa Francisco na ang ponente ay ang dating AJ Conchita Carpio-Morales (panahon ng Davide impeachment), ang SCORP ay puedeng makialam (judicial review) sa impeachment kapag proseso ang pinag-uusapan.

    “VERIFIED COMPLAINT for Impeachment” ba siya o “RESOLUTION”? Ano ba ang ibig sabihin ng “verified complaint” at ng “resolution”? Ang “resolution” ba’y posibleng “verified resolution” din, depende sa kung papaano babasahin ang Saligang Batas.

    Maaari sigurong maitanong…

    —–

    Op kors, ang nais ko sa bandang huli, taumbayan (at hindi ang SCORP) ang magdesisyon:

    http://opinion.inquirer.net/19949/the-people-will-decide

    • baycas says:

      Btw, lawyer Mario Bautista of the Clarissa Ocampo fame is included as one of the private prosecutors. In fact he will be the lead private prosecutor and counsel according to Rep. Tupas in a news article.

      An octogenarian intimated that he’s looking forward to the post-MMFF “entertainment” at the Senate next year. Let’s hope Lolo will not be disappointed by the final orbiter

      • Johnny lin says:

        @Baycas
        Cuevas is the lead lawyer of Corona. House prosecutors should allow him to speak for hours and fall on his own verbose. The chances of memory lapse and misspoken arguments are great the longer he talks according to medical research of seniors. Enrile is a living example, he stutters and lost in thoughts sometimes after speaking for a while. If he is not permitted by Corona he is disrespected and insulted by his own people, so taunting him by the observers will be fair. We respect the elderlies but when they put themselves in positions they are not supposed to, its their fault. Kanta nga ni Frank Sinatra, “chew more than I could chew I did it my way” binaril sa karaoke bar

        • baycas says:

          Yep, I forgot about Cuevas, an elderly too.

          I was referring to another octogenarian who can’t wait for the Corona impeachment trial to start…

        • Leona says:

          And Frankie couldn’t also finish his piece here in Manila during his show! Elderly talaga na! May his soul RIP. Joker and Enrile are examples of seniors who should retire na…their comments are obviously staggered na…to be reformatted kung puede pa!

    • saxnviolins says:

      The procedure laid down in the Constitution is analogous to the procedure in a criminal case, in respect to the following points:

      1. There is a complaint, by a citizen, or a Member of the House.

      In a criminal case, there is a complaint by an individual.

      2. There is a filter, or gatekeeper to the Court, the prosecutor or fiscal. He determines probable cause, to ensure that the complaint is not vexatious, merely to harass someone.

      The House, as a whole, is the gatekeeper to the Impeachment Court (senate). it, alone, can transmit the articles of impeachment, to commence the impeachment trial.

      3. If the Fiscal find probable cause, he opens the gate to the Court, by filing the information. Before that, the Fiscal issues what is called a resolution, which is the discussion of findings, as to why he believes there is probable cause.

      The information is the official charge sheet filed in Court.

      In the House, if the the Committee finds that the complaint is sufficient in form and substance, it issues a resolution, stating so. That resolution is sent to the floor, for deliberations. If the House as a whole approves the resolution, the articles of impeachment are drawn up, and sent to the Senate for trial.

      You will note, the complaint and resolution are two different things. The complaint is an accusation or a set of accusations. The resolution is the finding that the accusations have substance, and are worth sending to the House floor, to determine whether or not to draw up the articles of impeachment for trial by the Senate.

      Here is the important distinction.

      A complaint must be verified. A resolution need not be verified, because it is a mere recital of findings regarding the complaint. The official making the resolution is not making any factual allegations. His findings are a conclusion – that the allegations flesh out an impeachable offense.

      • saxnviolins says:

        I think Tupas was anticipating at least two-thirds, so he styled the complaint as a hybrid complaint/resolution.

        Problem is, the complaint and resolution are two different things. One is an accusation, and another is a finding. But this is a complaint, which in later paragraphs, becomes a finding. That is a contradiction in terms. If you are accusing, somebody should make a finding or determination that your accusation has substance. You cannot make a finding on your own complaint.

        Tupas might have been blindsided by the following Constitutional provision:

        In case the verified complaint orresolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed. Section 4, Article XI

        Note the disjunctive. Verified complaint, or resolution. If the document is a complaint, it must be verified by the one-third needed to send the articles to the Senate. If, however, it is a resolution signed by one-third, that means a third of the House signed the finding or determination that the complaint should be sent to the Senate.

        But the finding rests on the existence of a complaint. So mayroon pa ring dapat mag-verify, with regard to the allegations.

        Tupas is now caught in a bind. If it is a complaint, then all the 188 must verify (swear to it). If it is a finding by the 188, then on whose complaint was the finding made? Mayroon pa ring isa dapat, na magreklamo, for there to be a resolution.

        Yan ang problema sa di sabog. Minsan, walang tinatamaan.

        • saxnviolins says:

          Wala ngang factual allegations an articles. It is all a dissection of Corona’s votes in decided cases, and legal argumentation as to why he committed an impeachable offense.

          You can summarize the allegations into four categories:

          1. Disagreement with Corona’s votes in decided cases, stating that they are pro Goyang, and therefore unconstitutional.

          2. Corona’s acceptance of his midnight appointment.

          3. Corona;s allowing his wife, who allowed the John Hay Board, to declare company perks.

          4. Corona’s non-disclosure of his SALN.

          There is nothing to try. By trial, I mean the presentation of evidence, and the direct examination and cross examination of witnesses.

          The decided cases, they have been published. So all the Senate has to do is read them, and make conclusions. The articles, in fact, make legal arguments urging a certain conclusion. Nothing to try here.

          The John Hay affair, there is the COA audit. What is there to try? Let the Senate read it and determine if allowing the wife to allow the Board to declare perks is Corona’s violation of the Constitution.

          The SALN, this is also a legal question. Corona submitted it to the Clerk of the Supreme Court, according to the Narvasa/Cory court’s resolution. Is that unconstitutional? Legal conclusion na yan, because the facts are in.

          Midnight appointment? Legal argument din yan. Corona is not denying that he accepted, so there is nothing to try. Whether or not that is in accordance with the constitution is a legal finding, not a factual finding. No need to try this issue as well, the facts are in.

          The issues are all legal (making legal findings) not factual. This can be resolved by mere submission of memoranda (papers).

          Of course, the lawyers will want to strut their stuff, so let them have a few days of oral argumentation before the Senate, where they will be grilled by the senator/judges.

          The country must not be denied its burning desire to have a political telenovela.

          • saxnviolins says:

            You mentioned Sison’s article? Yes I read it.

            He thinks the Supreme Court has jurisdiction because there was grave abuse of discretion by the House, which the Supreme Court may correct.

            I still subscribe to the reasoning of Nixon v US, however. The Supreme Court cannot exercise supervision over the very chamber (Senate) that is supposed to be judging it (supreme court).

            The Senate can decided that issue as well, whether or not there was grave abuse of discretion, rendering the articles null and void. Every court has the inherent power to correct when there is grave abuse. Superfluous lang yang Constitutional provision natin.

          • Johnny lin says:

            “The SALN…..Corona submitted it to the Clerk of SC, according to Narvasa/Cory court’s resolution. is that unconstitutional””

            This resolution is unconstitutional because the duty SC justices are to interpret the law and constitution but are not authorized to make laws or resolutions that are spelled in the constitution. The reason behind the passage of resolution or memorandum is immaterial, in this case favors only the justices out of their hidden fear. The SC DOES NOT HAVE THE legal right to change, overrule or superimposed any wordings in the constitution. There is an article in the constitution that states all public officials must declare their SALN annually. That should not be violated by any public official including justices. At the same time it is abused of the discretion by the CJ not to disclose and dereliction of duty not to repeal an illegal resolution. Also reposed in the constitution, Legislature has the sole authority to impeach.
            Since the Narvasa resolution has not been challenged before, it did not mean it was constitutional nor it could never be challenged. Since it was a tradition of the SC, it did not mean it was vested constitutionality nor essentially morally right. It is the duty of every new CJ to determine what is constitutionally provided on their personal/local rules or memorandum. Abnoy did it by collating and scrutinizing all EOs of Glue. When it is constitutionally provided, it’s President/SC CJ duty to disregard the tradition and follow the constitution. It is being challenged now as dereliction of duty by CJ Corona. PNoy reviewed Executive order of Glue and repealed those he found unwanting like EO 464, even if it is favorable to the Executive officials. Similarly, CJ should have done exactly what Abnoy did by recognition and responsible action, violation of which is betrayal of public trust in terms of negligence and incompetence. Here is one article with factual charge and substance. The other is Corona’s personally benefitting from wife’s benefits. In private or government official business, the employee is authorized to spend only for herself and clients, never to benefit any relative. Since Executive office has cases in SC, then Corona acted as client or lobbyist by benefitting monetarily or in kind or to stretch it, bribery, which is violation of publict trust thru conflict of interest.

            The Senate being the cteator of Laws would look at that Narvasa resolution as changing or superimposing words in the constitution which is a usurpation of the duties of senators. Imagine if the SC justices are tolerated to make their own resolution that are spelled out in the constititon, then SC is virtually creating their own constitutional articles independent of the nation’s constitution. They are like creating their own government. Isn’t that treason in one way ?

            The House has followed the rule of impeachment reposed to them under the constitution, the Senate has to follow same rule to make judgment. The SC could interpret the constitutionality of Narvasa resolution because it is an illegal resolution by itself created unethically by justices and could be corrected only by impeachment, constitutionally. Besides it is a conflict of interest by law that they decide the constitutionality of their own imaginary fear and they are the beeficiary. Its like baking, eating and judging their own cake as the best tasting cake in the nation. Even a child would say, it is not fair! Leon, Panday, and Jinggoy have been portraying roles dispensing justice. They could easily understand the usurpation of senators duties by the justices. Ano sila, sinuswerte?

            I rest my case and I am not a lawyer. One Hail Mary shot in the middle of a wide rim.

            • Johnny lin says:

              The SC could NOT interpret the Narvasa resolution

              • Johnny lin says:

                “Iyan ang problema ng di sabog, minsan walang tinatamaan”

                Sabi nga ni Dolphy, kaya hindi ako kumakandidato sa pulitika,
                eh kung manalo, Paano ngayon?
                Eh kung tumama ang di sabog? Importante pinaputok!

                Hindi aani kapag hindi nagtanim, minsan masalanta, minsan masagana. Ang dasal ay parating masagana.

              • saxnviolins says:

                You must be referring to this Constitutional provision:

                A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be required by law, submit</b. a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth. In the case of the President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional offices, and officers of the armed forces with general or flag rank, the declaration shall be disclosed to the public in the manner provided by law.

                Seems to me the Constitution says submit.

                The disclosure is in the manner provided by law. Supreme Court resolutions have the force and effect of law. In fact, unlike in the United States, where rules of procedure are enacted by Congress, in the Philippines, the Rules of Court are issuances of the Supreme Court. Those are the same rules that the Senate rules state are suppletory to its (Senate) own rules.

              • Johnny lin says:

                Look up RA 3019 Section 7 stating the Chief Head of an independent body, shall submit their SALN including source of income to the office of the President every April 15. CJ is an independent body. Since there is a law, SC could not create their own ruling. This is specific, the cheif head must submit to office of the president.

                What you are referring to are rules of court created after interpretation by court on certain issues of laws or articles in the constitution, isn’t it?
                SC interpret laws but dont create them; court rules become applicable only to existing laws or remain as such acting as guidelines to law by lower courts until Congress enact laws or replace by constitutional amendment overriding that particular court ruling. I think you refer to them as “precedence” when arguing a case but they are not legislated laws.

              • saxnviolins says:

                The specific controls the general.

                The Constitution mentions the Supreme Court. Your cited provision mentions head of an independent body. Clearly, the Constitution prevails, being more specific, and also being the higher law.

                There is no mention of the judiciary in your cited provision.

                What you are referring to are rules of court created after interpretation by court on certain issues of laws or articles in the constitution, isn’t it?

                By Rules of Court, I mean the Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules on Criminal Procedure, and Rules on Evidence. They are issuances of the Supreme Court, not interpretations of law.

                The preamble of the Rules of Civil Procedure states:

                Pursuant to the provisions of Section 5(5) of Article VIII of the Constitution, the Supreme Court hereby adopts and promulgates the following rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged:

                Read up.

                A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

              • saxnviolins says:

                You mentioned an old law.

                Insofar as submission of statements of assets and liabilities are concerned, that has been replaced by Republic Act 6713, enacted by the Cory Congress in February 1989.

                The pertinent provisions state:

                The Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth and the Disclosure of Business Interests and Financial Connections shall be filed by:

                (2) Senators and Congressmen, with the Secretaries of the Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively; Justices, with the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court; Judges, with the Court Administrator; and all national executive officials with the Office of the President.

                Section 8, 2, A, sixth paragraph

                With respect to promulgating rules to interpret the law, Republic Act No. 6713 provides:

                Section 10. Review and Compliance Procedure. – (a) The designated Committees of both Houses of the Congress shall establish procedures for the review of statements to determine whether said statements which have been submitted on time, are complete, and are in proper form. In the event a determination is made that a statement is not so filed, the appropriate Committee shall so inform the reporting individual and direct him to take the necessary corrective action.

                (b) In order to carry out their responsibilities under this Act, the designated Committees of both Houses of Congress shall have the power within their respective jurisdictions, to render any opinion interpreting this Act, in writing, to persons covered by this Act, subject in each instance to the approval by affirmative vote of the majority of the particular House concerned.

                The individual to whom an opinion is rendered, and any other individual involved in a similar factual situation, and who, after issuance of the opinion acts in good faith in accordance with it shall not be subject to any sanction provided in this Act.

                (c) ,The heads of other offices shall perform the duties stated in subsections (a) and (b) hereof insofar as their respective offices are concerned, subject to the approval of the Secretary of Justice, in the case of the Executive Department and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, in the case of the Judicial Department.

                Looks like Narvasa was acting according to the law enacted in Cory’s time.

                Looks also like the submission to the Clerk of Court is in accordance with the law enacted during Cory’s time.

                That law is more specific to the Supreme Court than RA 3019, and was enacted later in time than RA 3019.

                There goes another Hail Mary shot.

              • Johnny lin says:

                We started with the Narvasa Resolution which you said it was a rule of court now you are on rules of civil procedure. Which is which, make up your mind. I cant guess what you mean.
                Are you saying the Narvasa court Resolution falls under rule of civil and criminal procedutes and evidence?
                My interpretation of your state Rules of Court are Court decisions relative to the Resolution.

                The few rules on SALN are specific and accurate. Even a high school graduate can read and understand the words especially the definition of the terms, government and public officers. Juridical and all branches of government of RP are specified directly there. Did you read RA3019 sec 2 a,b,d?

              • saxnviolins says:

                So we have two Hail Mary shots.

                The SALN issue, which is covered by a Cory (Narvasa) court resolution, pursuant to a Cory law (RA 6713).

                We have the connect to the connect to the connect.

                Corona, connected to his wife, who is connected to the John Hay Board, which collegially declared a company perk. That connect to the connect to the connect is alleged as Corona’s violation of the Constitution.

                Hail Cory full of grace, the Lord is with thee. Blessed are you among women and blessed with the Presidency is the fruit of your womb Noy.

                Holy Cory mother of Noy, pray for his dumbkopfs, now and at the hour of the impeachment trial.

                Amen.

              • Johnny lin says:

                You cited #2 applicable to associate justices only. Section #1 apllies to CJ Corona and the rest of constitutional officials., Pres, VP, Speaker, etc.

                Review and compliance pertains to the contents and form of the SALN. Narvasa Resolution pertains to Public Disclosure of SALN, different rules. Look at Public Disclosure under RA 6713. Better download the website for everybody to read. I could not do it on my phone.

              • Johnny lin says:

                Article XI section 17
                RA 3019- Graft and Corrupt practices Act
                RA 6713- Ethical Conduct of Public Officers

                Are you saying the Corrupt Act was an old law? Under Sec 2 of this law defines the terms government , public officers, gifts and persons. Both RA under Article XI

              • saxnviolins says:

                The Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth and the Disclosure of Business Interests and Financial Connections shall be filed by:

                (1) Constitutional and national elective officials, with the national office of the Ombudsman;

                (2) Senators and Congressmen, with the Secretaries of the Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively; Justices, with the Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court; Judges, with the Court Administrator; and all national executive officials with the Office of the President.

                (3) Regional and local officials and employees, with the Deputy Ombudsman in their respective regions;

                (4) Officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, with the Office of the President, and those below said ranks, with the Deputy Ombudsman in their respective regions; and

                (5) All other public officials and employees, defined in Republic Act No. 3019, as amended, with the Civil Service Commission.

                The Chief Justice is a justice. He just happens to be first among equals. So section 2 covers the CJ, not section 1.

                If your interpretation is followed, that means that the Senate President is not a senator, and the Speaker is not a speaker, and they both must submit their SALN to the Ombudsman.

                Constitutional officers refers to the COMELEC, COA, etc.

                The interpretation that the CJ is not a justice borders on the facetious.

              • Leona says:

                Yes, like the mignight appointment issue, the SC “interpreted” it but actually “legislated” the Constitution. That’s the beauty of being in the high Court, you can “legislate” but say only “we are interpreting” it. What does not appear is made to appear, by “legal fiction” that’s what it is!

              • Johnny lin says:

                Same RA 3019, pay particular attention to definition of terms Section 2 (a), (b), (d). stating all government branches of RP including judiciary who are covered by this law.

              • Johnny lin says:

                One last thing, Senators are national elective officials so with your interpretation they have to submit to 2 places, Ombudsman and Senate. Thus the only conclusion is # 1 refers to Heads of constitutional bodies the top 5 officials of the land and # 2 refers to rest of senator congressmen and justices.

              • Johnny lin says:

                Furthermore under RA 6713 Rule VII, Section 1. C)(1),(2), states where to file: CJ has to file with office Ombudsman and associate justices with CC of SC. In other words, the constitutional officers or chief head of constitutional body: President, VP, Senate pres, Speaker, CJ, Presiding judge of Sandigan, Ombudsman and Comelec Chair shall file SALN in 2 places, Ofiice of the President and Ombudsman, under RA 3019 & 6713. no exception.
                If Corona as CJ did not fulfill duty last April 2011, he violated the law.
                All these acts are under Article XI of the 1987 Constitution. Verify them.

              • Johnny lin says:

                The speaker is congressman with special title, same with CJ, Chief heads of constitutional bodies because the 3 branches are constitutional bodies. My interpretation is based on the new ruling of midnight appointment of CJ made legally by SC in which they state that midnight appointees to all appointed officials exclude the judiciary because it was not specified. That is the danger of that faulty ruling, it created a lot of changes and faulty ramifications in the constitution. What is good for the gander is good for the goose.

                Who would say that layman interpretation is wrong based on that change, that is precedence from what you call SC ruling, isnt it? Check those 2RAs I referred to under Article XI. They are either contradictory, confusing or complimentary if both have sections where to file SALNs. If there is confusion, senators will rely on political vote. Hail Mary counted. You heard it from me first, the beans had been counted. The rest is for your telenovela. Eventually choice is resignation when its definite the underground guerilla approach to the senators will not materialize. Kaya delaying tactic muna. Sayang yung pinadalang Xmas gifts, pati pamilya nakinabang.

                Happy NewYear to you and family.

              • jorgebernas says:

                Of course the Supreme Court will not interprete Narvasa resolution coz it will hit them back. sila ang tatamaan dahil naging makasarili sila para sa kanilang sarili lamang….

          • Johnny lin says:

            @saxnviolins
            Ganito ang telenovela, ang titulo ay

            ANG PAGKAIN (SALN)
            Mga Gumaganap:
            A. Special chefs: 1. Executive chef—– Pesident Abnoy
            2. Sous chef———-Senate and House.
            3. Sommelier———- Supreme Court
            B. Ordinary chefs: all other public officials
            C. Sambayanang tao

            Ang Utos ng Saligang Batas(Constitution) : magluto ng cake at ipakain sa lahat ng tao. Walang lalabag, lahat kasali, walang pasubali.

            Ang ginawa ng Sommelier nagusap usap sila lamang, tutal tayo ang may hawak ng alak, yung niluto natin pagkain, atin na lamang, wag na natin ibigay sa iba. Wala silang karapatan gawin ayon sa utos ng Saligang Batas kaya lang pasaway talaga ugali nila dahil sila ang may hawak sa alak na pampagana sa pagkain. Palihim nilang ginawa at matagal ng inabuso kahit labag sa Utos. Walang nagrereklamo kasi kadalasan nababahagi nila ng alak ang executive at sous chefs na mga ganid din.

            Nakahalata ang mga tao, pinalitan ang executive chef ang ngalan ay Abnoy. Mahigpit, malinis at may paninindigan sa wastong paraan. Ayaw niya ng nagnakaw ng pagkain at alak na dapat ibahagi sa tao.
            Sinabihan ang House Sous chef na ang pinuno ng Sommelier ay tanggalin dahil hindi tama ang palakad na hindi ibahagi yung nilutong pagkain at kinakain lamang nilang pansarili. Ang sagot nila, matagal na po namin ginagawa ito at napagkasunduan namin lahat. Saka wala naman nagreklamo noon.
            Sabi ng House Sous chef, mali dahil labag sa utos. Ang mali ay mali kahit kinalakihan ninyo. Ibig ninyong sabihin dahil matagal na kayong magnanakaw at walang nagpakulong sa inyo, hindi na kayo pwedeng kasuhin? Eh ano kung walang nagreklamo noon, ako ang nagreklamo ngayon at karapatan ng Sous chef na tanggalin ang pinuno dahil hindi niya sinunod ang sinumpahan niyang tungkulin. Ang pagkain ay para sa lahat ng tao dahil utos ng Saligang Batas ito na wala sino man sa atin ang may karapatan lumabag. Wala kayong karapatang gumawa ng ibang Saligang Batas maliban dun sa pinalabas na Kautusan ng mga tao.

            Tama ba ang Sous chef o tama ang Somellier?
            Kahit munting paslit maintindihan ito.

            Ang hatol? Maysala!

        • saxnviolins says:

          Linawin natin pa nang husto.

          There is a complaint, and its complainant, and there is an evaluator or assessor of the complaint, who issues a resolution or a finding.

          You cannot be the evaluator of your own complaint. Yan ang problema dito sa hybrid complaint/resolution.

          • Johnny lin says:

            On the same token, one could not create, benefit from it and judge it at the same on a resolution that was already constitutionally provided.
            Sabi ko nga kung baga ang SALN ay cake, ang mga tuso niluto na, kinain para lang sa kanila ganun maliwanag yung cake para sa lahat ng tao. paano gusto nila husgain nila na di sila tuso? Sakim!

          • Johnny lin says:

            @saxnviolins
            Public relation marketing or selling snake medicine or technical lawyering will no longer be effective to savvy laymen. Its a new technological world. We understand and are abreast of every details, unlike before the advent of twitter and facebook.
            In advertising a car, what does the pitchman say: the car has pretty color, top of the line 6 speaker sound system, leather seats, MP3 and navigation, etc. It does mention the price because its expensive for what its worth, weak engine, no safety features like airbags and ABS traction which are the most important considerations in buying a car.
            You are talking about the weakness of the articles, their technicalities, complaint or resolution which is really immaterial when the 1/3 member signatures is reached Yet, rarely discussed were those charged articles with strong points you dont want people to understand them clearly. When discussed the rationale were off line like the Narvasa/Cory court resolution, making sure Cory’s name was included subtly implying she approved it, although promulgated secretly until it was exposed and the use of perks by Corona’s wife pointing it was approved by Board of Camp John Hay without emphasizing the details of conflict of interest by Corona acting as client or lobbyist on benefitting from the privilege of his wife which he should have reimbursed defining the character of a pure and independent magistrate.
            Posturing is practiced by both sides because their messages are directed to the people/mob, each side wanted to project. We understand every malicious innuendos or legal mumbo jumbo and we are warning the senators to watch their steps. Commit their mistake, we shall react.

            7 out of 10 Filipinos, and counting, are logical and independently minded, not yellowtags. Refuse walking the way to perdition is our mantra; Road to emancipation from corrupt ways is the course we want to trek with or without PNoy.

            • Roco Batungbakal says:

              @Johnny lin, I learned so much from your discussion thank you.

              I need your opinion in the scrapping of the “Truth Commission” in my point of view the SC oversteps the authority of the Executive.

              This is my point of view: Creation of a “BODY” such as the “Truth Commission” will never diminish the right of any accused accorded by law because any accused have the right to be represented in the court with the best lawyer he/she can hire and be heard fairly. Because no amount of investigation or court CAN CONVICT A CLEAN PERSON.

              With this premise, the previous administration who is the subject to be investigated by the “TRUTH COMMISSION” has the presumption of innocence. As has been said no Court can convict a clean person, therefore the action of SC junking the “Truth Commission” Unconstitutional on the argument of “EQUAL PROTECTION OF LAW” only points to the fact that the SC is protecting the previous Administration and implied that the previous Administration is guilty.

              • Johnny Lin says:

                @Roco
                Thanks, its mostly from experience in my profession in analyzing different documents from all over. My opinion on the Truth Commission was that its legal because the executive or the congress could authorize a commission. We had the Melo Commission and its purpose was to investigate extrajudicial killings by military, I believe. It was an specific investigation of a particular group, military, possibly involved in crime, murder. Truth commission was to investigate malfeasance of previous administration, an investigation of a particular group possibly involved in a particular crime, corruption. Similar motive, similar execution by Executive order. Difference,the SC was controlled by Arroyo appointees and her administration was being investigation compared to Melo, it was the same Arroyo Court but she was the one who ordered for face saving of her administration. The Melo report was never publicly revealed.
                I dont look at presumption of innocence because that premise is always present in every investigation of a person. The basic is its legality, the specific purpose and was there a precedence. The answer is yes and court rulings are always cited for precedence that is why when we read opinions from court decisions, there is always a reference to a previous court decision as guideline for judgment.

            • john says:

              count me in the 7 and counting……

              • Johnny Lin says:

                saxnviolins is hibernating because he is trying to decipher and study the rules on SALN place of filing which are both indicated in RA 6019 and RA 6713, the latter was enacted in 1989 but nothing in the law indicated that it replaced section 7 of RA 6019.
                Corona violated section 7 RA 6019 obviously. He did not file his SALN with the office of president after his CJ appoinment required by that Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

          • Mel says:

            @!saxnviolins

            and iyong sulat, “You cannot be the evaluator of your own complaint. Yan ang problema dito sa hybrid complaint/resolution”

            simple lang ang sagot ko mga kababayan. Ang ibang miyembro (bukod sa 188) ng legislatura – puwede naman silang mag file ng motion ukol sa ‘verified complaint’ laban sa kapwa nila.
            kung may isyu, iyong pumirma kasama sa 188, puwede naman magprotest DAHIL HINDI NABASA KUNO ‘ng iba’, o iyong ibang miyembro na hindi pumirma na kaalyado naman ng partido ni GMA – puwede mag file ng motion sa kanilang legislatura.

            In my opinion, due to the jurisdiction of complaints initiated, it remains within the bounds of the Legislature. The Judiciary has no jurisdiction since it is a constitutional impeachment move by Legislature (Congress) against a member (CJ) of the Judiciary branch. Otherwise, for interpretation of the constitution na naman iyan. As such, the current batch of magistrates (most) do not have the credibility nor partiality to arrive at a Scout’s Honor, an impartial and intelligent decision – at least at a common sense disposition.

            Gaya ng sabi ni @saxnviolins, “Linawin natin pa nang husto.”

            Aasahan mo ba ang Mataas NA Husgado na suriin nila kung tama ang batas o proceso na ginamit ng Legislatura na magsampa ng reklamo laban sa kanila? Naturalmente, malaking posibilidad na HINDI (at mali) ang magiging sagot nila dahil hindi lang si CJ ang ma-impeach, susunod din ang iba.

            It is a catch 22 if ever THE JUDICIARY Branch welcomes or admits to have jurisdiction of a motion (or 4) to decide on the verified complaint initiated by 188 congressmen.

            At KUNG sakali tangapin ni Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio ang motion, may posibilidad na tiwalakin niya si CJ R Corona – ang tinik ng Supreme Court.

            Guys, if you quote or rebut by quoting a certain rules of court, Republic Act or whatever BS rule(s), I rest my case and rely on my Common Sense and march with the common tao or massa to protest. I got no time to research, and at the end of the day – the Supreme Court may have its own interpretation and translation that is not Common to all.

            • saxnviolins says:

              Sinabi ko na sa itaas, hindi ako ayon sa pagsuri ng Jukuman sa iysu ng impeachment. Sa sagot ko kay Bayca2, binanggit ko ang katwiran ng Nixon v US.

              Any UP lawyer who is younger than 50 probably took his legal research and writing (freshman first sem) under Professor Myrna Feliciano. Submitting a hybrid complaint/resolution would have merited an outright grade of 5. Failing yan. I don’t know about Ateneo and La Salle, dahil baligtad; a 4 is the highest grade. Uno ang highest sa amin.

              If the student survives, by some miracle, he would have taken his practicum, where you handle actual cases for indigents, under Professor Tadiar. Professor Tadiar asked me to draft a complaint-affidavit for an indigent against the police, to be filed with the fiscal. Had I mixed my client’s role as complainant with that of the role of the fiscal, and filed a complaint resolution, I would certainly have not graduated.

              In the bar exams, the last subject on the last Sunday is legal ethics, with some form drafting thrown in. A regularly occurring requirement is the drafting of a complaint. Again, if this complaint resolution is filed, tiyak, no points for that question ang bar candidate.

              • saxnviolins says:

                Are we saying that we are more exacting on students, writing for make-believe cases (freshman and the bar candidate), but less stringent on Congressmen who are filing an actual impeachment case?

                This is the first in history. Hindi ba puwedeng ginawang pulido, at hindi ganireng dispalinghado? Yan ang kagagawan ng ating Kagalang-galang ng mga Kinatawan?

                Kung pumirma ang 188 bilang resolving officers, sino ang nagreklamo kung gayon?

              • saxnviolins says:

                Noy’s story is like the story of King Midas (not Marquez). all he touched turned to gold. But when he tried to embrace his daughter, she too, turned to gold. It was not altogether good after all.

                Similarly, all who are connected with Noy are turned to clean honest people by association with Noy. That is not entirely bad. But people are blinded by this virtue, that they cease to bother to evaluate the competence of Noy’s men.

                Everything is correct, because it is touched by Noy.

                This is Noy’s albatross. Very few exact competence from Noy’s men.

                That is my point in all my exchanges on this issue. I do not give a hoot whether Corona is a sinner or a saint. I am merely evaluating the articles of impeachment. They could have been impeaching the Pope or a dog for all I care. I would still be looking at the output.

                A popular President inspires high hopes in the people. Those hopes should not be dashed by incompetence, middling performance, or even so-so performance from the President’s men.

              • Johnny Lin says:

                Abnoy story is also like a book, everybody attached to him are pages. Some judge by its cover, others halfway thru. The better judges are the poorly educated, the people, for they read slowly and digest all the morals in the story, how they affect their lives, until closing the back cover when they decide.

              • Johnny Lin says:

                @saxnviolins
                What is required on House impeachment process to be directly sent to Senate when 1/3 of member signatories are verified?
                Complaints must be complete in form and substance, no more no less, isn’t it? There are many ways to skin a cat. Not only thru UP or Ateneo? San Beda, UST, FEU or Lyceum either? Have you heard of UMP? University of Motion Pictures, 4 of them in the Senate?

                Did the house comply? It is now up to Senate if they will pass or fail the complaints for trial. Evidences provided by both sides will be the pudding.

              • Mel says:

                @Johnny Lin
                You asked, “Have you heard of UMP? University of Motion Pictures, 4 of them in the Senate?”

                Now I am better informed! LOL!

                Pardon my ignorance, isn’t it the only award they’re missing is an OSCAR? During their heyday, almost every year they get awarded for their multi roles in a variety of action packed scripted movies. Very FAMAS err famous that they didn’t have to boast of their new reel, I mean, real life roles as the Highest Senate-Judges of the land, to direct or try a Chief Justice if he is still suited for the role of a Chief Justice.

                Now the People’s most favorite actors are exercising the peoples’ right to handle justice. May the best rules-script memorizer and pretender win!

                Hindi mo naman puwedeng sabihing ‘kangaroo court’ dahil nanduon si Miriam at si Juan. Parehong matalino at marunong… mag jess en jinggoy kung sino ang unang magtatanong kay Renato ng latin …

                Baka ma-extra ka diyan @Johnny Lin, you may have a once in a life time opportunity to ask CJ to swear the Oath with his hand flipping yours between the book. hirit…

                mabalos

              • Johnny lin says:

                @mel
                Problema gamit na libro sa lucky 9 ni Corona hindi makapal na bibliya kundi Pepe n Pilar, manipis, madaling mandaya funny you reminded me my bread and butter during schooldays

              • Mel says:

                @Johnny lin

                You wrote, “… funny you reminded me my bread and butter during schooldays”.

                LOL!!!

                Hindi lang ikaw… it was also the trend or ‘the vice’ during our high school days too! ( 70s)

                LOL!!!

                Sorry for the troll Raïssa, could’t help BUT identify with @Johnny lin’s.

              • Johnny lin says:

                @mel
                You referred to it as vice; I considered it a hobby which could be profitable or commercialized on a part time basis, low profile, stricty legal in Sin City but could be banned permanently because the odds are tipped against the house; photographic memory is a plus

                Sorry too, Raissa.

              • Johnny Lin says:

                Sa House sino alumni ng UMP?
                Mikey Arroyo, Pacman, Lucy Gomez, Gina De Venecia, Dan Fernandez, Laarni Mercado, JV Ejercito? Sino pa?

                Bagong Queen nila, GLoria Arroyo,” The Girl with the Halo Vest” drama sa airport. Title patterned after new Hollywood thriller, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.

              • Mel says:

                @saxnviolins.

                Kabayan, nakakalito naman ang mga dagdag mo.

                Gaya ng, “Any UP lawyer who is younger than 50 probably took his legal research and writing (freshman first sem) under Professor Myrna Feliciano. Submitting a hybrid complaint/resolution would have merited an outright grade of 5. Failing yan. I don’t know about Ateneo and La Salle, dahil baligtad; a 4 is the highest grade. Uno ang highest sa amin”

                FYI, I don’t know Professor Tadiar nor Professor Myrna Feliciano from Adam. But I assume they did very well when you were their student.

                Dahil nabanggit mo pa mandin ang mga ‘matataas’ na universidad sa ‘pinas para sa abogasya, gaya ng UST – nalilito na rin kung mali o tama ang PHD para kay R Corona.

                Kaniya-kaniyang paraan ng markado sa grado at proceso ng pagtapos sa mga estudyante.

                Hindi kaya iyang ang isang dahilan kung bakit may sakit ang mga hustisiya ng bayan. kung may lusot, may gusot.

                pero @saxnviolins, naliwanagan na ako sa naisulat mo, “Sinabi ko na sa itaas, hindi ako ayon sa pagsuri ng Jukuman sa iysu ng impeachment.” Ayos pala tayo, medyo mababaw kasi ang simoy ng hangin dito sa ibaba (down under) LOL!

                Guys, you may not be aware yet – but the House of Representatives’ Prosecution Team has released its reply to “[S]upreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona’s prayer that the Senate dismiss the impeachment charges filed against him. The Prosecution Team filed this reply with the Senate acting as an impeachment court on Monday, January 2, 2012″ PDI.

                @saxnviolins, napansin ko, sa iyo lang naman nanggagaling ang
                ‘hybrid complaint/resolution’ angle. Pahinga muna ako dito.

                Agayaman apo!

              • saxnviolins says:

                Kung Atenista ang gumawa ng articles, palagay mo ba kung sinubmit mo yan kay Justice Venicio Escolin papasa yang hybrid complaint resolution na yan?

              • Johnny Lin says:

                Eh kung kay Justice Leon Guerero? Ano palagay mo?

        • leona says:

          A good point on this. Does the Constitution clearly define what is the “complaint” or what is the “resolution” to be accomplished by the HoR? There is none. What is only understood commonly is an ordinary usual complaint or resolution (as described, i.e., by a Fiscal/prosecutor,etc.) But the Constitutional provisions does not say the “complaint” or “resolution” has to be that usually or commonly understood. Can the HorR make their “own” form of “complaint,” or “resolution” as the impeaching authority in this provision? I think they can. And how they define those words is their own. Can the HoR make it a “mixed” form-style by its title “Complaint/Resolution?” Why not? That’s their choice as the only authority. Can the SC say otherwise procedurally? I don’t think so. It’s out of their hands. Regardless of its (Complaint/Resolution) contents, whether it shows a complaint or resolution, is not important for purposes of saying it has either to be one or the other, if not, it cannot be. I don’t think such argument will hold water. How the HoR calls it and files it is fiat accompli already. That’s up to the Senate. Since the Senate rejected the motion for preliminary hearing by Mr. Cuevas, that’s the end of the matter. The Senate has already accepted the Articles of Impeachment under its form and substance = Complaint/Resolution.

      • Mel says:

        @Johnny lin & @saxnviolins

        Guys, ang hahaba ng mga exchanges ninyo. As much as I would like to participate, due to the season break – no time to join in the analysis.

        But kudos sa inyo, you still both have to get a life. Spend time with your love ones too.

        Thanks @baycas for the link on the ‘complete’ articles of the Representatives’ complaint, compared with the summary i saw days before. It was a better version since it added comprehension, background and profile info.

        Best of the new year greetings to Raïssa (her family) and to all fellow commentators (including Baltazar, atbp ).

        2011 yearender on this blog participation was very positive, mentally exercising plus educational). I’ve never read the Phils (incl. 1987 now) Constitution since college in the early 80s. But I was challenged to cross -reference to get the fundamental gist.

        Dakal Salamat ke kayu ngan!

        • Johnny Lin says:

          @mel
          Thanks for your concern but I have the best time of my life with my love ones since I retired early. This is my pasttime with my phone thats is why I have limited capacity using. i could not make any attachment @baycas does. use only wifi of other people cause I am always on the road travelling.
          have a prosperous safe New Year.

          • Mel says:

            Hey @Johnny Lin.

            No worries máte (ausie for buddy, friend).

            Nasa labas din kahapon waiting for the 12 midnight fireworks, tried reading Raïssa’s blog entries. Hirap basahin sa smartphone and follow the sequence of @saxnviolins and your entries – ang hahaba. But I was chuckling by myself when reading the latest & others’ replies to one another.

            Ganuon din sa iyo kabayan. may 2012 be a prosperous new year to you & your love ones – same with Raïssa’s and fellow bloggers.

            Dakal Salamat ke kayu ngan!

            • Mel says:

              correction.

              “Nasa labas din kahapon…”, should be nuong isang araw (31 Dec) for the NY Eve’s fireworks…

            • raissa says:

              Salamat Mel.

              Hope you have a Prosperous and Lovely New Year.

            • Johnny Lin says:

              Mel, holidays indeed brought you merry and cheers on postings. You and Baltazar are fond of calling us mates; Baltazar is in Singapore, are you Down Under? Abe coud better complement your last sentenceLol.

              Did everyone read on Rappler.com the latest controversy of Corona about UST summa cum laude honor and his wife’s Ombudsman letter?

              I was surprised Raissa was not among those group of journalists in Rappler(Newsbreak new medium) considering her guts and talent, equal or better than Maria Ressa, Marites Vitug, Glenda Gloria which UST debunked publicly.

              • Baltazar says:

                @Johnny lin,
                Thanks for the rappler.com tip. I’m a bit surprised by UST’s explanation about CJ’s degree. It looks like a sort of a “hybrid” of honorary and academic degrees. The Crowning Jewel had a summa cum laude honors with an academic requirement waived (ie dissertation).. plus overstaying hmm…his case is one of a kind. Anyways, at stake is the institution’s reputation.

              • Johnny lin says:

                @baltazar
                There was a column titled”one lucky guy”, its more of sarcasm than envy, citing circumstances to his rise to CJ. Corona did not have much trial or judicial experience; Political, yes and very extensive, maybe more than half of his professional career. When UST cited the reason of legal experience and MBA diplomas for waiving dissertation, it is the mother of all cacophony excuses or favoritism, unfair to other doctorate students. UST said it had the authority to change their rules but would not answer when it was announced or offered to all students. Changing kayak in the middle of a relay is always foul or Formula car during Indy 500 race; UST being also an athletic institution knows that rule.

                Corona indeed was either a lucky guy or all along proved his critics right that his legal experience was maneuvering political deals, probably bordering on illegality. Proofs coming out lately aside from the CJ midnight appointment are UST summa honor and the Bellagio penthouse sweetheart deal.

              • Mel says:

                @Johnny lin, @Baltazar

                Like you guys, I too came across the rappler dot com website thru the UST-Corona expose by Ms Vitug.

                It is BTW a beta site, not in full production as at 03 Jan when I last visited – seems like a work in progress blog site, an off-shoot of newsbreak.

                Although it has similarities with Raïssa’s .com, I choose this one to date. It wouldn’t be wise to pit one against the other by petty listing of bias and personal choice. It is good by all accounts to have a variety of resource of Phils’ social and political news trends for filipinos, both for Phils & overseas residents.

                Cheers to Raïssa and Allan for their dedication & commitment on their eBaby news and investigative website!

                Thank you.

        • saxnviolins says:

          I post in the early morning, when all through the House, not a creature is stirring, not even a mouse.

          Aru. Dakal a kabalen ning Tatang ko keni.

          • Johnny Lin says:

            @saxnviolins
            Aru, identifiable expression, Tatang mu from 4th district or Sexmoan town
            Me from Pampang, pampang ng Pasig.

            Did you research and compare Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act RA 6019 Section 7 to Code of Conduct and Ethics of Public Officers RA 6713 Rule VII?
            Latter did not replace the former.

            • saxnviolins says:

              My Kapampangan is rusty. I meant grandfather, which should be Apung, or I think, Indu.

              He was from Tarlac (the Ilocano side actually), like Camilo Osias. He had to learn to speak in Kapampangan, however, because the drinking buddies were Kapampangan.

              • Mel says:

                @saxnviolins,

                you’re right, Apung is for grandpa.

                kapag may inuman sa barrio, its hard to differentiate if by grog or sway ang accent… dahil lasing pareho…

                @Johnny Lin, puwede ka na ring translator.

                As for your query to @saxnviolins about ‘Did you research and compare Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act RA 6019 Section 7 to Code of Conduct and Ethics of Public Officers RA 6713 Rule VII?’

                Forget it, na HIDErnate na niya iyon…

                check u guys 2morrow.

                mabalos.

              • Johnny Lin says:

                Kapampangan side ofTarlac when it was part of Pampanga belonged to the 4th district like Santa Ana. Yes Camilo Osias spoke kapampangan. isn’t he from Camiling Tarlac, considered the father of Philippine education, former senator.?That is why you are very scholarly and a former senate staffer( thru connection or talent)?

    • Baltazar says:

      @baycas
      You’re such a resourceful person. Thanks for the links. I’m quite overwhelmed by the terminologies in the articles of impeachment. Tsk…tsk.., the honorable congressman Manny Pacquiao will not just have a nosebleed going through this; He’ll be practically knocked down .. and so are Leon Guerrero and Flavio (Panday) :-).
      As someone has already commented that CJ is trying to win the grass roots masses by airing his side in a pompous Tagalog, I think a good counterpoise is a Tagalog translation of the articles be released to the public – which I feel would fan the flame in favor of the prosecution.

      • baycas says:

        You’re welcome, Baltazar.

        Let’s wait for another “nose bleeding” episode when the House prosecutors “parry” or make a “counterpunch” against Corona’s lawyers’ answer to the Verified Impeachment Complaint.

  51. saxnviolins says:

    So Mike the Pig has been charged before the Sandiganbayan.

    The Sandigan is swarming with Glue men. If the President wants a fair trial, he can do a Marcos – with the help of the Congress. After all, he has the overwhelming majority, as evidenced by the articles of impeachment. Mas madali pa, because you do not need two-thirds of the Senate.

    Marcos swept away the justices in the Court of Appeals by abolishing it. He replaced it with the Intermediate Appellate Court. Same banana, different name, with a few cosmetic changes in the law. So all justices were out of office, because the office was abolished. Marcos reappointed many, but not all. With this maneuver, he achieved a free hand in reforming the Court.

    Congress can abolish the Sandigan, and create a new graft trial court, to try graft and corruption cases triable by the Sandigan. The appellate jurisdiction of the Sandigan will be handled by the Court of Appeals. I really do not agree with the stupidity of a hybrid court, that is a trial court for some officials (President, etc.) and an appellate court (appeal from the RTC) for lowly government employees.

    In fact, since much of the corruption actually occurs at the Court of Appeals (remember Sabio? Involved din si Bienvenido Reyes diyan di ba?), Noy can do a Marcos and restructure the Court of Appeals as well. Ibalik sa Intermediate Appellate Court (pronounced iyak. Kaya daw iyak ng iyak ang mga justices).

    What is the source law? Batas Pambansa 129

    With one fell swoop, you clean up the appellate courts, without need for impeachment.

  52. wan sipag says:

    sana magkaroon ng mobocracy dito sa pilipinas. at ng sa ganun magkaroon ng anarchy, im sure pag magulo na pilipinas kaming mahihirap at mga bobo abnoy at budoy ang matitira dito…. 1. dahil hindi kami matalino gagawin namin simple ang batas na iiral sa bayan. 2. dahil kami ay abnoy simple lang pananaw namin sa buhay at hindi kami ambisyoso. 3. dahil kami ay sanay sa hirap at simpleng pamumuhay gagawin namin simple struktura ng pamumuhay. walang globalisasyon hindi rin kami apektado ng krisis na dala ng globalisasyon 4. dahil kami ay mangmang hindi namin maiisip na man lamang ng kapwa.
    5. pagmangmang at bobo mas mananaig ang damdamin at totoong takot sa diyos at pananampalataya. dahil dito mananaig ang damdadamin namin sa pagmamahal sabayan na walang pagiimbot.
    6. dahil ramdam namin ang kahirapan.. mas mangingibabaw sa amin ang bayanihan.
    SANA NGA MAGKATOTOO ITO….O TINGNAN NINYO SARILI NYO BAKIT KAYO MATATAKOT SA GANITO…SIGURO AAYAW KAYO SA GANITO DAHIL IISIPIN NINYO ANG ANG INYONG MAKASARILING AMBISYON AT KINABUKASAN NG ANAK AT PAMILYA NYO…MAGANDANG FAMILY VALUE YAN PERO YAN ANG SIMPLENG SUMISIRA SA LIPUNAN…..POR DIYOS POR SANTO..HINDI KAYO DIYOS PARA DIKTAHAN ANG BUHAY NA BINIGAY SA BAWAT ISA SA ATIN. KAYA TAYO BINIGYAN NG FREE WILL PARA MAY LAYA ANG BAWAT ISA NA SUNDIN ANG TADHANA NG BUHAY KUNG ANONG MERON MAN TAYO. DAHIL SA AMBISYON NATIN NA MAGING DAKILANG MAGULANG AT KAPAMILYA GAGAWIN NATIN LAHAT KAHIT MANLAMANG SA KAPWA…SA KAGUSTUHAN NATIN MAGING PINAKA MAGALING ANG MGA ANAK NATIN SA LAHAT NG ASPETO NG BUHAY. BIBILHIN NATIN ANG LAHAT KAHIT SA ANONG HALAGA NA SYA NAMANG MAGUUDYOK SATIN KADALASAN PARA MANLAMANG AT MAGKAMAL NG YAMAN.

    NAISIP KO LANG PANO NGA KAYA KUNG PAIRALIN NATIN ANG MOBOCRACY???

  53. wil15 says:

    Hi Raissa,

    I just come across an article of Marites Vitug in Rappler entitled UST Breaks Rules to Favor Corona.

    Ms. Vitug alleges that Corona finished doctorate in civil law without dissertation and was conferred summa cum laude honors by UST in spite of completing his studies in more than 5 years, which is beyond the required maximum residency (5 years) to qualify for honors. Ms. Vitug repeatedly tried to get a copy of Corona’s dissertation from UST, to no avail.

    I wonder if you have read this.

    • raissa says:

      Yes.
      Recently.
      Marites and I were once together in Business Day newspaper.

      Together with two other reporters we formed the political team.

  54. ROMAN RAMA GUERRERO says:

    As a Jury System advocate. I look at this conflict as the political version of that medical condition called “organ rejection” with the organ being the SC and Judiciary fronted by Corona. This is a conflict between two different mindsets; PNoy who believes in republican democracy declares that the People as the BOSS and that public officials serve with accountability. On the other hand, by their rulings, the Corona SC has shown that they do not subscribe to that republican principle – sec. 1; art. II – as they consider themselves their own BOSS, as GMA did governed and ruled without accountability to the People just as the Spanish and American governor generals did during the colonial period. With that mind set, there is no corruption because state funds are looked into as entitlements for the colonial governors or rulers a.k..a. public officials who derive their power from the mighty 4 G’s – Gold, Guns, Goons and Girls – they buy their offices with during election. We, the People, need to excise or cut off that “decaying organ” before it brings down entire body called Philippine Democracy. Reforms such as the adoption of the Jury System should now be carried out as it is the missing third component of the American system of government we have adopted. Filipinos need to undertake a “peoples
    parallel impeachment process” to do away or “impeach” those twisted rulings contrary to republican Democracy embodied in our Constitution.

  55. Mel says:

    Hi Raïssa,

    The Epiphany is just within sight.

    Makes us all wonder who would be greeted, chastised on the day of reckoning and realization. And if the stars align on Easter, would the filipino people be ready to flagellate the guilty?

    T’was wondering, Raïssa are you currently doing an analysis OR are you going to write about the “formal Answer of Chief Justice Renato Corona to the House of Representatives’ Articles of Impeachment against him“?

    It would be great I reckon to slice, dice and stir CJ R Corona’s REPLY in your blog forum WITH your highly opinionated commentators.

    Thanks, and regards.

    • raissa says:

      Dear Mel,

      First I’m scheduled to take a short break with my son -a long promised one.

      Then I will do an analysis.

      Promise.

      • Mel says:

        Hi again.

        Thanks for the quick reply.

        Sorry if it sounded ‘bossy’. I sincerely didn’t mean to.

        I really hope you’ll have a quality and safe time with your son, and with the rest of your family too.

        Naging ‘tradisyon’ na kasi ang pagbukas ng website mo dito sa Aus.

        Ingat.

        • raissa says:

          I know, Mel.

          I’ll see what I can do :)

          But don’t worry. Next year will be pretty exciting.

          I’ll be there.

          The protagonists are still warming up.

          • Just ideas kapatid says:

            ooiiyy. you’ll be there. that’ll be nice…

            I just thought of a blog bayanihan suggestion. ideas lang po…

            - Kung matutuloy po ang article ninyo ukol kay CJ R Corona, Before the start, and during the Senate trial and proceedings. many of us will very much appreciate the progress. exciting… especially to recall entries/replies who were right and not.

            - It is a ground err cyber breaking event for all filipinos nationally and internationally.

            - a point by point commentary, analysis with your followers.
            - bloggers for and against the impeachment. Some with duplex personalities with their pseudo names taking on both sides. LOL.

            - Perhaps, the lead solon prosecutors could get some ideas from your blog.
            And the Senate can get a pulse on their performance from your ersthwhile bloggers.
            - A parallel live and online participation or resource with your kababayans on a blog’s version of commenting, debating, argumenting, pikoning, name calling… on question and answer (Q & A) sessions.

            - Maybe you as moderator (Judge) filtering through the entries/replies.
            bloggers can cite constitutional arguments, virtual evidences to prove their contentions.

            —-

            have a good break, keep safe and healthy…
            we really appreciate very much your work.

            • raissa says:

              No, me not judge.

              Me, observer.

            • Baltazar says:

              My web social meter shows 17,011 likes for this blog site.. Oh my Ms. Raissa, your “notoriety” is widespread. Enjoy the break.. I suggest no internet… no mobile phones … just use the smoke for communications LOL.
              Just like @Mel, I got addicted to the site also such that even during this holiday break, I can’t help but skim through the comments daily. Yeah, @Johnny Lin & @Saxnviolins are a cluster of thunders. And LOL, one time my wife jokingly nagged me “ano ka ba , tutulog ka na lang , Raissa ka pa dyan”. He he.. I hope addiction to this blog site will not wreck homes just as Sendong did. :-). Let me give the first bang, HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL!

    • gLitch_xix says:

      I would love to read what the CJ said. hmm looks like another healthy debate brewing. Welcome 2012 with a bang!

      • Mel says:

        @ gLitch_xix

        Yesterday, the defense team of CJ R Corona released his REPLY to the Articles of Impeachment by the House of Representatives now at the Senate.

        However, the point by point ‘reply’ of CJ R Corona wasn’t signed by him. It was only his lawyers who did sign.

        TODAY, the Prosecutors’ spokesperson Representative Miro Quimbo “[t]ook exception to Corona’s failure to sign and verify the answer filed by his legal defense team, saying the lack of verification may weaken the reply as it makes him unaccountable for any falsehoods in the response.

        Not really sure why the embattled Chief Justice didn’t sign his supposed replies. Since many filipinos are looking forward for his official statement to refute the accusations against him.

        Maybe a conscience stricken magistrate that caused his glitch.
        With caution, the propaganda for publicity replies may not be the same version when the trial starts.

        • gLitch_xix says:

          @Mel: Thanks. Something fishy is going on here. Plot thickens.. Very interesting indeed.

        • saxnviolins says:

          Miro Quimbo does not seem to have litigation experience.

          An answer generally does not need to be verified, except in a criminal case, when one files his counter=affidavit.

          The answer basically states that the allegations in the complaint are not true. It is he who alleges the affirmative who must prove. For it is he who states that a fact exists – the fact of theft, etc. The answering party only says that is not true. So it is party who alleges a fact who must swear that the facts have been verified, and are not a shotgun allegation culled from thin air. It is the party alleging who is invoking the jurisdiction of the court, so he must swear that this is based on fact, and not a waste of the court’s time.

          Even in philosophy, it is the theists who must prove that there is a God. The atheists need not do so. How do you prove a negative?

          Also, though not so captioned, Corona’s response is actually a motion to dismiss. A motion to dismiss essentially states that even if the allegations are true, there is no basis for removal, because it does not prove an offense.

          For instance, Corona says, I have only one vote. So even if the allegation that the decision is pro Glue is true, how is that Corona’s fault, when the whole court voted? In fact, the vote of Corona was not even needed, since the majority was already achieved without Corona’s vote.

          This is the problem with shotgun approaches, they are usually off target.

          Tupas: Ano ba? Ang tagal.

          Researcher: Sir mahirap pong asintahin (gather evidence).

          Tupas: Puwes gumamit kayo ng di sabog. Kahit papaano, may tatamaan diyan.

          Researcher: Okay sir, ito na po ang di sabog niyong articles of impeachment.

          Since they had a solid majority, floor debates would have baited Lagman et al to come up with their objections, which when corrected, would have fortified the articles of impeachment.

          • Mel says:

            For CJ R Corona not to affix his signature to his defense reply may also mean that it is subject to interpolation during the course of the hearings as to its finality.

            A poker type game that when the Prosecutor Solons brings out the onus to support/prove their complaints by Jan 2, 2012. The respondent’s team wishes to determine the strength of what the prosecutors’ facts and evidences are to support their articles for impeachment.

            True, the respondents’ request for dismissal is dependent too, come what may on Jan 2, 2012. For or for a continuance… it remains to be weighed.

            Hence, a stronger defense type of Reply would weigh dependent on the strength of the prosecutors’ card faces IF revealed. Strategy, it depends on which side you’ll bet your dog house with.

            CJ R Corona MAY claim later on that he wasn’t entirely consensual to the constructs (e.g. word for word) of the initial replies submitted initially. Meaning, subject to his future whim and caprice when pushed on a corner.

            As for Theist or Atheist, centuries old debate…
            One can’t win against FAITH. People are willing to die for blind faith.

            Shotgun approach?
            At least tumama ang isa. Parang Al Capone, na silo sa income tax evasion.

            It takes one conviction on a single article to be impeached.
            All if not a majority is so much the better.

            As for Supreme Court voting counts by majority, even if R Corona abstained or cast against on cases of late that are of national significance? CJ R Corona may not be the last to be impeached.

            Recent news are exposing that there are admin rules breaches within the Supreme Court Magistrates’ corridors on a variety of issues. Definitely, more skeletons are coming out of the back room chamber.

            PERFORMANCE BASED ISSUES on R Corona as a magistrate, associate and Chief Justice are the complaints laid out in the articles. It is now a political exercise brought on by the peoples’ representatives, by majority against the seating Chief Justice, and not the Judiciary Branch.

            I agree with the media release statements of 5 former IBP heads. “[I]t exercised its constitutional prerogative to initiate impeachment and placed the country on notice that the elected representatives of the people are holding the Chief Justice accountable for his actions as specified in the Articles of Impeachment even as the power to determine guilt or innocence devolves upon the Senate, they said.
            _

            • raissa says:

              In other words, although it’s his reply, he still retains deniability. :)

              • saxnviolins says:

                If you read the reply, most are legal argumentation, which does not require that it be sworn to.

                Like Joker said, the articles are anchored on decisions which have been published, and on audit reports.

                There are, actually, no factual allegations in the articles. There are, what is called in law, conclusions of fact – inferences, which need not be admitted nor denied. This is a basis for a motion to dismiss, as found in the Rules of Civil Procedure. It is called a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action (failure to state a claim in the US).

                In criminal procedure, it is called a motion to quash on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense. It is not an offense to vote when the Court decides.

                What are those conclusions of fact? Corona is biased, Corona is pro Glue. What are the facts that yield these inferences? That is what must be alleged in the complaint (articles).

                Corona also allowed his wife to avail of John Hay perks, authorized by a board of which she is a part.

                Really now? This is the Hail Mary shot among the articles.

                Corona is guilty of violating the Constitution, because he allowed his wife, to allow her Board, to declare perks. Note the stretch. The law is not founded on such elastic logic. Neither is English grammar, I submit.

                Culpable violation of the Constitution requires an act by the offender, Allowing his wife to allow her board to perform an act is not the act of the offender.

                So what is Corona’s reply if ever? I am not biased, I am not corrupt. Does he have to swear to the denial? No, because one need not prove a negative. Have you seen a criminal, whether murderer or rapist charged for perjury for pleading not guilty after he is proven to have murdered or raped? No sir. In fact, if the accused does not plead, the Court enters a plea of not guilty for him.

                Similarly, answers in civil cases are not sworn to. Only the lawyer signs the answer to a complaint.

                Do not read too much into this issue of whether there is deniability or not. A motion to dismiss is made by the lawyers. I have not seen any motion to dismiss that is signed by the Respondent, unless the respondent is appearing pro se (for himself).

                When the Senate questions Corona, that will be done under oath.

                There is a time and place for everything.

                Meantime, look at the substance. Is there any?

              • saxnviolins says:

                My problem with the so-called purity of Noy, and his saintliness, is that it seems that it impels many people to gloss over the incompetence of his people, just because Noy is behind them. People are too awed by the brilliance of his cleanliness, that they are willing to forgive anything related to him. It is a form of reverse guilt (in this case, virtue) by association.

                If that is the result of Noy’s saintliness, then that saintliness itself becomes a curse – a curse for the continued incompetence of his people.

                Sayang.

              • Johnny lin says:

                “my problem with the so called purity of PNOY………it is a form of reverse guilt by association” this is plain innuendo?

                Here is similar innuendo. Based on association:
                do you have a problem concluding that Corona is guilty on his own for voting 19 times in favor of GMA?

              • Mel says:

                @ saxnviolins

                aber, hindi ‘Sayang’.

                PNoy is the last if ANYONE would accuse of Corrupt, abuser of power, etc.

                With his indulgence, he has his parent’s legacy to protect and uphold. It cost his family’s generation the life of The Father and servitude of The Mother (no matter how imperfect it was) to our beloved country.

                Noy’s saintliness? Naahh.

                He’s doing the right thing that every filipino in public office and service MUST do. And it is bearing good fruits.

                He needs the overwhelming support of each and every filipino to make the Philippines a better country, and so on… to constructively criticize him and HIS APPOINTEES, to applaud his accomplishments, also to berate him if he goes astray of too much smoking.

              • boss ni Pnoy says:

                @sax
                what bothers you is not what you have just written, sa tingin ko, ito ay kung papaano ninyo malilinis ang pangalan ni gloria devil…ngayon you are exerting all efforts na magkaroon ng mantsa ang pangalan ni Pnoy to cover your asses……subalit dahil pure and simple ang core values ni Pnoy( isama mo na dyan ang pagpapahalaga nya sa prinisipyo ng kanyang ama at ina) wla kayo mahanap na butas sa kanya na kung saan aani kayo ng simpatiya ng tao. . kung kaya…gusto nyo sirain sya sa pamamagitan ng ng mga taong nakapaligid sa kanya….na may bahid ang dangal na minana kay gloria, erap, ramos at macoy. Unti unti nyo wawasakin si Pnoy by means of persuading the public sa pamamagitan ng simpleng absurd logical reasoning; “kung ang mga advisers and close allies of Pnoy are bad eggs gaya ni gloria, ibig sabihin hindi genuine ang programa nya kahit sya santo pa.” so walang kwenta kung susuportahan pa ng pinoy ang matuwin na daan nya. thus hindi na rin papansinin ng tao ang paghahangad ni Pnoy na malinis ang gobyerno at mapanagot ang mga tiwali at corrupt na opisyal. unti unti nyo ginagapang ang sentimyento ng mga ordinaryong taong katulad ko na konti ang alam sa pasikot sikot sa pulitika. your grand plan is to erode the 72% approval rating ng pangulo. then pagwala na ang peoples support automatically talo na sa numbers game ang empeachment case kahit ano pa ang ebidensya na ipakita sa senado. then pag nabsuwelto si corona panalo sigurado sa kaso si arroyo then…voila enjoy sa pagpapakasasa sa nakaw na yaman si arroyo!!!! thus WORTH IT BINAYAD NI ARROYO SA KANYANG MGA ABOGAGO AT BINAYARAN NA PROPAGANDISTS AND PAID HACKS. baka may incentives pa kayo!!! NAPANSIN KO NA SA IBA’T IBANG FORUMS AND BLOG SITES…PAREPAREHO ANG NAKIKITA KUNG PANGALAN…WALANG GINAWA KUNDI SIRAAN SI AQUINO AT PURIHIN SI GLORIA AT CORONA….BAKIT HINDI NA LANG KAYO GUMAWA NG SARISARILI NYONG SITES PARA DUN NA LANG KAYO MAGSULAT……MINSAN INIISIP KO NAGBAYAD NA RIN SIGURO SI GLORIA NG OUTSOURCING COMPANY PARA LANG SUYURIN ANG LAHAT NG FORUMS AND BLOG SITES PARA LANG GULUHIN ANG AT ILIHIS AT PAGTAKPAN ANG KATOTOHANAN. yonlang yon.

              • saxnviolins says:

                If you ever visit Ellen Tordesillas’ blog, you would have seen my posts excoriating the Glue, the appointment of Corona, etc.

                Even my first post here tore apart the ponencia of Lucas Bersamin upholding the appointment of Corona.

                But i am only reading the articles of impeachment, and its merits. That is all the Senate will decide upon. Walang personalan, walang attempts to find Corona guilty by association with the Glue.

                In one of the lectures, where he waxed poetic, Raissa’s Dad once said, a judge only looks at the allegations in the information (charge sheet in a criminal case – he taught criminal law). He is not supposed to be influenced by the fame or fortune of the accused. You will note, he said, Lady Justice is blindfolded. She only feels the weighing scale. The prosecutor puts evidence on the scale, and the defense puts its own on the other side. Where the scale tilts, that is the side that Lady Justice will uphold.

                Don’t look at Corona, whether he is a tasbu ng wetpu or not; don’t look at his association with the Glue; look at the articles and their substance. Did the House do a good job? Doesn’t the President deserve good competent men?

                If we support our President, then we should be exacting on his men; because they carry the torch for him. They will either light the Olympic flame (flame of excellence), or they will stumble and not reach the stadium.

              • saxnviolins says:

                Totoo lahat ng paratang.

                Midnight appointee si Corona. Tuta siya ni Goyang. But that is not the issue in the impeachment. The issue would be the articles.

                May nagbasa ba ng sagot ni Corona? Due process demands that. Journalistic ethics demands that as well.

                Yung articles. Bakit summary lang? Why has it not been published in full?

              • Johnny lin says:

                @saxnviolins
                Just the facts, agreeably are the best measures of judgment.
                I agree on your lawyering to look at charges and answers on face value. Mel, boss & sable look at them on laymen views
                True, Corona signature was needed. True, look at both charges and answers on their merits. False, there are no substance and factual allegations. True, some of what you said had substance, others hollow like mine or everybody else.
                Confusing, could be subconscious on your mind, is hurling innuendos or devil advocacies against PNoy, his minions and their motives. You might have written adverse opinions against Corona and Bersamin because they are factually contrarians to your legal belief but never pointed out your agreement on PNoys non legal moves.
                That is why it is better to be black or white, rather than trying sitting on wobbly fence where its easy to fall. You expressed an innuendo on Pnoy and minions but you did not answer my question on a similarly innuendo against Glue.
                Hail Mary shots: what is material is counting one lucky shot. Throwing many of them is not illegal. It does not even matter if throwing the ball is Michael, Kobe, Lebron or Kerr. Bet you have to research the last name! That is the same with reputation of lawyers on both sides. True too, the Senate impeachment is political, what it means the prosecutor aside from throwing many Hail Mary shots, their basketball rim is double the size of Corona.
                Your style of writing using Glue, Mike the Pig, Hilarious Divided reminds me of a business columnist I read before, which I would remember in due time.

              • Johnny lin says:

                Correction
                Sorry, it should be: Corona signature is not required on the answers.

              • Mel says:

                @saxnviolins

                @Johnny lin wrote, “Your style of writing using Glue, Mike the Pig, Hilarious Divided reminds me of a business columnist I read before, which I would remember in due time.”

                @Johnny lin is zeroing on you @saxnviolins. LOL!

                Huwag mo ng ibulgar @Johnny lin.

                Okay pa naman ang mga entries ni @saxnviolins.
                Magiging boring ang blog site. Unless, he’ll use another display name. LOL!

                But forensic techniques and Identifying style of writing can still expose the lnks and semblance. eg. repeat mention of ‘…ponencia of Lucas Bersamin’. @saxnviolins seems so delighted he debunked the former of …

                At least dito, both of you can either be a protagonist or antagonist. see-saw kayong dalawa…

                Have a good holiday and New Year’s celebration gentlemen!

              • Johnny lin says:

                @mel
                Just trying to sharpen the rusting profession. Not precise, for copycats exist, although early this year on Newsbreak blog I did try to identify Midas as “internet troll” and possibly “gay” thru his writings which he denied. Newsbreak did an article on the Troll issue and lately, the gay reference was proven, becoming a “you tube sensation” on how Midas effeminately reacted after knocking down the microphone
                Besides, I would not dare because @saxnviolins is a cure for Alzheimer. As they say, worthy adversary, not literally
                Happy New Year, paisans

              • Sable zablan says:

                Sax n violins,
                I bet that if u play the instruments named in your email addrsss, you started as an incompetent player. If not pitiful, laughable but not despicable. Your prejudicial view of the president’s men suggest your presidential candidate in the last election lost badly. Sorry, if you are an experienced voter, you voted incompetently.

                Most everyone who is elected or appointed to a position may start being incompetent because they have a lot to learn: they need to learn the wrongs they inherited from their predecessors and then learn to correct them as they learn to do the job competently. Competence is not expected of learners. Mock
                those who have learned their positions well and for so long and still do not do good for the country. For their competence had been misdirected to doing themselves good at the expense of
                the country.

              • saxnviolins says:

                You think what I am saying has no substance? Read the papers. Magpapalit na daw ng legal team ang Pangulo.

                Mabuti naman.

              • Johnny lin says:

                “no factual allegations in the articles”
                Failure to submit SALN and appointment of wife are factual.

                “In criminal procedure, facts charged do not constitute an offense”
                In criminal procedure there is no charge called “betrayal of public trust” which has vadt arrays of implication.

                Corona is guilty of violation because he personally benefited from the perks allowed her to use by the Board not because of the Board approval. That falls under personal discernment in blatant display of conflict of interest. If hotell receipts are presented that John Hay paid for the room and he is listed as registered guest that is proof. He should have paid his share of lodging or for drinking soda in restaurant paid by CJH for his wife. There is substance in that charge.

              • Mel says:

                @ Johnny lin.

                Bow ako sa sagot mo.

                The hospitality was there by personal ‘representation’ expenses to a Chief. Many hope it was that good (s??) and appetizing.

                Properly receipted docus, written & signed complaint(s), witnessed by a board of ???, against the better half (or worst?) of the accused – documented, sworn at, signed by and vowed in a cathedral, respectively.

                Can a wife give evidence or testify for or against her husband in a Senate Chamber for impeachment? Usually, in civil or criminal cases (I thimk), the wife can opt or lawfully elect not to.

                What is the Rules of the Senate for impeachment make of this?

              • Boss ni Pnoy says:

                @sax
                katulad ni mel hanga po ako sa mga explanation mo tungkol sa legality, merits at kung ano ano pa tungkol sa impeachment case. pero sa katulad kung araw araw na sumasakay ng jeep at padyak, the more na sinasabi nyo na mahina ang kaso laban kay corona mas tumitindi ang paniwala ko na nag propagate na nga ang lahi ni topacutes, kiss ass marquez, elena horona at atty lambitin dito kay Raissa at sa iba pang blog sites. dahil lang sa kasakiman NABUKSAN NA ANG PAN’GLORIAS BOX..di na mapigilan ang pagkalat. tst tsk tsk. it is the masses who intsalled gloria to power kaya kaming mga naghihikahos ang uusig sa kanya dahil sa paglapastangan nya sa amin. siguro nga the catholic church is not doing anything to punish her katulad ni zeus siguro MALAKING HALAGA ang dahilan…

                In classic Greek mythology, Pandora was the first woman on earth. Zeus ordered Hephaestus, the god of craftsmanship, to create her, so he did—using water and earth. The gods endowed her with many talents: Aphrodite gave her beauty, Apollo gave music and Hermes, persuasion. The gods also gave her the gift of curiosity.

                When Prometheus stole fire from heaven, Zeus took vengeance by presenting Pandora to Epimetheus, Prometheus’ brother. With her, Pandora was given a beautiful jar which she was not to open under any circumstance. Impelled by her curiosity given to her by the gods, Pandora opened the jar, and all evil contained escaped and spread over the earth. She hastened to close the lid, but the whole contents of the jar had escaped, except for one thing that lay at the bottom, which was Hope. Pandora was deeply saddened by what she had done, and was afraid that she would have to face Zeus’ wrath, since she had failed her duty; however, Zeus did not punish her, because he knew this would happen.

                para sa amin convicted na yan si corona at arroyo, try to immerse yourself in our lives…subukan nyong tahakin ang landas namin at ng maunawaan ninyo kung bakit kami ganito.

              • Boss ni Pnoy says:

                what was left in the box is very significant to us kaya ipaglalaban namin yon kahit ano pa ang mangyari kung di kaya ng senado gampanan handa kaming dalhin sa lansangan ang laban…huwag nyo kaming hamunin.

              • pelang says:

                i did read once on ellen Tordesillas’ blog, Saxnviolin even called Pinoy as Abnoy. After reading that, I don’t take him seriously anymore.

              • johnny lin says:

                @pelang
                Pardon me, to the point of not being condescending, Abnoy has been published widely in Philippine newspapers that using it sometimes may not be disrespectful intentionally but more of trying to be humorous.

                What is important is the content or ideas of comments posited in relevance to the issue of contention. Saxnviolins is a talented poster. His rationale on laws are worth reading and digesting. Unfortunately, he had stopped for reasons he only knows.

                I have read his postings too @ellen except nobody engaged him there but not in this blog.

              • Mel says:

                @ saxnviolins.

                Kudos to your inputs. I learn a mile from your educated and legal experience on this political and social milestone affecting our country.

                Si @ Johnny lin ang madalas na katapat mo. LOL!

                Ang entertaining side dishes o samples mo kung minsan – dramatic! e.g. “This is the Hail Mary shot among the articles”, jawo…

                LOL !

              • Mel says:

                @ saxnviolins
                You wrote, “Similarly, answers in civil cases are not sworn to. Only the lawyer signs the answer to a complaint.”

                If it were a criminal case, would it be mandatory for him to sign a prepared statement?

                Since we all know this is also a political case of national significance involving the branches of gov’t which has NEVER been challenged nor tried before in the Phils. Wouldn’t it be politically advantageous for CJ Corona to willingly sign his ‘own’ Reply statements to refute the ‘flimsy’ complaints?

                You know, the Phils. Senate elections are scheduled for 2013, right? Just like what @Johnny lin commented in his other releases, it would be a political suicide if the ire of the voting public goes against the seating Senator- Judges who will run again for Senate come 2013?

                In my opinion, it has come this far. It is no longer who has the best legal arguments in so far as for dismissal, acquittal or conviction. The PEOPLE’s (Legislative) Representatives are to try & SENATE Judge the highest magistrate (Judiciary) whether he is FIT, beyond Reproach or Credible to seat as The Chief Justice.

                You know, Renato Corona carries a lot of political garbage. He’s been hounded from the very beginning, before appointment as an associate and as Chief. The OFFICE HAS BEN COMPROMISED ALREADY! And his performance as Chief has been PERCEIVED TO FAVOR GMA and a select few.

                If Renato Corona is still smart a bit, he would resign by now, or at least go on leave during this episode.

                —-

                Ryan Chua of ABS-CBN News wrote, ”
                [S]enator Miriam Defensor-Santiago will make sure certain people in the administration who pushed for the government’s defiance of a Supreme Court order allowing former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to go abroad won’t get the nod of the Commission on Appointments.“.

                I guess the good Senator has no plans of running again for Senate, and she is looking forward for ICC. She doesn’t have to smooch or kiss whose a?? for political mileage nor favors.

              • Mel says:

                Hi there.

                Akala ko tinangal mo ng todo itong huling comments ko.

                Medyo maselan kasi, at parang ‘astig’ ang dating.
                o baka kaya mayruon kasing quotation weblink to another media online site. kaya na-delay ang release. LOL!

                Back from holidays? Ang bilis naman. O di maiwasan subaybayan ang mga followers mo, pati ang comment (Reply) updates for release.

                Like many of your ardent readers, hindi ko rin maiwasan buksan ang link website mo for the latest. LOL!

                You wrote, “… although it’s his reply, …”
                For a CHIEF of all magistrates not to sign his REPLY(s) whereby his future career and reputation are at stake – it is incredible. Still, he may claim it was his lawyers’ version but not entirely his own (Lorem Ipsum).

                He can opt deniability, not entirely his own testament… subject to interpretation err translation. LOL!

                At least sa blog, mabilis ang running REPLIES, ano?
                kaniya-kaniyang username pa. LOL!

                AGYAMANAK APO

          • Johnny lin says:

            @saxnviolins: please correct me if these are wrong.

            1.What are the requirements for impeachment in the House before being submitted to Senate? 1/3 House members signatures needed to send directly to Senate without passing thru Justice committee. If a congressman insists not to sign unless reading the entirety, thats his right, but it does not invalidate the rules. If rule was followed by the House to the letter, its valid. Why debate if it is not required, waste of taxpayer money and delay that would give a chance for SC to intervene unnecessarily like in Gutierrez impeachment. If it followed the rule, its valid. Example: student is complaining that the teacher gave him a failing grade for not being allowed to take final exam. He was absent 9 days. If the rule is being absent for 8 days in a 12 day class subject, the students automatically fails which the student knows before semester started, then he has no right to complain. Same thing to the House, the rules are known to them before the start of current Congress. Complainants are nit picking, not valid. Pulitika lang.
            2. Is there a rule on how long does it take to formulate the articles of impeachment? If none, its valid even if it was done in 1 day or 1month.
            3. Since it is the complainants who have to prove truthfulness, what is the big deal about rush or infirmed? As long as the articles satisfied the minimum requirement that they are complete in substance, its valid. Fortifying could be done in the Senate, anyway. Walang magawa minority, tough luck, next time pagbutihin nila sa election sa 2013 para sila maging majority. Its the rule.
            4. Does the rule in the House specify in details that each member must read every word written, sign and swore in each page, in the Impeachment before it is valid? If not, then it is valid as long as each member saw the first or last page and signed at the end. What counts is the verified signature and the tally of signatories!

            If Quimbo is inexperienced for not knowing that verifying signature is not needed because there is no written rule about it in Senate impeachment proceeding nor it is a criminal case, then the allies of Corona are also guilty of ignorance for not knowing that there is no rule in the House indicating how many days are needed to take preparing the impeachment articles.

            Shotgun lawsuit is common or the rule followed in malpractice civil case. Corona Impeachment is similar to physician malpractice lawsuit, prove negligence and incompetence.

            • Johnny lin says:

              For those who are not familiar with the basics of shotgun lawsuit:
              In malpractice, the plaintiff sues every physician, nurse, care giver or even the orderly as long as there is proven signature in the chart that he/she was part in caring of the patient during hospitalization or office treatment. Proof could be obtained during discovery process in which there are rules to be followed.It does not matter how weak is one’s participation.The target is to win monetary damage from ANYONE negligence/incompetence, who is in the shotgun lawsuit.

              In impeachment, similarly the House can charge from one article to as many as needed as long as they are complete in substance, weakness or strength of each article could be debated in Senate in case of Corona. The target is winning ONE article only for impeachment from the 8 articles. Discovery is also allowed after sending the impeachment to Senate as long as rules are followed. The prosecutors of Corona had made one discovery already in the GMA TRO thus they are going to subpoena the SC clerk of court and documents.

              • Johnny lin says:

                The difference between impeachment and medical malpractice:
                Verdict in lower court is appealable to upper courts in malpractice cases.
                Decision in Senate impeachment is final and executory, non appealable, based on Constitutional Article XI section 2-6 on public officials accountability, which states: The Senate has the sole authority to try and decide all cases of impeachment. Sole and Decide are absolutely meaningful.

                No section states that SC could intervene during or after Senate proceedings or MR is considered. Of course, Corona could rape the constitution again by claiming ” it is not written so it does not mean we could not do it since constitutionally the SC is final arbiter”. Legal mumbo-jumbo like in midnight appoinment ruling. Then the mob could decide.

              • saxnviolins says:

                I am not for intervention of the Supreme Court. In fact, I excoriated the Francisco decision penned by Carpio-Morales for the Hilarious Divided in Ellen Tordesillas’ blog.

                Don’t put straw men for you to knock down. I am not an advocate of the intervention of the Supreme Court. I believe the Supreme Court had no authority in the case of Davide, and has no authority here.

                I believe in the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Nixon v US (the impeachment of Judge Nixon, not President Nixon), where it stated that:

                Judicial involvement in impeachment proceedings, even if only for purposes of judicial review, is counterintuitive because it would eviscerate the “important constitutional check” placed on the Judiciary by the Framers. See id., No. 81, p. 545. Nixon’s argument would place final reviewing authority with respect to impeachments in the hands of the same body that the impeachment process is meant to regulate.

                Carpio-Morales disregarded this in the case of the Hilarious Divided.

                The motion to dismiss filed by Corona is before the Senate, for the Senate to dismiss, not for the Supreme Court to dismiss. Any court has the inherent power to dismiss. Whether to do so or not is within its discretion.

              • saxnviolins says:

                Discovery is a component of civil practice in the United States. That is a dead letter law in civil practice in the Philippines.

                Fortifying could be done in the Senate, anyway. Walang magawa minority, tough luck, next time pagbutihin nila sa election sa 2013 para sila maging majority. Its the rule.

                Read my post. I want it fortified for the benefit of the prosecution, not the minority.

                No, the articles cannot be fortified in the Senate, because you cannot amend the articles of impeachment, once the Respondent has answered. You sink or swim with what you alleged.

                What is wrong with rushing? Nothing, legally, but it is the identifying characteristic of a rank amateur, whether a doctor, a lawyer, or an accountant.

                An experienced professional uses a rifle, not a shotgun.

                My ex med rep brother tells me that the good physicians have nothing but contempt for doctors who employed the shotgun approach. Give the patient an antibiotic, a steroid, an antipyretic (Biogesic), and vitamin c. When the patient improved, the shotgun physician did not know what did it – the antibiotic (was it an infection?), the steroid (which revs up your system), or the antipyretic (which drops the temperature).

                My physician uncle concurs.

              • Johnny lin says:

                @saxnviolins
                What do you mean discovery is a dead letter law in RP? The clerk of court document was exposed after the impeachment was sent to Senate revealed thru SC website. This revelation
                benefits the position of prosecution on that particular TRO article, isn’t that fortification by discovery?
                I should have qualified my statement that shotgun lawsuit is common in US courts in malpractice and personal injury cases mostly because the target is someone with deep pocket for monetary gain.
                Shotgun Medicine is different from law especially in the Philippines. Practice of medicine here is usually shotgun because most physicians treat the signs and symptoms unaided by lab and xray ancillary testings due to cost to diagnose illness. They are forced by many factors especially those without extensive clinical training. Their treatment borders on preventive treatment with signs and symptoms of the disease so the disease would not get worst before patient could afford paying for testing. In fact I suspect there are a lot of people with late diagnosis of renal failure in the Philippines because of side effects from intake of Diabetis and hypertensive medicines unaided by regular kidney function testing. Compound that with shotgun medicine on compromised patients., the deadly result is unimaginable.
                Rushing is not necessary the mark of an amateur. In the 80s my lawyer friend’s son was a newly trained surgeon from John Hopkins. After one year of private practice, he was lecturing experienced elder surgeons who were doing gallbladder surgery for 2-3 hrs telling them how to do in 30 minutes. He was one of the pioneers of laparoscopic surgery. Experience does not necessary mean expertise now because of evolving technology. Before it was Underwood typewriter for legal papers, now its computerized thru computer dictaphone. Before only lawyers have copies of laws and constitutional articles for easy preference, now bloggers could access it in minutes. Thats progress, only those critical of speed because they hesitate to follow the trend, outmaneuvered opponents or for posturing purpose, are downgrading it. Like government employees, they refuse to computerize because their corrupt ways would be easily detected thru computerization.

              • Johnny lin says:

                The petition to dismiss by SC was by IBP and a couple of lawyers.
                I’m not a lawyer but I believe the SC or any lower court has no constitutional right to intervene on any impeachent process reposed to the Legislature under the constitution. I have been posting this belief eversince Gutierrez TRO, the reason which would not progress without CJ go signal. 7 out 10 Filipinos believe the same way, that is an statistic not to play around with by SC. There are limits to abuse.

              • saxnviolins says:

                In the US, discovery is a process, involving depositions (examinations under oath out of court), requests for documents held by the other party, etc. It is a lengthy process done pre-trial.

                It does not refer to the street sense of discovery, as in natuklasan.

                I was referring to the motion to dismiss by Corona before the Senate. The petition by the IBP is something I do not subscribe to, because I believe in the reasoning of Nixon v US. I will not go to the Supreme Court to hand over to them the jurisdiction; something yielded by Frank Drilon, when he was Senate president. He did it, perhaps, help a frat brotheer, the Hilarious Divided, who was also monkeying around with judicial funds.

                The doctors I was referring to were Pinoy doctors. My brother was a med rep there, covering Baguio, later Ozamiz City.

              • Johnny lin says:

                @ saxviolins
                I am basing my medical opinion from personal observation and discussion with acquaintances practicing medicine all over the philippines. There are some physicians setting up medical practice in rural areas without clinical training due to dearth of residency training hospitals. Been studying it for 3 yrs now.

                My reference to discovery and fortification is additional evidence. Are you saying any new evidence and witness discovered by House could no longer be added by prosecution to Senate? Please educate me.

              • saxnviolins says:

                The only evidence allowed is that which will prove the allegations. But one cannot make new allegations, because it would be a denial of due process. One must be apprised of what one is being accused of.

                So if one is not accused of something, and evidence of that something is adduced in the trial, it would not be admissible, for it does not prove what has been alleged. It is irrelevant evidence.

                Can the House amend the allegations? Not when an answer has been filed. Also, based on the dumb Carpio-Morales ponencia, one may file only one set of articles of impeachment per year. So, if ever, the House will have to wait for a year, to file the new allegations.

                A naughty thought.

                Considering the weakness of the articles, and the ringleaders (Neptali Gonzales III) who were once Glue men, is it not possible that the trojans did this on purpose?

                Anak ng pu. Nagoyo na naman?

                Do I hear Mike the Pig snickering?

              • Johnny lin says:

                @saxnviolins
                Well, we are on the same station, I am thinking on layman’s term, you on lawyer’s perspective. New evidence against the articles presented are acceptable which is also part of discovery process in US courts before trial agreed between lawyers while during trial any new evidence presented is subject to rule by the judge if acceptable to avoid surprise evidence. So in the Senate impeachment new evidence/ witness on the aleged articles could be presented anytime.
                Regarding new articles, that is foregone conclusion no new articles could be presented
                That ruling file one set of impeachment articles per year:
                is this whether accepted or not by House?
                Is this legislated law or constitutional article?
                How you say above, implied it was a SC ruling?
                Could another impeachment be accused agains Corona next year?
                Is the per year based on 12 months or anytime within the year? You are educating us before the trial next year.

                On your thought, its far fetched. Too much vile already.
                The recent announcement that PNoy was already gathering info to replace Corona means only 2 things:
                1 The beans had been counted and secured on one article
                2. Or feelers sent that Corona is contemplating resigning
                despite Midas posturing. The best bet is the latter for family sake and most important retain credibility whatever is left.
                If Corona is impeached what will happen to his pension?

  56. Roco Batungbakal says:

    “Pag bad ka lagot ka”, ito ang linya ni Joker Arroyo, I am highly disappointed with him, HE DOES NOT LIVE ACCORDING TO HIS SLOGAN, SINUNGALING. Yung pananahimik niya sa mga atrocity ni GMA maintindihan ko yon dahil kaapelyido niya ang apektado, but for him to criticize PNOY, when he said:

    “The way I look at it, Noynoy is smarter than Marcos because Marcos had to issue Proclamation No. 1081 to usher in martial law. Noy doesn’t have to do anything except to muscle in on everyone.
    Marcos used poverty and communism as his excuse to commit abuses. We have a one-man government now since Noy has subjugated the House and is on his way to doing so to the judiciary.”

    IS A STATEMENT OF A DELUDED MAN WHO IS TRYING TO DELUDE US, HE ONLY FOOLS HIMSELF. SAYANG ANG BOTO KO SA ‘YO.

    Totoo pala ang kasabihan “blood is thicker than water” or di kaya sadyang nakakahawa ang bulok na kamatis, O DI KAYA NAKAKABULAG AT NAKAKASIRA NG BAIT ANG PERA.

  57. rockangel says:

    Kung minsan naiisip ko, mas mainam pa nga na maging diktador si PNoy kung ito lang ang paraan para makamit ang pagbabago sa ating gobyerno, kung ito lang ang paraan para maiahon ang bansa natin sa pagkakalugmok sa kahirapan.
    Pero sa mga pananalita ni Mr. Patawa (Joker), narerealize ko na mahirap mamuno lalo na kung may mga sagabal sa mga magagandang plano mo dahil may mga opisyal sa gobyerno na ang talagang agenda ay protektahan ang personal na interes at mga kaalyado o kaibigan. Kaya hindi mabuo ang bansa natin dahil sa may mga sumusuway dahil nasasagasaan sila ng pagbabagong ito.
    Sana, manahimik na lang itong si Joker at ituon ang pansin sa responsibilidad nya bilang senador, natatawa kasi ako sa mga sinasabi nya. :)

  58. Battousai says:

    If Pnoy is a “diktador”, ano naman ang maitatawag natin kay Ginang Arroyo? siguro kung ano mang word ang mas-asahol pa sa diktador, yun na yun.

  59. cel says:

    Absolutely!!! RFC
    I’ve observed that ever since, J. Arroyo’s comments are nonsense just like that of the kids.

    For Ms. Raissa,
    Kudos to your blog, I’ve learned a lot from your revelations. May you continue
    your undaunting passion of trying to ventilate the true issues that our government and our country is facing.

  60. rockangel says:

    Ang mga pagbatikos at ginagawa ni PNoy ngayon sa aking pananaw ay pagpapakita ng kanyang katatagan at kagustuhang papanagutin ang mga tiwali sa gobyerno. ang mga banat niya kay Corona ay kritisismo na totoo at alam nating lahat noon pa man, pero si Pnoy ang naging boses natin upang harapan itong masabi kay Corona. Mas hinahangaan ko ngayon si Pnoy dahil hindi siya natakot na sa harap mismo ng mga abugado at justices at mismong sa maririnig ni Corona na sa kanyang bibig nanggaling ang mga kritisismo na ito.
    Pero si Corona, nanahimik kahit nanggigigil sa galit. Sinuspinde ang lahat ng hearings at nagbigay ng court holiday ng sa ganoon ay mayroong makikinig sa kanyang sasabihin at makapagpakita ng suporta kahit na isakripisyo ang mga taong-bayan na may transaksiyon sa araw na iyon at bumanat at gumanti ng kritisismo at magmalinis bagamat iilan lang ang napaniwala niya. Sana ginawa niya iyon at inimbitahan din nya si PNoy, ginawa rin nya ng harapan.
    Si Joker, bagay nga ang pangalan niya sa kanya, mahilig magpatawa. nagkikritiko siya sa kasalukuyang presidente pero wala naman siyang masabi o magawa sa dating pekeng presidente na kaapelyido niya. Kung minsan may mga tao at politiko talaga na kitang-kita na wala silang karangalan o dignidad at delikadeza at kitang-kita ito sa mga sinasabi nila. Matalino nga si Joker, pero lantarang bias at duwag.

  61. rockangel says:

    Mr. Corona’s speech, for me is isang malinaw na pagsisinungaling at pagpapakita na ang tingin nya sa mga tao sa paligid nya na nakikinig sa kanya ay tanga at uto-uto.
    Simpleng tao ako, hindi ako abogado, hindi ako propesyonal…pero hindi ako tanga para maniwala sa mga kasinungalingan niya.
    Talagang mahirap ang pinagdadaanan ni PNoy ngayon para matupad ang tuwid na daan….dahil lahat ng tatamaan, katulad ni Corona eh hindi aamin sa mga kasalanan nya at ipo-portray na isa siyang mabait at matuwid na tao…bagamat alam naman nating lahat na hindi ito totoo..pero alam nya kasi na marami siyang mapapaniwala at mabobola lalo na sa sangay na hinahawakan niya.
    Iyan ang hirap sa ating pilipino, kapag kasamahan na natin sa opisina, kaibigan natin o kapamilya na natin ang may nagagawang pagkakamali o kasalanan, sa halip na itama natin sila o ituwid natin sila o papanagutin sa mga pagkakasala nila, poprotektahan at susuportahan pa natin kaya ang nangyayari, ang baluktot, pinalilitaw na matuwid. Bukod sa gobyerno, dapat na ring magbago ang mga pilipino.

  62. sori ms raissa… hindi ako mag comment, hindi ko binasa ang written speech ni cj corona. kinilabutan ako hehehe!!!

    keep up the good work…more power to you…

  63. JkN says:

    Speaking of dictatorship, the supreme court is the one who should be branded as one. As the final arbiter of the law, their decisions are the law. The lawyers are prohibited to question their decisions. They are somewhat catapulted as omniscient gods of law. That is why no lawyer would go against them or criticize them. Remember what happened to atty allan paguia? NO lawyer would gamble the revocation his license just to point out the SC’s mistakes. Maybe this is why they are all rallying behind corona especially the IBP. Going against the SC would be devastating to their law careers. Whereas, giving support to the CJ would be all beneficial. If they have cases pending in the SC then CJ would likely decide in favor of them as a sign of gratitude. Public opinion is not so popular among lawyers, i think.

    • raissa says:

      Right you are.

      • Jkn Is very right. I do not need to say anything more.
        Except for this one sure thing. Filipino mentality is predominantly Asian by nature where Democracy Western style is not the appropriate one to give us the progress like what our other Asian neighbors are enjoying at the moment.
        We have identified so much ourselves with American way life especially in politics and this country is doing the worst that most of our leaders have been copying. Like an old way of copying through a carbon copy, what we produce is always blurry and sometimes ineligible.
        Joker Arroyo by the way, is some one who plays according to his name.

  64. gLitch_xix says:

    Halimaw mga nasa baba. (i.e. saxnviolins,johnny lin,mel)
    Very interesting exchange of opinion. I had a hard time following their trains of thought. :) nkaka excite ang magaganap na impeachment trial sa January.

    • raissa says:

      It might be February.

      • gLitch_xix says:

        February.. Baka abutin daw ng six months so mga August. Kelan po yung trial para kay CGMA? If the Chief Justice is in an impeachment trial, what will happen to the Supreme Court during the trial?

  65. Felimon says:

    Dear Raissa,

    Ang galing ng mga analysis mo, wala akong masabi. Sabi nga sa kanta, ADIK SA’YO!

    Ang lungkot dito sa abroad, sa pagbabasa ng Super Blog mo ay kahit papano nawawala ang homesickness ko sa atin at sa aking pamilya.

    Happy Holidays!

  66. Jejemon says:

    Very Dynamic Interactions amongst intellectuals.
    Propaganda Site or Source of enlightment depends which side of the fence you belong.

  67. I’ve been following your posts via the Corona Resign and PNoy facebook Supporters groups. After reading this post, I had to subscribe. Both you and Conrado de Quiros consistently paint clear and insightful accountings of the cancer in Filipino politics fostered by GMA and her thugs. It is people like you who speak for the collective voices of Juan & Juana dela Cruz.

    It’s important to note that the Presidents supporters’ comments vastly out number those posted by GMA’s and Corona’s supporters.

    You are putting the Maligaya in this year’s Pasko, and I salute you, Raissa!

    • raissa says:

      Thank you, Joe.

      • tengmengt says:

        I share Joe Cunningham’s view of you and CDQ. CDQ has resounding rhetoric and logic and you meticulously added up the evidences to present your arguments. I have no reservations commending you to friends and foes alike, knowing that you will make more mature citizens and voters out of us. Splendid work Raissa, very splendid work indeed! May this festive season bring you much joy as your take time to draw closer to those whom you love.

        • Johnny lin says:

          In fairness, Conrado De Quiroz is an excellent writer, activist. I follow his column too, but with reservation. The reason is, I am ambiguous with his loyalty principle. Before EDSA 1, he was Marcos speechwriter, in fact he lives in a townhome behind SM North, a government housing project of Marcos. Raissa, so far, is independent minded in my opinion.

          Currently his brother is Social Security Commissioner appointed by PNoy.

    • Joe Cunningham :

      The PNoy supporters probably have the numbers in comments but are not in superior in the quality of comments.

      Many are those who write criticisms against the actions of PNoy are not Pro-GMA or Pro-Corona. They are for the rule of law in the conduct of government.

      Your comment is misleading just like many and some journalists.

      I am not Pro-GMA or Pro-Corona. They should be jailed if guilty. You are most entitled to your opinion as I am entitled to it. For clarification, we are not voting in this forum so the posting numbers criteria is not a measure of right or wrong. Evidently, your slant is Pro-PNoy, that’s for sure.

      • Yes, indeed, Arsenio. I am unashamedly Pro-PNoy, kahit hindi Pinoy ako. At least he’s got the balls to do something about the blatant misuse of power in GMA’s tenure. If he manages to clean house, I suspect that foreign investor confidence will be boosted, and with it hopes for a stronger economy and better well being for Juan & Juana dela Cruz.

        I’m befuddled why anyone would defend the malfeasance of GMA and her cronies in her 9 years in power. It’s been said that, with regard to politics, you can’t keep a clean sewer, and GMA has certainly contributed an overwhelming amount of sewage.

        • Joe Cunningham :

          Its all right to be Pro-PNoy. In truth and in fact, nothing to be ashamed of.
          As for me, I no longer believe in any politician but not reason enoug not to hope that someday there’ll be a really good one.

          As for amassing unexplained wealth or electoral sabotage, I don’t have personal knowledge about that. Anyway, she must be held responsible if guilty.

          But for the cases of missing persons attributed to Gen. Palparan, I think she must answer for that because the accusations have long been in the news but to my mind there was no action or effort to investigate,

          I pity the families especially the parents because I’ve read the complaints for a long time already but no action until lately. I think the missing girls are dead already that’s why they could not be presented. The writ of Amparo was issued by the then CJ Davide if I’m not mistaken.

          We don’t even know what was their fault, if any. Obviously someone decided that without proper procedures. I can very well say those people may not deserve mercy. Only God can forgive them.

          • Johnny lin says:

            @Arsenio
            I am a freelancer,not purely Pro PNoy. The fact is recently I posted criticizing his post deluge partying.
            At any rate, you said above, GMA should answer for “missing persons attributed to General Palparan”. Why GMA? Poor Little Girl, it’s her fault for rogue official crime?
            You said you did not have opinion on unexplained wealth or electoral sabotage because you don’t have personal knowledge, yet later on you said “the missing girls are dead already and those accused did not deserve mercy”. You disavowed the former and affirmed the latter; do you have personal knowledge the girls are already dead?

            • First of all it doesn’t matter whether a person is Pro-Pinoy, anti_PNoy or neutral. We are talking about opinions and it is my opinion that since the girls can no longer be produced as ordered by the Court, I think they are already dead. Otherwise, the military should have long produce their bodies by order of the Court.

              I think that is a reasonable conclusion than making a conclusion on other such other cases as graft and corruption or electoral sabotage if you want to be technical about it.

              Just want to ask you an honest answer which I will accept : Do you think they are still alive?

              • Johnny lin says:

                Answer: I don’t know because there were no witnesses.
                Opinion on a subject matters in terms of being white, black or grey; no other color. Color preference varies on the subject of contention.

                What is common between electoral sabotage accusation and kidnapping accusation? Both are unproven. What is the difference? There are no witnesses yet on the kidnapping compared to electoral sabotage.

                “the supporters of PNoy have probably the numbers in comments but are not superior in the quality of comments. Many are those who write criticisms on the actions of PNoy are not Pro-GMA or Pro-Corona. They are for the rule of law in the conduct of government”
                This statement belies negative claim of Pro-GMA.
                One must assume that Pro-PNoy or Anti-Corona advocates are also for the rule of law in the conduct of Corona. Your opinion on the comparison would have been stronger if both assessments are based on explicit details, that is on the conduct in government following the rule of law; the other comparison was a vague word “quality”. One describes the characteristics of a fruit, the other is described plainly, a fruit. Similar to drug testing, its always double blind study based on equal parameters then the result becomes an honest opinion the way it is observed on specific points, otherwise it’s biased.

                Consistent reasoning in theoretical assumptions promotes independence while selective reasoning presumes prejudicial preference.

              • Its OK. You are always right in the way you think you are right. Everyone is entitled to their opinion (s).

              • Johnny lin says:

                You are correct, everybody is entitled to their own opinion on substance except belittling others. I only retorted to what you aspersed.

  68. MALYN says:

    Kung si Pangulong Noynoy ay dictator, sigurado siyento porsiyento bawat segundo, bawat menuto may nakukulong, Hindi ka puwedeng magsalita na against sa government. yon na lamang speech ni Thief Justice Corona, eh hindi yon uubra kung under dictatorship tayo, segurado nakaposas na si Corona pagbaba pa lang niya matapos mag talumpati at kabontot na niya ang sandamakmak na militar at pulis at diretso tangkal,. Yong pambabatikos Ni Joker Arroyo ni Atty Topaksio at ni Elena Horn kay Pangulong Noynoy at mas masahol pa kay Marcos , naku kulang pa siyang piringan at diretso sa bartolina. Sadyang nasa mindset na ng mga lawyer na kailangan nilang protektahan ang kanilang kabaro ni si Corona nasa mali man ito o tama. Sasabihin lang ni Corona na siya ang Unang Tagapagtanggol ng Hustisya naku nagkakamali siya Ang sabihin niya siya ang tagagpagtanggol at takbuhan ni Gloria

  69. gLitch_xix says:

    To CJ Corona, XPGMA et al:

    “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.”

    Yours,
    Abraham Lincoln

  70. wil15 says:

    Ms. Raissa,

    I am not sure if this post is relevant to the topic on hand. This is something that’s bugging me and begging for enlightenment from people, especially lawyers, in the know.

    I am not a lawyer and I am not inviting controversy. I am just wondering why some if not most lawyers seem not to be bothered by decisions of the SC which, to many of us laymen are apparently wrong. Some of them say that the SC is right even if they are wrong; that regardless of the decision we have to accept if because it is the rule of law, implying that we just have to close our eyes even if there is an obvious abuse of discretion.

    I can not understand how the SC, whose members are supposed to be the cream of the crop, can change its decision five times in a particular case. Does it mean that they have not studied the issue carefully or were there other considerations in their flip-flopping?

    The IBP as represented by their President is saying that the impeachment of SJ Corona is an attempt to destroy the SC as an institution. I am wondering why he can’t seem to distinguish between the SC as an institution and the justices manning the institution. If there is anybody who can destroy the SC, it is the member justices whose integrity and decisions are under the cloud of doubt.

    I am wondering if the mindset of some of our lawyers is a carry over from that of their college years, I can still remember during my university days when rumbles between fraternities, whose members were mostly law students, were frequent occurrences, I overheard a frat member saying ” right or wrong I am going to defend my brod”. It was a belief share by many students.

    Are some of our lawyers defending their brothers in profession, right or wrong?

    That is the question that I am eagerly waiting to be enlightened.

    • raissa says:

      It’s possible that fraternal ties play a role, now that you bring it up.

      It’s also possible that some lawyers are adding to their Favor Bank – hoping to collect when any of their cases land before the SC as they surely will.

      It’s also possible they see that the entire legal profession is under threat from – good heavens – a non-lawyer President.

      Quite a number of lawyers have this overarching belief that their additional four years of college entitle them to put their noses up in the air higher than the rest of us, college grads (except doctors, of course).

    • MALYN says:

      Dati naman mataas ang tingin at tiwala ng taumbayan sa Judiciary (SC) kaya lang naman nakakawala ng tiwala kase dahil sa nakaraang Administrasyon ni GMA. isipin nyo na lang na ng mag-appoint ng Chief Justice 2 days after election na sang-ayon sa batas ito ay hindi dapat, at ito ay labag sa batas ay ginawa pa rin ni GMA. Bakit? di ba maliwanag na sinasalawola. Kung si Mr. Corona ay may delicadeza hindi dapat niya tinanggap. bilang respeto sa susunod na administrasyon at sa saligang batas. Dahil alam niya na siya ang mapapalagay sa puwesto kaya sinamantala niya. Oh di ba.

  71. Agapito Bagumbayan says:

    Malayo sa kahulugan ng diktador s Pnoy. Yung mga nagsasabi nun ay mga asong traydor sa bayan na natangalan ng kapangyarihan kaya tahol ng tahol.

    Pero maiba ako ng konti kung may kayang magparating nito kay Pnoy paki sabi bilisan nya kumilos pag may trahedya lagi kasi sya huli o hindi lang maganda ang dating nya sa mga pahayagan lalo na kung high profile ang event. Tulad ng Luneta Hostage crisis, Typhoon Pedring Floods at ngayon sa Typhoon Sendong. Dito parang may basehan ang batikos sa kanya. Kasi nauuna pa yung mga news reporter kesa sa tulong from Naional Government.
    Yun lang ang obserbasyon ko.

  72. -->

Trackbacks

  1. [...] Read the original post: raissa robles PNoy government: A dictatorship in the making or … [...]