The Judicial Branch of Government [Archive] - Page 3

wino

December 16th, 2010, 12:38 AM

What happens to Jessica Alfaro?

(UPDATE 2) Now that the Supreme Court has acquitted Hubert Webb and all his co-accused in the controversial Vizconde massacre case, people are asking: Can Jessica Alfaro, the primary witness who implicated Webb and company, be charged?

Yes, said two legal experts.

“That’s false testimony in a criminal case. The whole testimony was false apparently, because the Supreme Court found her unbelievable,” said Criminal Law expert Harry Roque.

She may also be charged with falsification of subscribed statements for issuing false affidavits, added Roque.

University of the Philippines’ General Counsel Theodore Te said it is also logical that if the Supreme Court said Alfaro was not credible, “of course she was lying.”

According to Article 180 of the Revised Penal Code, “Any person who shall give false testimony against the defendant in any criminal case shall suffer: The penalty of reclusion temporal, if the defendant in said case shall have been sentenced to death; 2. The penalty of prision mayor, if the defendant shall have been sentenced to reclusion temporal or reclusion perpetua; 3. The penalty of prision correccional, if the defendant shall have been sentenced to any other afflictive penalty; 4. The penalty of arresto mayor, if the defendant shall have been sentenced to a correctional penalty or a fine, or shall have been acquitted.”

Alfaro, should case prosper against her and eventually be proven guilty, shall also “suffer a fine not to exceed 1,000 pesos,” according to the same article.

Former Senator Freddie Webb already expressed his intent to go after Alfaro, who appears to have wrongly accused his son and made him suffer in jail for 15 years. In a report, the former Senator said though his son is “so forgiving” he is not.

“I’m a little on the line of [seeking justice].” he said.

Hubert Webb and his co-accused—Antonio Lejano, Michael Gatchalian, Pyke Fernandez, Miguel Rodriguez, Peter Estrada, and Gerardo Biong—can also file civil suits against Alfaro for damages for “anxiety and loss of earning capacity” while they were in jail, added Te.

Alfaro’s rights and benefits under the witness protection program will have to be revoked as well, added Te.

Roque noted that if Alfaro indeed lied under oath, she does not deserve to get protection benefits.

“There was apparently waste of public funds and Lauro Vizconde as a victim and the accused were deprived of their rights for a [fair] trial,” Roque added.

Roque said there is also a need to examine the government’s witness protection program and determine whether someone is liable for admitting Alfaro in when she was not a credible witness in the first place.

But Public Attorney’s Office Chief, Persida Acosta, who also stands as Vizconde’s counsel, said Alfaro could no longer be charged.

Based on Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code, “crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties shall prescribe in fifteen years.” In Alfaro’s case, this has already lapsed.

Acosta meanwhile noted that Vizconde could still file a motion for reconsideration through the Office of the Solicitor General, given that the Supreme Court’s decision wasn’t unanimous.

Seven magistrates voted for the acquittal, four upheld the lower court’s conviction, and four inhibited.

“Advice ko sa kaniya, Solicitor General has the authority to defend the RTC judge in its decision,” said Acosta.

“The decision was not unanimous up to the last moment of deliberation. We are dealing with the exception of double jeopardy,” she said.

Acosta said that “upon [further] analysis, there could be a great error.”

She noted that there is no prohibition that disallows agents, such as Alfaro, from testifying in court.

“Now, people will be scared. Nobody will be there to testify anymore,” she noted.

Te noted that time is also running out for the government should they want a new case against a possible new set of suspects. Given that there are new sufficient evidence to pin anyone, the prosecution only has until July of 2011 to file the case.

This, because as stated in the Revised Penal Code, crimes such as the Vizconde massacre carry a “prescription period” of only 20 years. The Vizconde massacre took place June 30, 1991.

On Monday, Supreme Court acquitted the convicted murderers upon review that the quality of testimonies of the witnesses, including those of Jessica Alfaro was not reliable. The high court noted of Alfaro’s “inconsistencies.”

bitoy

December 16th, 2010, 01:38 AM

SC: Webb et al. not vindicated (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20101216-309222/SC-Webb-et-al--not-vindicated)

Court didn’t rule they are not guilty

By Marlon Ramos, Nikko Dizon
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 00:55:00 12/16/2010

MANILA, Philippines—The decision of the Supreme Court clearing Hubert Webb and six others of criminal liability in the 1991 Vizconde massacre is not a vindication of them, the tribunal’s spokesperson said Wednesday.

Speaking at a news briefing, Midas Marquez said the acquittal of Webb et al. did not mean they were innocent of the charges. He said the high court voted 7-4 to acquit them because of the prosecution’s failure to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt and because of infirmities in the testimony of star witness Jessica Alfaro.

“The court said there was not enough basis to [affirm] the conviction of the accused. The court did not say they are not guilty,” Marquez stressed.

“The magistrates did not say that they were innocent and that they did not commit the crime,” he said.

Marquez also appealed for calm among critics of the high court’s decision, saying “it would be better” that they read it in its entirety.

He said the supplemental opinion of Associate Justice Arturo Brion, who voted against the acquittal, would also help the public better understand the high court’s decision.

Said Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano: “Just because they were acquitted, it does not mean that Hubert and his group did not do it.”

It was the senator’s father, the late Rene Cayetano, who led the prosecution team that succeeded in getting a conviction for Webb et al. from then Parañaque Judge Amelita Tolentino 10 years ago.

Speaking with reporters, Cayetano said: “I’d like to respect the court and the families involved—both the Vizconde and the Webbs. But there is a sense of disgust and frustration among our citizens because for 20 years, this one sensational case has been considered solved. I really feel for the Vizconde family, especially Manong Lauro. I pray that he gets the justice he is looking for because it is now all up to the Lord.”

Cayetano said the high court did not declare Alfaro a fraud and merely stated their opinion of her testimony.

“The Supreme Court had a difference of opinion and the decision is 7-4-4. That doesn’t mean that she is not a credible witness. If the decision will be the basis in determining the credibility of the witness, there will be a lot of people who will not act as a witness in the country,” he said.

..... continue (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20101216-309222/SC-Webb-et-al--not-vindicated)

Manila-X

December 16th, 2010, 05:50 AM

Partial justice
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 23:09:00 12/15/2010

WE SYMPATHIZE with the unfortunate Lauro Vizconde, especially since the Supreme Court’s acquittal of Hubert Webb and all others convicted in the Vizconde massacre case (including the two who went into hiding and never served a day in prison) means the pain of uncertainty is back to haunt him and other kin. So, if not Webb and company, then who killed Estrellita, Carmela and Jennifer Vizconde on June 30, 1991?

At the same time, we understand the basis of the Court’s reasoning: A criminal conviction, no matter how sensational the case or lurid the details, no matter how entrenched people’s opinions about it may be, must be based on proof of guilt beyond any reasonable doubt.

It seems to us that the key passage in Justice Roberto Abad’s ponencia, written for a majority of 7 out of 11 justices who took part in the deliberations, is the following, and powerful, meditation: “In our criminal justice system, what is important is, not whether the court entertains doubts about the innocence of the accused since an open mind is willing to explore all possibilities, but whether it entertains a reasonable, lingering doubt as to his guilt.”

That is worth repeating, in layman’s terms: What matters is not doubt about innocence but doubt about guilt.

As news of the Court’s decision spread like dry brush fire on Tuesday, and copies became available online, public reaction was immediate, often vehement—and fixed. Those who doubted the innocence of Webb et al. thought the acquittal was a shame; those who doubted their guilt welcomed the ruling. The Vizconde massacre is such a vivid part of recent history, its tiniest details absorbed by popular culture, that it would have been difficult in the last two days to find sentient citizens whose minds were changed by the decision. Most people who knew about the case had entrenched views on the guilt or innocence of Webb and company; that is why public reaction has thus far been both passionate and immediate.

It does not help, it does not bring closure any closer, when we read Justice Martin Villarama’s much more detailed dissenting opinion. That dissent makes a powerful case for just the opposite: that guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. His compelling presentation of the facts and application of the law can only reinforce the views of those who thought Webb et al. were guilty.

We reported extensively on the Vizconde case. But like everyone else, we too must ask ourselves: What if, in fact, there was the slightest iota of doubt about Webb’s guilt? If there was the slimmest possibility that the essential facts were not correctly appreciated by the trial court and the Court of Appeals?

Our commitment to civil liberties makes the answer clear: If the tiniest particle of doubt about a person’s criminal liability is present, a judge must acquit. That, in sum, is what the Court’s majority decision says.

Lauro Vizconde may accuse the Court of partial justice, partial to the influential and the moneyed. We can understand that sentiment, and realize that it is shared by many Filipinos. But what kind of money, of influence, takes 15 years to take effect, to make its decisive presence felt? On the other hand, public pressure is a kind of influence too, and just as disruptive and harmful if applied to the legal process. On this issue, we think the Court decided on the merits, such as they were, of the controversial case.

Then there’s this too: With the exception of former fugitives Joey Filart and Artemio Ventura, the convicted did spend 15 years behind bars. Webb was jailed when he was still a young man; when he walked out of prison the other day he was, and looked, middle-aged. This is real punishment, about half the length of a life imprisonment term. (In our view, the real unfortunate consequence of the acquittal is that those who did not share Webb’s strongly supported alibi managed to share in its benefits.)

Still, the question remains: What if Webb et al. were actually guilty, but were only finally acquitted because of the incredible, incoherent testimony of principal witness Jessica Alfaro? If that were the case, then perhaps Vizconde and many others who share his pained perspective can take some solace—a little, a bit—in the reality that the guilty got at least half of what they deserved.

Call it partial justice.

Kintoy

December 16th, 2010, 08:35 AM

jpdm

December 16th, 2010, 11:05 AM

We call that here instant justice.... ang bilis ng proseso... atat na atat na kumawala at baka mag ibang ihip ng hangin... :lol:

Was that few months ago when the Vizconde group smell something fishy going on with the justice department? Parang tama nga yung hinala ni Mr. Vizconde na ti-natrabaho ng ibang SC justices yung kaso dahil me nakita silang butas(DNA testing) na siguradong naglaho ng parang bula ang mga ebidensiya dahil sa kapalpakan o sinapote ng humahawak na departamento ng pulis o NBI.
As we say... "This one is for our history books"... again! :)

it was a very convenient excuse of oops, we lost the sperm sample. :lol::lol:

That's a better excuse kaysa sabihin nila "meron gumamit" -- :nuts:

No pun intented, the Vizconde family is on their second mourning, may God help them to find their peace.

It will be tough for the SC to get back their integrity kung meron pang natitira man lang kahit konti. Baka sunod sunod na ang mga apila ng iba ibang kaso since medyo madali magkaasyos ngayon ang hustisya. :D

^^ May extra toppings (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20101215-309035/Cleared-by-SC-justice-faces-impeachment-case) na naman.

Ang gagaling ng mga cheap justices natin. Mabentang mabenta.

SC BULOK!

Agree 100%.

Putong inamoy na SC mayroon tayo ngayon. Mga justices puro gago.NBIgago rin. Iniwala ebidensya. Para mabutas yung testimonya ni Alfaro.

Mga Webb, alam na alam na agad na acquitted si Hubert. Natrabaho na kasi sa NBI at SC decision.

Yung kasing mga taga BF Paranaque ayaw magsalita. Alam naman nila kung sino ang dumali sa tatlong Vizconde .

Sa dami ng nangrape kay Carmela at tatlo silang kinatay ( multiple stab wounds with the young girl getting 19 stab wounds)sa loob ng bahay wala silang (kapitbahay sa BF) alam?

Nga pala, yung 7 justices na nag-acquit kay Hubert et al nagsulat ng 45 pages na opinion explaining their vote. YUng dissenting na apat, 100 plus pages ang explanation.

Mas mabigat pa yung against the acquittal keysa sa mga umayon sa acquittal.

jpdm

December 16th, 2010, 11:25 AM

7-4-4 ang tally.

Itong mga numerong na ito sinasabi hindi majority ang for acquittal ni Hubert..Hating hati ang SC. The acquittal is not beyond reasonable doubt. toinks!:lol:

Justice to revisit Vizconde case

by Rey Requejo
Manila Standard
Dec. 16, 2010

The Department of Justice is considering a reinvestigation of the Vizconde massacre case following the Supreme Court’s decision to acquit Hubert Webb and his six co-accused for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Justice Secretary Leila de Lima on Wednesday said that she would meet with Director Magtanggol Gatdula of the National Bureau of Investigation to discuss the plea of widower Lauro Vizconde for the government to help him find closure to the rape-murder of his daughter Carmela and the killing of his wife Estrellita and daughter Jennifer.

De Lima said that authorities will be racing against time because of the 20-year prescriptive period for filing a criminal case against an accused.

If a case review is possible, de Lima said she would order the NBI to hunt down two other accused in the Vizconde massacre— Joey Filart and Artemio Venturina.

Filart and Venturina, along with Webb, Antonio Lejano, Michael Gatchalian, Hospicio Fernandez, Miguel Rodriguez, Peter Estrada and former Paranaque policeman Gerardo Biong, were charged with the Vizconde massacre of June 1991.

“They [Filart and Venturina] are still at large. How come all these years there is no effort to track them down. Why did they go into hiding?,” de Lima asked. “Flight is indicative of guilt as legal principles say. For all we know, the truth is with the two other accused who are still at large.”

“We sympathize with Mr. Vizconde; we really need a closure of this case. So we will help him within the bounds of law and with the best of our ability as law enforcers,” de Lima said.

The Justice secretary explained that in case the review pushes through, she would direct the NBI to extract more information from lone witness Jessica Alfaro about the crime.

“We will ask her help again because as you know majority [of the Supreme Court justices] did not believe her but we really don’t know if she has knowledge about the real perpetrators. Any players can help us out,” she stressed.

Court Administrator and spokesman Jose Midas Marquez, for his part, clarified that the high court’s ruling is not a vindication of Webb and his co-accused because the tribunal merely ruled that the prosecution failed to present evidence that would establish their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

“It’s not a vindication because the decision merely says there is not enough evidence. The prosecution was not able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court is not saying that they are not guilty or they are innocent,” Marquez stressed.

The court official also clarified that Regional Trial Court of Paranaque City Judge Amelita Tolentino, who is now associate justice of the Court of Appeals, may be administratively charged for the wrongful conviction of Webb and his co-accused. With Ferdie Fabella

296619

December 16th, 2010, 01:24 PM

"The DNA testing was not given any weight" - but that's the start of re-opening the case courtesy of the Supreme Court., the missing semen specimen made the High Court ruled that the case will be up for resolution.
I don't need to go on details, you can get the timeline of the case from any website on how the Webb's challenged the courts since Hubert's conviction.

re-opening ba o appeal from the judgment of the CA? :)

Alam ko additional lang yung about sa DNA ( I mean separate petition) pero hindi ba inapela yung CA ruling?:)

Sige I'll check po thanks:)

296619

December 16th, 2010, 01:39 PM

Based sa pagkakabasa ko, nag-appeal ang Webb et.al from the CA's judgement... Aside doon, nag file ng petition si Webb asking for DNA testing at noong una ay hindi pinayagan, pero pinayagan din kamakailan lang..:) At dahil nawawala yung specimen, The Webb asked the SC to acquit him alleging denial of due process daw po:)

(P-add) At hindi binigyan ng pansin ng SC ang pagkawala ng specimen sa ginawang decision sa kaso ( in short, walang weight yung DNA testing/specimen) :) :) :)

LAPDRN

December 16th, 2010, 05:30 PM

Parchie

December 16th, 2010, 05:33 PM

:bash::bash::bash: alam nila nawawala kya request cila DNA:lol::lol::lol::cheers::cheers::cheers::ohno::ohno::ohno::nuts::nuts::nuts:

Yeah, they were not born yesterday! Moles get money by "sharing" information.

bitoy

December 16th, 2010, 06:17 PM

re-opening ba o appeal from the judgment of the CA? :)

Alam ko additional lang yung about sa DNA ( I mean separate petition) pero hindi ba inapela yung CA ruling?:)

Sige I'll check po thanks:)

Based sa pagkakabasa ko, nag-appeal ang Webb et.al from the CA's judgement... Aside doon, nag file ng petition si Webb asking for DNA testing at noong una ay hindi pinayagan, pero pinayagan din kamakailan lang..:) At dahil nawawala yung specimen, The Webb asked the SC to acquit him alleging denial of due process daw po:)

(P-add) At hindi binigyan ng pansin ng SC ang pagkawala ng specimen sa ginawang decision sa kaso ( in short, walang weight yung DNA testing/specimen) :) :) :)

Akala ko in tune ka talaga sa mga balita... :lol:

Supreme Court orders DNA testing in Vizconde slay case (http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleid=569274)

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court (SC) ordered yesterday the reopening of the 19-year-old Vizconde massacre case and granted the request of convicted killer Hubert Webb for the forensic examination of evidence.

The Webb family were elated over the High Court’s decision.

In a resolution unanimously approved by the justices during their summer session in Baguio City, the SC granted Webb’s request for the DNA testing of the semen specimen taken from the body of rape-slay victim Carmela Vizconde.......

And you might want to read the justices opinions after the the formal acquittal decision, about 140 plus pages yun... :)

Parchie

December 17th, 2010, 04:17 AM

Akala ko in tune ka talaga sa mga balita... :lol:

Supreme Court orders DNA testing in Vizconde slay case (http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleid=569274)

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court (SC) ordered yesterday the reopening of the 19-year-old Vizconde massacre case and granted the request of convicted killer Hubert Webb for the forensic examination of evidence.

The Webb family were elated over the High Court’s decision.

In a resolution unanimously approved by the justices during their summer session in Baguio City, the SC granted Webb’s request for the DNA testing of the semen specimen taken from the body of rape-slay victim Carmela Vizconde.......

And you might want to read the justices opinions after the the formal acquittal decision, about 140 plus pages yun... :)

Kung ang pagbabasehan ay yong mga inuulat sa mga pahayagan, radio at TV, the Webb group reportedly filed to reopen the case based on the new evidence that was offered last mid April 2010.

If we call that action an appeal, Webb et al did it. AFAIK, any court decision that brings with it the maximum penalty of death are automatically subject for review by the Supreme Court. Since the death penalty was scrapped, convicted persons must appeal his case to prevent the lower courts decision from getting final and executory.

If only we could get a copy of the documents, maybe we could straighten out the kinks we have here; was it because of a request for DNA testing or what.

bitoy

December 17th, 2010, 05:46 AM

If only we could get a copy of the documents, maybe we could straighten out the kinks we have here; was it because of a request for DNA testing or what.

What kinks? What I was saying was, everything started with that DNA testing requested by the Webb family, you can call it an appeal, a petition or whatever but somehow or somewhere, there seems to be a very smart person or persons that can foresee the outcome on what this DNA testing request would result into.

Parang poker game ang nangyari...Webb went "all in" and the authorities "call", but Webb had 7 ACES... :lol:

Eastern Dragon

December 17th, 2010, 06:12 AM

What kinks? What I was saying was, everything started with that DNA testing requested by the Webb family, you can call it an appeal, a petition or whatever but somehow or somewhere, there seems to be a very smart person or persons that can foresee the outcome on what this DNA testing request would result into.

Parang poker game ang nangyari...Webb went "all in" and the authorities "call", but Webb had 7 ACES... :lol:

all these sounds scripted to me. must have caused the group a lot of mooolah. I bet my ass, naghire ng PR firm to orchestrate everything.

perfect timing, right before the SC goes on xmas break para hindi sila matrace ng mga reporters and in two weeks, fait acompli na to, wala na magawa ang mga tao.

and in months, the case will prescribe. meaning hindi na pwedeng magfile ng anumang kaso.

bitoy

December 17th, 2010, 06:35 AM

all these sounds scripted to me. must have caused the group a lot of mooolah. I bet my ass, naghire ng PR firm to orchestrate everything.

perfect timing, right before the SC goes on xmas break para hindi sila matrace ng mga reporters and in two weeks, fait acompli na to, wala na magawa ang mga tao.

and in months, the case will prescribe. meaning hindi na pwedeng magfile ng anumang kaso.

Tahimik yung ibang mga nakasama ni Webb sa kulungan... baka madulas sa interview.. :)
Unless meron bagong angulo sa kaso, up to six months yata at topo topo na.
Ni wala yatang reporters na nagunkat nang pagiging drug addict ni Hubert nuon, parang pinalalabas na napakabait na tao nito... :lol:

Eastern Dragon

December 17th, 2010, 06:52 AM

Tahimik yung ibang mga nakasama ni Webb sa kulungan... baka madulas sa interview.. :)
Unless meron bagong angulo sa kaso, up to six months yata at topo topo na.
Ni wala yatang reporters na nagunkat nang pagiging drug addict ni Hubert nuon, parang pinalalabas na napakabait na tao nito... :lol:

judging from their reaction when they were convicted sa CA, hindi reaction ng mga innocent na tao.

I know there are flaws sa testimony ni alfaro, but the coincidence? in 6 months, prescribe na ang kaso.

ang babait nga ng dating ng mga mokong eh. I am not saying that they are 100% guilty, its just that, they don't look like saints either. :lol:

bitoy

December 17th, 2010, 07:22 AM

^^ Buti na lang iba naman ang pinaglilibangan ng ANC : http://tfcnow.abs-cbn.com/videos/live/anc3.asx

Si Kim Henares naman... :lol: Yung mga reporter pa yata ang nagbalita ke De Lima na meron charge daw si De Lima na plunder case ke Henares.. :D

I better watch cartoons from now on, pareho din ang dating... :lol:

296619

December 17th, 2010, 08:05 AM

Akala ko in tune ka talaga sa mga balita... :lol:

Supreme Court orders DNA testing in Vizconde slay case (http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleid=569274)

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court (SC) ordered yesterday the reopening of the 19-year-old Vizconde massacre case and granted the request of convicted killer Hubert Webb for the forensic examination of evidence.

The Webb family were elated over the High Court’s decision.

In a resolution unanimously approved by the justices during their summer session in Baguio City, the SC granted Webb’s request for the DNA testing of the semen specimen taken from the body of rape-slay victim Carmela Vizconde.......

And you might want to read the justices opinions after the the formal acquittal decision, about 140 plus pages yun... :)

Sir iba po yung pagkakaword niya na re-opening.. ... Syempre iba yung appeal ( or automatic appeal whichever) sa petition to reconsider the DNA test... Sorry yun ang pagkakaalam ko based sa mga binasa ko... Syempre may appeal at may petition to have DNA test... - - - Mukhang hindi niyo po kuha yung pinupunto ko o yung gusto kong ipahiwatig...

Dont worry hindi ako makikipagdebate sa inyo...

Lawyer po ba kayo sir? ty...:) ( studyante palang naman poo ako)

296619

December 17th, 2010, 08:08 AM

bitoy

December 17th, 2010, 08:27 AM

Sir iba po yung pagkakaword niya na re-opening.. ... Syempre iba yung appeal sa petition to reconsider the DNA test... Sorry yun ang pagkakaalam ko based sa mga binasa ko... Syempre may appeal at may petition to have DNA test... - - - Mukhang hindi niyo po kuha yung pinupunto ko o yung gusto kong ipahiwatig...

Dont worry hindi ako makikipagdebate sa inyo...

Lawyer po ba kayo sir? ty...:)

Hindi po kasi ako masyado nagrerely sa sinulat sa newspaper.. More on sa decision/resolution po ako at pagkakaintindi ko ng batas...:)

I know what you are trying to imply about that DNA testing, naging walang pakialam ito sa decision ng SC na palayain si Webb et. al. Ikaw lang naman ang nagsingit niyan, ang punto ko, diyan nagsimula lahat kaya pinabuksan ng SC ang kaso. Re-opening or reopening the case, wala naman diperensiya yun.
If you rely on the formal decision and resolution of the SC and agreed with what the 7 justices then ayos naman yun diba? Kung nabasa mo yung mga dissenting statements ng ibang justices at panig ka pa rin sa 7, wala namang problema dun.

And me being a lawyer? No, I'm not, I hate lawyers (except @eastern dragon)... but I'll take a bullet for them, minsan nga RPG pa kung kinakailangan.. :lol:

Eastern Dragon

December 17th, 2010, 08:34 AM

And me being a lawyer? No, I'm not, I hate lawyers (except @eastern dragon)... but I'll take a bullet for them, minsan nga RPG pa kung kinakailangan.. :lol:

:lol::ohno:, i hate some fellow lawyers too. :lol:

but then again, lawyers like all other professions are in a way, a necessary evil.

bitoy

December 17th, 2010, 08:42 AM

:lol::ohno:, i hate some fellow lawyers too. :lol:

but then again, lawyers like all other professions are in a way, a necessary evil.

Kakatakot kasi ang dating ng mga abugados dito..para bang pag kinausap mo, meron metro ng taxi na $300/hr... :lol:

Pero pag mga JAG na, hanep ang pustura, parang ililigtas ka pa rin nila kahit na nahatulan ka na sa firing squad. :lol:

296619

December 17th, 2010, 08:43 AM

I know what you are trying to imply about that DNA testing, naging walang pakialam ito sa decision ng SC na palayain si Webb et. al. Ikaw lang naman ang nagsingit niyan, ang punto ko, diyan nagsimula lahat kaya pinabuksan ng SC ang kaso. Re-opening or reopening the case, wala naman diperensiya yun.
If you rely on the formal decision and resolution of the SC and agreed with what the 7 justices then ayos naman yun diba? Kung nabasa mo yung mga dissenting statements ng ibang justices at panig ka pa rin sa 7, wala namang problema dun.

And me being a lawyer? No, I'm not, I hate lawyers (except @eastern dragon)... but I'll take a bullet for them, minsan nga RPG pa kung kinakailangan.. :lol:

A ok po... may discussion po kasi dito about DNA testing whether the court gave weight dun sa pagkawala... Dun lang naman po ako sumabat... and about dun sa reopening, I'm just trying to share my understanding na hindi po yung "case" ang ni-reopen dahil hindi pa naman po tapos yung kaso noon. Ang totoong ginawa ay inapela ito sa SC. Ang talagang ni-reopen ay yung pagkakaroon ng DNA test dahil dati na itong binasura ng court noong 1995(ata). Since biglang acceptable na ang DNA test since 2004 sa Pinas, nagfile ng panibagong petition ang Webb na magkaroon ng DNA test at pinayagan... Ang problem, nawala na yung specimen...

Ito po yung pagkakaintindi ko at gusto ko pong ishare... ( Pasensya na po kung may nasagasaan ako... TY din po sa additional info)...:):):):cheers:

Eastern Dragon

December 17th, 2010, 08:44 AM

Kakatakot kasi ang dating ng mga abugados dito..para bang pag kinausap mo, meron metro ng taxi na $300/hr... :lol:

Pero pag mga JAG na, hanep ang pustura, parang ililigtas ka pa rin nila kahit na nahatulan ka na sa firing squad. :lol:

:ohno::ohno: a few good men ikaw nga. nasa uniformed service ka ba bitoy? kamuntikan na rin ako pumasok sa academy eh. :lol:

296619

December 17th, 2010, 08:46 AM

Kakatakot kasi ang dating ng mga abugados dito..para bang pag kinausap mo, meron metro ng taxi na $300/hr... :lol:

Pero pag mga JAG na, hanep ang pustura, parang ililigtas ka pa rin nila kahit na nahatulan ka na sa firing squad. :lol:

Marami po kasing tao sir na pilit naman ding iconvict ang taong pinalaya na ng korte... - Hirap naman po nun... :lol:

bitoy

December 17th, 2010, 09:06 AM

:ohno::ohno: a few good men ikaw nga. nasa uniformed service ka ba bitoy? kamuntikan na rin ako pumasok sa academy eh. :lol:

Oo, pero istambay na lang at kung kelangan...errr.. sila naman.... :lol:

Marami po kasing tao sir na pilit naman ding iconvict ang taong pinalaya na ng korte... - Hirap naman po nun... :lol:

Na papagusapan lang naman, who are we to convict an innocent person like Hubert? :lol:

Eastern Dragon

December 17th, 2010, 09:32 AM

Oo, pero istambay na lang at kung kelangan...errr.. sila naman.... :lol:

Na papagusapan lang naman, who are we to convict an innocent person like Hubert? :lol:

the sad part is that the vizcondes will be left without justice.

bilib din ako kay lauro eh, ang tibay ng loob. kung ako yan, either makakapatay ako ng tao or mawawala ako sa sarili ko.

magkasakit nga lang anak mo distracted ka na, ano na kaya kung pinatay.

tsaka bata pa talaga yung isa.

no father should bury a child, or in his case, his children.

bitoy

December 17th, 2010, 09:38 AM

the sad part is that the vizcondes will be left without justice.

bilib din ako kay lauro eh, ang tibay ng loob. kung ako yan, either makakapatay ako ng tao or mawawala ako sa sarili ko.

magkasakit nga lang anak mo distracted ka na, ano na kaya kung pinatay.

tsaka bata pa talaga yung isa.

no father should bury a child, or in his case, his children.

We can only hope and pray that the Vizconde family will find their peace in some other ways. Walang maidudulot na maganda ang hustisya ngayon para sa kanila at mga 10 to 20 years pa yata bago mag retire ang mga SC justices natin, unless matisod sa lantarang anomalya at matangal sila.

Eastern Dragon

December 17th, 2010, 09:53 AM

We can only hope and pray that the Vizconde family will find their peace in some other ways. Walang maidudulot na maganda ang hustisya ngayon para sa kanila at mga 10 to 20 years pa yata bago mag retire ang mga SC justices natin, unless matisod sa lantarang anomalya at matangal sila.

add to the ignominy of the SC deciding in favor of mikey arroyo yesterday.

coincidence ba lahat tong mga to?

bitoy

December 17th, 2010, 11:04 AM

Eastern Dragon

December 17th, 2010, 11:16 AM

on the roll talaga tong mga hinayupak na to. instead of helping the country by being on the right side of the law and ethics, ayun, kay imelda at arroyo lagi kumakampi and those known not to be arroyo lapdogs are only about 3.

kaya lagi talo.

Kintoy

December 17th, 2010, 12:57 PM

bayad utang kay Ate Glo

jpdm

December 17th, 2010, 01:13 PM

add to the ignominy of the SC deciding in favor of mikey arroyo yesterday.

coincidence ba lahat tong mga to?

On the roll ang SC...

Member daw siya ng organization that he's representing for 90 days before the election... :D Seguridad para sa mga security guard... that rhymes... :lol:

Planadong planado talaga ang pagawa nila... yung bintang nga sa kanya kung saan nangaling yung milyone$ na halaga na bahay niya dito naglaho na lang bigla.. but we had fun during the interview with Mareng Winnie on that one. :lol: Kapalan na lang talaga ng mukha... :D

Agree.

Alam ng gagong Supreme Court na hindi galing si Mikee Arroyo sa sektor na yun (security guard)pero binasura pa rin ang disqualification nya.

So anong tawag sa Supreme Court? Puro mga tarantado at bayaran Ni GLoria Dorobo!:bash::bash:

By the way, in an ANC show, Risa Hontiveros revealed that Mikee was one of her students. And Mikee according to her almost failed one subject.

william :D

December 17th, 2010, 02:27 PM

Sir iba po yung pagkakaword niya na re-opening.. ... Syempre iba yung appeal ( or automatic review whichever) sa petition to reconsider the DNA test... Sorry yun ang pagkakaalam ko based sa mga binasa ko... Syempre may appeal at may petition to have DNA test... - - - Mukhang hindi niyo po kuha yung pinupunto ko o yung gusto kong ipahiwatig...

Dont worry hindi ako makikipagdebate sa inyo...

Lawyer po ba kayo sir? ty...:) ( studyante palang naman poo ako)
he told me to edit his post..may konti atang mali at di niya kayang palitan ngayon. :):)

296619

December 17th, 2010, 03:37 PM

Kung ang pagbabasehan ay yong mga inuulat sa mga pahayagan, radio at TV, the Webb group reportedly filed to reopen the case based on the new evidence that was offered last mid April 2010.

If we call that action an appeal, Webb et al did it. AFAIK, any court decision that brings with it the maximum penalty of death are automatically subject for review by the Supreme Court. Since the death penalty was scrapped, convicted persons must appeal his case to prevent the lower courts decision from getting final and executory.

If only we could get a copy of the documents, maybe we could straighten out the kinks we have here; was it because of a request for DNA testing or what.

Tama ka sir.. Automatic review which I usually call automatic appeal...

Walang reopening na nangyari noon... Ngayon may reopening na sinusulong... ( Just to clarify...:))

296619

December 17th, 2010, 03:54 PM

Oo, pero istambay na lang at kung kelangan...errr.. sila naman.... :lol:

Na papagusapan lang naman, who are we to convict an innocent person like Hubert? :lol:

Sa inyo po galing yan sir, innocent sya...:):lol::lol::lol:

He was not convicted because his guilt had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.... hence the presumption of innocence must be upheld ( at yun ang nangyari po...;)

( sharing lang po :) )

296619

December 17th, 2010, 03:57 PM

bitoy

December 17th, 2010, 08:01 PM

Sa inyo po galing yan sir, innocent sya...:):lol::lol::lol:

He was not convicted because his guilt had not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.... hence the presumption of innocence must be upheld ( at yun ang nangyari po...;)

( sharing lang po :) )

:lol: Judge Amelita Tolentino of The Paranaque regional trial court convicted Webb and his friends in Jan. 2000. After 10 years, the SC concluded that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused are guilty beyond reasonable doubt and they were acquitted of all charges. So, they are not guilty according to the SC, but are they innocent?
Kahit anong idea or nalalaman mo sa batas, you can not prove that they are innocent just like we and others in here who disagreed with SC decision to prove that Webb and others are guilty.

What happened in the court battle between those years or previous to that can be easily research on the web. Maraming LAW websites that posted all the jurisprudence.

Like this one : http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/dec2010.html

kalbongdad

December 18th, 2010, 01:26 AM

malamang kasalanan din yan ni little evil gloria.....:lol: dahil yung SC ay halos lahat appointee ni nunal......:lol: di ba pnoy fans....?

296619

December 18th, 2010, 01:43 AM

:lol: Judge Amelita Tolentino of The Paranaque regional trial court convicted Webb and his friends in Jan. 2000. After 10 years, the SC concluded that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused are guilty beyond reasonable doubt and they were acquitted of all charges. So, they are not guilty according to the SC, but are they innocent?
Kahit anong idea or nalalaman mo sa batas, you can not prove that they are innocent just like we and others in here who disagreed with SC decision to prove that Webb and others are guilty.

What happened in the court battle between those years or previous to that can be easily research on the web. Maraming LAW websites that posted all the jurisprudence.

Like this one : http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/dec2010/dec2010.html

Sino bang nagsabing innocent siya? di ba kayo po? ( Kahit na moukhang sarcastic pa pgkakasabi niyo..:) hehe.. you are estopped.. peace....);0... Ako walang sinabing innocent.. I'm just sharing my ideas and understanding para hindi naman kayo po banat ng banat sa SC...:) I'm just leveling the playing field
sa forum na ito...

peace peace peace...:lol::lol::lol:

296619

December 18th, 2010, 01:48 AM

Just want you to be cleared po... Baka po iniisip mo na sinasabi ko sa forum na ito na innocent siya,, Iba po ang presumed innocent sa talagang innocent....

Ang sinasabi kasi ng SC na pilit kong pinapaintindi dito sa forum na ito ay hindi napatunayan yung guilt niya beyond reasonable doubt or may alinlangan na hindi si Webb et.al ang pumatay.. so dapat sundin ang batas... Wag siyang ikulong at ipagpatuloy ang pagiisip na innocent siya ( presumption of innocence) yun po un...

Ngayon kung ayaw niyo po yung batas e di try niyo irecommend na baguhin ito...:)

Ako talaga gusto kong paniwalaan na innocent si Hubert Webb... Pero yung mga post ko naman dito po ay pagpapaliwanag lang kung bakit siya acquitted which does not mean that Hubert Webb is totally innocent and did not commit the crime..:)

(peace sir bitoy..:))

bitoy

December 18th, 2010, 02:26 AM

^^ ano kamo? :lol:

mga limang edition mo pa, baka maintindihan ko.. :D *peace kiddo!

296619

December 18th, 2010, 02:35 AM

Presumption of innocence - reason behind the rule...

* Its unusual at weird na isiping kriminal ang bawat taong kausap mo. Mas tama at mas kaaya-aya na isipin mong matino at mabuti ang taong nakapaligid sayo... Whoever accuses has the burden of proof...

* Tulad ng sabi nila, mas maiging makawala ang isang daang kriminal kesa ikulong ang isang taong hindi napapatunayan ang pagkakasala...

Kung gusto nating baguhin ito, amyendahan natin ang batas...:).. Hangat hindi ito nababago, hindi natin pwedeng tirahin ang SC re: Vizconde Massacre ruling...

hehe.. peace sir Bitoy...

Last post ko na po to about Vizconde... Dun naman po ako kay Mike Arroyo.. Dun mukhang magkakasundo tayo.. Check ko yung decision..hehe:)

bitoy

December 18th, 2010, 02:46 AM

^^ That's your opinion on the majority ruling of that case. Pero meron ding apat na justices na hindi umayon. Kaya nga duon ka sa mga nag-agree at duon naman kami sa kabila... ayos diba? :lol:

296619

December 18th, 2010, 02:47 AM

^^ That's your opinion on the majority ruling of that case. Pero meron ding apat na justices na hindi umayon. Kaya nga duon ka sa mga nag-agree at duon naman kami sa kabila... ayos diba? :lol:

Tama..:):cheers::cheers:

william :D

December 18th, 2010, 06:32 AM

bitoy

December 18th, 2010, 02:26 PM

:lol: barya lang yung bail niya kumpara sa pangakong ibabalik niyang mga ninakaw nilang mag-anak... :D Kanya kanya ng tirada ang ating justice system... :ohno:

Sandigan orders release of ex-AFP comptroller Garcia (http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=640269&publicationSubCategoryId=63)

Sandigan orders release of ex-AFP comptroller Garcia
By Michael Punongbayan (The Philippine Star) Updated December 18, 2010 12:00 AM Comments

MANILA, Philippines - The Sandiganbayan ordered yesterday the temporary release of former military comptroller Maj. Gen. Carlos Garcia after he posted P60,000 bail.The Philippine National Police (PNP) Custodial Center in Camp Crame received the order signed by Justice Edilberto Sandoval, who chairs the anti-graft court’s Second Division.

In a two-page resolution penned by Associate Justice Teresita Diaz-Baldos, the Sandiganbayan said it granted the petition for bail filed by the accused hours after he pleaded guilty to direct bribery and to violation of the anti-money laundering law in a plea bargaining deal with state prosecutors.

“In light of the aforesaid circumstances, and considering that the offenses to which the accused pleaded guilty are bailable, the court hereby resolves to allow accused (Garcia) to post bail for his provisional liberty,” the anti-graft court ruled.

In its ruling, the Sandiganbayan directed the PNP to discharge Garcia from its custody “unless there be any other valid reason for further detaining him.”

Garcia, originally charged with plunder and violating Section 4(a) of the Anti-Money laundering Act (AMLA), pleaded guilty to lesser offenses Thursday based on his plea bargain deal with government lawyers.

Garcia’s bail was paid via a personal check delivered by his lawyer Constantino de Jesus.

Deputy Special Prosecutor Jesus Micael told The STAR the accused is entitled to post bail because he is now charged with bailable offenses.

He said the order to release Garcia from detention is “in accordance with the law” but stressed that his freedom is only temporary because he is awaiting sentence, the date of which has yet to be set. The prosecution team is led by Assistant Special Prosecutors Jose Balmeo Jr. and Joseph Capistrano.

Plea bargain deal illegal

But former Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo said the plea bargain agreement is illegal.

He explained that under the Rules of Court, a plea bargain agreement is allowed before the actual trial or before the presentation of evidence by the prosecution.

When asked if the Sandiganbayan justices can be held liable for the “illegal” plea bargain deal, Marcelo said, “I think so.”

“It’s (plea bargain deal) void. Lahat sila guilty diyan (All of them are guilty) criminally and administratively,” Marcelo told The STAR, referring to the Sandiganbayan justices.

He said the release order is a “patently void order” because “the court no longer has power to approve” the plea bargain agreement.

Marcelo said the anti-graft court should not have allowed such an agreement considering that the prosecution appeared to have strong evidence to convict Garcia.

But Micael disputed the former Ombudsman’s claims, saying “he doesn’t know his jurisprudence” citing the case of People of the Philippines versus Mamarion.

He said a plea bargain deal, according to the decision in the case, can be allowed “anytime before the decision of the court” and that it is the discretion of the court to approve the agreement.

jpdm

December 18th, 2010, 02:33 PM

malamang kasalanan din yan ni little evil gloria.....:lol: dahil yung SC ay halos lahat appointee ni nunal......:lol: di ba pnoy fans....?

Correct ka dyan!Usual suspect si Gloria!toinks!:lol::ohno::cheers:

....this commnet came from a Villar fan:lol::nuts:.:):cheers:

Kintoy

December 20th, 2010, 08:35 AM

may kinalaman si Gutierrez sa plea bargain, and the plea bargain was in the works during GMA's time pa:

Garcia plea bargain deal leads to Ombudsman

MANILA, Philippines—Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez should explain why prosecutors struck a deal with retired Major Gen. Carlos Garcia that allowed him to walk out of jail when there was enough evidence to imprison the former military comptroller for plunder, a Malacañang official said.

Deputy presidential spokesperson Abigail Valte said all that Malacañang knew was that the plea bargain negotiations, which resulted in Garcia leaving prison after posting a P60,000 bail, happened this year and before President Benigno Aquino III assumed office on June 30.

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20101220-309955/Garcia-plea-bargain-deal-leads-to-Ombudsman

Maxxclip

December 20th, 2010, 12:28 PM

^^i think it is time to call for the impeachment of Omb. Gutierrez.

her decision to accept the plea bargain agreement is too much to forgive.

2d0k

December 20th, 2010, 03:22 PM

^^i think it is time to call for the impeachment of Omb. Gutierrez.

her decision to accept the plea bargain agreement is too much to forgive.

It definitely is time.. Dapat matagal na tong nangyari..:ohno:

muzic_lover2981

December 21st, 2010, 07:37 AM

Guys cool lang...lahat ng bagay may perfect timing....hehehe

jpdm

December 22nd, 2010, 12:21 AM

Gagong Ombudsman. Gagong Sandiganbayan. Gagong Supreme COurt. Dumali ka naman Enrile. kang oportunista ka:bash::bash::bash:

Rage rises vs Garcia plea bargain deal

Biazon: There’ll be more Oakwoods in the future

By Leila B. Salaverria, Philip Tubeza, TJ Burgonio
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 00:24:00 12/22/2010

MANILA, Philippines—Business groups, the clergy, former soldiers and former prosecutors have added their voice to the growing clamor to undo the plea bargain deal between the anti-graft court’s prosecutors and retired Maj. Gen. Carlos Garcia that allowed him to leave his detention cell despite being charged with plunder.

The Makati Business Club (MBC) and the Management Association of the Philippines (MAP) slammed the deal, saying this could embolden other plunderers to take the same route.

In a joint statement, the business groups said the agreement ran counter to the Aquino administration’s anticorruption platform.

“It also serves as an open invitation for all others charged in corruption cases to pursue the route of plea bargains and runs the risk of encouraging future cases,” the MBC and MAP said.

Under the plea bargain deal, state prosecutors allowed Garcia to evade the capital offense of plunder by pleading guilty to the lesser offense of bribery and money laundering and returning some P130 million of the P303 million he was accused of illegally amassing while he was chief military comptroller.

He was allowed to post a P60,000 bail.

More Oakwoods

Muntinlupa Rep. Rodolfo Biazon, chair of the House committee on national defense, said the deal with the former military comptroller charged with plunder in effect justified the July 2003 Oakwood mutiny.

“If corruption in the AFP or in the government is handled this way there would be more Oakwoods in the future,” he said of the uprising by young military officers disgruntled with corruption in the military.

The officers included then Navy Lt. Antonio Trillanes IV, now senator, who was granted provisional liberty and walked free Monday night.

Former rebel Marine Col. Ariel Querubin said the plea bargain set a bad precedent for other graft cases that may be discovered in the military, but he doubted whether the deal would encourage another military uprising.

“We cannot really foresee the possibility. It only happens when there are idealistic officers and they see that our government is not being run well,” said Querubin who was among those implicated in the February 2006 attempted coup against the Arroyo administration.

Querubin said the deal had left a bad taste in the mouth because it was made while rebel soldiers like him who spoke up against corruption in the previous administration were granted amnesty by President Benigno Aquino III.

Unpalatable

Retired Archbishop Oscar Cruz described the plea bargain agreement as very odious and unpalatable.

“I’m just saying that the precedent set by this ruling is devastating … Why is it like that? That someone who is 99.91 percent guilty of bribery and plunder—including the wife and the two kids—all of a sudden gets away with a plea bargain,” Cruz said.

He said that while a portion of the P300 million that Garcia had allegedly plundered from government coffers during his stint as armed forces comptroller would be returned, a “bigger portion” would be retained by his family.

“So this is the way we do things in the country now? You steal and you steal and then all of a sudden you say ‘Well, I’m sorry. You keep half. I get half.’ and then bye-bye,” Cruz said.

Cruz said that he hoped that the Garcia plea bargain would not become a precedent for other plunder cases being handled by Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Gutierrez.

He said the deal would encourage “bribery and plunder, because you can get away with it with a plea bargain.”

Biazon warned that the plea bargain agreement could abet uprisings against military corruption.

Motion to intervene

Acting on Mr. Aquino’s orders, Solicitor General Anselmo Cadiz said he would file a motion to intervene at the Sandiganbayan to prevent Garcia from being cleared of plunder charges.

“We will intervene at the Sandiganbayan and ask the court to scuttle this illegal deal. We are objecting to this,” Cadiz said when reached on his mobile phone.

He said the platform of the President was against corruption. “Our duty is to do just that and support the President.”

He said the deal was flawed because it was made too late in the day. “The state has strong evidence to prosecute General Garcia,” he said.

He said the deal struck by Garcia and the Ombudsman did not speak well of the anti-graft body.

Marcelo offer

Former bigwigs of the Office of the Ombudsman have offered to team up with the executive in order to contest the plea bargain deal.

Former Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo and former Special Prosecutor Dennis Villa-Ignacio, who had filed the plunder case against Garcia and his wife and sons, made the offer in a letter to Mr. Aquino, where they also denounced and pointed out the loopholes in the move to negotiate with Garcia.

They said they could help the Office of the President and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) in filing before the Sandiganbayan of a motion for intervention with a motion to annul the plea bargaining agreement.

They could do the research and write the initial draft and subsequent pleadings, they added.

Marcelo and Villa-Ignacio said there was still something that the administration could do to rectify the prosecutors’ move. But the administration has to take action soon.

“We believe, therefore, that the situation is not totally lost. However, a swift and determined concrete action is expected from a leadership that has declared itself to be the sworn enemy of midnight deals and crooked means, of grafters and corrupt officers, and of abuses and injustice,” they said.

Shocker

They described the plea bargain deal was a “sordid shocker that is nothing sort of a betrayal of the public trust, and a reversal of whatever gains the nation may have had in its fight against graft and corruption.”

They also pointed out that the move to charge Garcia with plunder was intended to battle corruption in the military and address the grievances of young officers.

In their letter, Marcelo and Villa-Ignacio lamented how the government’s victory in the plunder case was apparent, given the denial of Garcia’s motion to dismiss the case based on a lack of evidence, the admission of Garcia’s wife that the family’s money had come from bribes and funds from military contracts, and his failure to cite a legitimate source of income to justify his massive wealth.

The former Ombudsman officials also detailed how the plea bargain agreement violated the rules of court, coming as it was after, and not before, the prosecutors completed their presentation of evidence.

They also said the OSG was in a position to contest the deal, since its duty is to protect the people’s interest, something which the plea bargain agreement contravenes.

JPE’s opinion

But Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile expressed doubt that the plea bargain could be reversed.

“(Garcia) has already been arraigned. The prosecutor has dismissed his case because of the plea bargain. You cannot reverse it anymore, the President cannot reverse it,” Enrile said. With reports from Abigail L. Ho, Marlon Ramos, Gil Cabacungan Jr. and Dona Pazzibugan

jpdm

December 22nd, 2010, 12:49 AM

Agree.

Alam ng gagong Supreme Court na hindi galing si Mikee Arroyo sa sektor na yun (security guard)pero binasura pa rin ang disqualification nya.

So anong tawag sa Supreme Court? Puro mga tarantado at bayaran Ni GLoria Dorobo!:bash::bash:

By the way, in an ANC show, Risa Hontiveros revealed that Mikee was one of her students. And Mikee according to her almost failed one subject.

Theres The Rub

Shameless

By Conrado de Quiros
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 05:53:00 12/21/2010

GLORIA MACAPAGAL-Arroyo is no longer in the P200 bill. Or no longer so prominently. She used to be at the back of it, being sworn in by Chief Justice Hilario Davide in 2001. She has been relocated instead to the front side, which carries the picture of her father, but it is not an upgrade. Her inauguration is just a tiny portrait, and her face can only be recognized by using a magnifying glass.

Where she used to be, there is now the tarsier of Bohol, one of the country’s tourist attractions, a near-extinct species that is being protected by environmental groups.

It’s as it should be. She should be thankful she still appears in any currency, however in vastly miniaturized form, as befits her stature in life. At least her 2001 inaugural was legitimate, the product of an EDSA. Her 2004 one was not, as she herself acknowledged by holding it in the dead of night, with only the dead, morally or otherwise, to witness it. I don’t know that a photograph of that exists. But it has no place in any currency, which doesn’t just mean money but means as well relevance, significance, continuing presence. Her replacement by a tarsier is particularly apt. It is not because she resembles one—a tarsier is far cuter—it is because, like a tarsier, she is an endangered species that is being vigilantly protected not by the environmental groups but by the Supreme Court. :bash::bash:

At least the tarsier does not deserve to become extinct. She does. :lol::lol:So do the people in the Court birthed not by the dawn but by the twilight.

The protection of her extends to her spawn. Barely had the Supreme Court ruled to scrap the Truth Commission, which would bring the dead of night to the light of day, than it ruled to remand the case of her son, Mikey Arroyo, to the House electoral tribunal where it has a better chance of getting through. The case concerns Arroyo representing security guards and drivers as a party-list representative.

What is there to remand? What is there to employ faculties of discernment for? As every barbershop analyst has pointed out, Arroyo has a right to represent the security guards and drivers of this country only in the same way that the Ampatuans have the right to represent the imams of the South. The only driver Arroyo knows is the one he uses in golf, and the only security guards he can remember, or probably not, are the ones his own security has roughed up for not saluting fast enough. It’s a slap at common decency, never mind basic democracy; and common decency, never mind government, should have slapped back the very day Arroyo slunk out of Malacañang.

Poor Diosdado, whose face still appears prominently on the P200 bill, as well it should. People who are still alive who once worked for him, or knew him, or remember him, say he was a good man. For him to have produced children and children’s children who would be known only for their grasping need, for their desperate craving for position they would do everything to have it, or cling to it, however petty, however humiliating, however shameless, that is the most unkindest cut of all. The only thing he may be thankful for is that they are known by a name other than “Macapagal.”

If you thought the days when Arroyo could do her worst and dare the country to do something about it are gone, think again.

Thanks to the Supreme Court, the one thing she booby-trapped with grateful appointees, their gratefulness now being shown by the day, she’s still there to torment us.:bash:

Are we so helpless, we can’t do a thing about it?

Not at all. There’s always People Power to push back tyranny and its vestiges. People Power does not always have to take the form of taking to the streets and making oppressors flee for dear life, though I wouldn’t mind seeing that happen again and again if that is what it would take to rid us of oppressors. People Power can take other forms. Public Opinion is one of them.

Or “Public Opinion” in the form of an ardently expressed collective outrage. The reason shameless behavior like this is seldom, if at all, shown by public officials in other countries is that this kind of Public Opinion exists. It is a palpable presence, it is a real currency, it is a powerful force that public officials dare not go against.

In countries like Japan and Korea, it’s almost unthinkable for something like this to happen. Just to have a whiff of impropriety attach to you is enough for you to resign, or disembowel yourself, the consequences of not doing so being more compelling than the fear of disgrace or death. Those consequences include unrelenting public derision and the ostracism of family from public life. Certainly you may no longer be expected to be made ninong or ninang in a baptism or wedding.

In countries like the United States and Western Europe, that same force is there, a public not willing to abide behavior like this. The outrage is not just spontaneous and widespread, it carries with it all sorts of sanctions. You are tainted with corruption or scandal, everyone expects you to resign, an expectation so obdurate it takes the form of an order. Daring the public to do its worst is not an option, the public will do its worst. Even brazening it through is not an option, every pressure from legal to moral will bear on you. In countries like these, Public Opinion takes on a force as strong as laws or arms, if not indeed stronger.

We can always show the equivalent of throwing shoes at Arroyo and her spawn, shouting, “This is your goodbye kiss, you dog.” We can always start with showing public derision at those who betray their calling, which is to make law serve justice and not thwart it, by making them pariahs in their own country. We can always make the shameless feel truly shameless.

That is Public Opinion. That is power.

Eastern Dragon

December 22nd, 2010, 04:50 AM

shameless is too tame a word to use for gutierez. kung sa japan or sa korea pa yan, nagreresign na agad dahil sa hiya, dito naman sa pinas, wala talagang hiya.

Askal82

December 22nd, 2010, 06:04 AM

What's going on with the justice system? Unbelievable! :ohno:

It looks like a catastrophe in the making.

bitoy

December 22nd, 2010, 07:03 AM

shameless is too tame a word to use for gutierez. kung sa japan or sa korea pa yan, nagreresign na agad dahil sa hiya, dito naman sa pinas, wala talagang hiya.

What's going on with the justice system? Unbelievable! :ohno:

It looks like a catastrophe in the making.

Nasilip nila kung papano gamitin ang Ombudsman at kung gaano kalakas ito o gaano kakapal ang mga mukha nito. The office of the Ombudsman should serve and answer to the people on what its agency is doing.

Mission of the Office of the Ombudsman
As protectors of the people, we shall endeavor, in cooperation with all sectors of the Filipino society, to promote integrity and efficiency and high ethical standards in public service through proactive approaches in graft prevention and public assistance, prompt investigation of complaints and aggressive prosecution of cases filed against erring public officials and employees.

"high ethical standards in public service" - imbis na "TANODBAYAN", parang SALOT NG BAYAN na ang OMBUDSMAN ng PINAS. :lol:

Kintoy

December 22nd, 2010, 09:24 AM

"Her replacement by a tarsier is particularly apt. It is not because she resembles one—a tarsier is far cuter—it is because, like a tarsier, she is an endangered species that is being vigilantly protected not by the environmental groups but by the Supreme Court."

this made my daw :D

Kintoy

December 22nd, 2010, 09:24 AM

shameless is too tame a word to use for gutierez. kung sa japan or sa korea pa yan, nagreresign na agad dahil sa hiya, dito naman sa pinas, wala talagang hiya.

dapat nag hara-kiri na, in front of the TV cameras, on prime time broadcast

Eastern Dragon

December 22nd, 2010, 09:28 AM

dapat nag hara-kiri na, in front of the TV cameras, on prime time broadcast

hindi na daw tatablan ng katana yan, sobrang kapal ng daw ng balat eh. kaya nga wala ng hiya. dapat 50 caliber machine gun na lang.

hindi daw uubra ang m16 bullets. :lol::lol:

Kintoy

December 22nd, 2010, 09:35 AM

dapat balatan ng buhay at idi-dip sa suka

jimPUNKZ

December 22nd, 2010, 09:46 AM

ganun ba ka-maimpluwensya si GMA kung kayat you can't get over her???:ohno:

jimPUNKZ

December 22nd, 2010, 09:49 AM

bitoy

December 22nd, 2010, 05:47 PM

^^ may dadami pa ba sa mga magnanakaw na nasa gobierno... :lol:

Maxxclip

December 23rd, 2010, 12:53 AM

^^some people say that...

"they're just like stars, we certainly can't count them all"

jpdm

December 23rd, 2010, 03:51 AM

^^may dadami pa ba sa mga magnanakaw na nasa gobierno..."

....more than a million strong all over the country...:lol::bash:

Kaya hirap si Pnoy na linisin gobyerno.

Halimbawa may dating presidente , asawa at panganay na anak, mga alipores nung dating presidente sa luma at bagong Congreso (pinakamalakas tumahol yung iba ngayon), BOC, BIR, DPWH, AFP, PNP at marami pang iba.

Eastern Dragon

December 23rd, 2010, 03:59 AM

....more than a million strong all over the country...:lol::bash:

Kaya hirap si Pnoy na linisin gobyerno.

Halimbawa may dating presidente , asawa at panganay na anak, mga alipores nung dating presidente sa luma at bagong Congreso (pinakamalakas tumahol yung iba ngayon), BOC, BIR, DPWH, AFP, PNP at marami pang iba.

lie edcel lagman. nakita nyo ba yung imbestigador last sat.

2/3 people complained that their names were being used as employees of a QC councilor. receiving salaries na hindi naman nila natatanggap.

pambihira. it turned out anak pala ni edsel. si edsel jr. ghost employees para makakuka ng pera.

and he claimed he did not know. ikaw pumipirma, hindi mo alam na employee mo eh. ilan lang ba employee assigned sa isang councilor? di ba mga 3-5 lang kadalasan. :lol:

jpdm

December 23rd, 2010, 04:20 AM

lie edcel lagman. nakita nyo ba yung imbestigador last sat.

2/3 people complained that their names were being used as employees of a QC councilor. receiving salaries na hindi naman nila natatanggap.

pambihira. it turned out anak pala ni edsel. si edsel jr. ghost employees para makakuka ng pera.

and he claimed he did not know. ikaw pumipirma, hindi mo alam na employee mo eh. ilan lang ba employee assigned sa isang councilor? di ba mga 3-5 lang kadalasan. :lol:

Edcel Lagman, the self-styled leader of the new opposition is actually the rear guard of Gloria and her minions in Congress and in the government...

Kumpleto...Supreme (Gloria's Kangaroo) Court, Office of the Ombudman etc..

Kaya nga si Pnoy aside from people with balls and integrity ang kailangan nila, kailangan din ng isang expert in exorcism kasi maraming iniwan na the grudge o ju-on (through a devilish witchcraft like process called midnight appointments)si gloria sa gobyerno.

Kasama si Gloria dun as tongressman.

r0mm3l

December 23rd, 2010, 06:04 AM

wat??? oh no!!! ano kaya ang mangyayari sa ating bayan pag hindi pa ito matigil..., tsk.tsk. :(

Parchie

December 23rd, 2010, 08:30 AM

....more than a million strong all over the country...:lol::bash:

Kaya hirap si Pnoy na linisin gobyerno.

Kasalanan ng tao yon! Ipinangako n'ya yon, di pala kaya?

Kumbaga, sumobra ang kuha nya ng kakanin at hindi pala niya kayang isubo lahat!

So impressed with himself, and he thinks everything is easy! Brats think like that, you know?

wino

December 23rd, 2010, 08:32 AM

^^ well he has to display braggadocio to win the hearts of the majority..

ironic, it's an old political trick.. but it totally worked!! i guess he is somehow smart after all :D

jpdm

December 23rd, 2010, 11:24 AM

Kasalanan ng tao yon! Ipinangako n'ya yon, di pala kaya?

Kumbaga, sumobra ang kuha nya ng kakanin at hindi pala niya kayang isubo lahat!

So impressed with himself, and he thinks everything is easy! Brats think like that, you know?

You should be happy that Pnoy wants to clean the government. Compared to Gloria who made it sure she soiled an already soiled government that she inherited.

b_two

December 23rd, 2010, 11:35 AM

jimPUNKZ

December 23rd, 2010, 12:06 PM

Kasalanan ng tao yon! Ipinangako n'ya yon, di pala kaya?

Kumbaga, sumobra ang kuha nya ng kakanin at hindi pala niya kayang isubo lahat!

So impressed with himself, and he thinks everything is easy! Brats think like that, you know?
^^i knew it,,,, he simply just cant do it:ohno:
siguro mababawasan ang mga kawatan,,,pero dadami naman mga rebelde!!!:lol::D

FYI,before cory died,she told noy not to run for higher post, instead,he asked noy to just finish his term as senator and then nevr run for any post.the late cory even told kris to take care of his big brother after she passes away.cory knows PNOY couldnt take care of himself that she had to tell kris to keep an eye on him.NOTE:,cory is the mother.she knows what noy is capable of and what he's not. thats all:D

merry christmas to yahh all:):cheers:

jimPUNKZ

December 23rd, 2010, 12:09 PM

You should be happy that Pnoy wants to clean the government. Compared to Gloria who made it sure she soiled an already soiled government that she inherited.

gusto lang naman pala nya ehhh....:ohno:bukambibig lang niya yun!!:ohno:

jpdm

December 24th, 2010, 02:22 AM

does it follow na pag dikit kay gma ay marumi pero pag dikit kay pnoy ay malinis? paano naman yung mga dating kadikit ni gma pero nakadikit na ngayon kay pnoy? ginamitan ba ng surf with antibac kaya malinis na din sila? :lol:

I think so. Starting with Alberto Romulo and Merceditas Gutierrez (holdover with fixed term)

Anyway,

Garcia peers oppose plea bargain

De Lima issues hold-departure order

BY EVANGELINE DE VERA
Malaya Business Insights
Dec.24, 2010

JUSTICE Secretary Leila de Lima yesterday issued a hold-departure order for former AFP comptroller Maj. Gen. (ret.) Carlos Garcia who was allowed to post bail Saturday under a plea bargaining agreement he entered into with the Ombudsman.

The Armed Forces, amid opposition to the plea bargain and warnings of its adverse effects on the military, said it would prefer the plunder trial against Garcia to continue.

"We should proceed with the court proceedings until such time we determine whether he is guilty or not…But there should be no (plea bargain). For the Armed Forces, it should be guilty or not guilty," said AFP chief Gen. Ricardo David.

The deal allowed Garcia, detained since 2005 for the non-bailable case of plunder for amassing P303 million while AFP military comptroller, to plead to the lesser offenses of indirect bribery and violation of the Anti-Money Laundering Act.

De Lima said Garcia has a tax evasion case pending before the Department of Justice for underdeclaring his income and submitting false tax returns.

She said the tax case against Garcia is up for resolution.

In a two-page order, De Lima directed Bureau of Immigration officer in charge Ronaldo Ledesma to prevent Garcia from leaving the country based on the pendency of the tax case for violation of the National Internal Revenue Code filed against him by the Bureau of Internal Revenue in 2005.

"We, in the DOJ, will do everything within our authority to ensure that offenders against the laws of our country will be brought to justice and made to answer for the crimes they have committed…We cannot allow unscrupulous elements to believe that they can continue to make a mockery of our criminal justice system," she said.

In March 2005, then BIR Commissioner Guillermo Parayno initiated the filing of tax evasion charges against Garcia and his wife Clarita for "grossly undeclaring their income" and for submitting false and fraudulent returns for taxable years 2002 and 2003.

BIR investigators alleged that Garcia underdeclared his income for the year 2002 by P3.4 million while his wife, who had no visible source of income, appeared to have made cash transactions consisting of investments in stocks and foreign currencies in the amount of P7.88 million, which were never declared in the income tax returns of the spouses.

De Lima said she has yet to receive new instructions from President Aquino, particularly in issuing a legal opinion with regards to the plea bargain agreement.

Aquino has ordered a review of the agreement.

The Office of the Solicitor General on Tuesday said it would file a motion to intervene before the Sandiganbayan in a bid to put Garcua back to jail.

AFP MOVE

The AFP chief said he has asked Brig. Gen. Gilberto Roa, the military’s Judge Advocate General, to study the case of Garcia, who was convicted by a military tribunal in 2005 and sentenced to two years in prison with hard labor, dishonorable discharge from the service and forfeiture of his benefits.

"Things like what happened to General Garcia should never happen to the organization (again). The organization is very mad with the improper use of resources," said David.

He hinted the military had made representations to oppose the plea bargain. "This was relayed. I told Roa not to have a plea bargain. The position of the soldiers, the position of the Armed Forces is no plea bargain as far as corruption charges against officers in the Armed Forces," he said.

"They have their own discussions. It’s not yet over," said David.

On Tuesday, former AFP chief now Muntinlupa Rep. Rodolfo Biazon said the plea bargain is a big blow to the morale of the soldiers.

GAG ORDER SLAMMED

At the House, Bayan Muna party-list Rep. Neri Colmenares urged President Aquino to exercise his power to "fire and remove" Special Prosecutor Wendell Barreras-Sulit and even Deputy Ombudsman Robert Kallos who were involved in the plea bargaining agreement.

Colmenares, a lawyer, also slammed the gag order issued Wednesday by Sandiganbayan Second Division on the Office of the Ombudsman, Garcia and his family, and their lawyers.

The Court prohibited the parties involved from making any statement relative to the case and the plea bargaining agreement until the plunder and money laundering cases against the defendants have been resolved.

"The gag order is unacceptable. The Sandiganbayan wants to keep the plea bargaining secret from the very offended party, the people. I am concerned that the court has approved the plea but is afraid to promulgate it because of the media attention," he said.

Sen. Francis Pangilinan called for public defiance of the gag order.

"Sa gag order, sa halip na tumahimik dapat lalo pang busisiin at pag-usapan ang kaso dahil habang ‘di pinag-uusapan baka mauwi sa aregluhan," he said.

"Meron ba silang itinatatago kaya ayaw nilang pagsalitain ang mga ito? Dapat mariing na tutulan ang gag order na ito. Dapat nang magparamdam ang taumbayan," Pangilinan said. – With Victor Reyes, Wendell Vigilia and JP Lopez

bitoy

December 24th, 2010, 08:03 AM

Report: SC fails to remit over P5B to national treasury (http://www.gmanews.tv/story/209034/report-sc-fails-to-remit-over-p5b-to-national-treasury)

SOPHIA M. DEDACE, GMANews.TV
12/24/2010 | 08:23 AM

Citing Commission on Audit (COA) reports in 2008 and 2009, a news magazine reported that the Supreme Court (SC) allegedly defied the law by failing to deposit to the national treasury over P5 billion in trust funds.

A Newsbreak report said the SC did not deposit to the Bureau of the Treasury over P5 billion in trust funds and millions of pesos more earned on fiduciary fund interests.

"The COA found out that, in 2008, the Court did not deposit P4.8 billion in trust receipts. By 2009, the running total was already P5.38 billion," said the Newsbreak article written by veteran journalist Marites Danguilan Vitug.

The article said the SC has yet to comply with COA's recommendations that the unremitted trust funds and interests earned on fiduciary funds be turned over to the treasury.

GMANews.TV tried but failed to reach SC spokesman and administrator Jose Midas Marquez as of posting time.

Executive Order (EO) No. 338 directs the deposit of cash balances to the national treasury.

"All government offices and agencies are hereby required to immediately transfer all public moneys deposited with depository banks and other institutions to the Bureau of the Treasury, regardless of income source," reads Section 2 of the EO.

Newsbreak said "the COA reports also show that, in 2008, interest earned on fiduciary funds and forfeited and confiscated bonds that was not remitted to the treasury was P74.6 million."

Fiduciary funds are proceeds that do not belong to the holder, which is mandated to remit the amount.

According to the Newsbreak article, forfeited or confiscated bonds "are derived from surety or cash bonds whenever the accused fails to appear in court when summoned." These bonds are what are popularly known as 'bail-money.'

What happened to the allowances, savings?

Months ago, Marquez mentioned that the judges might protest against supposed budget cuts in the judiciary.

The judiciary has requested a P27.1-billion budget for 2011, but the Department of Budget and Management allotted only P14.3 billion or half of what was requested.

The judiciary had been clamoring for a bigger budget, citing:

the need to repair dilapidated court rooms;

unpaid allowances amounting to P900 million, and

the lack of resources for a swift delivery of justice.

Despite the courts' supposed budget woes, the Newsbreak article noted that during a budget hearing in October, a scrutiny by the Senate's finance committee revealed that the SC has an unused amount of P236.7 million for allowances as of December 2008.

Askal82

December 24th, 2010, 10:40 PM

gusto lang naman pala nya ehhh....:ohno:bukambibig lang niya yun!!:ohno:

Well, ask yourself this one first:

May nagawa ba sa justice system yung mga nakaraang administrasyon? At kung nanalo nga ang manok mo nung halalan, mayroon din ba syang magagawa tungkol dyan?

Puros mga matatalino ang mga namumuno noon diba maliban lang kay Erap? :lol:

Dapat talaga baguhin ang sistema.

Linguine

December 26th, 2010, 01:30 PM

SC schedules 'wellness leave' for justices
By EDMER F. PANESA
December 26, 2010, 6:08pm

MANILA, Philippines – Every day, each magistrate of the Supreme Court (SC) has to go over voluminous case records in order to come up with decisions that would form part of the law of the land.

This can be tiring, exhausting, and stressful that they undoubtedly deserve a break from daily routine to look after their wellbeing.

Just recently, the SC en banc came up with a resolution approving the schedule of the “wellness leave” of its members for the year 2011 pursuant to the Court’s Wellness Program.

Under the program, each SC justice is entitled to a 15-day wellness leave where they can attend to their personal health needs like undergoing medical checkup, rest, and relaxation.

The program was first implemented in 2008 under the term of former Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno.

The wellness leave is on top of other regular leave benefits such as sick and vacation leaves.

The program promotes fewer sick days for justices and reduces the amount of medical attention required for them.

The following is the schedule of the wellness leave of the justices for next year: January 16 to 30, Justice Conchita Carpio Morales; February 16-March 2, Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura; March 16-30, Justice Arturo D. Brion; April 16-30, Justice Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno; June 1-15, Justice Diosdado M. Peralta; June 16-30, Chief Justice Renato C. Corona; July 16-30, Justices Roberto A. Abad and Teresita Leonardo de Castro; August 1-15, Justice Jose C. Mendoza; August 16-30, Justice Presbitero J. Velasco Jr.; September 16-30, Justice Martin S. Villarama Jr.; October 15-30, Justices Jose P. Perez and Antonio T. Carpio; and November 1-15, Justice Mariano C. del Castillo.

Lawyer Enriqueta E. Vidal, Clerk of Court-En Banc, said the schedule was based on the raffle conducted by the Raffle Committee for En Banc Cases held last October.

http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/294973/sc-schedules-wellness-leave-justices

Linguine

December 31st, 2010, 09:23 AM

SC HITS BACK
by Hector Lawas
Thursday, 30 December 2010 18:32

The word war between the Supreme Court and Malacañang intensified when a ranking official of the High Tribunal advised sourgraping President Benigno Aquino III to respect the tribunal’s ruling no matter how adverse it can be to the government.

Court Administrator and spokesman Midas Marquez invoked the independence of the High Court in issuing the statement.

“We have the highest respect for the president and the institution he represents. We have to adhere to his policies of governance. That is his jurisdiction.”

“In the same manner, the judiciary needs to decide cases in accordance with its understanding of the same constitutional provisions and principles. This too, will have to be respected, rather than impugned,” he said.

Marquez urged the President to stop comparing the voided Truth Commission to past presidential committees “more so if their creation were never questioned in Court.”

“I think what has to be clearly understood is that different branches of government have different roles to play, and we have to respect each of them in their exercise of their respective constitutional duties and mandates. We all have to work within this constitutional framework which the people ratified more than two decades ago,” he said.

Marquez also downplayed the challenge posed by the Palace that the High Court should prove that it is not against the Aquino administration and that it is not protecting former President Arroyo from charges.

“It is not the function of the court or its spokesman to explain its ruling beyond its written decision. It is best if institutions are preserved and respected,” he explained.

http://thepinoy.net/?page_id=13

Eastern Dragon

January 5th, 2011, 07:20 AM

no wonder these guys were trying to rush it under the noses of the new admin.
pera ng bayan. hanep talaga tong mga corrupt sa gobyerno.

Sandigan approval of Garcia plea bargain bared

By Leila Salaverria
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 14:07:00 01/05/2011

Filed Under: Graft & Corruption, Military

MANILA, Philippines – The Sandiganbayan anti-graft court has issued a resolution approving the plea bargain between prosecutors and former Armed Forces comptroller Carlos Garcia as early as May 4, 2010.
This information was contained in a motion to intervene filed Wednesday by the Office of the Solicitor General. The OSG asked the court to recall the resolution and nullify the agreement.

b_two

January 5th, 2011, 08:28 AM

Eastern Dragon

January 5th, 2011, 08:33 AM

between being optimistic and being realistic... i prefer the latter.

fixed. between the two, the first achieves extraordinary things. the other achieves what is expected of him.

b_two

January 5th, 2011, 10:44 AM

between being too optimistic and being realistic... i prefer the latter.

fixed. between the two, the first achieves extraordinary things. the other achieves what is expected of him.

nakalimutan mo o sinadyang tanggalin yung word na too? :lol:

Eastern Dragon

January 5th, 2011, 10:52 AM

nakalimutan mo o sinadyang tanggalin yung word na too? :lol:

kaya nga fixed eh. to denote na tinanggal ko yung isang word.

kasi you are not comparing right.

pwede too optimistic or too realistic. or optimistic or realistic.

there is a different standard for being too optimistic for being simply realistic, and hence since there is a flawed standard, it stands na flawed din ang choice mo kung saka sakali.

when making choices, make it like a new civic versus a new altis.

not an old civic versus a new camry. :cheers:

Parchie

January 6th, 2011, 02:53 AM

nakalimutan mo o sinadyang tanggalin yung word na too? :lol:

Huli mo! Nice sleuthing there, bro. Sharp pair of eyes you've got! Diyan talaga ang forte ng mga tao! Kung hindi ka ililigaw sa ibang topics, simplehan ka sa mga distorted quotes! Thanks for the heads-up!

bitoy

January 11th, 2011, 12:18 AM

:lol: Ang Sandigan ng bayan :ohno:

Nanisi pa... :D

Sandigan denies OK of Garcia deal (http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=647018&publicationSubCategoryId=63)
By Michael Punongbayan (The Philippine Star) Updated January 11, 2011 12:00 AM

MANILA, Philippines - Contrary to assertions of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), the plea bargaining agreement between the government and former military comptroller Carlos Garcia has not yet been approved, the Sandiganbayan said yesterday.

Presiding Justice Edilberto Sandoval, and Associate Justices Samuel Martires and Teresita Diaz-Baldos told Assistant Solicitor General Amparo Caboteje-Tang in open court that the anti-graft court’s May 4, 2010 resolution only sets the conditions before the deal can be approved.

However, Tang insisted that the plea bargaining agreement has been “virtually approved” based on the fact that the parties have already complied with conditions of the agreement.

When Baldos asked her who has the right to determine proof beyond reasonable doubt, Tang said it is the Sandiganbayan.

At Malacañang, deputy presidential spokesperson Abigail Valte questioned yesterday the anti-graft court’s pronouncement that it has not yet approved the plea bargaining agreement with Garcia.

“If the Sandiganbayan says that it did not approve the plea bargain agreement last May 4, 2010, why was Garcia allowed to post bail?” she asked.

Tang failed to answer the question of the justices why the OSG was intervening in the plea bargaining agreement.

Sandoval, second division chairman, wanted to know why the OSG did not join the prosecution in the last five years when Garcia was facing plunder charges before the anti-graft court.
“Why are you appearing only now?” he asked Tang, who argued for an hour and a half.

Associate Justice Martires asked Tang to read the Sandiganbayan’s May 4, 2010 resolution supposedly approving the plea bargaining agreement.

He told Tang to read further until the last part, which states that the conditions set by the plea bargaining agreement should be complied with “before” the agreement can be approved.

Diaz-Baldos also asked Tang what she thinks is the prosecution’s evidence that would establish beyond reasonable doubt the crime of plunder.

Tang said the denial of Garcia’s petition for bail in January 2010 is proof that the prosecution has strong evidence to convict him.

However, Sandoval said the Sandiganbayan’s decision to deny bail was “a divided call.” A special division of five had to be formed because there was no unanimity, he added.

Only three justices voted to deny, but two voted to grant, which means that had one more justice decided that Garcia should be given temporary liberty, he would have been released from detention, Sandoval said.

The anti-graft court also dismissed Tang’s argument that the Sandiganbayan did not follow the three-day rule in granting bail to Garcia after he pleaded guilty to the lesser offenses of direct bribery and facilitating money laundering on Dec. 16, 2010.

Sandoval said once an accused enters into a plea bargaining agreement and pleads guilty to lesser crimes, the latter “becomes the official and real indictment” which is why it is only logical that bail be granted. “The right of bail is rooted on a constitutional grant,” he told Tang.

Baldos asked Tang if she thinks strong evidence is tantamount to proof beyond reasonable doubt.

“A denial of a petition for bail does not mean that an accused will be convicted,” she said.

“How did you know that we did not make an assessment?”

The Sandiganbayan justices then asked the prosecution if all of Garcia’s assets identified in the plea bargaining agreement have already been transferred to the name of the Republic of the Philippines.

Assistant Special Prosecutor Jose Balmeo Jr. said the Office of the Ombudsman and the Office of the Special Prosecutor already have the P52 million, a number of vehicles from the Land Transportation Office (LTO) in Iloilo, and 11 land titles.

As to the property located in New York, the government’s “rightful share” can only be claimed as soon as the plea bargaining agreement is finalized through the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, he added.

Baldos asked Tang if she is amenable to transfer all these to the name of Garcia.

Tang did not give a direct response.

Baldos then asked the prosecution what elements of the crime of plunder can’t be proven.

Assistant Special Prosecutor Joseph Capistrano said the information approved by former ombudsman Simeon Marcelo accused Garcia of receiving commissions from AFP contractors and suppliers.

However, they failed to find any contractors who can prove the allegations, he added.

Baldos asked the prosecution if it is admitting that the phrasing of the information is defective or insufficient.

Capistrano refused to answer directly.

Sandoval told Capistrano: “The accused has so much money but your evidence will not stand in court.”

Capistrano said the Office of the Special Prosecutor also suffered a setback in November 2007 when its own witnesses, on cross-examination, testified that there are no missing military funds.

Records of the case show that Heidi Mendoza of the Commission on Audit (COA) testified that there are unaccounted funds worth P50 million at the United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB).

However, at least four other witnesses led by Nenita Cedre of the AFP’s accounting section later told the court that all funds are accounted for and the discrepancy was apparently due to late recording of accounts.

Martires advised Tang to read the transcript of stenographic notes of the case and go over the testimonies of the witnesses.

He said the Sandiganbayan is protecting the right of every person including the accused. “Let us be fair where fair is due,” he said.

“Let us give justice where justice is due. Let us not distort the facts.”

The justices also made it clear that Garcia’s lawyer Constantino de Jesus did not file a demurrer to evidence as stated in Marcelo’s and former special prosecutor Dennis Villa-Ignacio’s letter to President Aquino on Dec. 20, 2010.

In a demurrer to evidence, the accused will ask the court to rule on the case based on the prosecution’s evidence on the belief they are not enough to convict him or her. --With Aurea Calica

Eastern Dragon

January 11th, 2011, 03:06 AM

bluesgnt30

January 11th, 2011, 04:14 AM

Pardon my ignorance, but I would like to ask how the DOJ and SC related? DOJ being part of the executive branch, and SC of the JD branch? thanks

Eastern Dragon

January 11th, 2011, 07:14 AM

Pardon my ignorance, but I would like to ask how the DOJ and SC related? DOJ being part of the executive branch, and SC of the JD branch? thanks

the Supreme Court is part of the judicial branch of government.

the DOJ basically is the prosecuting arm of the government and hence most of its lawyers are called prosecutors.

they file the criminal cases in behalf of the people of the philippines. for example, webb.

the DOJ through its prosecutors filed the case (people of the philippines vs. Webb) because in a crime, the private offended party is vizconde but the public is the one generally harmed by the crime, hence itis people of the philippines.

the case is filed in the court. RTC and if appealed, napunta sa court of appeals. finally sa supreme court.

bitoy

January 11th, 2011, 07:37 AM

the Supreme Court is part of the judicial branch of government.

the case is filed in the court. RTC and if appealed, napunta sa court of appeals. finally sa supreme court.

Kaya nga siguro tawag sa SC is "Court Of The Last Resort" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_Philippines)

.... ng mga kawatan... :lol:

bluesgnt30

January 12th, 2011, 01:31 AM

the Supreme Court is part of the judicial branch of government.

the DOJ basically is the prosecuting arm of the government and hence most of its lawyers are called prosecutors.

they file the criminal cases in behalf of the people of the philippines. for example, webb.

the DOJ through its prosecutors filed the case (people of the philippines vs. Webb) because in a crime, the private offended party is vizconde but the public is the one generally harmed by the crime, hence itis people of the philippines.

the case is filed in the court. RTC and if appealed, napunta sa court of appeals. finally sa supreme court.

Thanks..

"they file the criminal cases in behalf of the people of the philippines. for example, webb."

I wonder what's the meaning of the phrase "in behalf of the People of the Philippines"? I've seen this when I read a subpoena before (____ vs People of the Philippines).

Is it because the accused person is a threat to other people of the country?

thank ^_^

Eastern Dragon

January 12th, 2011, 03:54 AM

Thanks..

"they file the criminal cases in behalf of the people of the philippines. for example, webb."

I wonder what's the meaning of the phrase "in behalf of the People of the Philippines"? I've seen this when I read a subpoena before (____ vs People of the Philippines).

Is it because the accused person is a threat to other people of the country?

thank ^_^

people of the philippines because in crimes,mala in se (wrong by their very nature like murder) or mala prohibita (wrong because society deemed it so, like carrying unlicense firearms), the offended party is the state/people, whose peace and order is generally disrupted by the crime commited.

so there is a private offended party in some crimes like murder. but in carrying unlicensed firearm, there is no private offended party but the state in general.

that is why criminal cases are read that way. people of the philippines versus joseph ejercito estrada. :lol:

bitoy

January 12th, 2011, 06:59 AM

^^ Pag "People of the Philippines VS People of the Philippines" - ang saya nito... :lol:

or "People of the philippines BS ERAP" :lol: or the other way around... :lol:

jpdm

January 12th, 2011, 10:54 AM

Ombudsman, Sandinganbayan at Supreme Court bulok.:bash::bash:

blitzmage_89

January 13th, 2011, 04:48 PM

The justice system is fine. When you read codes and provisions it's actually very idealistic.

It's the implementation that needs serious fixing.

Parchie

January 13th, 2011, 11:46 PM

The justice system is fine. When you read codes and provisions it's actually very idealistic.

It's the implementation that needs serious fixing.

Yep! I agree. And you can't fix it with a budget of less than 1 percent of the national budget!

If everyone in the present admin thinks like you do, perhaps the budget for the judiciary could have been bigger, right?

blitzmage_89

January 14th, 2011, 04:13 PM

The law is the social fiber that binds our civilized society.

Society crumbles and fails without its proper implementation :P

On a sidenote, you can truly appreciate the slyness and cleverness of GMA. It's as if all the chess pieces are cleverly arranged to prevent any checkmate on her side.

Had she used her wit for society's benefit, no doubt she could have even exceeded the landmark achievements of Ferdinand Marcos.

bitoy

January 14th, 2011, 09:17 PM

:bash: My gulay...naging mga pilosopo pa ang mga kawatan na mga ito... :ohno:

Wealth doesn't prove plunder in Garcia case – prosecutors (http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/01/14/11/wealth-doesnt-prove-plunder-garcia-case-prosecutors)

MANILA, Philippines (UPDATE) - The wealth of former military comptroller Maj. Gen. Carlos Garcia, estimated to have reached P303.27 million, does not mean that he is guilty of plunder, government prosecutors said Friday.

In a press briefing, Deputy Special Prosecutor Jesus Micael said government prosecutors lacked evidence to prove that Garcia, his wife and children received bribes and kickbacks amounting to P303.27 million from 1993 to 2004.

Lawyer Jose Balmeo Jr. of the Office of the Special Prosecutor said that in 2006, the Ombudsman had gathered several pieces of evidence showing the wealth accumulated by Garcia while in active service.

The evidence included titles of properties including a unit in Trump Plaza, statements of assets, liabilities and net worth of the Garcias, certificates of registration of motor vehicles of the Garcias and a photocopy of a handwritten statement of Garcia's wife, Clarita, admitting that her family received millions of pesos in kickbacks from government contractors.

Assistant Special Prosecutor Joseph Capistrano said the evidence gathered by the Ombudsman showed "evidence of wealth but not evidence of plunder."

....

No need to read further...sayang lang oras niyo... :lol:

"evidence of wealth but not evidence of plunder"

ok, lahat ng mga corrupt, ituloy ang ligaya..walang problema sa korte yan... :lol:

blitzmage_89

January 16th, 2011, 02:22 AM

Parchie

January 16th, 2011, 04:10 AM

It's stupid that while everybody knows we have one of the most corrupt governments in Asia, our conviction rate is so low. The last time I checked only 26 out of around 2000 cases heard by the Sandiganbayan results in a conviction.

No wonder lawyers and judges are desiring to get a position in Sandiganbayan.

This is an old book by a person who studied law, became a lawyer but wrote a book not for lawyers.
Woe unto you lawyers! (http://www.constitution.org/lrev/rodell/woe_unto_you_lawyers.htm)

Kintoy

January 16th, 2011, 08:54 AM

bitoy

January 16th, 2011, 09:06 AM

^^ Malapit lapit na sabihin ng mga prosecutors that "money grow on trees." :lol:

Kintoy

January 16th, 2011, 09:07 AM

and his wife admitted to US authorieties that the money came from suppliers

Askal82

January 16th, 2011, 08:17 PM

They are either incompetent or pretending to be one. I think it's the latter. Those prosecutors should be charged too.

bitoy

January 21st, 2011, 06:47 PM

^^ Sa sama ng conviction record ng Sandigangbayan, maraming nakalusot sa lagayan...

In comparison with its conviction records at the Sandiganbayan over the past 30 years, the Ombudsman’s figures at present is actually much worse.

Based on data compiled from 1979 to 2008, government prosecutors have scored less than three convictions for every 10 criminal cases filed against erring public officials.

Of 29,531 criminal cases decided by the Sandiganbayan since 1979, only 8,477 resulted in guilty verdicts which translates to a 28.71 conviction rate.

The number of cases disposed does not include civil lawsuits, appealed cases from lower courts and special civil actions.

"I'm just a lowly general" ~ Gen. Garcia :lol:

'Garcia didn't admit he's AFP comptroller' (http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=650353&publicationSubCategoryId=63)

By Rhodina Villanueva (The Philippine Star) Updated January 22, 2011 12:00 AM

MANILA, Philippines – After denying that he had plundered more than P300 million in taxpayers’ money, former military general Carlos Garcia now claims to have never admitted being a comptroller, a position that would have given him vast control over disbursement of funds.

“There was no admission that he held the position of comptroller. There were many major generals in the military but not all of them were comptroller,” Garcia’s lawyer Constantino de Jesus told the Sandiganbayan Second Division. De Jesus said that there was only a reference to Garcia’s rank as major general and not as comptroller.

But the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) laughed off De Jesus’ claim, saying it won’t weaken the plunder case against the retired military official.

Assistant Solicitor General Amparo Cabotaje-Tang said they would continue to oppose the plea bargaining agreement between the accused and the Office of the Special Prosecutor.

“If he (Garcia) was not allowed to plead guilty to lesser offense of direct bribery, he would not be out on bail. He continues to be charged with plunder,” Cabotaje-Tang told the anti-graft court. Also under the plea bargain deal, Garcia promised to return P130 million to the government.

Cabotaje-Tang stressed that any public official who amassed P50 million or more in ill-gotten wealth should be charged with plunder.

cribs88

January 27th, 2011, 09:38 AM

The judiciary system should be totally reformat!

jpdm

January 28th, 2011, 11:35 AM

God damned super balimbing Enrile acts like its defending Garcia and those stupid government prosecutors from the stupid and useless office of the Ombudsman.

Reyes and Garcia are all blatant liars.

bitoy

February 1st, 2011, 07:32 AM

I was watching the coverage.... Merceditas Guttierez said "tamaan man ng kidlat...blah blah.." - biglang ilag yung mga nagtatanong sa house panel. :lol:

Ombudsman defends Garcia deal in House probe (http://www.gmanews.tv/story/211977/ombudsman-defends-garcia-deal-in-house-probe)

Ombudsman Merceditas Guitterez is standing by the plea bargaining agreement entered into by her office and former military comptroller Carlos Garcia, who is facing a P303-million plunder case before the Sandiganbayan.

Gutierrez told members of the justice committee of the House of Representatives on Tuesday that she, upon the recommendations of special prosecutors under her supervision, chose to approve the deal because of “weak" evidence against Garcia.

“There was no evidence to convict Garcia... I acted based on recommendations that there was weak evidence," she said.

She added that the deal was the only way the government could “end up as the winner in the case."

“Kung maa-acquit lang siya (If he’ll just be acquitted) and he can get away with it, we might as we get what we can so we can end up as the winner," said Gutierrez, who has been named respondent in several impeachment complaints filed with the House of Representatives.

Eastern Dragon

February 1st, 2011, 07:43 AM

bitoy

February 1st, 2011, 07:46 AM

this ombudsman should be stoned to death. :ohno::ohno:

Baka hindi tumalab, matigas ang mukha talaga. Yung mga sagot niya, talagang decided na walang ebidensiya kay Gen. Garcia to convict him, ayaw pakinggan yung bagong revelation ng mga bagong witnesses... :lol:

Parchie

February 2nd, 2011, 03:16 AM

Yung mga sagot niya, talagang decided na walang ebidensiya kay Gen. Garcia to convict him, ayaw pakinggan yung bagong revelation ng mga bagong witnesses... :lol:

Forgive me, pero iba ang narinig ko kahapon sa House Committee proceedings as against dyan sa mga sinasabi mo p're! My ears are good and what I heard was that Ms. Mercy Gutierrez said she is going to investigate what documents/ proof Rabusa and Heidi Mendoza have which could ultimately alter the stand of the Ombudsman re Garcia case. The problem Gutierrez said was that it was very hard to connect things to Garcia. (you know, lawyers!)

I don't want to get into a "your word against mine" thing but that's what I heard and I even waited for the late night replay of the said video clip on ANC to verify. Pray tell me I'm wrong!

bitoy

February 2nd, 2011, 07:36 AM

Forgive me, pero iba ang narinig ko kahapon sa House Committee proceedings as against dyan sa mga sinasabi mo p're! My ears are good and what I heard was that Ms. Mercy Gutierrez said she is going to investigate what documents/ proof Rabusa and Heidi Mendoza have which could ultimately alter the stand of the Ombudsman re Garcia case. The problem Gutierrez said was that it was very hard to connect things to Garcia. (you know, lawyers!)

I don't want to get into a "your word against mine" thing but that's what I heard and I even waited for the late night replay of the said video clip on ANC to verify. Pray tell me I'm wrong!

I watch that also, you said "she's going to investigate"? :lol:
If not for the repeated statements of the house panel for her to start investigating, she keep on trying to shy away from that "INVESTIGATING" word.

“We still have to look at documents that would corroborate the testimony of Heidi Mendoza. I cannot at this point already say we have a position with regard to the plea bargain pending with Sandiganbayan. - M. Guttierez.

Kung hindi pa pinagpilitan ng mga representatives ang dapat niyang sabihin, masyadong defensive ang kanyang action and her stand on that plea bargain.

And she keep on saying beforehand that they have very few evidence to work on.

Now, you be the judge kung kulang pa ang mga ebidensiya to convict Gen. Garcia and family of wrongdoings.

Parchie

February 2nd, 2011, 07:47 AM

I watch that also, you said "she's going to investigate"? :lol:
If not for the repeated statements of the house panel for her to start investigating, she keep on trying to shy away from that "INVESTIGATING" word.

“We still have to look at documents that would corroborate the testimony of Heidi Mendoza. I cannot at this point already say we have a position with regard to the plea bargain pending with Sandiganbayan. - M. Guttierez.

Kung hindi pa pinagpilitan ng mga representatives ang dapat niyang sabihin, masyadong defensive ang kanyang action and her stand on that plea bargain.

And she keep on saying beforehand that they have very few evidence to work on.

Now, you be the judge kung kulang pa ang mga ebidensiya to convict Gen. Garcia and family of wrongdoings.

Now, there lies the difference! Crystal!

Eastern Dragon

February 2nd, 2011, 07:47 AM

Askal82

February 2nd, 2011, 08:05 AM

bitoy

February 2nd, 2011, 11:11 PM

Dapat makulong ang mga ito at tangalin ang retirement benefits nila. Walang mangyayari sa suspension.

Ombudsman affirms suspension of 'Euro generals' (http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=653922&publicationSubCategoryId=63)

By Michael Punongbayan (The Philippine Star) Updated February 03, 2011 12:00 AM Comments (6)

MANILA, Philippines - Ombudsman Ma. Merceditas Gutierrez affirmed her decision to place under six-month preventive suspension the six police officials who were implicated in the so-called “Euro generals” scandal.

In her order issued yesterday, Gutierrez junked the appeal of the police officers linked to retired police comptroller Director Eliseo de la Paz and his wife who were caught carrying 105,000 euros or P6.9 million at a Moscow airport in Russia in 2008.

Gutierrez said there is no sufficient reason to reverse an earlier ruling that suspended Special Disbursing Officer Samuel Rodriguez, Finance Service Director Orlando Pestano, Budget Division Director Tomas Rentoy III, Superintendent Elmel Pelobello, Directorate for Human Resources and Doctrine Development chief Director German Doria, and Directorate for Operations chief Director Silverio Alarcio Jr.

The six officials are being investigated for their involvement in the anomalous trip of De la Paz and several other senior police officials to Russia in October 2008 for the 77th International Police (Interpol) General Assembly held at St. Petersburg in Russia.

They are facing administrative charges for grave misconduct, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service and criminal charges of graft and falsification along with higher ranking police officials led by De la Paz.

De la Paz and his wife Marie Fe were held at Moscow airport last Oct. 11, 2008, for carrying undeclared cash amounting to 105,000 euros when they attended the Interpol conference.

The other police officials in the PNP delegation to the Interpol meeting were Deputy Directors General Emmanuel Carta, Ismael Rafanan, Directors Romeo Ricardo, Silverio Alarcio, German Doria and Jaime Caringal, Superintendent Elmer Pelobello, the aide of the delegation.

Gutierrez issued preventive suspension orders against only six of the 12 respondents in the case considering that De la Paz, Avelino Razon Jr., Ricardo, Carta, Rafanan, and Caringal have already retired from the service.

jpdm

February 3rd, 2011, 12:30 AM

Money talks. bullshit walks. :lol::lol:

i will take the word of simeon marcelo anytime over that of merci gutierez.

Me too.

Light years credibility in Marcelo kay inutil at bobong Gutierrez at yung tamad at bobong prosecutors.

Nanood din ako nung hearing kitang kita naman ang katangahan ng office of the ombudsman at ng special prosecutors. Kahit sa senado, tupalpal si super balimbing Enrile kay Marcelo.Anyway ito sabi ni Enrile (animado naman na magaling at tuso ito)

Enrile: Mendoza exposé should make Ombudsman rethink plea bargain

By TJ Burgonio
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 23:06:00 02/02/2011

"If I were the Ombudsman, with that revelation, I will have to rethink the plea bargain agreement because the statement of that woman is a telling indictment of the entire system,'' Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile said.

Garcia had pleaded guilty to offenses lesser than plunder and money laundering, the crimes he was originally charged with, and in exchange he would surrender over P100 million of the P303 million he allegedly stole from military coffers in a plea bargain he forged with prosecutors.

Enrile praised Mendoza for her courage in exposing the diversion of military funds into the pockets of top officials.

"That lady is a very credible witness. She's articulate, intelligent and courageous. She presented a very good case for the people of the Philippines,'' Enrile told reporters.

Testifying before the House justice committee, Mendoza detailed the money trail surrounding the P200 million United Nations fund, P50 million of which had allegedly been diverted and is missing.

Enrile, defense secretary during martial law, said he had been saddened by exposés on the standard practice of paying off the top brass from military funds.

“I did not have any problem of that kind. Of course, when you're dealing with men and women in a large organization, there are always aberrant individuals. It would seem the organization has been mired by the activities of certain individuals and I think there is a need to cleanse it,” he said.

He said the real solution lay with “letting the axe fall on the heads of whoever is guilty of misbehavior.'”

Enrile acknowledged that such exposes of corruption involving high-ranking officials would take its toll on the morale of military men deployed in the field.

“That will bring about a problem of morale in the Armed Forces. If an ordinary soldier will hear a thing like that, he will feel bad. Even the junior officers will feel bad. We should be very careful that the rank and file in the military will not be disillusioned and disaffected,” he said.

Itong moron na ombudsman ngayon may gana pang pagtaray.:bash:

DoJ chief, Ombudsman trade barbs over Garcia plea bargain controversy

By Tetch Torres
INQUIRER.net
First Posted 17:33:00 02/02/2011

Filed Under: Conflicts (general), Politics

MANILA, Philippines – Justice Secretary Leila De Lima and Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez traded barbs Wednesday over the issue of former military comptroller Carlos Garcia and retired Lieutenant Colonel George Rabusa.

Gutierrez, in response to De Lima’s statement on the plea bargaining agreement between them and the military, said “Bakit sya nagsasalita ni hindi naman nya nakita ang lahat ng dokumento at ebidensya [Why is she reacting when she hasn’t even seen all the documents and evidence]?”

De Lima, at a press conference said with the new evidence coming out, the Office of the Ombudsman should move for the cancellation of the plea bargaining agreement.

De Lima added that “if you have an Ombudsman who does not seem to realize that public funds are involved in [the Garcia case] then you have a problem."

“Magtrabaho sya. Huwag nya akong pakialaman [She should work. She should not interfere],” Gutierrez said.

De Lima countered: “Nagtatrabaho naman ako [I am working]…I don’t want to dignify comments like that, that is so unprofessional.”

Askal82

February 3rd, 2011, 01:16 AM

^^ I think it's high time to investigate and the ombudsman for obstruction of justice. I would like to see a chain reaction here. :lol:

Eastern Dragon

February 3rd, 2011, 05:39 AM

si gutierrez, kakatakot ang mukha. sungay na lang kulang, mukha na talaga demonyo. tulad ni corona.

bitoy

February 3rd, 2011, 06:17 AM

Another witness just came out, Colonel Antonio Lim ... mistahan na ang labanan nito. Mapupuno ng mga opisyal ng AFP ang camara sa dami ng iimbistigahan. :lol:

Eastern Dragon

February 3rd, 2011, 06:20 AM

Another witness just came out, Colonel Antonio Lim ... mistahan na ang labanan nito. Mapupuno ng mga opisyal ng AFP ang camara sa dami ng iimbistigahan. :lol:

matalino din talaga to si aquino. by going strong against military corruption, he has effectively killed any coup attempts in his regime.

kasi, sino naman colonel at captain all the way to the EP na sasama sa mga general kung magcoup ang mga yan. :lol::lol:

hitting two birds with one stone. :banana:

bitoy

February 3rd, 2011, 06:38 AM

matalino din talaga to si aquino. by going strong against military corruption, he has effectively killed any coup attempts in his regime.

kasi, sino naman colonel at captain all the way to the EP na sasama sa mga general kung magcoup ang mga yan. :lol::lol:

hitting two birds with one stone. :banana:

Somehow, some junior officers will have the guts to go against some unwritten rules in the military. Magwawatak watak na yung association of Generals in the AFP, marami sa kanila me kaso. :lol:

Eastern Dragon

February 3rd, 2011, 06:47 AM

Somehow, some junior officers will have the guts to go against some unwritten rules in the military. Magwawatak watak na yung association of Generals in the AFP, marami sa kanila me kaso. :lol:

divide and conquer strategy kay aquino.

ok. approve. next in line would be SC.

aquino already has control over congress. senate, medyo ok na. military ok.

corona is next. :lol:

Askal82

February 3rd, 2011, 07:08 AM

bitoy

February 3rd, 2011, 09:39 AM

It seems we all know where these trail of anomalies will lead us to - their mother. :lol:

She wanted to be called Ate or Tita as mentioned by some junior officers. Parang matanda daw pag tatawagin siyang Ma'm or Madam. :D

Money Trail to HK and Panama? :lol:

Eastern Dragon

February 3rd, 2011, 09:49 AM

Money Trail to HK and Pampanga? :lol:

fixed. :ohno::lol:

jpdm

February 4th, 2011, 12:55 AM

divide and conquer strategy kay aquino.

ok. approve. next in line would be SC.

aquino already has control over congress. senate, medyo ok na. military ok.

corona is next. :lol:

Agree.

Even inutile Ombudsman Gutierrez cant resist the pressure given to her. She looks like a blundering fool during the hearings.

Impeach the Ombudsman. Then open the can of worms (cases) pending in her office.

Then jail all those corrupt officers from the military. Thank God, Pnoy government installed people in the military that will not tolerate and cover up the excesses made by the military monsters create Gloria just to stay in power.

Then Corona.

Eastern Dragon

February 4th, 2011, 03:56 AM

Agree.

Even inutile Ombudsman Gutierrez cant resist the pressure given to her. She looks like a blundering fool during the hearings.

Impeach the Ombudsman. Then open the can of worms (cases) pending in her office.

Then jail all those corrupt officers from the military. Thank God, Pnoy government installed people in the military that will not tolerate and cover up the excesses made by the military monsters create Gloria just to stay in power.

Then Corona.

and the crown will fall. :lol:

jpdm

February 5th, 2011, 03:28 AM

and the crown will fall. :lol:

Even the reputation of the Philippine Military Academy is now tarnsihed by the thieving ways of military generals.

The thing is e ano kung masira lahat ang imahen ng mga institutions na ito. Importante may cleansing.

Sumpreme Court na susunod. Tapusin na ang laban.

Eastern Dragon

February 5th, 2011, 08:59 AM

muntik pa naman ako mag PMA. lokohin ko nga yung pinsan ko na pmayer. kasi motto nila,

A cadet does lie, cheat or steal. . . . . . . . . . . . a general does. hahahahaha

boypad

February 6th, 2011, 11:09 AM

Parceling Luisita now can undercut SC ruling

POSTSCRIPT By Federico D. Pascual Jr. (The Philippine Star)
February 06, 2011 12:00 AM

RULING AWAITED: There is persistent talk that the Supreme Court is ready to hand down a decision on Hacienda Luisita for the 6,500-hectare sugar estate in Tarlac to be parceled out and given to its tenants as mandated by the agrarian reform law.

That is, however, not confirmed. In short, it is still rumor.

But whatever happens to the Luisita case, the political interests of President Noynoy Aquino and the higher interests of the presidency would be served if his clan moves early to transfer the land to the tenants and help them maximize their yield and improve the quality of their lives.

* * *

WIN OR LOSE: For impact purposes, preemptive distribution of the land must be carried out regardless of how and when the Supreme Court resolves the Luisita issues before it.

• If the Luisita clan loses the case and then must comply with the SC decision, it would look like they gave the land to the tenants only because the Court ordered it. That is not a pretty picture.

• If the Luisita clan wins the case and keeps the land, the strife may not necessarily end there. The legal debate and possible physical resistance could continue. The seeming reluctance and resistance of the clan to agrarian reform would continue to haunt the Aquino presidency.

* * *

UNDERCUT THE SC: We assume that the President has up-to-date A-1 intelligence on the status of the case, so his clan should be able to move before the court hands down a ruling.

If an adverse SC decision is coming as rumored, the magnanimous act of distributing the land now will make the court’s ruling somewhat irrelevant.

In a real sense, the distribution will make President Aquino come out winner — thereby easing the hurt of the loss of the heirloom estate and undercutting the political setback dealt by the adverse SC ruling.

After distributing the land, the more the hacienda owners will grow in esteem by helping the new small owners organize to achieve economy of scale, adopt modern farming and integrate production and marketing efforts.

Hacienda Luisita could become a model of enlightened agrarian reform, helping cement the Aquinos’ place in history.

* * *

COMPARATIVE VALUE: Discounting its sentimental value, how much is Hacienda Luisita worth compared with the presidency that is again in the hands of a member of the clan?

What is the market value of Luisita before and after its worth zoomed with its being traversed and served by the Subic-Clark-Tarlac Expressway (SCTEx) that has been pumping economic blood into Central Luzon?

Assuming Luisita is worth P2 billion, the Philippine presidency — not to mention the legacy that history assigns to it — is definitely worth more than that.

Keeping both Luisita and a viable presidency for a full six-year term may be a difficult endeavor. If Noynoy Aquino (with the clan behind him) has to make a choice, will he cling to Luisita or aim for leaving another Aquino presidency that history will treat with Camelot-like fondness?

* * *

NICHE IN HISTORY: Way back on Aug. 22, 2010, we wrote in Postscript: President Aquino is standing on a stage of history where he could be projected as the nation’s most socially enlightened president ever.

In one bold stroke of his pen, he could be that president.

The storyline revolves around Hacienda Luisita, the family heirloom. The 6,500-hectare sugar estate in Tarlac is enough to gain for Noynoy that coveted niche in history that had eluded his father Ninoy in death and his mother Cory in life.

The entire scenario rests on his solemn oath as president to defend the Constitution and execute the law.

He has reiterated this oath and promise so often that he is now unable to evade it. Not that he has any intention of dodging duty. He has, to use a worn-out metaphor, painted himself to a corner.

* * *

VISION & LEGACY: If the Supreme Court decides that Hacienda Luisita must not be packaged as a stock corporation but parceled out to the tenants as mandated by the agrarian reform law, the President is duty-bound to carry out that ruling without mental reservation.

An SC decision adverse to the hacienda owners is still a big if. But if it does come, that could be the defining moment of Noynoy, who could then cement the Aquino legacy on social justice without having to die for it.

If he has the vision, and the right advice, Noynoy should now prepare precisely for that possibility — a Court order hewing to the letter and spirit of the law giving the tenants the land they had tilled for generations.

* * *

MODEL HACIENDA: As promised, the President should forthwith execute the (any) decision. Despite their sentimental attachment to the hacienda, the clan should not fall back to a Plan B exploring a possible evading or diluting of the decision.

Respecting a Supreme Court decision is standard reaction. President Aquino can rise above the norm by his exemplary handling of the situation after the land is distributed to the workers.

In quick follow-up, President Aquino can make history and notch a mark for social justice by moving resolutely to transform Hacienda Luisita into a Model Agrarian Reform Area. It will be a dramatic statement that he truly cares.

hakz2007

February 8th, 2011, 05:06 PM

Reminders:

1. Strong reminder on posting images: provide credit, link to source and respect copyrights! (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/announcement.php?f=585&a=1131)

This is a strong reminder to all forum users that posted images which are not owned and hosted by yourself must be properly credited, a link to the source must be provided and individual copyrights respected. Posted images which are not compliant to this are subject to removal. Thanks all for your cooperation.

2. When posting online articles/news items. (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/announcement.php?f=585&a=477)
When posting articles taken from online sources, please also take the time to provide the link as to acknowledge your source. It's only fair and just to do so. Thank you very much for your cooperation on this matter.

All images and news items/articles posted without proper sourcing or linking will be subject for deletion.

bitoy

February 9th, 2011, 07:50 AM

Under Merci, Ombudsman goes after mostly small fish (http://www.gmanews.tv/story/212494/under-merci-ombudsman-goes-after-mostly-small-fish)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_5rqAQDIgNCQ/Sq8xHv4oCsI/AAAAAAAABQU/kvvhL1Dj8jE/s400/gutierrez.jpg

By Karol Anne M. Ilagan & Malou Mangahas, PCIJ
02/08/2011 | 05:02 PM (http://www.gmanews.tv/story/212494/under-merci-ombudsman-goes-after-mostly-small-fish)

(Second of Four Parts)

WHO has been jailed for corruption in the Philippines?

In its search for answers, the Philippine Threshold Program launched a study on “Time Served for Corruption" covering 118 cases from 2001 to 2008 of public officials who had been prosecuted by the Ombudsman, convicted by the Sandiganbayan, and sent to jail after the Supreme Court upheld their convictions.

Over three-fourths or 93 of the cases were in different stages of execution proceedings. The small balance of 25 individuals had been served court orders committing them to prison, but nearly half or 11 had been pardoned by then-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

In short, less than one in every 10 persons convicted of corruption since 2001 has actually been jailed.

Furthermore, of the 14 persons with court-issued jail sentences, only seven are actually serving time. And worst of all, of the seven in jail, only one person has completed his/her prison sentence.

As of 2009, of the seven serving time, the highest ranking officials are two barangay chairmen.

But the Office of the Ombudsman, which received $6.5 million as its share in the Philippine Threshold Program, says it is doing its best despite what it has repeatedly described as limited resources.

Bristling at the barrage of criticism it has attracted – especially since Merceditas N. Gutierrez became its head in December 2005 – the Office says it is a victim to misperceptions that in turn can be traced to malicious media reports.

In its latest annual report that covered 2009, the Office says it investigated and adjudicated a total of 8,000 cases. In addition, sanctions were imposed on at least 500 public officials and employees nationwide, the report says. Among these were the suspension and dismissal of high-ranking officials or those who occupy positions with salary grade 27 (or those receiving an annual salary of P446,076) and above, such as municipal mayors, regional directors, and university presidents.

But interviews with observers, complainants, and former and present Ombudsman insiders, as well as a closer scrutiny of official data reveal a different picture. Indeed, indications are that the Office has been failing in its duty to act promptly on complaints and to prioritize those involving high-ranking officials, grave offenses, and large sums of money and property.

Too, while it constantly pleads poverty whenever it is asked why it cannot do more or better, it has been so generous to its own employees that they have not only enjoyed classes on such things as siomai-making and cosmetology, but also bonuses that, some former and present insiders say, have sometimes coincided with Gutierrez’s birthday or the filing of an impeachment complaint against her.

The public perhaps would overlook the latter if only the Office had proved instrumental in curbing corruption and inefficiency in government. But it apparently hasn’t, prompting people like human-rights leader Marie Hilao-Enriquez (whose group Karapatan has helped file at least six cases before the body) to complain, “Patong-patong na violations nila (Their violations are already piling up)."

first knight

February 15th, 2011, 09:54 PM

SC: Impeach Gutierrez

We are not an Arroyo court, says Marquez

By Marlon Ramos
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 00:58:00 02/16/2011

MANILA, Philippines—The impeachment of Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez is now a distinct possibility.

Voting 7-5, with two justices partially concurring with the majority and one abstaining, the Supreme Court Tuesday threw out Gutierrez’s petition seeking to declare unconstitutional the impeachment proceedings against her in the House of Representatives.

“The court en banc … has dismissed the petition of the Ombudsman, thereby effectively allowing the [House] justice committee to proceed with the impeachment proceedings,” Midas Marquez, the high court’s spokesperson and administrator, said at a news briefing.

Marquez also told the Philippine Daily Inquirer that the ruling was proof of the justices’ independence from any individual or political group.

“In many actions of the court, it has already shown that it is not, as what many say, an Arroyo court,” he said.

Written by Senior Associate Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales, the ruling was issued exactly five months after the tribunal barred the justice committee from hearing two impeachment complaints against Gutierrez.

Marquez said the ruling “effectively lifted” the status quo ante order issued by the high court on Sept. 14, 2010, to stop Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas Jr. and the justice committee that he chairs from discussing the impeachment complaints.

But Marquez said that Gutierrez still had 15 days to file an appeal, and that it would be “more prudent” for the lawmakers to wait for the high court’s final decision before starting the impeachment proceedings.

In a statement, the Office of the Ombudsman said Gutierrez had yet to receive the official copy of the high court’s ruling.

“Pending such receipt, the Ombudsman is still studying her options, including the filing of a motion for reconsideration...” the statement partly read.

No violation

In junking Gutierrez’s petition, the high court upheld the argument of the lawmakers and Solicitor General Jose Anselmo Cadiz that the referral of the impeachment complaints did not violate the Ombudsman’s right to due process.

“The majority has decided that there is no denial of due process since the respondent can file an answer after the complaint has been declared sufficient in form and substance,” Marquez said.

In her petition, Gutierrez claimed that the House justice committee’s decision to simultaneously take up two impeachment complaints filed separately by leftist and civil society groups violated a constitutional provision banning the filing of more than one impeachment case against a public official within a year.

Former Akbayan party-list Rep. Risa Hontiveros, freed rebel officer Danilo Lim and the parents of the late Ensign Phillip Pestaño filed the first complaint against Gutierrez on July 22, 2010.

They accused her of betraying public trust and violating the Constitution for the “dismal and unconscionably low” performance of her office in convicting erring government officials, and her purported failure to correctly decide on the cases filed in connection with the Arroyo administration’s controversial deal with China’s ZTE Corp. on a national broadband network.

On Aug. 3, 2010, Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan) secretary general Renato Reyes Jr. also filed a complaint against Gutierrez over her failure to go after those behind the P728-million fertilizer fund scam.

In 2009, another group composed of former Sen. Jovito Salonga and 30 others filed an impeachment case against Gutierrez for culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust. This was quickly dismissed.

No infringement

Marquez said that in its review, the high court found that the House justice committee did not infringe on the Constitution because the two complaints against Gutierrez were “referred to [it] at the same time.”

Said Marquez: “The majority said that … in this particular case, the two complaints were referred to the justice committee at the same time and the committee … although there were two complaints referred to it, was only doing one [impeachment] proceeding.”

But the dissenting justices said the justice committee failed to observe the guideline that for any impeachment complaint to proceed, a set of rules should be published 15 days before the start of the impeachment hearing.

“Since there are no duly published rules, this violates the due process,” Marquez said in interpreting the dissenters’ ruling.

Solicitor General Cadiz, who represented the House in the oral arguments before the high court, was pleased with the majority ruling.

“We really should give credit to the Supreme Court for this act,” Cadiz said on the phone. “We salute and thank the Supreme Court for upholding the separation of powers of the coequal branches of government.”

How they voted

Apart from Morales, those who voted against Gutierrez’s petition were Associate Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, President Benigno Aquino III’s lone appointee to the high court; Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio; and Associate Justices Antonio Eduardo Nachura, Martin Villarama, Jose Mendoza and Roberto Abad.

Those who dissented were Chief Justice Renato Corona and Associate Justices Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, Arturo Brion, Diosdado Peralta and Lucas Bersamin.

Associate Justices Jose Perez and Mariano del Castillo partially concurred with the majority. Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr. inhibited because his son, Marinduque Rep. Lord Allan Velasco, is a member of the House justice committee.

Marquez said Perez and Del Castillo “believe that while the second impeachment complaint might be banned, there is nothing to stop the first impeachment complaint from proceeding.”

He said the impeachment complaint against Gutierrez was different from those filed against then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo because the complaints against the latter were forwarded to the justice committee “on separate occasions.”

“Those facts alone substantially differ from the facts at the present case,” he said, adding that the controversy over the dismissal of the impeachment complaints against Arroyo did not reach the high court.

Marquez told the Inquirer that the tribunal, although composed of Arroyo appointees but for one, “is not an Arroyo court.”

“Just go over the decisions and you will see that these are well thought of, taking into consideration all the facts and provisions of applicable laws,” he said.

Marquez also said the high court’s latest ruling was not intended to avoid harsh criticism similar to that which met “unpopular decisions” such as the acquittal of Hubert Webb and six others previously convicted of the Vizconde massacre.

“The court is deciding based on its perception and appreciation of the facts and applicable provisions of the Constitution,” he said.

Welcome news

As Gutierrez studies her options, the complainants welcomed the tribunal’s ruling.

“This is certainly welcome news at this time when people are searching for truth and justice,” Bayan’s Reyes said.

“We need this impeachment case to proceed, especially now that there are allegations of gross corruption and that the Office of the Ombudsman has failed to uphold its mandate of going after corrupt officials, as shown in the plea bargain [with plunder suspect Carlos Garcia],” he said.

Reyes also said the impeachment case would also “test the mechanisms of accountability of government institutions under the Aquino government.”

Pagbabago! People’s Movement for Change, another complainant, said the high court’s ruling would help ensure that the move to correct past wrongs would continue.

“This decision by the high court has put additional momentum to the ongoing legislative probes on the Garcia plea bargain that have exposed more anomalies involving the Ombudsman. We hope that the long delayed impeachment process will reach its logical and just conclusion,” Pagbabago! Co-chair Mary John Mananzan said in a statement. With a report from Leila B. Salaverria

bitoy

February 16th, 2011, 04:40 AM

Trial by the Senate? :D

If one-third of members of the House of Representatives vote to impeach, then it goes ahead. Gutierrez will face trial in the Senate and if found guilty, will be barred from public office.
From:
http://in.news.yahoo.com/philippine-court-allows-ombudsman-impeachment-case-20110215-024232-256.html

Eastern Dragon

February 16th, 2011, 04:45 AM

Parchie

February 16th, 2011, 04:48 AM

Trial by the Senate? :D

From:
http://in.news.yahoo.com/philippine-court-allows-ombudsman-impeachment-case-20110215-024232-256.html

Ajejeje! Trier of facts na pala ang senado ngayon!

Palundag-lundag ang mga kawani sa Judiciary dahil sa report na iyan. Kaya pala ang maliit ang budget, konti na lang pala ang trabaho nila!

bitoy

February 16th, 2011, 04:58 AM

interesting. the chief justice wanted the impeachment case against gutierez dismissed. :lol:

:lol: Dito na makikita ang paninindigan ng 7 justices na sumangayon na ituloy ang impeachment.
hmmm..pero ano nangyari kaya at bumaliktad yung iba na last year ay kampi ke Merci?

Eastern Dragon

February 16th, 2011, 05:09 AM

:lol: Dito na makikita ang paninindigan ng 7 justices na sumangayon na ituloy ang impeachment.
hmmm..pero ano nangyari kaya at bumaliktad yung iba na last year ay kampi ke Merci?

not necessarily bumaliktad yung iba. carpio and carpio morales plus sereno are known to be anti corona.

nachura always had an independent streak. besides, some of these justices know that they will be the ones impeached. :lol::lol:

seriously, corona and brion who used to be gma labor secretary are not exactly known for their impartiality anyway. :lol:

xxxriainxxx

February 16th, 2011, 05:14 AM

Ubusin ang mga anay sa hudikatura!

bitoy

February 16th, 2011, 05:39 AM

not necessarily bumaliktad yung iba. carpio and carpio morales plus sereno are known to be anti corona.

nachura always had an independent streak. besides, some of these justices know that they will be the ones impeached. :lol::lol:

seriously, corona and brion who used to be gma labor secretary are not exactly known for their impartiality anyway. :lol:

Kaya hindi ko magamit yung term na "impartial" sa karamihan ng huwes natin, puro mga biased ang mga ito. Baka ilan lang ang masasabing "impartial judges" sa ating justice system. :lol:

Bilib nuon ang tatay ko kay Judge Abalos... :lol: kasi nag tratrabaho nuon sa gabi si judge sa pabrika ng tatay ko hanggang nakatapos ng law. Kaya kilala namin yung lahat ng pamilya niya. istrikto nuon si judge... kung alam lang ng tatay ko ang pangyayari ng nakaraang iskandalo... SLN... :D

r0mm3l

February 16th, 2011, 02:55 PM

16 towns now cities again as SC reverses itself for 3rd time

GMANews.TV - Wednesday, February 16
For the third time, the Supreme Court has reversed itself in the case concerning the declaration of 16 towns as cities. Voting 7-6 with two abstentions at the high tribunal's en banc (full court) session last Tuesday, SC spokesperson Jose Midas Marquez said the court affirmed the constitutionality of the cityhood laws converting the following municipalities as cities:

Lamitan in Basilan; Baybay in Leyte; Bogo in Cebu; Catbalogan in Samar Tandag in Surigao del Sur; Borongan in Samar; Tayabas in Quezon; Tabuk in Kalinga; Bayugan in Agusan del Sur; Batac in Ilocos Norte; Mati in Davao Oriental; Guihulngan in Negros Oriental; Cabadbaran in Agusan del Norte; El Salvador in Misamis Oriental; Carcar in Cebu; and Naga in Cebu. The court’s latest ruling is its fourth judgment on the case. The first decision was rendered on Nov. 18, 2008, declaring as unconstitutional the Republic Acts (RAs) converting the municipalities into cities. The second decision was made on Dec. 21, 2009, reversing the Nov. 2008 decision and ruling that the towns can be declared as cities. Last August 24, 2010, the SC made its second reversal and reinstated its Nov. 2008 decision. — Sophia Dedace/RSJ, GMAnews.com

rally

February 17th, 2011, 04:22 AM

^^ ibang klase na talaga ang Supreme Court ngayon.:bash:

Parchie

February 17th, 2011, 04:36 AM

Former Ombudsman at the hot seat
Counterpoint, Alvin Capino; The Manila Standard

We have to agree with Senator Franklin Drilon when he said that the widow of Secretary Angelo Reyes may be asked to testify in the Senate probe of the endemic corruption in the Armed Forces of the Philippines after a period of mourning for her husband who committed suicide in the middle of the investigation.

The sad reality is that the general public perception is that Reyes as well as many of the other former AFP chiefs of staff and other ranking generals were involved in massive corruptions involving billions of pesos.

Since Reyes can no longer answer the serious accusations leveled against him, it’s now up to his widow, Mrs. Teresita Reyes, to vindicate his name.

It is Mrs. Reyes who can explain and clarify some of the charges against her husband, especially those involving her. At the Senate and at the House of Representatives there had been repeated allegations that Mrs. Reyes made 48 trips abroad during the term of her husband, that she got a travel allowance of $10,000 per trip from AFP funds and that she owns houses in the United States.

According to some news reports, Mrs. Reyes had wanted to testify before the Senate but her husband stopped her from doing so. He allegedly told her that he would take care of things.

One former senator said those trips of Mrs. Reyes was not an issue in previous investigations because there were valid reasons for those trips. They were made in connection with some family business.

Mrs. Reyes’ appearance in the Senate probe will help clarify the issues against her and her husband. In fact, even if she is not called, she should volunteer to go to the Senate.

***

While most people are morally convinced that billions have been lost to graft and corruption involving AFP generals, proving this in court is a different question altogether, as we are seeing in the plunder case of former AFP Comptroller Gen. Carlos Garcia.

It is ironic that former Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo, who has pilloried his successor incumbent Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez for the plea bargain agreement with Garcia, turns out to be the one who has to explain the weak plunder case that he (Marcelo) himself filed against the former comptroller.

The joint hearings of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee and the Committee on Justice and Human Rights appear to support Gutierrez’ contention that the her hands are tied and that the Office of the Ombudsman had no choice but to enter into a plea bargain agreement. Under this agreement, Garcia would plead guilty to the lesser crime of bribery and surrender more than P100 million in assets because of the dearth of solid evidence that would ensure his conviction for plunder.

Gutierrez asserted during the hearing that “there was no document that came from the AFP with respect to the investigation that led to the filing of the information” against Garcia by Marcelo. Marcelo, who was present during the hearing, did not contest this.

In the course of the hearing, it became clear that the sole solid basis for the filing of information for the plunder case against Garcia was the letter of Mrs. Clarita Garcia she gave to the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement when her sons were apprehended at the airport trying to bring in $100,000 in cash without any declaration.

In that celebrated letter sent to recover the confiscated money and explain the family’s source of income the wife of Garcia made some shocking admissions including how her husband amassed wealth from “gratitude” money from suppliers and contractors of the AFP.

Marcelo contended that the letter of Mrs. Garcia to the ICE was enough to convict Garcia and explained that the plan was to let an agent of the US ICE testify on the content of the letter submitted to US Customs and Immigration agents, where Garcia’s wife sought to explain the source of the cash her sons were bringing into US territory.

Not surprisingly, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile was skeptical about the legal strategy explained by Marcelo to pin down Garcia. Enrile, a brilliant lawyer who never lost a single case when he practiced law for 12 years before he joined the government, pointed out the weakness of Marcelo’s premise that there was no need to present Clarita Garcia before the court. Under the rules of the court, a spouse is generally not allowed to testify against his/her spouse.

Enrile told Marcelo “that is precisely the problem, sir, because you made your belief as a basis of your information. Enrile said: “You know the letter (by Clarita to the US ICE) alone cannot stand by itself. You have to identify it. The wife will have to testify that it is her letter, that that is her signature that is her penmanship. How can the letter speak for itself?”

In response Marcelo cited the People vs. Maqueda precedent where the Supreme Court ruled that the declarant did not have to take the witness stand and the tribunal ruled to allow the one who heard it to testify in court that he heard the accused admit the commission of the crime.

Marcelo said that the plan was to allow a certain US Customs and Immigration agent Van Dyke to testify that Clarita had indeed written that letter, saying that the money seized by US agents came from the accused General Garcia.

The former Ombudsman said that the spousal privilege of not testifying against one another will not apply because in this case, Clarita will not be testifying against her husband but rather on the evidence that is her letter to the ICE.

Enrile expressed doubts if this would have worked because “the court could rule that the Maqueda case will not apply because it will be circumventing the prohibition of the Rules of Evidence of spouses testifying against the spouse.”

The Senate President also questioned the undue haste by the Ombudsman under Marcelo of initiating the case even as the investigation by the special Commission on Audit team headed by Heidi Mendoza seconded to the Ombudsman to investigate allegations of anomalies in the AFP was still incomplete at that time.

Enrile asked Marcelo: “What was the hurry to file the information without finishing the investigation of the COA? You knew, at that time, as you said, you have consulted her, that she was assigned to do a special investigation of the case and yet you did not allow her to finish the investigation before you filed the information. Given the fact that you were consulting Heidi Mendoza, what made you stop in using the evidence gathered by her? Why did you simply rely on the evidence based on your theory?”

Ombudsman Gutierrez, on her part said that said that because of “newly discovered evidence” from the testimonies of Mendoza and former military budget officer retired Col. George Rabusa and on the urging from some senators she will file manifestation with the Sandiganbayan that based on the recommendation from the Senate to withdraw the plea bargaining agreement with Garcia.

The Sandiganbayan has earlier announced that it has not yet made any final decision on the plea bargaining agreement between the Ombudsman and Garcia. So it is now up to the Sandiganbayan to reject the plea bargaining agreement and allow the plunder trial of Garcia to push through and to accept new evidence from Mendoza and Rabusa.

Literally and figuratively, the ball is in the court of the Sandiganbayan.
Link (http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/insideOpinion.htm?f=2011/february/16/alvincapino.isx&d=2011/february/16)

bitoy

February 22nd, 2011, 12:21 AM

http://www.american-furniture-warehouse.com/images/Kitchen/jsa205.jpg (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20110222-321547/Corona-is-whistle-blower-claims-Lauro-Vizconde)

:wink2:

Eastern Dragon

February 22nd, 2011, 04:04 AM

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20110222-321547/Corona-is-whistle-blower-claims-Lauro-Vizconde

Corona is whistle-blower, claims Lauro Vizconde

bitoy

February 22nd, 2011, 09:53 AM

^^ as usual, it will be his words against the father's victim. :ohno:

Corona denies accusing Carpio of lobbying for Webb’s acquittal (http://ph.news.yahoo.com/gma/20110222/tph-corona-denies-accusing-carpio-of-lob-d6cd5cf.html)

http://files.advertolog.com/files/adsarchive/part_1153/11538855/file/corona-beer-greedy-small-67466.jpg

xxxriainxxx

February 28th, 2011, 10:35 AM

Ang lupit naman ng mga problema nyo dito.. heto tawa muna...

:fart::fart::fart::fart:

Justice Minister confirms Malawi to outlaw farting

By NYASA TIMES
Published: February 3, 2011

Malawi minister of justice and constitutional affairs, Dr George Chaponda has confirmed that he will table a government bill which will include a law that will punish citizens who will be farting in public.

Chaponda said on Malawi’s famous interview programme, Straight Talk aired on Capital FM on Thursday that he will present the bill in parliament next week.

He was asked by presenter Brian Banda to confirm as reported by Nyasa Times and picked by the international media that the ‘crime’ of breaking the wind will be enforceable in a new Local Court system.

Chaponda: Farting around is nuisance and chiefs will punish at local courts
“Would you like yourself that people should be farting in public everywhere?” Chaponda asked the presenter.

“I think the government has a right to ensure decency,” he said

The minister said government wants to mould citizens to be responsible and disciplined other than just urinating in public or farting.

Pressed to explain if the Local Courts will indeed prosecute people who fart in public, the Justice Minister confirmed that there will be such a law.

“We are entitled to introduce order in the country,” he justified.

Chaponda said similar laws were in place in countries such as Singapore and Malaysia.

“Have you gone to Singapore, have you gone to Malaysia? If you go to Malaysia and chew your chewing-gum and throw it in the street you will be arrested,” he said.

He said Malawians should be able to control their gas other than releasing it in public.

“You can control your farting. Why not go to toilet instead of farting in public,” Chaponda said.

The Justice Minister said the law was already in place as part of the archaic colonial laws and that the special law commission has been reviewing them.

He claimed Malawians were widely consulted by the special law commission and supported the review and to outlaw public flatulence.

.

The Justice Minister said farting will be punishable when the bill is passed into law saying people can control the call of nature.

“How do you control by telling people you should not be urinating in the public, you should be going to toilet.

“Of course nature can be controlled, when somebody wants to go to the toilet is advised to go to toilet and if somebody maybe you are in public there you decide farting left and right it becomes a nuisance.”

According to the Justice Minister, farting will be “a minor offence which the chiefs will deal with it at the local level.”

Malawians have however expressed fear that pinning responsibility on the crime of farting will be difficult – and may lead to miscarriages of justice as ‘criminals’ attempt to blame others for their offence.

Asked to comment the matter has attracted the international media attention, the minister said the Bingu wa Mutharika administration is now “used” to such development.

American famous actress, Whoopi Goldberg joked recently on ‘The View’ about the farting crime: “I don’t think my future travel plans will include the African nation of Malawi.”

She said the law should include a clause stating, “’he who smelt it dealt it.’”—(Reporting by Thom Chiumia, Nyasa Times)

Source: http://www.nyasatimes.com/national/justice-minister-confirms-malawi-to-outlaw-farting.html

bitoy

February 28th, 2011, 11:23 PM

Martial law victims get $1,000 checks (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20110301-322792/Martial-law-victims-get-1000-checks)

By Leila B. Salaverria
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 03:14:00 03/01/2011

MANILA, Philippines—No amount of money can bring back a lost son or erase memories of torture and detention, but a court ruling ordering the man behind these horrors to pay the victims provides a measure of comfort to the victims of martial law abuses.

“The pain is still with us and I share it with other Filipinos whose children or husband had suffered … We never forget,” Cecilia Lagman, who lost her son Hermon during the Marcos regime, said Monday.

No monetary compensation will ever suffice, Lagman said at the program where the first 12 of those who suffered from the human rights violations or their kin, received their $1,000 checks from lawyers led by Robert Swift, who joined their legal battle for compensation from the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos.

Hermon, a labor lawyer and human rights defender, has been missing for 34 years.

The program, held at Club Filipino in San Juan City, also honored those who helped achieve the victory. Among those present were lawyers Rene Saguisag, Rod Domingo Jr., Ruben Fruto and Commission on Human Rights Chair Loretta Ann Rosales.

Edward Gerlock served as a Maryknoll priest in Tagum, Davao del Norte, and was working with the Federation of Free Farmers (FFF) before martial law was declared. The FFF opposed the expansion of banana plantations in the province.

Gerlock was ordered deported by Marcos to the United States for his opposition to the dictatorship.

Antonio Lacaba is the brother of poet Emmanuel Lacaba. Eman was a campus poet who became an activist in the late 1960s. He helped draft and disseminate a manifesto titled “Down from the Hill,” which encouraged Ateneans to involve themselves in the socio-political movement. He later went underground and was killed in Balaag, Davao del Norte in March 1976.

Mangahas was active with the faculty union at the University of the East when she found herself without a job shortly after martial law was declared. Not long after, in January 1973, she and husband Roger, who was with a writers’ group, were arrested and detained. With an uncle in the army, Mangahas was just interrogated overnight and released, but her husband was detained for 19 months.

In 1974, Ruben Resus’ son, A.S., was arrested and taken into military custody. He was tortured during interrogation and kept in detention without ever being charged. He disappeared in 1977.

....

....

....

Conjugal dictatorship

Priscilla Mijares, a retired judge, is the widow of journalist and Marcos confidant Primitivo Mijares who later turned whistle-blower and wrote “The Conjugal Dictatorship,” a damning exposé of the Marcos regime. Primitivo vanished after the publication of his book in 1976.

Domingo said the release of the $1,000 “is just the start of the good fortune for each of the claimants and the victims.”
With reports from Eliza Victoria, Inquirer Research, and Agence France-Presse

boypad

March 1st, 2011, 02:15 PM

Counsel cries foul on impeachment proceeding

By Michael Punongbayan (philstar.com)
Updated March 01, 2011 05:11 PM
http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=662022&publicationSubCategoryId=200

MANILA, Philippines – The legal counsel of Ombudsman Merceditas N. Gutierrez slammed the House Justice Committee, alleging that the probe body violated his client’s Constitutional right to due process.

In a statement sent to The Star, lawyer Butch Diaz said the impeachment process is being carried out with undue haste.

“The Committee on Justice is trivializing and railroading the impeachment proceedings against Ombudsman Gutierrez in violation of her constitutional right to due process of law and its own rules,” he stressed.

“When a simple and reasonable request to defer the proceedings until the Supreme Court shall have resolved our Motion for Reconsideration is so cavalierly denied and successive hearings are set as if the impeachment is the only issue of national importance that merits their undivided attention, can there still be doubt that the committee is proceeding with indecent haste,” Diaz said.

He said the manner by which congressmen voted separately for two separate impeachment complaints is proof that the rule that only one impeachment proceeding can be initiated against an impeachable official in a year is being violated.

“That is another telling proof that there are two proceedings and not one as required by the Constitution,” he told The Star.

Gutierrez herself and other officials of the Office of the Ombudsman refused to comment on what happened at the House of Representatives wherein members of the justice committee voted that there is sufficient ground to proceed with the two impeachment cases against Gutierrez.

The Ombudsman, despite being given a deadline to respond to the charges against her, did not file a reply and instead went to the Supreme Court on Monday to file a motion for reconsideration, seeking for a reversal on the High Tribunal’s decision allowing Congress to proceed with the impeachment process.

Gutierrez maintains that she has the right to appeal the ruling 15 days from receipt of the same which means that the Supreme Court’s decision junking her petition questioning why two separate impeachment cases are being heard by the House Justice Committee when the Constitution only allows one, is not yet final.

boypad

March 1st, 2011, 04:14 PM

The voice of the master :ohno:

The Daily Tribune
EDITORIAL
March 2, 2011
http://www.tribuneonline.org/commentary/20110302com1.html

Is there a directive of sorts from the Malacañang tenant to have, not only Merceditas Gutierrez, Ombudsman, but also the majority of justices in the high court impeached by the House of Representatives?

It certainly looks like it, considering the fact that earlier on Speaker Feliciano Belmonte told reporters that he will have the impeachment proceedings against the Ombudsman suspended, while awaiting the Supreme Court’s final decision on a motion for reconsideration of the Ombudsman, but suddenly changed his tune and refused to prevent the committee on justice to proceed with the impeachment hearings.

Given the fact that the political turncoat nature of congressmen hardly changes, in that they generally obey the voice of the master in Malacañang, it is almost certain that majority of the congressmen then allied with Gloria Arroyo when she was in power and position, but are now allied with Noynoy Aquino, since he now sits in the Palace, are following the wishes of Aquino, although they will deny that to death while claiming to be independent of the executive power.

Similarly, there must also be some kind of directive from the same Malacañang occupant for his allies to set the wheels in motion on the impeachment of the high court justices who are in the majority and who have not generally ruled in favor of Malacañang.

It is no secret that Noynoy has been itching to oust the Chief Justice, Renato Corona, as well as some other justices whom he continues to see as his foes, as they are Gloria’s appointees. And as Noynoy appears to have the tendency of a spoiled brat, he expects to get what he asks for, and wants — which is impeachment of the Ombudsman and the Chief Justice and others, for him to be able to appoint his choice for the top judicial post, as well as appoint a new majority that will then decide favorably on all his cases brought before the court.

Rep. Rodolfo Fariñas has announced that he will be filing, by tomorrow, an impeachment against all the justices who voted for the status quo ante order against the House on the issue of proceeding with the impeachment case, using as his basis, the decision of Noynoy’s appointee in the high court, Justice Lourdes Sereno, who incidentally, has never voted against Palace-related issues since she was sworn in, saying that the status quo ante ruling was issued without any deliberations done on the part of the justices.

Whether such is a factual claim coming from Sereno, or whether this constitutes sufficient grounds to impeach the pro-status quo ante justices will not matter when it comes to the House of Representatives justice panel committee. They merely do as told by their Malacañang master. Even if such does not constitute a valid ground, they just go ahead, by sheer force of numbers, and approve a complaint or even two complaints, sufficient in form and substance, as displayed yesterday by the House committee on justice majority’s approval of the two complaints against the Ombudsman, despite the fact that no evidence other than the complaints themselves, has been attached, to even evaluate whether indeed, there is substance to the complaint.

But what may still be unclear to most, even as the arguments raised by the majority against the high court’s ruling on the Ombudsman’s complaint tend to show, is that the allies of Noynoy appear bent on creating a constitutional crisis over this issue, to the point of ensuring that the high court is stripped of its constitutional duty to judicially review the acts of both the legislative and executive bodies, in cases of grave abuse of discretion, especially with Fariñas insisting that the high court has no power over the House in matters of impeachment.

Stripped of that power of review, any government abuse committed — whether in the executive or legislature — can no longer be checked, which is what the Noynoy administration wants, and wants too, a subservient high court.

In the end however, it is never the House or the Senate that interprets the law, but the high court.

The sooner Noynoy and his allies realize that, the better for the rule of law.

bitoy

March 1st, 2011, 11:18 PM

What went before: Impeachment complaints vs Gutierrez (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20110302-322973/What-went-before-Impeachment-complaints-vs-Gutierrez)

Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 02:05:00 03/02/2011

MANILA, Philippines—Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez was the subject of two impeachment complaints in 2010.

The first complaint, filed in July by the group led by former Akbayan party-list Rep. Risa Hontiveros, charged Gutierrez with betraying the public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution for her “dismal and unconscionably low” conviction rate in connection with, among others, the death of Philip Pestaño, a Navy ensign believed to have been murdered; arrests made during a 2006 protest rally; and the allegedly overpriced national broadband network deal with China’s ZTE Corp.

The second complaint, filed in August by the militant group led by Renato Reyes of Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan), cited Gutierrez’s failure to act promptly on the P728-million fertilizer fund scam despite Senate findings of questionable transactions.

On Sept. 7, 2010, the House committee on justice declared the two complaints sufficient in substance.

Gutierrez filed days later a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Supreme Court, in which she claimed that the impeachment complaints were “capricious and whimsical.”

Voting 8-3, the high court halted impeachment proceedings on Sept. 14, 2010, by ordering the justice committee to observe the status quo. This meant that the committee should observe the situation before it decided to give due course to the two impeachment complaints.

On Feb. 15, the high court, voting 7-5, threw out Gutierrez’s petition and “effectively lifted” the status quo ante order. Eliza Victoria, Inquirer Research

Askal82

March 2nd, 2011, 01:54 AM

kalbongdad

March 2nd, 2011, 02:09 AM

impeach na kung impeach...then move on....bumabagal ang pag asenso natin....dahil sa dami ng distractions....

Eastern Dragon

March 2nd, 2011, 03:28 AM

impeach na kung impeach...then move on....bumabagal ang pag asenso natin....dahil sa dami ng distractions....

:lol::lol::lol:, as if businessmen will not be happy to see the ombudsman and some of the justices go. :lol::lol:

boypad

March 2nd, 2011, 04:26 PM

Merci will 'retire with pride' - lawyer

By RG Cruz, ABS-CBN News
Posted at 03/02/2011 9:52 PM | Updated as of 03/02/2011 11:18 PM
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/03/02/11/merci-will-retire-pride-lawyer

MANILA, Philippines - Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez will not resign from her post and will "retire with pride" next year, her lawyer told the House Justice Committee on Wednesday.

Gutierrez sent her lawyer, Anacleto Diaz, to the House Justice Committee on Wednesday to participate in the impeachment proceedings.

“The Ombudsman has been in public service for 40 years, and before these impeachment complaints, she had an unblemished record...Hopefully, when the Ombudsman retires, she will be able to do so with honor pride and respect,” he said.

Diaz was allowed to address the committee after it suspended the rules barring a lawyer from appearing on behalf of a respondent in a committee investigation.

“We will participate so long as we won't prejudice our motion for reconsideration (MR) at the Supreme Court," he said.

Diaz told the committee that they had no intention to defy the committee and was in fact already preparing an answer.

Diaz asked to be allowed to file their answer on Monday. Justice Committee Chair Niel Tupas Jr. gave them till Friday.

“It's [answer] important it will give us the opportunity to assure everyone that we’re not here to skirt or avoid, even as we have a pending MR, we have prepared our answer and only because the chairman gave us a stringent limitation of 3 days. We have already prepared a draft of answer for the first impeachment complaint. It's not been easy preparing an answer. The complaint doesn't involve one act, it involves 5 separate acts imputed to Ombudsman spanning 5 years,” he explained.

Diaz also cited the logistics of preparing 80 copies of the answer.

“The chairman, graciously acceded except, instead of Monday, we were given till Friday. We will do so. So we join...Never mind if we have a pending motion for reconsideration...just so we're able to preserve (our) rights,” he said.

Diaz said that when they file their answer, congressmen will be convinced there is no case against her.

The filing, however, may inevitably slow down the impeachment proceeding, as complainants will have to have a chance to make rejoinders to the Ombudsman’s answer.

[B]Debate on procedure

During Wednesday's hearing, lawmakers debated on how they should proceed considering the Ombudsman's decision to participate.

A general denial was entered on her behalf on Tuesday.

Rep. Rey Umali was hesitant that the development could open the proceedings to fresh challenges.

Rep. Elpidio Barzaga said all evidences presented must be admitted.

Deputy Speaker Raul Daza warned this would affect the proceedings "since the complainants have 3 days to reply," and "it will trigger a series of suspensions of rules.”

Bayan Muna Rep. Neri Colmenares, endorser of the Bayan impeachment complaint, maintained their right to respond to the answer of Gutierrez when it is filed.

“Pag nagsubmit sila ng evidence sa Friday, we will be given the right to present a rejoinder," he said.

Akbayan Rep. Arlene Bag-ao, endorser of the first complaint, objected.

“We already agreed to a schedule and we ordered all parties to submit evidence until Thursday. That was what was agreed yesterday. My understanding is, if there’s any evidence which will be submitted, it will be limited to time agreed, which should be tomorrow," she said.

Accommodating the Ombudsman?

Justice Committee Vice-Chair Rodolfo Fariñas welcomed the Ombudsman’s move.

“We thank the Ombudsman for seeing the light. Ako ang nag appeal. Mabuti dumating kayo,” he said.

Diaz also said they have never received a notice to appear, and this is the first time they got one.

Diaz approached Tupas before the start of the hearing to ask for a chance to make a manifestation before the committee.

This was refuted by Deputy Speaker Lorenzo Tañada who said that notices were sent to the Ombudsman as early as September last year.

Notices were in fact used in petitions before the Supreme Court against the impeachment.

“There's an attempt to bend the rules just to accommodate the Ombudsman,” Tañada said.

Akbayan, Bayan present evidences

After Tupas decided to give the Ombudsman till Friday, the committee proceeded to the clarificatory hearing where the complainants in the 2 impeachment complaints were allowed to present evidences.

The complaints were filed by rival leftist groups, Akbayan and Bayan.

First to present was Bag-ao, who presented complainants Risa Hontiveros and Felipe Pestaño, father of a Navy ensign who died in allegedly questionable circumstances, as witnesses.

Both recalled their experiences as presented in the complaints.

Bag-ao prefaced her testimony with tales of Gutierrez’ alleged incompetence, ignorance, low conviction rates, and inaction on cases involving the Arroyo administration like the National Broadband Network-ZTE (NBN-ZTE) deal.

“Dapat tagapagtanggol ng bayan, naging kunsintidor...Atrocious delay is inexcusable because the Ombudsman’s resolution is based on the Senate report," she said.

Ombudsman's performance

Bag-ao cited studies from different non-partisan groups on the Ombudsman’s performance.

Bag-ao also said the Ombudsman may have padded her 2008 conviction rate of 74.3%, supposedly an all-time high.

“The rate shoots up not because of persons but number of counts. The Sandiganbayan database says the rate is 1 senior official per year in the last 4 years dahil sa dami ng plea bargains," she added.

Bag-ao also showed how Gutierrez filed defective information in a graft case against former Justice Secretary Hernando Perez.

Bag-ao also cited Gutierrez’ policy of filing cases from the central office which delayed the filing of cases, as well as her failure to hire more personnel despite having a lot of resources.

Bag-ao noted that the Ombudsman filed a case on the NBN-ZTE deal only as the impeachment against her was heating up.

Fariñas noted there is presumption of regularity in the actions of the Ombudsman. He asked Pestaño why they didn’t question the Ombudsman’s finding on the case of their son to the Supreme Court.

Hontiveros said there was no longer sufficient time.

Rep. Arthur Defensor Jr., for his part, noted, "Delay is relative. Bakit nyo ba masasabi na ang 4 years na ito regarding your complaints ay delayed? Ano ang meron kayo na grounds?

Hontiveros said, “Kaya nga naming sinasabi na yung ganung delay na 4 na buwan, nilabag niya ang sarili niyang alituntunin.”

boypad

March 2nd, 2011, 04:28 PM

House has weak case vs Merci

The Daily Tribune
By Angie M. Rosales
03/03/2011
http://www.tribuneonline.org/headlines/20110303hed1.html

Accusers of Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez in the impeachment complaint currently being heard by the House of Representatives justice committee appear not to have a strong case to cause her removal from office and a probable cause may not exist, a senator said yesterday.

Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago, underscoring that her statements be taken in the context of her being a lawyer, also issued a warning to congressmen to ensure that they have a tight case against Gutierrez before transmitting the complaint to the Senate and ensure that it merits all the necessary proceedings and, at the very least, ensure that they can muster the needed votes to elevate the matter to the Senate for trial.

“Impeachment is a very serious process. We are supposed to use it as a measure of last resort if we have done everything and we cannot change the situation, and public interest is so acutely affected by what is happening or is not happening with that office, that we have no choice but to try and impeach the official,” she said in an interview with reporters.

Santiago, who was a senator-judge during the aborted Estrada impeachment trial in 2000, also cautioned congressmen pursuing the Gutierrez’ impeachment proceedings, saying that they should ask themselves if this impeachment charges against the Ombudsman is not just an attempt to avenge themselves against the Ombudsman “because she was appointed by (former) President (Gloria) Arroyo.”

“If we are going to distract the resources of government and the time and energy of our officials in the two Houses from urgent legislative issues, then we might as well be sure that we can get the necessary majorities in both the House and the Senate. You have better count your noses now. You have to be sure you have the numbers because otherwise, the public will be appalled at the wasteful expense of time, money, effort, and of mutual recriminations all around which would poison the air of our governance if the impeachment movement will fail for lack of numbers in the House of Representatives.

“Remember that impeachment is a unique exercise. It has to be understood as a vent for steam that has gathered, that is to say the public is very angry that you have to impeach against the official then you have to impeach the official, but it does not necessarily mean that if you are privately angry over private grievances that you have to impeach that official,” she stressed,

But based on what has transpired so far in the justice committee of the lower house, Gutierrez’ accusers are not even sure what their evidence is against the Ombudsman.

Part of the first complaint states: Alleged failure to act promptly on cases filed against the Arroyo couple and other public officials involved in the overpriced $329-million national broadband network deal, which Mrs. Arroyo suspended in September 2007; Incurring inexcusable delay in the investigation on the death of Ensign Philip Pestaño, with the United Nations even calling the Ombudsman to task for failure to probe the case; Issuing a decision to uphold the legality of the arrest and involuntary detention of Hontiveros by the Philippine National Police in 2005; Failure to investigate the P1-million dinner for Mrs. Arroyo’s presidential party at the Le Cirque restaurant in New York; Repeated failure to take prompt action on various cases involving Arroyo such as the Mega-Pacific scam, among others; Refusal to grant ready access to public records such as the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth of former Pampanga Rep. and incumbent Ang Galing Pinoy party-list Rep. Juan Miguel Arroyo.

There are also the charges on the alleged P728-million fertilizer fund scam and the Euro generals scandal.

“We watch them (House members) on television. I am not impressed. They are talking in generalities. You must take into account the fact that certain discretionary measures are allowed within the discussion of a certain public official, so I cannot question that decision by means of an impeachment complaint. Impeachment should be done when the presence of the public official is so poisonous to governance that that person should be removed from office. That is the intent. It is not to avenge yourself on the Ombudsman because she filed cases against your relative or because you don’t like her profile.

“I have no interest in defending the Ombudsman, but it seems to me that there is no probable case against the Ombudsman. They are merely enumerating what are their grievances, but what is the evidence that she has betrayed the trust deposed on her by her appointing authority. You cannot change the ombudsman just because you don’t like the way she decided the case.

You have to show that she decided the case, not on the its legal merits,” Santiago reasoned out.

But if it’s just an attempt by Arroyo’s critics to avenge themselves, the senator said it should be called by its proper name that “this is an anti-Arroyo movement. “So we can all take sides. But my advice is this: Do not choose a legal issue to cloak or disguise a political issue so that the public will not be misled.”

Santiago did not spare from her criticisms the statement made by her Sen. Francis Pangilinan, who called for the resignation of Gutierrez to spare her from undergoing impeachment trial and save the Ombudsman from being tarnished by the accusations against her.

“There is no law the requires any public official to resign or to accede to those who demand very noisily the resignation from office. There is no such provision in our legal system. All you can do is make a proposal but you cannot force the person to resign on threat of so and so and such and such, that would constitute the crime of grave threat.

”If you are saying for example that you already found the person to be guilty, that’s why she should resign, that’s a case of prejudgment and it is very difficult for any member of Congress to make such statements or implications or public statements because both the House and the Senate are involved in the impeachment process and you do not want the public to charge any senator or congressman with prejudgment. After all, impeachment involves a trial and a judgment,” she stressed.

Pangilinan defended himself from Santiago’s criticisms, pointing out that impeachment is not a judicial proceeding and therefore does not follow the strict rules in terms of providing comments on the case.

Gutierrez, he said, should have the decency and just resign from office since she has tarnished the image and reputation of the office she holds and has damaged the institution by clinging to it like a leech. “It would be best for the Ombudsman as an institution, for the nation and for all of us, if she just resigns and spares the nation the spectacle of a public trial. The once highly regarded, respected, and feared office of the Ombudsman is no more. What we have is an office that is a complete and total embarrassment to public office and service. For the sake of decency in public office she should just get out or be kicked out,” he said.

Senate Minority Leader Alan Peter Cayetano said: We will all defer to the merits of the case and we cannot really on the process or the merits of the case but what I can say is that every system needs accountability, Needs transparency. So in the Senate we’ll just be waiting whatever happens in the House.

boypad

March 2nd, 2011, 04:32 PM

Miriam: I don't see probable cause in Merci's case

abs-cbnNEWS.com
Posted at 03/02/2011 7:43 PM | Updated as of 03/02/2011 11:18 PM
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/03/02/11/miriam-i-dont-see-probable-cause-mercis-case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

boypad

March 2nd, 2011, 04:59 PM

Complainants vs Gutierrez fail to present evidence

BusinessMirror Philippines
Wednesday, 02 March 2011 20:12
by Fernan Marasigan / Reporter
http://www.businessmirror.com.ph/home/nation/8123-complainants-vs-gutierrez-fail-to-present-evidence

WHAT should have been a presentation of evidence on the first day hearings on the impeachment case against Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez became a rehash of the complaints originally filed by those who want the respondent booted out of office.

Lakas-Kampi-CMD Rep. Arthur Defensor Jr. of Iloilo repeatedly asked the witnesses, and endorsers of the complaints to present evidence and not just read the original complaints they filed last year.

“What we need here is evidence. What [concrete] evidence are you going to present?” Defensor asked the witnesses after noting that what they have presented in the House justice committee were just a rehash of their original complaints.

Prior to this, Senior Deputy Majority Leader Rodolfo Fariñas, the panel’s vice chairman, said the complainants should present evidence this early to the committee lest they would be a laughing stock when the case reaches the Senate.

Fariñas cited the case of deposed President Joseph Estrada, where prosecutors had to ask to subpoena certain documents and witnesses at the height of the trial.

“Mag-present na kayo ng ebidensya ngayon pa lang, para hindi tayo maging katawa-tawa sa Senado gaya ng nangyari kay dating Pangulong Estrada na ang mga prosecutors ay saka pa lang nagkukumahog sa pag-subpoena sa ebidensya,” said Fariñas.

Also during the hearing, a panel member saw a loophole in one of the complaints and asked why Gutierrez was the one charged when she was not even a signatory in the dismissal of the illegal arrest filed by former party-list representative Ana Theresia Hontiveros Baraquel of Akbayan. The dismissal of the case against National Police officials was among the basis used by complainants seeking the impeachment of the Ombudsman.

Party-list Rep. Rodel Batocabe of Ako Bicol asked Baraquel why is she blaming Gutierrez, when the signatory in the dismissal of the case was Orlando Casimiro, then the acting Ombudsman.

Baraquel responded that she knew Gutierrez had a hand in the decision.

Nationalist People’s Coalition Rep. Giorgidi Aggabao of Isabela butted in and asked why a mere dismissal of an unlawful arrest case became one of the bases in impeaching the Ombudsman.

When Fariñas asked Baraquel what her action was after her case was dismissed, the complainant said he filed another case before the Commission on Human Rights.

To this, Fariñas told Baraquel that she should have elevated the case to the Court of Appeals or to the Supreme Court to question the Ombudsman’s decision. He told Baraquel that the commission has no jurisdiction on the dismissal of the case.

“Ang Court of Appeals o ang Supreme Court ang magsasabi kung tama ba o mali ang desisyon ng Ombudsman,” said Fariñas.

Fariñas made the same comment following the testimony of Felipe Pestaño, father of Navy Ens. Philip Pestaño, who was found dead onboard a naval vessel where he was serving as cargo officer in 1995.

The dismissal of the murder case filed by the Pestaños against Navy officials was also one of the bases used in the filing of the impeachment complaint against Gutierrez.

Pestaño during questioning admitted that after the dismissal he did not to appeal the decision.

In the same hearing, lawyer Anacleto Diaz, counsel for Gutierrez, told the committee that his client will submit her answer in the impeachment proceedings to clear her name.

Diaz said Gutierrez will file an answer ex abundante ad cautelam (with extreme caution), without prejudice to the outcome of her motion for reconsideration with the Supreme Court.

He initially asked that Gutierrez be allowed to submit her answer by Monday, but the committee chairman, Liberal Party Rep. Niel Tupas Jr. of Iloilo, gave her only until Friday.

Confident of Gutierrez’s exoneration, Diaz said the answer and supporting evidence they would submit will effectively refute the allegations of the complainants, and the complaints will be dismissed for lack of probable cause.

“The Ombudsman has been in the public service for 40 years, your honor, and before these impeachment complaints filed against her, she has had an unblemished record,” Diaz said.

“In fact, if you look at all of the charges, they are not based on any act of corruption or graft. They are based on supposed omissions committed by the Ombudsman in the course of the performance of her functions,” he added.

Diaz said the answer to the complaints they would file with the House panel will “convince that the charges against her are false and baseless.”

“Hopefully, when the Ombudsman retires next year, she will be able to do so with honor, pride and respect, which she and her family believe she deserves,” Diaz said.

Deputy Speaker Lorenzo Tañada III expressed satisfaction at the decision of Gutierrez to participate in the hearing of the impeachment complaints.

boypad

March 2nd, 2011, 05:53 PM

But is there a speed rule for Ombudsman?

POSTSCRIPT By Federico D. Pascual Jr.
(The Philippine Star) Updated March 03, 2011 12:00 AM
http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=662511&publicationSubCategoryId=64

PALACE KIBITZING: It is a matter of opinion, but I think Malacañang should refrain from cheering on the impeachment process initiated against Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez, an independent official with the rank of chairman of a Constitutional Commission.

With due respect, there is no need for the Office of the President to show unusual interest to the extent of stepping on the boundaries encircling independent constitutional bodies.

The House of Representatives, part of the co-equal legislative branch and the proper body to initiate impeachment, is already on top of the case. The allies of President Noynoy Aquino in the House, who are in the majority anyway, know what to do.

Besides, judging from the drift of the proceedings in the House committee on justice, it appears that Gutierrez’s goose is cooked, more or less. No need for kibitzing from the Palace.

* * *

NO STANDARD: We taxpayers longing for prompt action on public concerns and the swift rectification of injustice support efforts to punish officials who fall on their jobs, obstruct justice or engage in selective prosecution.

On the impeachment cases against Gutierrez, the key accusation is that she has been sitting on complaints, especially when the respondents are persons identified with former President Gloria Arroyo who had appointed her.

There was mention of her “low conviction rate.” But is there a clear measurable standard of how many convictions out of, say, 100 cases must the Ombudsman score to be deemed performing satisfactorily?

Is there a rule on how fast (in how many days, months or years) should the Ombudsman investigate a complaint and file charges — so we can judge if she is fast or slow?

If there is no clear measurable standard, rating the Ombudsman’s performance becomes a mere matter of opinion or a political game of numbers — not a fair basis for impeachment.

* * *

NO EXEMPTIONS: On a related issue, the Supreme Court has set deadlines for lower courts to dispose of motions and resolve cases pending before them.

Sometimes the deadlines are met, sometimes not. Sometimes disciplinary action is taken against laggard judges, sometimes not.

If we want a consistent standard for speedy justice, why do we not impose the same or comparable rule on even the Supreme Court — on how fast it should resolve cases?

The High Court should not be exempt from deadlines. When SC justices prove to be slow, like the Ombudsman, will that be enough reason to file.

Parchie

March 3rd, 2011, 02:26 AM

Merci will 'retire with pride' - lawyer

By RG Cruz, ABS-CBN News
Posted at 03/02/2011 9:52 PM | Updated as of 03/02/2011 11:18 PM
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/03/02/11/merci-will-retire-pride-lawyer

House has weak case vs Merci

The Daily Tribune
By Angie M. Rosales
03/03/2011
http://www.tribuneonline.org/headlines/20110303hed1.html

Miriam: I don't see probable cause in Merci's case

abs-cbnNEWS.com
Posted at 03/02/2011 7:43 PM | Updated as of 03/02/2011 11:18 PM
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/03/02/11/miriam-i-dont-see-probable-cause-mercis-case

Complainants vs Gutierrez fail to present evidence

BusinessMirror Philippines
Wednesday, 02 March 2011 20:12
by Fernan Marasigan / Reporter
http://www.businessmirror.com.ph/home/nation/8123-complainants-vs-gutierrez-fail-to-present-evidence

But is there a speed rule for Ombudsman?

POSTSCRIPT By Federico D. Pascual Jr.
(The Philippine Star) Updated March 03, 2011 12:00 AM
http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=662511&publicationSubCategoryId=64

Grabe talaga ang mga news items na iyan! ABIAS-CBN, Business Mirror at iba pa! May tama na naman si Madam Mirriam. Bakit kaya hindi na lang huminto ang mga minions ng Palace kung tutuong mali ang "cause" at vengeance lang pala ang gusto sa simula pa lang? O, tara na, chime in na at nang malaman natin ang mga rebuttal 'nyo!

boypad

March 3rd, 2011, 09:17 AM

A tyranny of the majority

Manila Standard Today
To the Point - Emil Jurado
March 3, 2011
http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/insideOpinion.htm?f=2011/march/3/emiljurado.isx&d=2011/march/3

Among the three branches of government, the Supreme Court is the weakest. It does not have much clout. In our type of government, it’s the Executive branch—which has the military and the police, as well as the awesome powers of the President —that enjoys the most clout.

The Legislative, on the other hand, has the power of the purse.

The only power the Supreme Court has, as enshrined in the Constitution, is to interpret the law.

I cite this in the wake of what’s happening to Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez and the two impeachment cases filed against her. It appears that impeachment, while it’s a political exercise, is becoming more like a tyranny of numbers by the allies of President Aquino. Aquino doesn’t hide his displeasure with the Ombudsman for allegedly being close to former President Arroyo and former First Gentleman Mike Arroyo. The latter is the Ombudsman’s classmate at the Ateneo.

As a lawyer, I cannot believe that the leaders of the House justice committee, themselves being lawyers, would disregard the fact that the Supreme Court still has to rule on Gutierrez’s motion for reconsideration.

The House justice committee, by sheer force of numbers, claims that it also has the mandate under the Constitution to impeach Gutierrez, and that it would be unfair to the complainants to delay the process.

Santa Banana, it would appear then that the House has no regard for a co-equal and co-independent body like the Supreme Court. It has no respect for due process. With lawmakers like these, no wonder we are a failed nation.

I admit that impeachment is a political exercise. But when another branch of government disregards the law and due process, what do we have? Anarchy and the law of the jungle, that’s what. That’s what the House justice committee is advocating, sadly enough, since members of Congress are elected to legislate, not to trample on the law and due process.

***

Let’s call a spade a spade.

The bottom line to the political exercise called impeachment against Gutierrez is the prosecution of former President Gloria Arroyo, by hook or by crook.

Personally, I believe that if the Ombudsman cannot find proof linking the Arroyos to these scams, there’s no law that can force her to prosecute them.

In law, when a prosecutor has no proof or evidence, he has the discretion and the authority to dismiss a case.

But President Aquino wants the Ombudsman out. He wants to replace her with somebody who would do his bidding.

bitoy

March 4th, 2011, 02:22 AM

:lol: gantihan sila... :D

Ombudsman pursues graft case vs. Tupas’ dad (http://ph.news.yahoo.com/gma/20110303/tph-ombudsman-pursues-graft-case-vs-tupa-d6cd5cf.html)

The Office of the Ombudsman has decided to pursue a graft case against the father of Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas Jr., who described the move as “suspect" since he heads the House committee of justice currently handling the impeachment case against Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez. In a resolution dated August 2, 2010 but signed only last Wednesday, the Ombudsman junked a motion for reconsideration filed by former Iloilo Governor Niel Tupas Sr. asking the office to reverse an earlier ruling, which found probable cause to file graft charges against him. The 10-page resolution, signed by Overall Deputy Ombudsman Orlando Casimiro last Wednesday, said the older Tupas’ motion was denied “due to lack of merit." The former governor’s graft case stemmed from his allegedly anomalous approval of permits for construction materials to be used for an airport even though the supplier supposedly did not have technical capability to handle such a project. Rep. Tupas, for his part, said the Ombudsman’s decision came at a “suspect" time, especially now that the House panel he chairs is in the midst of clarificatory hearings on two impeachment complaints filed against Gutierrez. “As much as possible, I don’t want to muddle the case, pero bakit ngayon lang inilabas ito, ngayong nagkakaroon na ng hearing laban sa Ombudsman ?" he told GMA News in a phone interview. The younger Tupas added that the Ombudsman’s move to pursue the case against his father before the Sandiganbayan anti-graft court might create a “pattern" of prosecuting relatives or allies of House members involved in the impeachment case. “Ang significance nito, gagamitin ng Ombudsman ang mga kaso ng mga relatives o kaalyado ng congressmen because of what is happening now. Baka gamitin sa hindi maganda," he said.

[B](The significance of this move is that the Ombudsman might use the cases against congressmen’s relatives or allies, because of what is happening now. The cases might be used for ulterior aims.) —JV, GMA News

first knight

March 4th, 2011, 02:38 AM

boypad

March 4th, 2011, 08:05 AM

Blinded by vengeance

Manila Standard Today
Counterpoint - Alvin Capino
March 4, 2011
http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/insideOpinion.htm?f=2011/march/4/alvincapino.isx&d=2011/march/4

It is apparent that House Committee on Justice Niel Tupas, Jr. is unaware or blithely ignores the common public perception that he is leading the rush to push the impeachment of Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez to get back at her for the graft cases she filed against him and his father and namesake, former Iloilo Governor Niel Tupas, Sr.

The perception might be far from truth but it is the perception. And perception, as the communication experts say, is the reality.

It would have been best if Tupas Jr. had inhibited himself from chairing the committee for the hearing on the impeachment case of Gutierrez. This had been suggested earlier by no less than Speaker Feliciano Belmonte who, as a lawyer and as a politician, must have realized the possible adverse reaction of having as the active chairman of the committee someone who is known to have an axe to grind against the Ombudsman.

But Tupas refused. Seems he wants Gutierrez to know, without a shadow of a doubt, that it is payback time.

The public perception is that vengeance is one of the main reasons why the Tupas committee has decided to push through with the impeachment proceeding against Gutierrez despite the fact the Supreme Court has declared that the lifting of the High Tribunal’s status quo ante order issued last September is not yet final and executory.

Supreme Court administrator and spokesman Midas Marquez has made it clear that with the filing by Ombudsman Gutierrez of the motion for reconsideration, the decision of the Supreme Court in this case is not yet final.

Gutierrez submitted her motion for reconsideration last Monday. It was taken up by the Supreme Court en banc last Tuesday but no decision was made. It will be taken up again in next week’s en banc session.

Unlike Tupas, other members of the House who are also lawyers are concerned that the decision of the Justice Committee to push through with the Gutierrez impeachment proceedings despite the pending case with the SC is a violation of Gutierrez’s fundamental right to due process.

Camiguin Rep. Pedro Romualdo and Maguindanao Rep. Simeon Datumanong, both seasoned lawyers, have stressed that it would have been more prudent for the Tupas committee to wait for the resolution of the SC on the motion for reconsideration of Gutierrez.

Isabela Rep. Giorgidi Aggabao, who is also a lawyer, said that there is need to give leeway and allowance to the Supreme Court to rule on Gutierrez’s motion.

It is indeed ironic that it is the justice committee of the House of Representatives which have disregarded the basic right of Gutierrez to due process. This committee, more than any other committee in the House of Representatives, should be the first to acknowledge and respect the right to procedural due process of every citizen.

The rule of law protects citizens from arbitrary and abusive use of government power. It is lamentable that the House justice committee has disregarded this in the case of Gutierrez

It is doubly ironic that it is Tupas who chairs the committee which has blatantly disregarded the rule of law.

We can still remember the time when a suspension order was being served against Tupas’ father who was then governor of Iloilo because of a graft case. Tupas was among those who loudly proclaimed that the suspension order was a violation of the rule of law and due process.

Governor Tupas was able to get an injunction against the implementation of the suspension order and government agencies respected the injunction in adherence to the rule of law.

So why can’t Tupas and his committee give the same respect to the Supreme Court and the rule of law? Why can’t they wait a few more days?

***

The Supreme Court vote on the petition of Gutierrez to stop the impeachment proceedings against her because it violated the “one-year bar” rule was close and perhaps the Tupas committee wanted to pre-empt the Supreme Court.

Seven justices, led by Justice Conchita Carpio Morales who wrote the decision, voted to deny Gutierrez’s petition. Five justices voted to grant the petition, two justices voted to partially grant the petition, while one justice inhibited himself.

Aside from Justice Morales, those who voted to deny the petition were Justices Antonio T. Carpio, Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Martin S. Villarama Jr., Roberto A. Abad, Jose Catral Mendoza, and Ma. Lourdes P.A. Sereno.

Those who voted to grant the petition were Chief Justice Renato C. Corona and Justices Teresita Leonardo de Castro, Arturo D. Brion, Diosdado M. Peralta, and Lucas P. Bersamin.

Justices Mariano C. Del Castillo and Jose Portugal Perez voted to partially grant the petition, while Justice Presbitero J. Velasco Jr. inhibited himself.

With such a close vote, the equation could still change.

The threat aired by a senior member of the House justice committee that impeachment proceedings could be initiated against members of the Supreme Court who are derailing the impeachment of Gutierrez is apparently meant to scare the SC justices.

It might have the opposite effect and the other justices might take a closer look at the warning of the minority justices that disregarding the “one-year” ban rule will encourage multiple indiscriminate and harassment complaint against impeachable officials.

And the congressman who made the threat just reminded the SC justices that they too can be subjected to the same campaign that Ombudsman Gutierrez had to endure.

The dissenting justices say that the campaign to impeach her in the House of Representatives has clearly been railroaded and violated her rights to dues process. They warn of a deluge of indiscriminate suits abusing the new legal loopholes against multiple impeachment complaints against impeachable officials.

Associate Justice Arturo Brion, in his dissenting opinion, pointed out: “I dissent from the ponencia’s conclusion that the proceedings before the House of Representatives Committee on Justice (Justice Committee) are constitutional. Those proceedings were undertaken without the benefit of duly published and fully effective rules of impeachment and are, thus, fatally infirm for violation of the petitioner’s right to due process.”

Brion said the majority ruling “disregard(s) the clear wording of the Constitution and the purpose of the one-year bar rule.”

The congressman who threatened impeachment against the justices Supreme Court reminded them that they are not “supreme” and they too could be facing impeachment at the House of Representatives.

It is therefore important for the justices to make sure that the impeachment rules and proceedings at the House of Representatives adhere strictly to the Constitution and the rule of law.

Sooner or later, if that congressman makes good on his threat, they might be undergoing the same process that is being used against Gutierrez.

first knight

March 4th, 2011, 10:28 AM

Very interesting that Manila Standard and Philippine Tribune are favorites of people who hate Pnoy here.

These people should realize that these newspapers are seldom read by people and those writing for those papers are trying hard to make their newspapers "controversial" to sell.

boypad

March 4th, 2011, 01:57 PM

DoJ drops criminal case filed vs 24 Taiwanese :lol::lol:

The Daily Tribune - Without Fear or Favor
March 4, 2011
http://www.tribuneonline.org/headlines/20110304hed5.html

More trouble is brewing for the country’s relations with Taiwan after the Department of Justice (DoJ) ruled to clear the 24 Taiwanese, 14 of whom were deported, of criminal fraud charges.

In separate resolutions, the Justice department dismissed the charges of syndicated estafa and violation of Republic Act 8484, or the Access Devices Regulations Act of 1998, filed by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China against all of 24 foreigners.

The 14 Taiwanese deported last February 2 to Beijing are: Tsou Chi-Feng, Lin Te-Kuei, Chuang Chao

Shan, Liu Kuei-Yun, Fan Ming-Fu, Lee Hsiang-Pin, Lin Ying-Chang, Wang Chun-Hsiang, Kung Ying Pin, Lin Chih-Chiang, Tai Yao-Pin, Chen Chia Hsiang, Chen Ho-Yang and Li Yuan-Hsing.

The 10 other Chinese are: Peng Yuxue, He Cong, Liu Yan, Feng Zehang, Peng Jinxing, Liang Feng, Tang Xian Hua, Wang Mingxia, Weng Jialu and Xue Yushan.

The DoJ has found no probable cause to indict the deported Taiwanese and Chinese for allegedly operating in the country for their online activities that had defrauded Chinese from the mainland of over $20 million.

“After a careful evaluation of the records of this case, the undersigned investigating prosecutor finds the evidence presented by the complainant insufficient to establish probable cause against herein respondents for the crime charged,” stated the resolution signed by acting city prosecutor Gerard Gaerlan.

The 24 fraud suspects were flown to Beijing despite Taiwan’s objections.

The deportation also disregarded a writ of habeas corpus issued by the Court of Appeals in favor of six of the 14 Taiwanese.

The DoJ ruling also shows that the allegations against the suspects, which they stand to face in Beijing, have no basis — insofar as their alleged operations here is concerned.

All 24 suspects and others earlier arrested were accused of using automated teller machine cards and telecommunications services in order to obtain money by initiating transfer of funds from China to the Philippines.

Several computer and other electronic items were seized from them during simultaneous raids in Makati and Muntinlupa, Parañaque and Quezon City last Dec. 27 last year.

But the DoJ ruled that mere possession of the seized items did not prove the suspects were involved in computer fraud operations.

“Despite opportunity given the complainant during preliminary investigation, they still failed to substantiate their complaint by submitting additional evidence to prove that respondents were utilizing the seized items in violation of RA 8484,” the DoJ ruling stressed.

Relatedly, former President Fidel Ramos also yesterday blamed the Bureau of Immigration (BI) for the row between the Philippines and Taiwan when it ordered the deportation of 14 Taiwanese to mainland China last month.

Ramos made the statement before boarding a China Air flight CI-742 to Taipei where he heads a 35-man business delegation to follow up on economic and cultural topics previously taken up with high Taiwan authorities.

He noted that Immigration officials failed to implement due process to the Taiwanese even after the court issued a temporary restraining order on the deportation of the Taiwanese.

Ramos cited the testimony of Ambassador Amadeo Perez, chairman of the board of the Manila Economic and Cultural Office in Taiwan, that the Meco issued travel visas to the 14 Taiwanese.

With the Meco certification that the 14 were Taiwanese citizens, former Taiwan Economic and Cultural Officer (Teco) Representative, Ambassador Donald Lee, was able to get a court order issued by the CA for the temporary stay of deportation for the Taiwanese.

Despite the ceaseless pleadings from Lee not to push through with the deportation and even with the presence of a court order, Immigration officials still allowed the Taiwanese to be flown to mainland China to face criminal charges.

The incident annoyed Taiwanese officials and demanded for the Philippine government to make a formal apology. The row also puts into question the status of the 90,000 Filipino workers in Taiwan after government officials threatened that their contracts might not be renewed.

“They (Bureau of Immigration) committed the mistake, therefore, they are responsible for starting this chain of events. They were very irresponsible for not respecting the TRO,” Ramos said.

“There was submission of affidavits and counter-affidavits. Why did our Immigration officials not respect it (TRO)?”

Ramos noted that Taiwan is the Philippines’ sixth largest trading partner in the world and is the fifth largest source of tourists. Aside from the income the country derives from the trade and tourism, he cited the 90,000 Filipino workers in Taiwan who remit an estimated $1 billion annually. Benjamin B. Pulta and Conrado Ching

bitoy

March 4th, 2011, 07:04 PM

^^ :lol: Philippine Star lang yata ang tumama sa headline... nagkopyahan na lang ng report ang mga media, mali pa ang pag emprenta... :lol:

Wala naman gulo na yan dahil China na ang humahawak sa kaso dahil duon nangyari ang krimen, pinagpipilitan niyo lang na kumampi sa Taiwan... :lol:

DOJ junks charges vs 14 Taiwanese, 10 Chinese (http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=662850&publicationSubCategoryId=63)

MANILA, Philippines - The Department of Justice (DOJ) dismissed the criminal charges filed against 14 Taiwanese fugitives and 10 other Chinese citizens who were earlier deported to mainland China.

The deportation triggered a rift between the Philippines and Taiwan, which wanted them sent back to Taiwan.

In two separate resolutions issued yesterday, the DOJ had dismissed the charges of syndicated estafa and violation of Republic Act 8484 (Access Devices Regulations Act of 1998) that the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China filed against the 24 suspects.

The 14 Taiwanese were arrested in Makati last December for large-scale fraud victimizing mostly Chinese from China, Taiwan and Hong Kong.

The DOJ has found no probable cause to indict the deported Taiwanese and Chinese suspects for allegedly operating in the country in online activities that had defrauded citizens from mainland China of over $20 million.

first knight

March 5th, 2011, 03:35 PM

Let me quote the bible of the critics of Pnoy here.

Tupas drops new bombshell on Gutierrez

Manila Standard
march 5, 2011

OMBUDSMAN Ma. Merceditas Gutierrez on Thursday stressed that resignation is not an option even as Rep. Niel Tupas Jr. accused her of trying to wangle an exchange deal: that he drops the impeachment complaints and she in turn clears his father of graft.

“If we are to say that all those with pending impeachment cases should resign, then all others with pending cases in the Office of the Ombudsman and those charged in Congress should also resign,” Gutierrez said.

Gutierrez invoked the constitutional right of presumption of innocence until proven guilty and said that resignation is tantamount to an admission of all the accusations hurled against her.

The impeachment complaint against Gutierrez is being tackled by the House committee chaired by Tupas who refused to inhibit himself from the case after the Ombudsman went on to indict his father, former governor of Iloilo, for a graft case.

“If it (impeachment case) reaches the senate, I see that the senators will understand my position. The senators are impartial, independent and judicious,” said Gutierrez.

She said that certain members of the House have trampled on her constitutional rights as she was not afforded due process and given her day in court. “I am a victim of vendetta here,” Gutierrez without directly referring to Tupas, who claimed that the Ombudsman sent an emissary to try to strike a deal.

boypad

March 5th, 2011, 05:58 PM

Merci-less

Manila Standard Today
Opinion - Bypass
by Gary Olivar
March 5-6, 2011
http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/insideOpinion.htm?f=2011/march/5/garyolivar.isx&d=2011/march/5

This is the current state of the justice system to which we have been consigned by the merciless campaign being waged to bring about a Merci-less Office of the Ombudsman:

The current Ombudsman is being accused of low conviction rates, delays, and inaction on an enumerated list of cases that were brought before her office. These are being alleged as impeachable offenses, amounting to culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust.

But, as a fellow columnist in another paper asked, “is there a speed rule for the Ombudsman?” We aren’t aware of any benchmarks for processing speed or conviction rates, or how these might be set up as an objective standard for evaluation. And without such standards, we cannot see how her performance can be judged unsatisfactory—let alone impeachable—especially in relation to other caseload-clogged agencies in our notoriously slow-moving justice system.

With neither standards nor benchmarks, the whole exercise degenerates into a game of who’s got the political numbers—and the media clout—on their side. In normal times, that would be a shabby way indeed to treat the chairman of a constitutional body. In abnormal times like today, where the yellow-clad wrecking crews are out in full force trying to bulldoze over entire institutions in building their daang matuwid, that would be nothing short of a travesty.

The young man presiding over the House Committee on Justice, Congressman Niel Tupas Junior, was himself implicated before the Ombudsman for his involvement in several so-called “ghost seminars” from 2004-2007. More seriously, his father, a former governor of Iloilo, was dismissed by the Ombudsman in 2007 for graft committed within the quarrying industry. Self-evidently, the impartiality of Junior with regard to Mrs. Gutierrez might be described as—shall we say—much in doubt.

If the young congressman cared about the propriety of his own behavior as much as he says he does about the Ombudsman’s, he would long ago have found a way to recuse himself from the proceedings. But he has not done that at all. Instead, he asks us to trust in his perfect probity no matter what―a tactic that he has seen fit to copy from President Noynoy Aquino, perhaps because he has already seen how the President has been allowed to get away with it every time—so far.

The principal instigators of the Merci-less campaign are two leading party-lists from the Left. One of them is a nonviolent group, politically skillful enough to have ingratiated themselves into the President’s inner circle and won several choice positions as a reward. They can be foul-mouthed, but at least I can still believe that they’re sincerely trying to work within the system.

The other group, though, has never bothered to deny being a part of the NDF-- the same umbrella organization with whom our government is now negotiating for peace. In their continuing assault on the security establishment, one of their latest projects is trying to dismantle the two academies that train our military and police officers. It’s not clear to me, therefore, on what moral grounds the head of a constitutional body can be impeached by people belonging to a movement that officially owes no loyalty either to that constitution or to the political system it protects.

Over at the Senate, this early the young Senator Kiko Pangilinan has already publicly advised the Ombudsman to “resign if she has any shame left”, charging her with “negligence of her sworn duty”. This eager display of partiality puzzles me, because--from my diet of movies and TV shows about lawyers—my understanding is that judges (or juries) who pre-judge a case even before it has started are duty-bound to excuse themselves from the proceedings.

Thus, if the impeachment campaign proceeds to a Senate trial that is supposed to be bound by the same strictures of a court of law, I will expect Senator Kiko—and others like him who simply can’t wait to show the world how righteous they are—to have the grace to likewise inhibit themselves. If they don’t, I will just have to chalk it up to the peculiar workings of P-Noy justice.

The bright-eyed and bushy-tailed young courtiers at the Palace can likewise hardly restrain themselves. Lawyer Abigail Valte, the fetching deputy spokesman for the President, has even managed to shift the blame for the Luneta hostage massacre last August to the Ombudsman. According to her, “the motion for reconsideration (by hostage-taker Mendoza) was pending for too long (with the Ombudsman). Perhaps that was what sparked what happened on August 23.”

Well, let it not be said that Miss Valte is any less inventive than her boss. If you’re going to dump on the Ombudsman, why not throw the kitchen sink at her as well? If you’re going to play the blame game for real, no scapegoat is too far-fetched, no tale too outlandish. I have often said that the President’s comm group is a jewel in the rough, and when I see one of them say something like this with a perfectly straight face, my regard for them is only reconfirmed.

And, of course, the sixty-four dollar question everyone’s asking: Why the rush? Why can’t the lynching mob led by Niel Junior wait even for a few days to allow the Supreme Court to rule on the Ombudsman’s motion for reconsideration?

One theory is that they want to make hay while the sun’s still shining, while the President’s ratings are still in the stratosphere. They may be trying to stay ahead of an expected tide of bad news—from rising oil prices, transport fares and tuition fees, to the forcible evacuation of thousands of migrant workers from the Middle East, to the rash of criminal and political violence, to the prospective return of Cory-era brownouts this summer—bad news that might make more people start to wonder if the President is really doing something about the things that really matter:

Jobs. Prices. Peace and order.

Or it might be that the lynching mob simply doesn’t care about the Supreme Court at all (among other hapless institutions). Witness the recent threat by Congressman Rudy Fariñas Junior—Niel Junior’s deputy on the House justice committee—to impeach some of the justices.

“It’s time to put them in their proper place,” were his exact words. Exceedingly full of himself, the congressman went even farther: “We (congressmen) are not only into lawmaking, we [also] have prosecutorial powers. We are the only ones who can investigate them.”

It’s not clear to me whether he thought the justices still needed this lesson in civics from him. But what seemed perfectly clear was his threatening tone and intent. And this is something that the rest of us—not only the justices—ought not to let pass unchallenged, on pain of yielding even more ground to the kind of “new politics” that this congressman and his ilk represent.

Nabartek

March 5th, 2011, 08:08 PM

Grabe talaga ang mga news items na iyan! ABIAS-CBN, Business Mirror at iba pa! May tama na naman si Madam Mirriam. Bakit kaya hindi na lang huminto ang mga minions ng Palace kung tutuong mali ang "cause" at vengeance lang pala ang gusto sa simula pa lang? O, tara na, chime in na at nang malaman natin ang mga rebuttal 'nyo!

They're pleasing the leftist. Yung "legal" front ng NPA. :ohno:

kalbongdad

March 8th, 2011, 04:31 AM

ito na naman ang admin ni bunganga....headline....pnoy to LP: impeach her...with the rush to impeach gutierrez...pnoy's lieutenants again are not doing their job to check on the nitty gritty details.....malamang makalusot pa itong si gutierrez....from the looks of it...mahina nga talaga ang kaso kay gutierrez...dinadaan sa media blitz....now what happens if gutierrez is not impeached....nakapag bunganga na si pnoy what happens to his credibility.....as a prez?....:ohno: hindi nagiisip ang mama...:lol: dapat ang pinabunganga nya ay yung low level officials at hindi sya mismo nagpahalata.....well now that the word is out.....let us see how it turns.....gandang telenovela....:lol:

anong magandang title kaya dito..... the headstrong vs the incompetent?

hindi naman pwedeng the kurap vs the tamad...dahil hindi naman nag nakaw si gutierrez.....

ganda mga susunod and eksena dito....maaaliw na nman tayo....at walang kamalaymalay na may ibang sunog na nangyayari sa bahay ng pilipinas....na hindi nasosoluyunan ng kasalukuyang gobyerno.....wish them well...:lol:

rally

March 8th, 2011, 07:54 AM

SC denied motion for recon of OMB Merci by 7-5-2 votes.

House judiciary Committee finds probable cause to impeach OMB Merci.

When it rains, it pours...:)

Eastern Dragon

March 8th, 2011, 09:36 AM

SC denied motion for recon of OMB Merci by 7-5-2 votes.

House judiciary Committee finds probable cause to impeach OMB Merci.

When it rains, it pours...:)

nice. of course, the justices know that it is their asses on the line if they protect merci.

bitoy

March 8th, 2011, 09:39 AM

^^ Most likely some justices will protect their own kind, parang me blood compact yata ang mga ito with a blessing sa dating nakaupo. :lol:

Eastern Dragon

March 8th, 2011, 09:46 AM

^^ Most likely some justices will protect their own kind, parang me blood compact yata ang mga ito with a blessing sa dating nakaupo. :lol:

4-5 sa mga yan, obvious na hindi maka gloria. carpio, carpio morales, the new appointee are not arroyo lapdogs.

but on the other hand. the usual suspects. :lol:

first knight

March 8th, 2011, 10:00 AM

SC denied motion for recon of OMB Merci by 7-5-2 votes.

House judiciary Committee finds probable cause to impeach OMB Merci.

When it rains, it pours...:)

This rain will become a deluge that will drown not only incompetent Merceditas but also all the people she is now protecting like the Arroyos and their minions.

kalbongdad

March 8th, 2011, 12:20 PM

lalim ng pinanggagalingan ng sugat mo lola....:lol: ang dami ng bagahe...:lol:

amigo32

March 8th, 2011, 01:17 PM

magka high blood yan:D dad

sana ikaw magkabuhok na din:D

bitoy

March 8th, 2011, 03:46 PM

SC junks Merci's appeal vs House impeach bid (http://www.gmanews.tv/story/214743/sc-junks-mercis-appeal-vs-house-impeach-bid)

SOPHIA DEDACE, GMA News
03/08/2011 | 01:29 PM

The Supreme Court has denied Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez’s motion for reconsideration in connection with the two impeachment complaints filed against her at the House of Representatives, SC spokesman Jose Midas Marquez said Tuesday.

“The motion for reconsideration has been denied. That means the House [justice panel] can now proceed with its proceedings against Ombudsman Gutierrez," said Marquez at a news briefing.

Gutierrez is accused of shielding former President and incumbent Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and other officials in the Arroyo government from prosecution. She is a batch-mate of Arroyo’s husband, Jose Miguel, at the Ateneo Law School.

The high court’s resolution was unavailable as of posting time.

As this developed, the House justice committee on Tuesday voted to approve the impeachment complaints for plenary vote after lawmakers found probable cause to remove her from her post for alleged betrayal of public trust.

Same voting pattern
The voting remained the same: seven justices maintained that the House justice panel can continue with its hearings, five ruled in favor of Gutierrez, two partially concurred with the majority, while one inhibited himself from the court deliberations.

The majority is composed of Associate Justices Antonio Carpio, Conchita Carpio-Morales, Ma. Lourdes Sereno, Roberto Abad, Jose Catral Mendoza, Eduardo Nachura, and Martin Villarama Jr.

Meanwhile, the five justices who voted in favor of Gutierrez's petition were Chief Justice Renato Corona, Arturo Brion, Lucas Bersamin, Teresita Leonardo-De Castro, and Diosdado Peralta.

Those who partially concurred with the majority were Associate Justices Mariano del Castillo and Jose Perez, while Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr. inhibited himself because his son, Marinduque Rep. Lord Allan Velasco, belongs to the House justice committee.

Gutierrez has earlier criticized the House panel for proceeding with its hearings because the SC has yet to finalize its ruling denying her plea. But with the court's decision on Tuesday, there is no longer a legal obstacle on the justice committee's bid to unseat Gutierrez.

boypad

March 8th, 2011, 04:33 PM

De Lima stands by fact-finding committee’s report on LTO chief :lol:

The Daily Tribune
March 9, 2011
http://www.tribuneonline.org/metro/20110309met4.html

Department of Justice Secretary Leila de Lima yesterday said she was standing by the DoJ’s fact-finding committee’s report and recommendation insofar as the case of Land Transportation Office (LTO) chief Assistant Secretary Virginia Torres is concerned.

This was the reaction of De Lima to reports that some LTO officials are casting doubts on the integrity, partiality and objectivity of the fact-finding committee’s report and recommendation.

At a press conference, De Lima said she had endorsed the committee’s report and recommendation to President Aquino and Department of Transportation and Communications (DoTC) Secretary Jose “Ping” de Jesus.

The committee is headed by DoJ Undersecretary Francisco Baraan III who recommended the administrative sanctions against Torres.

Torres had gone on an indefinite leave.

De Lima noted that Torres appeared before the committee during the first hearing stating that she was placing herself under the jurisdiction of the committee.

Later on, Torres did not anymore appear before the committee, De Lima said.

But De Lima clarified the committee had nothing to do with the “intra-corporate dispute” involving two factions in the Stradcom takeover incident on Dec. 19, 2010.

The DoJ has recommended the filing of administrative charges against Torres.

The DoJ decision followed its findings of an incident on Dec. 19, 2010 involving LTO’s outsource group for information and communication, Stradcom Corp., and Torres herself.

The fact-finding committee said Torres should “be administratively charged with gross neglect of duty, or gross incompetence, or in the alternative, with grave misconduct,” in connection with the failed takeover by Stradcom last December 19. PNA

boypad

March 8th, 2011, 04:38 PM

‘Charges vs Purisima, Alvarez, Lina must be substantiated with formal complaint’

The Daily Tribune
By Aytch S. de la Cruz
March 9, 2011
http://www.tribuneonline.org/metro/20110309met2.html

Indications of anomaly amid reports that Finance Secretary Cesar Purisima, Bureau of Customs (BoC) Commissioner Angelito Alvarez and his predecessor Alberto Lina are “virtually controlling” the Customs bureau has to be substantiated with a formal complaint, Malacañang said yesterday.

Presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda issued this statement in reaction to a report published by the Tribune’s Tuesday edition which emphasized the “interlocking” business interests of Purisima, Lina, and Alvarez — all businessmen by profession — who are now said to be lording over the BoC.

“If that’s the case, if there’s a complaint, of course, we will look into. If there really is a complaint to that effect, let us know because we cannot rely on innuendoes and rumors. So if there’s someone who’s going to lodge a complaint, we will study that just to be fair to the officials concerned,” Lacierda said in a post-briefing interview.

Lacierda implied that the actions being taken Purisima and Alvarez toward the BoC are understandable given the fact that the latter serves as the current chief of the agency which is under the auspices of the Department of Finance (DoF) that is headed by the former.

“Certainly, the Secretary of Finance has jurisdiction over the Bureau of Customs. So, in terms of reporting, it will be the Commissioner of Customs Lito Alvarez reporting to Secretary Purisima and he leaves Lito Alvarez the discretion to do his job. But I do not think you can describe the relationship as virtually controlling the Bureau of Customs,” Lacierda explained.

Lacierda conveyed that President Aquino has every confidence in the officials he appointed, especially to Purisima who is currently the subject of the confirmation process by the Commission on Appointments.

“As to Commissioner Lito Alvarez, I think his work is a matter of public record… that is something that you can always verify and Alberto Lina is a former Cabinet secretary, I understand, so it’s something you can verify also,” Lacierda said.

Meanwhile, Malacañang gave positive comments with respect to the DoF’s report on the actual fiscal shortfall of P314-billion as both Lacierda and Presidential Communications Development and Strategic Planning Secretary Ramon Carandang described such figure as still “well within the target.”

“It’s well within the targets and I think the markets were very happy with it. It was better than what the market expected and I think they reacted properly,” said Carandang in a chance interview.

“I think the economic team has pledged that fiscal restraint will be in order so I’m very hopeful that the deficit figures will be met if not surpassed, I mean better than expected,” Carandang added when asked if the same feat can be repeated for the economy this year.

Kintoy

March 8th, 2011, 05:10 PM

End of the line, Mercedita wahahahaha. pupulutin ka sa kangkungan

boypad

March 11th, 2011, 04:00 AM

So this is what it is all about

Manila Standard Today
by FR. RANHILIO CALLANGAN AQUINO
March 10, 2011
http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/insideOpinion.htm?f=2011/march/10/ranhilioaquino.isx&d=2011/march/10

Impeach her, thus barked the Yellow Emperor. At least, that is the way the Philippine Daily Inquirer reported things. So did other dailies. No matter how disgusting it all turns out to be, at least we know the truth. The bid to unseat Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez is the President’s bidding. Never before in the history of the country has a President given his minions express orders to waylay a constitutionally independent official. And this is the darkness that has fallen on the land: by mustering sufficient numbers from those eager to curry favors, a President can cause the removal of officials that the Constitution, quite short-sightedly to my mind, attempted to protect from the slime of politics by making them removable from office only by impeachment.

Well-intentioned, but short-sighted, because impeachment is a numbers game when politicians are no longer statesmen, and justice goes the way of the dodo!

Impeachment was meant to be an instrument of rectifying badly-made political decisions. The selection of an Ombudsman is not a political decision. Although the choice is ultimately made by a politician—the President—his choice is limited to the nominees of the Judicial and Bar Council. It is clear that the process of selection and the means of removal of an Ombudsman were meant to keep the office as far as possible from the contagion of politics so that it might do what ombudsmen all over the world do. Unfortunately, many things happen here—only in the Philippines! And here, we have found a way of leaving the impeachment process so misshapen that is not a convenient political weapon in the hands of the power-inebriated! It was a bad decision on the part of the writers of the 1987 Constitution to make the Ombudsman an impeachable official, and Merci’s mauling at the hands of the members of the Lower House—who delight in referring to the “august body” to which they belong—shows us just why. No wonder then that Merci spoke at a CBCP forum. I hope the bishops are starting to discern right from wrong in this case!

I am troubled by the auguries. So, P-Noy controls the Lower House, and his allies (goons?), on his bidding, can find sufficient in form and substance what even an elementary school teacher may find deficient, and can find probable cause even in the most improbable of places! So, who’s next? The Supreme Court justices, perhaps, whom he has labelled as “Arroyo justices”! What will the next President do then with the “P-Noy justices”? Mobilize his own hounds in the Lower House in the future for a similar move against yellow-robed appointees?

Rep. Rodolfo Fariñas candidly admitted that the House committee on justice (has that term been properly defined?) relied principally on what he called “the catch-all” clause: “betrayal of public trust”. Now, that is problematic, because when a congressman uses a red-plated vehicle, or one that has a Number 8 announcing his lofty position, to visit his mistress or to check her into some motel, that is a betrayal of public trust. Unless therefore the impeachment process is to be reduced to a shamelessly brandished weapon of political reprisal, there have to be reasonable, and legally acceptable parameters to the logical comprehension of that regrettable “catch-all” clause. Did Merci ‘betray public trust’ when she caused the prosecution of some officials, and desisted from the prosecution of others? I wrote in an earlier column that it is settled jurisprudence that there is such a thing as prosecutorial discretion. Davis, an American authority in administrative law, identifies the prosecutor’s discretion as an example of what he characterizes as “particularized justice”. What is most deleterious about the “martyrdom of Merci” is the fact that impeachment is being used to question the exercise of discretion. I can foresee that very soon, justices will be on the dock for rendering judgments that irk the legislators (and that most of them only half understand!).

It surprises me that those who have always called for a show of “delicadeza” exhibit a shameless lack of it. There were those who voted in favor of a finding of probable cause who have been charged by the Office of the Ombudsman. Why did they not inhibit themselves? Why could they not have been more statesmen and less thugs?

One word figured prominently in the charge sheet against the Ombudsman as this was read on the “day that will live on in infamy”: Tuesday, the day the “august body” kept its part of the bargain over thirty pieces of silver—“delay”. Merci was charged with having incurred culpable delay in the performance of her duties. Was the delay of which the Legislature was guilty not far more scandalous, shameful and catastrophic for the nation when it failed to pass the budget not too long ago, with the result that we had to get by on a re-enacted budget? Did not P-Noy’s delay in apologizing to Taiwan over the gross stupidity of deporting its nationals to the PROC make life difficult for so many Filipinos and strain relations between Taiwan and the Philippines to breaking point? Did not Hubert Webb languish in jail for well over a decade before the Supreme Court finally decided that the tears of Lauro Vizconde were not sufficient to sustain a conviction? So, why single out Merci? The obvious answer is because of her perceived closeness to the Arroyos. So, again, Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago was right when she challenged her colleagues in Congress to be candid: Was it after righting a wrong that the whole exercise was about, or was it an anti-Arroyo pogrom in progress?

It is the Season of Lent. I believe in Divine Justice. In that faith, I find refuge and so should all who are persecuted now!

boypad

March 11th, 2011, 05:39 AM

Ombudsman: Don't hit me to get to Arroyo

By David Dizon, abs-cbnNEWS.com
Posted at 03/11/2011 12:05 PM | Updated as of 03/11/2011 12:05 PM
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/03/11/11/ombudsman-dont-hit-me-get-arroyo

MANILA, Philippines - Embattled Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez on Friday said detractors should not lash out against her just to get revenge on former President and now congresswoman Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.

"Former President Arroyo had so many appointees including justices at the Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan and Supreme Court. Hindi naman yata tama na ako ay aakusahan dahil mayroon silang hinanakit o gusto nilang akusahan si former President Arroyo," she said in an ABS-CBN "Umagang Kay Ganda" interview.

Gutierrez, a law school classmate of the former First Gentleman Jose Miguel Arroyo, also denied protecting the Arroyos especially since no case has yet to be filed in her office against the former First Couple.

"Wala akong pagtatakip na ginagawa. Wala pang kaso talaga na sinasampa sa former First Couple," she said.

The Ombudsman said she inhibited herself from a panel investigation on the alleged involvement of the Arroyos in the scuttled $329 million broadband network contract between the Philippine government and China's ZTE Corp. "I inhibited para wala nang masabi na ako ay magiging partial," she said.

The former First Gentleman was accused of protecting the NBN-ZTE deal, which was allegedly brokered by then Commission on Elections chairman Benjamin Abalos. President Arroyo approved the contract but was forced to rescind it after a Senate probe showed that it was grossly overpriced.

Ombudsman investigators later cleared the President because she enjoyed presidential immunity.

Gutierrez is facing possible impeachment at the House of Representatives for betrayal of public trust due to her low conviction rate and inaction on the NBN-ZTE scam, fertilizer fund scandal, "Euro generals" scandal and the Philip Pestaño case.

'I am not a hindrance'

Gutierrez, meanwhile, rejected the recommendations of the Senate Blue Ribbon committee that she be impeached for "neglecting, weakening and muddling" the plunder case against former military comptroller Maj. Gen. Carlos Garcia and his family.

The Ombudsman said government prosecutors worked for 5 years on the case and tried to gather evidence and witnesses to convict Garcia of plunder.

She reiterated that the plunder case was weak from the very start because the former Ombudsman had no witness that could back up the plunder accusation before the charges were filed.

"Hindi namin pinahina dahil unang-una pa lang ay mahina na. Dahil wala man lang witness bago i-file ang information. walang sinasabi o sino yung mga contractors o suppliers at kung saang contracts kinuha ang kickbacks," she said.

Gutierrez said the plea bargain was approved by prosecutors based on their honest belief that there was not enough evidence to convict Garcia.

The Ombudsman said she had no intention of resigning since an accusation does not prove guilt.

She also said she should not bee seen as a hindrance by the Aquino administration in its campaign to weed out corruption in government.

"How can I be a hindrance when I am doing my duty to file cases against officials where there is enough evidence proving their guilt?" she asked.

"If they have cases against Arroyo or any government official in the past or during the present administration, why not file it? It is the duty of the Ombudsman to receive and assess the complaints."

first knight

March 18th, 2011, 01:33 AM

It will be the greatest accomplishment of this administration to impeach the greatest stumbling block in prosecuting those who robbed dry this country during the time of Gloria Arroyo.

Obviously, dailies like Manila Standard and their writers are protecting people from the past administration who made the Philippine treasury as their personal payola and piggy bank.

Defiant Merci

AMADO P. MACASAET
Malaya Business Insights
March 18, 2011

‘Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez may be expecting the Supreme Court to rule in her favor in her memorandum for reconsideration.’

OMBUDSMAN Merceditas Gutierrez is behaving like a government she served with not too much distinction still headed by Mrs. Gloria Arroyo.

This is indicated by her stern announcement that she will not comply with the notice of the House of Representatives to file her answer within three days to the impeachment complaint against her.

She will wait for the final ruling of the Supreme Court on her motion for reconsideration. The court, after issuing a temporary restraining order against hearing the complaint by the justice committee of the House, ruled that the process may continue.

The committee has the option of issuing her a subpoena with a threat of arrest if she sticks to her guns. She is practically asking for it, like she did when she refused to appear before the committee hearing the military scandal saying that the probe is not in aid of legislation.

Angered by the defiance, the committee unanimously voted to send her a subpoena with a threat of arrest if she does not appear to testify. She meekly changed her mind and honored the subpoena.

It is rather difficult to fathom the reasons the Ombudsman is ignoring the request of a co-equal, co-independent body like the legislative branch.

One interpretation is she may be expecting the Supreme Court to rule in her favor in her memorandum for reconsideration.

If this comes to pass, there might be a constitutional crisis of some sort in the sense that a favorable ruling would have the effect of the judiciary usurping the functions of the legislative.

On the other hand, if the court throws out her MR she has no choice but to face the impeachment charges.

The impeachment noose is tightening around the neck of the Ombudsman. The leadership of the House initially meekly accepted the TRO against hearing the impeachment complaint.

Speaker Feliciano Belmonte did not do much beyond saying that it might be necessary to wait for the final ruling of the Supreme Court.

He changed his mind after President Aquino reportedly summoned House leaders precisely to tell them to push with the impeachment of the Ombudsman.

Niel Tupas Jr., head of the justice committee, appears to be bent on pushing with the impeachment, not minding how the Supreme Court will rule on Ms. Gutierrez’ memorandum for reconsideration.

The question here, as far as we can figure out, is whether or not the judiciary as the final arbiter of the Constitution and the laws has the power to usurp the function of the House of Representatives which, under the Constitution, is the sole body that can initiate impeachment.

May the duty of interpreting the Constitution and the laws extend to the invasion of the turf of the House of Representatives as far as impeachment is concerned?

If it does, the consequences are extremely dangerous. The Supreme Court, it may turn out, can stop impeachment proceedings.

The effect is for the court to lend itself to the perpetuation of fraud in the sense that impeachment is restored to in an effort to get rid of an official who violates the Constitution and the laws but may not be yanked out of office except by impeachment.

We presume that the Ombudsman is not exactly acting on her own. She may have allowed herself to be a puppet of more powerful officials who are and will continue to use her to free themselves from heinous crimes including plunder which many expect may be filed against former President Arroyo and her close allies.

If this is so, there is no question about the necessity for her to be in office until her term expires sometime next year. The time left of her tenure is not that long but she can stymie the drive of President Aquino to run after the corrupt in the previous government.

Plunder prescribes in 20 years. Ms. Gutierrez leaves by retirement in less than two years. President Aquino is expected to appoint a successor who will use hammer and tongs against the corrupt facing charges in the Office of the Ombudsman. But, as this space frequently mentions, some "miracles" can happen in the short period of two years.

As we said before, the filing of charges against her powerful bosses can be manipulated or done in a hurry while she is still in office. Chances are she will drop the charges for lack of probable cause or some such legal gobbledygook.

Of course, it need not be said that her successor will review her decisions. So much time would have been lost such that other events may overshadow or eclipse the investigation and eventual filing of plunder charges.

The subject may be lost in the public consciousness. That may create an opportunity for the defendants of in the plunder cases to try many tricks including the use of vast resources to make sure that the trial is either delayed over a much longer period or the criminal charges are eventually dismissed.

The refusal of Mrs. Gutierrez to file an answer to the impeachment complaint is defiance intended to prolong her stay in office. It is a shallow trick that the House of Representatives should not allow if it has to tangle with the Supreme Court.

first knight

March 18th, 2011, 01:41 AM

Its quite obvious as to why GMA allies are for Merceditas. If Merci is impeached, Gloria'a cahoots and herself will now be tried for their thieving ways during Arroyo's massive graft-ridden government.

Merci impeach gets going

GMA allies fail to delay proceedings

By WENDEL VIGILIA
Malaya Business Insights
March 18, 2011

THE House committee on justice yesterday approved the sufficiency of the grounds to impeach Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez despite allegations of "railroading" by allies of former President and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Arroyo.

The committee, chaired by Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas, outvoted Arroyo allies led by Marc Douglas Cagas of Davao del Sur and Martin Romualdez of Leyte in finding the complaints sufficient in grounds.

The vote on the first complaint filed by the Akbayan group was 41-12. The vote on the second complaint filed by groups allied with Bayan Muna was 42-12.

The first complaint was filed July 22, 2010 while the second was filed Aug. 3, 2010.

Complainants and their witnesses are expected to present documentary evidence today and tomorrow.

Tupas noted it was the first time that a complaint reached a stage where witnesses and evidence would be presented and since Gutierrez did not file a reply, the committee had to enter a general denial on her behalf.

Majority of the panel’s members also voted against moves by Rodante Marcoleta of Alagad and Rodolfo Albano Jr. of Isabela to postpone the deliberations pending the finality of the Feb. 15 Supreme Court ruling which upheld the legality of the committee’s hearings.

The two lawmakers want the committee to accord Gutierrez the chance to answer the allegations on paper even after she was already given until last Monday to file her reply. The Ombudsman a motion for reconsideration with the SC last Monday.

Marcoleta said there was obviously "precipitate haste" in proceeding with the deliberations.

Cagas said "it is the justice committee’s moral obligation to respect the rights of respondents."

Bayan Muna Rep. Neri Colmenares disputed the minority bloc’s claim that the committee is trampling on the rights of the Ombudsman, saying the SC had already stopped the panel’s hearings for five months.

Bayan Muna Rep. Teddy Casiño said that by waiting for five months, the panel "has been more than generous to the Supreme Court."

"This is just to give courtesy to the co-equal branch. Napakatagal na po ng mga complaints na ito. If we are accused of being hasty then so be it, we have to be hasty," he said.

Deputy Speaker Raul Daza of Northern Samar said: "Let’s take the risk, let’s meet the challenge of history, let’s take the road of courage."

Gutierrez is being accused of culpable violation of the Constitution and betrayal of public trust for allegedly protecting Arroyo and her family from high-profile cases filed at the Ombudsman.

Gutierrez has questioned the justice committee’s past hearings on the two complaints filed against her, saying it violates the constitutional rule that only one complaint should be considered against the same official in a year.

‘BAD PRECEDENT’

Gutierrez said it is unfortunate that the House justice committee still pushed through with the voting on the impeachment case despite a pending case on the same issue with the Supreme Court.

"This is a bad precedent in our justice system because the House Justice Committee only showed how the constitutional rights of an individual could be trampled upon in the name of politics," she said.

Gutierrez said she was hoping that majority of members of the House Justice Committee would rise above partisan politics. "But I guess I was wrong. I could not expect any fair treatment from the Justice Committee at this point."

She said the justice committee has to be reminded that what they voted upon is the second impeachment complaint against her and falls under the one-year ban. "The same case is still pending before the Supreme Court. This grave injustice is evident and therefore illegal."

Gutierrez insists the impeachment complaints were made with false and baseless accusations and were resurrected to unjustly vilify her and the office she is representing. "This is not my fight alone but also for the Office of the Ombudsman as an institution that has been unduly undermined in the selfish quest to unfairly remove me from office."

GRACEFUL EXIT

Former Special Prosecutor Dennis Villa-Ignacio said Ombudsman Gutierrez should now consider a graceful exit to save her office from further controversy and spare the country from an expensive exercise.

He said the action of the House committee on justice is a very good indicator of where the Aquino administration is headed with its campaign to eradicate corruption in public offices.

Deputy presidential spokesperson Abigail Valte said the constitutional process is already unfolding, and as the head of a constitutionality independent office, the Ombudsman must weight her options in light of these historic proceedings. – With Peter J.G. Tabingo and Jocelyn Montemayor

boypad

March 18th, 2011, 05:06 PM

Palace cuts SC justices’ retirement pay in half; judges boo Abad

The Daily Tribune
By Benjamin B. Pulta
March 19, 2011
http://www.tribuneonline.org/headlines/20110319hed2.html

President Aquino and his allies’ vindictiveness toward the high court justices not appointed by him has spread into slashing even their retirement pay.

Malacañang’s proposal to cut in half P1.3 million a Supreme Court (SC) justice receives when he steps down is the latest flashpoint in the tribunal’s high profile standoff between magistrates identified with Malacanang and those supposedly allied with the camp of former President Gloria Arroyo.

A source in the high court said the resolution has been issued but has since been withdrawn and would have cut to P650,000 the amount to be received by outgoing magistrates.

In the late President Cory Aquino’s time, and on a “revolving door” policy in the matter of chief justices’ appointments, the retirement pay of an SC justice was raised to P1 million. That was some 25 years ago. Cutting the retirement of the retiring SC justice would reduce the already measly retirement pay to peanuts, considering how little the peso buys these days.

The sum is among the perks received by the magistrate and is usually used to fund activities to honor the outgoing justice.

“Right now it’s unclear whether the resolution is in effect or not,” the source added.

The source pointed out that the resolution would immediately affect

Senior Associate Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales who wil reach the retirement age of 70 years on June 19.

Carpio-Morales along with her relative, another senior magistrate, Antonio Carpio and Aquino’s appointee Lourdes Sereno are perceived to be a pro-Malacañang minority in the high court in its stand off with the high court headed by Chief Justice Renato Corona, an appointee of Arroyo.

Thus far, their voting pattern tends to follow the Palace line.

Court administrator and spokesman Jose Midas Marquez, when reached by the Tribune for confirmation on this story, said he is not aware of any Palace proposal to slash the retirement pay, but said he will check it out.

Meanwhile, judges in the country called off plans to protest the cut in the judiciary’s proposed budget for this year after the Palace agreed to make current their salaries and allowances.

Officials and members of the Philippine Judges Association (PJA), Philippine Trial Judge League (PTJL) and Metropolitan and City Judges Association the Philippines (MCJAP) held a national assembly and voted to accept the offer of the Department of Budget andManagement (DBM).

The three groups and the DBM forged a memorandum of agreement (MoA) providing for the restoration of the full special salaries and allowances under RA 9227, payment of salary adjustment under the Salary Standardization Law and payment of special allowances distinct from basic salary.

The MoA carried a disclaimer that it was not a waiver of the judges’ right to claim the salary differential pertaining to the 20-percent increase in 2008 and 2009.

During voting at 3 p.m., 543 of the 610 judges in attendance, or 89 percent agreed to go with the MoA.

“We will no longer proceed with the protest. Our members have accepted the MoA,” PJA president and Manila Regional Trial Court Judge Antonio Eugenio Jr. said in an interview after their assembly held at the Century Park Hotel in Manila.

Department of Budget and Management Secretary Florencio Abad was expected to sign the MoA, but had to attend the Palace’s emergency meeting on the Middle East crisis.

He instead sent Director Tina Rosemarie Canda as his representative.

Abad’s absence in the much-anticipated dialogue invited boos from the judges .

Canda told reporters after the meeting that the DBM stands by its interpretation that subsequent increases in salaries following the RA 9227’s full implementation in 2007 should be taken from the Special Allowance for Justices, Judges and Court personnel (SAJJ) funds. But the judges insisted that the SAJJ funds should be untouched and that their basic salaries should come from coffers of the national government.

Eugenio revealed that some 50 judges still believed that Palace’s action was “mere palliative” and that they still have to pursue their demands for their accumulated salary increases and benefits under the SAJJ law that had been unpaid over the past four years.

The SC included this claim of judges in the P27.1-billion proposed budget for 2011. But the Congress and Aquino cut this proposed budget by almost half and approved only P14.65 billion despite lobbying from the SC.

Parchie

March 18th, 2011, 05:45 PM

amigo32

March 18th, 2011, 11:31 PM

si Noy lang matitira dyan pramis:D toinks

boypad

March 20th, 2011, 09:29 AM

Lockdown to ensure quorum in the House

Manila Standard Today
by Christine Herrera
March 19-20, 2011
http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/insideNation.htm?f=2011/march/19/nation2.isx&d=2011/march/19

The House leadership may declare a “lockdown” during the last three session days to ensure a quorum for the lawmakers to act on two important issues – the impeachment of Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez and the postponement of elections in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao.

The lockdown option is being considered after the staunch allies of PresidentAquino – the 29-member Nacionalista Party and the 30-member National Unity Party joined the 35-member opposition in taking a stand to vote against impeachment and postponement of the ARMM polls.

The NP, the NUP and the militant Bayan Muna are protesting the alleged “railroading and sham consultations” in the ARMM postponement proceedings.

The moderate two-member Akbayan supports both issues while the seven-member militant left lawmakers oppose the ARMM polls postponement but pushes for the impeachment of the Ombudsman. The rival leftist groups are complainants in the impeachment case.

But Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. said the lockdown may not be necessary since the leadership was confident it can muster the quorum of 143 of 284 House members.

“We are confident of the quorum and the numbers on both issues,” Belmonte told the Manila Standard on Friday. “We appealed to their patriotism.”

The House is slated to approve on Monday the Articles of Impeachment that would be transmitted to the Senate for trial and on Tuesday, take up the ARMM polls postponement.

“Huwag silang pakasisiguro. You saw what happened last Wednesday,” according to Sulu Rep. Tupay Loong, chairman of the House committee on Muslim Affairs, who vehemently opposes the postponement of the ARMM polls in August this year.

boypad

March 20th, 2011, 09:30 AM

Abaya: 'Zero pork barrel' text a mind game

SunStar Manila, Philippines
Sunday, March 20, 2011
http://www.sunstar.com.ph/breaking-news/2011/03/20/abaya-zero-pork-barrel-text-mind-game-145868

MANILA -- A text message threatening to withhold the pork barrel of congressmen who vote against impeaching Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez is just a mind game, the man who allegedly sent it said.

Cavite Representative Joseph Emilio Abaya, chairman of the House committee on appropriations, denied sending the message, adding he does not know why Zambales Representative Mitos Magsaysay of the House minority would say he did.

Quezon Representative Lorenzo Tañada III, a member of the Liberal Party (LP) like Abaya, said the move is meant to portray the Liberal Party "as no different from the previous administration."

He said the alleged text message was black propaganda being spread by "those who want to see the Ombudsman remain in office."

Tañada added that he has known Abaya for close to 10 years and that sending the threatening text message was not in his nature.

Ombudsman Gutierrez has said the impeachment proceedings against her are part of a vendetta by the LP.

In recent weeks, President Benigno Aquino III reportedly gave LP members in the House to make sure she is impeached.

Two LP senators, Teofisto Guingona III and Francis Pangilinan, have been vocal about wanting her removed from office.

Guingona has even called on the House to impeach the ombudsman and recommended the same in a partial Senate Blue Ribbon Committee report on the plea bargain agreement in the plunder case against dismissed general Carlos Garcia.

According to Magsaysay, the text message from Abaya told House members not to abstain or oppose when the impeachment complaints against Gutierrez come to a vote.

"Those who will vote no or absent/abstain on impeachment will get zero as in zero. At least, walang sisihan that there was no forewarning," the message allegedly read.

But the warning, if real, was not sent to all members of the House.

ACT Teachers party-list Representative Antonio Tinio told Sun.Star that he received no such message. (Kathrina Alvarez/With Jonathan de Santos)

boypad

March 20th, 2011, 09:31 AM

INC trying to stop Gutierrez impeachment?

By RG Cruz, ABS-CBN News
Posted at 03/20/2011 1:24 PM | Updated as of 03/20/2011 1:24 PM
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/03/20/11/inc-trying-stop-gutierrez-impeachment

MANILA, Philippines - House Justice Committee chairman Niel Tupas Jr. claimed the influential Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) has backed Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez.

Tupas said the INC has been calling on lawmakers to vote down the impeachment complaint pending before the House of Representatives plenary.

“[Liberal Party] members and even non-LP members received phone calls from a high ranking official of INC to kill the impeachment against Ombudsman Gutierrez,” he claimed.

Tupas refused to name the INC official.

Two other congressmen confirmed getting phone calls from the INC, but on the condition of anonymity.

Tupas and House Speaker Sonny Belmonte meantime assured lawmakers that their priority development assistance funds (PDAF) will not be withheld regardless of how they will vote on the impeachment.

Tupas said, “I think the policy of a minimum PDAF applying to all is still in effect since we are not aware of a contrary directive.”

Belmonte, for his part, said “definitely the PDAF will not be affected by how one votes.”

The PDAF has allegedly been used by the Executive, which some call a carrot-and-stick approach, to make sure allies in the legislature toe its line.

A text message purportedly blackmailing lawmakers into supporting the impeachment also circulated among lawmakers over the weekend.

The text message is being attributed to Cavite Rep. Joseph Emilio Aguinaldo Abaya, chairman of the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee, which oversees budgeting and releases of funding.

The text reads: “Frm Cong. Abaya-Favor kindly disseminate to all reps - LP and non-LPs. Thisshud b made clear to all. Those who will vote no or absent/abstain on impeachment will get 0 as in zero. At least walang sisihan that there was no forewarning...."

Upon receipt of the text message, ABS-CBN forwarded it to Abaya, Majority Leader Boyet Gonzales, Justice Committee Chair Niel Tupas Jr. and House Speaker Sonny Belmonte for validation and comment.

Gonzales and Tupas sent separate messages denying it for Abaya.

Tupas said, “I don’t think so. No such thing.”

Gonzales said, “I just talked to Jun abaya. He denies it. It maybe a disinformation campaign to muddle the impeachment process.”

Abaya merely said, “intrigue.”

chris_nigel

March 21st, 2011, 09:35 PM

^^ what for? what a baseless news to talk about

first knight

March 22nd, 2011, 01:31 AM

^^ what for? what a baseless news to talk about

Plain clueless.

first knight

March 22nd, 2011, 04:34 AM

INC trying to stop Gutierrez impeachment?

By RG Cruz, ABS-CBN News
Posted at 03/20/2011 1:24 PM | Updated as of 03/20/2011 1:24 PM
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/03/20/11/inc-trying-stop-gutierrez-impeachment

MANILA, Philippines - House Justice Committee chairman Niel Tupas Jr. claimed the influential Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) has backed Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez.

Tupas said the INC has been calling on lawmakers to vote down the impeachment complaint pending before the House of Representatives plenary.

“[Liberal Party] members and even non-LP members received phone calls from a high ranking official of INC to kill the impeachment against Ombudsman Gutierrez,” he claimed.

Tupas refused to name the INC official.

Two other congressmen confirmed getting phone calls from the INC, but on the condition of anonymity.

^^ what for? what a baseless news to talk about

Read this.

The news about the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) lobbying congressmen to desist from voting for the impeachment of Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez is very disturbing. Support for Gutierrez actually means support for Gloria Arroyo and her cabal.

Everyone knows that the INC is a monolithic sect that is politically very influential. The fact that it demands favors from those candidates it successfully helped win elections is well-known. But that’s par for the course.

What is disturbing is its tendency lately to lobby for persons who are not exactly deserving, to put it mildly. The lobbying for Gutierrez, if true, is a prime example. The support that it has given and still is probably giving to ex-foreign secretary Alberto Romulo is another.

The question now is where does the INC stand – on the side of political expediency or what is right? Has the seed of corruption been planted in its midst?

http://www.malaya.com.ph/mar22/edrey.html

kalbongdad

March 22nd, 2011, 06:39 AM

oi ang mga righteous nabungangaan na.....feeling good hearing their inner voices :lol:

anintilidyibol blabiring...daw lola...:lol:

first knight

March 22nd, 2011, 06:56 AM

oi ang mga righteous nabungangaan na.....feeling good hearing their inner voices :lol:

anintilidyibol blabiring...daw lola...:lol:

blabbering fool.

kalbongdad

March 22nd, 2011, 07:19 AM

o kita nyo....thinking out loud si lola nyo.....blabiring ful daw hahaha

rain34

March 22nd, 2011, 12:44 PM

Plain clueless.

maybe he is from INC

chris_nigel

March 22nd, 2011, 03:42 PM

The news about the Iglesia ni Cristo (INC) lobbying congressmen to desist from voting for the impeachment of Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez is very disturbing. Support for Gutierrez actually means support for Gloria Arroyo and her cabal.

Everyone knows that the INC is a monolithic sect that is politically very influential. The fact that it demands favors from those candidates it successfully helped win elections is well-known. But that’s par for the course.

What is disturbing is its tendency lately to lobby for persons who are not exactly deserving, to put it mildly. The lobbying for Gutierrez, if true, is a prime example. The support that it has given and still is probably giving to ex-foreign secretary Alberto Romulo is another.

The question now is where does the INC stand – on the side of political expediency or what is right? Has the seed of corruption been planted in its midst?

http://www.malaya.com.ph/mar22/edrey.html

gusto na ata matapos career nitong nagsulat ni to:lol::lol:

Nabartek

March 23rd, 2011, 04:38 AM

^^ Hindi kaya may pork barrel din ang INC :lol:

chris_nigel

March 23rd, 2011, 04:56 AM

^^ pwede pero if they can prove it na meron kung wala eh d lagot kang manunulat ka:lol::lol:

first knight

March 23rd, 2011, 07:33 AM

o kita nyo....thinking out loud si lola nyo.....blabiring ful daw hahaha

Blabbering fool.

r0mm3l

April 1st, 2011, 04:23 PM

Merci defies Palace by declaring deputy acquitted
http://www.gmanews.tv/story/216713/nation/merci-defies-palace-by-declaring-deputy-acquitted

The embattled Ombudsman, Merceditas Gutierrez, is defying Malacañang by declaring that her deputy Emilio Gonzalez III, ordered dismissed by the Office of the President on Thursday, has already been acquitted in an internal probe.

According to Gutierrez's official statement, the matter of her deputy's culpability is "legally final and closed."

Gutierrez said that an internal investigation by her office has already found Gonzalez not culpable in the deadly August 23, 2010, hostage-taking crisis in Luneta.

"This Office... had already taken cognizance of the case of DO Gonzales and its Internal Affairs Board has already acquitted him of the charge," Gutierrez said.

The Ombudsman said the internal probe was initiated based on the provisions under Section 4, Article XI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution giving the office independence from any other office of government.

"This Office has considered the matter of DO Gonzales’ culpability in the hijacking episode as legally final and closed," she said.

Malacañang earlier on Friday announced Gonzalez's dismissal for the alleged mishandling of the case of Inspector Rolando Mendoza, who held hostage Hong Kong tourists last year.

The Palace took note of the length of time – nine months – that it took Gonzalez to rule on the motion for reconsideration filed by Mendoza. It said he could have decided on the matter in five days.

While speaking with Gonzalez over the phone in the middle of the hostage-taking crisis, hostage-taker Mendoza berated the deputy ombudsman for allegedly demanding P150,000 from him in exchange for the settlement of his case that led to his dismissal from the police service.

"P-- mo, humihingi ka pa ng P150,000 para sa kaso ko. Kung may mamatay rito, kasalanan mo lahat ito," Mendoza allegedly shouted Gonzalez.

Investigators at the time looked into the possibility that the alleged P150,000 demand could have fueled Mendoza's anger.

Gonzalez had denied the accusation of the hostage-taker, who he said he never met before, adding he was merely "framed up." — LBG/HS, GMA News
-->ang KAPAL.

rain34

April 1st, 2011, 04:36 PM

Eastern Dragon

April 2nd, 2011, 02:15 PM

the Ombudsman is getting dirtier everyday...this office should have been the most trustworthy agency but its becoming otherwise

kapalmuks award 2011 goes to merci gutierez.:lol:

NOVO ECIJANO

April 2nd, 2011, 04:17 PM

kapalmuks award 2011 goes to merci gutierez.:lol:

and to pnoy,wow everday news is his incompetence.that's for the book.

first knight

April 3rd, 2011, 03:09 AM

the Ombudsman is getting dirtier everyday...this office should have been the most trustworthy agency but its becoming otherwise
I concur.

kapalmuks award 2011 goes to merci gutierez.:lol:

I concur.

and to pnoy,wow everday news is his incompetence.that's for the book.

wrong.

Mydistrict

April 3rd, 2011, 04:41 AM

Why not introduce the idea of CANING in the philippines ? Instead of lifetime imprisonment or whatever, paluin nalang + plus short stay sa kulungan. Tignan natin kung hindi pa matuto yan.

Singaporeans were disciplined because of this procedure. Inhumane to some but look at how they behave now.

Wiki : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_in_Singapore

whatuwan

April 3rd, 2011, 07:04 AM

Death penaltly na lang ang kailangan... Caning doesn't do much.

rally

April 4th, 2011, 03:49 AM

first knight

April 4th, 2011, 04:00 AM

Kintoy

April 4th, 2011, 05:28 PM

ang kapal ng mukha ni Merceditas. sana tamaan ng kidlat ang buwisit na yan

bledzoe

April 7th, 2011, 05:19 AM

brace yourself for another heavyweight battle...

Purisima files raps vs Pichay
(http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=673819&publicationSubCategoryId=63)By Iris Gonzales and Edu Punay (The Philippine Star) Updated April 07, 2011 12:00 AM Comments (39)

http://www2.2space.net/images/upl_newsImage/1288371025.jpg

http://multiply.com/mu/electro18/image/33/photos/7/400x400/1/conge.jpg?et=TaWUJqG48MTFo4r73zS7Tw&nmid=44472056

MANILA, Philippines - The Department of Finance (DOF) has filed criminal charges against Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA) chairman Prospero Pichay Jr. and other ranking officials of the agency for their “highly irregular” and “anomalous” acquisition of a controlling stake in a thrift bank in Cabuyao, Laguna in 2008.

In a separate administrative case, the DOF through Secretary Cesar Purisima also accused Pichay and the others of “grave misconduct” and violation of the General Appropriations Act (GAA) of 2009 for making the transaction without approval from the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas.

Pichay, a former Surigao del Sur congressman, was appointed LWUA chairman by former President and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in 2008.

Pichay, in reaction, called the filing of the cases “ill-advised.”

LWUA is a government-owned and controlled corporation mandated by law to promote and oversee the development of water supply systems in areas outside Metro Manila. It has a specialized lending function.

Members of the LWUA Board of Trustees named in the complaint are Renato Velasco, Susana Vargas, Bonifacio Maria Peña Sr. and Daniel Landingin.

The DOF’s case filed with the Justice department stemmed from LWUA’s acquisition of 60 percent of the outstanding shares of Express Savings Bank Inc. in 2008.

Purisima said LWUA under Pichay infused P480 million in taxpayers’ money into the “financially troubled” Express Savings Bank originally owned by the Gatchalian family of the Wellex Group.

“These offenses have arisen from their direct and willful participation in facilitating the highly irregular and anomalous takeover of Express Savings Bank, Inc., a financially troubled bank undergoing rehabilitation, in wanton violation of pertinent banking laws and rules and at a gross disadvantage to LWUA and the national government,” the DOF said in its 35-page complaint.

“Acting with manifest partiality and evident bad faith, or at the very least, gross inexcusable negligence amounting to fraud, the LWUA Board caused undue injury to the government and gave the Gatchalian family unwarranted benefits and advantage by directing the acquisition of and authorizing payment for the subject shares at a total price of P80 million when the actual book value of the same subject shares at that time was approximately P31 million,” the DOF said.

The DOF said the BSP had advised LWUA in 2008 against establishing a wholly owned banking subsidiary called Water Development Bank, citing a moratorium on the establishment of new banks.

LWUA then decided to just acquire Express Savings Bank “despite the obvious and considerable drawbacks” in having exposure in the cash-strapped institution and “without the requisite prior approvals from Finance, OP (Office of the President) and the Monetary Board.”

Securities and Exchange Commission records showed Express Savings suffered losses of up to P27.87 million from 2005 to 2009. It also had an increasing capital deficiency during the five-year period amounting to P51.77 million.

The DOF and the OP have supervision over GOCCs, including LWUA.

Any sale or transfer of shares that can result in ownership of more than 20 percent of the voting stock of a bank needs the approval of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP).

In the administrative case, the DOF said LWUA officials acquired Express Savings Bank “in capricious disregard and blatant violation of existing laws, rules and regulations, and with evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence amounting to fraud.”

Ill-advised

Pichay said Purisima was “ill-advised” in filing the charges and urged him to review the documents on the acquisition of Express Savings.

He said LWUA went through the process by first seeking the legal opinion of the Office of the Government Corporate Counsel, which allowed the transaction.

He also claimed LWUA had sought the permission of the Office of the President, which referred the matter to the BSP.

Pichay said that while the BSP disallowed the creation of a new bank, it advised the LWUA to look for an existing bank willing to sell at least 60 percent of its shares. Deputy Gov. Nestor Espenilla gave the advice in a letter.

“On the argument that we bought a losing bank, where is that guy who owns a profitable bank, a bank that is making money, willing to sell it? If that happens, the price would surely be sky high,” Pichay told The STAR.

He called the purchase of Express Savings “very reasonable,” saying the bank turned in an income of P30 million in 2010. Its income is expected to increase by P10 million this year, he said.

“The rationale behind this is that LWUA is a lending institution and we lend to water districts nationwide. We wanted to plow back our revenues to the water districts,” he said.

“I’m sure Secretary Purisima himself is convinced of the soundness of the transaction but unfortunately, I think I’m the latest victim of the campaign to persecute people from the previous administration. I wish they can just let this country move forward,” Pichay said.

bledzoe

April 8th, 2011, 03:30 AM

Biggest P5.5B tax case filed against trader
By Nikko Dizon
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 03:48:00 04/08/2011

Filed Under: Crime and Law and Justice, State Budget & Taxes, Real Estate
MANILA, Philippines — A businessman who allegedly defrauded the government of P5.5 billion by underdeclaring his income is facing in court what officials described as the biggest tax evasion case in the history of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR).

The Department of Justice (DoJ) announced Thursday that following a six-month preliminary investigation it had found probable cause in charging Macario Lim Gaw Jr., owner of Mega Packaging Corp., with failure to file correct taxes under the National Internal Revenue Code.

“Respondent’s previous sale transactions in 2007, coupled with his continuing transactions in 2008, makes him a person engaged in real estate business under BIR revenue regulation,” a three-member DoJ panel said in an eight-page resolution.

Documents presented by Gaw showed that “he is actually in [the] business of selling real properties for profit,” said the panel composed of Senior Assistant State Prosecutor Susan Dacanay and Assistant State Prosecutors Edna Valenzuela and Cesar Calubag.

The resolution dated March 17 and released Thursday was approved by Senior Deputy State Prosecutor Miguel Guido and Prosecutor General Claro Arellano.

When the BIR filed the complaint against Gaw in August last year, Finance Secretary Cesar Purisima described it as the “biggest tax evasion” case ever filed by the agency against any individual.

Aside from failing to pay the correct income taxes in 2007 and 2008, Gaw allegedly bought 10 lots during these years in the aggregate amount of P4.11 billion and sold them for P8.41 billion eight months later.

The BIR said Gaw “deliberately misclassified” the sale of the 10 lots as a sale of “capital assets” when these were undoubtedly sales of ordinary assets.

By doing so, Gaw supposedly paid only a 6-percent capital gains tax amounting to P9.1 million in 2007 and P418.7 million in 2008 to avoid paying the 32-percent income tax and 12-percent VAT due to sales of lands classified as ordinary assets.

Gaw denial

In his counter-affidavit, Gaw denied any wrongdoing. He claimed that he had taken out a bank loan worth P4.75 billion to acquire the 10 parcels of land, contrary to the allegation of the BIR that the money came from undeclared income. He presented bank documents to support his claim.

He also insisted that the parcels of land which he sold were capital assets for which he paid the correct capital gains tax, adding that he only used one taxpayer’s identification number in purchasing the land.

Unacceptable

Gaw also assailed the BIR for filing the complaint against him a day after he secured the letter of authority from the agency, adding that had revenue officers conducted a proper investigation, “then it would not have filed this baseless complaint.”

The DoJ, however, found Gaw’s contentions unacceptable.

It said that the 10 parcels of land that Gaw acquired totaled 19.5 hectares had already ready buyers, “thus the sale was for business intended for profit.”

“We also find merit in the contention of the BIR that indeed respondent has extensive knowledge in real estate business and its tax consequences having acted as attorney-in-fact in nine real estate transactions for various corporations, which respondent did not deny,” the panel said.

It said that there was basis for the BIR’s allegation that the properties sold by Gaw in 2008 within a brief holding period of eight months “should have been classified as sale of ordinary assets intended for profits for which he should have declared income of P4.11 billion for said transaction.”

He also should have paid the correct amount equivalent to 32 percent income tax and 12 percent value added tax, the DoJ said.

Gaw’s allegation that the complaint was filed a day after he received the letter of authority was considered “moot and academic” by the panel because he was given all the opportunities to answer the allegations during the preliminary investigation, it said.

bledzoe

April 8th, 2011, 03:37 AM

Biggest P5.5B tax case filed against trader (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/20110408-329992/Biggest-P55B-tax-case-filed-against-trader)
By Nikko Dizon
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 03:48:00 04/08/2011

http://www.loveradio.com.ph/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/9c63cb5998856ad9f1928c2520bb-grande.jpg

Filed Under: Crime and Law and Justice, State Budget & Taxes, Real Estate
MANILA, Philippines — A businessman who allegedly defrauded the government of P5.5 billion by underdeclaring his income is facing in court what officials described as the biggest tax evasion case in the history of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR).

The Department of Justice (DoJ) announced Thursday that following a six-month preliminary investigation it had found probable cause in charging Macario Lim Gaw Jr., owner of Mega Packaging Corp., with failure to file correct taxes under the National Internal Revenue Code.

“Respondent’s previous sale transactions in 2007, coupled with his continuing transactions in 2008, makes him a person engaged in real estate business under BIR revenue regulation,” a three-member DoJ panel said in an eight-page resolution.

Documents presented by Gaw showed that “he is actually in [the] business of selling real properties for profit,” said the panel composed of Senior Assistant State Prosecutor Susan Dacanay and Assistant State Prosecutors Edna Valenzuela and Cesar Calubag.

The resolution dated March 17 and released Thursday was approved by Senior Deputy State Prosecutor Miguel Guido and Prosecutor General Claro Arellano.

When the BIR filed the complaint against Gaw in August last year, Finance Secretary Cesar Purisima described it as the “biggest tax evasion” case ever filed by the agency against any individual.

Aside from failing to pay the correct income taxes in 2007 and 2008, Gaw allegedly bought 10 lots during these years in the aggregate amount of P4.11 billion and sold them for P8.41 billion eight months later.

The BIR said Gaw “deliberately misclassified” the sale of the 10 lots as a sale of “capital assets” when these were undoubtedly sales of ordinary assets.

By doing so, Gaw supposedly paid only a 6-percent capital gains tax amounting to P9.1 million in 2007 and P418.7 million in 2008 to avoid paying the 32-percent income tax and 12-percent VAT due to sales of lands classified as ordinary assets.

Gaw denial

In his counter-affidavit, Gaw denied any wrongdoing. He claimed that he had taken out a bank loan worth P4.75 billion to acquire the 10 parcels of land, contrary to the allegation of the BIR that the money came from undeclared income. He presented bank documents to support his claim.

He also insisted that the parcels of land which he sold were capital assets for which he paid the correct capital gains tax, adding that he only used one taxpayer’s identification number in purchasing the land.

Unacceptable

Gaw also assailed the BIR for filing the complaint against him a day after he secured the letter of authority from the agency, adding that had revenue officers conducted a proper investigation, “then it would not have filed this baseless complaint.”

The DoJ, however, found Gaw’s contentions unacceptable.

It said that the 10 parcels of land that Gaw acquired totaled 19.5 hectares had already ready buyers, “thus the sale was for business intended for profit.”

“We also find merit in the contention of the BIR that indeed respondent has extensive knowledge in real estate business and its tax consequences having acted as attorney-in-fact in nine real estate transactions for various corporations, which respondent did not deny,” the panel said.

It said that there was basis for the BIR’s allegation that the properties sold by Gaw in 2008 within a brief holding period of eight months “should have been classified as sale of ordinary assets intended for profits for which he should have declared income of P4.11 billion for said transaction.”

He also should have paid the correct amount equivalent to 32 percent income tax and 12 percent value added tax, the DoJ said.

Gaw’s allegation that the complaint was filed a day after he received the letter of authority was considered “moot and academic” by the panel because he was given all the opportunities to answer the allegations during the preliminary investigation, it said.

bitoy

April 8th, 2011, 05:35 PM

Jalandoni resigns as deputy Ombudsman for Luzon (http://www.gmanews.tv/story/217321/nation/jalandoni-resigns-as-deputy-ombudsman-for-luzon)

Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon Mark Jalandoni has resigned after complaints seeking his dismissal were filed before the Office of the President.

In a text message to GMA News Online late Friday, Assistant Ombudsman Jose de Jesus confirmed that Jalandoni quit from his post "to spare the Ombudsman from further controversy."

red_jasper

April 15th, 2011, 07:53 AM

<<< curious, as to how the courts would rule on this case vvv

Man faces P4.1M suit for cancelling wedding (http://www.sunstar.com.ph/cebu/local-news/2011/04/11/man-faces-p41m-suit-cancelling-wedding-149757)

By Elias O. Baquero
Monday, April 11, 2011

A DOCTOR from Vicente Sotto Memorial Medical Center (VSMMC) is facing a P4.1-million damage suit as a result of an eleventh hour cancellation of a civil wedding with his girlfriend, who is a medical student.

The case, docketed under Civil Case No. LP-11-0032 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Las Piñas, Metro Manila, was filed by the 24-year-old woman against a 28-year-old surgeon at the VSMMC.

SunStar Cebu obtained a copy of the court document, but failed to reach either party for comment.

The woman said they are both from General Santos City and that they had a relationship.

In her affidavit dated March 24, 2011 and sworn to before lawyer Edcel Bolinao, she said the doctor proposed marriage on May 12, 2010, and she accepted his proposal.

They informed their respective families, relatives and friends of their engagement.

Her family was excited.

Pamanhikan

The doctor made the traditional “pamanhikan” on June 27, 2010, attended by their respective families, who celebrated their engagement and discussed the wedding preparations.

The bride-to-be agreed to shoulder the majority of the costs for the wedding as her family gave the parties the assurance of their all-out-support to give their daughter the “dream wedding” they envisioned.

They then proceeded to meet with wedding suppliers, select wedding sponsors and informed them and the guests about the wedding date, place and time. They booked plane tickets for the wedding guests and sponsors from abroad and other parts of the country.

To prepare them spiritually for a married life, they attended a Pre-Cana seminar and marriage counseling session at the Redemptorist Church in Cebu City last Aug. 1 as per certificate issued by Rev. Fr. Ricky Acero. They applied for a marriage license, which was issued by Gen. Santos City Civil Registrar Isabelita Talizo dated Jan. 3, 2011.

Paid

By December 2010, the woman had already made various payments to wedding suppliers estimated at P500,000.

But she was shocked when told by the doctor through his mobile phone last Jan. 26 that he had doubts about marrying her because of his work and insecurities. Last Jan. 30, he told her that he did not love her anymore.

Thereafter, the doctor sent her a text message informing her that he is calling off their wedding supposedly last March 19.

She was devastated and her entire family was embarrassed and was left to explain to wedding guests and sponsors what happened.

Pursuant to Article 21 of the New Civil Code and related laws and jurisprudence, she prayed for the court to order the doctor to pay her P1 million in actual damages, P2 million as moral damages, P1 million as exemplary damages, and P100,000 as attorney’s fees.

bitoy

April 15th, 2011, 08:05 AM

^^ Parang pelikula...kaya lang, hindi sumipot naman yung lalakwe sa simbahan:D

amigo32

April 15th, 2011, 08:14 AM

kasi naman ang laki ng ginastos ng babae, mukhang high maintenance kay sa ford expedition o sa porsche:D

red_jasper

April 15th, 2011, 08:58 AM

^^ a time for the lawyers to shine... landmark case kung aabot sa Supreme Court :D

rally

April 18th, 2011, 04:42 AM

Actually me settled SC decision na yan. Mananalo ang babae jan.

Bricken Ridge

April 18th, 2011, 08:49 AM

Supreme court FLIP FLOPS AGAIN.:ohno:

After declaring the creation of the Province of Dinagat (the Holy Land of now fugitive Reresentative Ruben Ecleo jr., concurrent Divin Master of the PBMA) illegal and unconstitutional, then denying 2 Motion for rEconsiderations, declaring the decision final and executory and in fact executed already, The SC reversed its decision and ruled the valid creation of the province of Dinagat.:nuts:

We would like to think that the flip flop story is about the merits and demerits of converting the 16 towns into cities or converting Dinagat into a province. The arguments made by the supreme court are obviously lame, even Juan the mangingisda sin edukasyon would agree. The big picture is this flip flopping is really about Noynoy vs. Gloria. Remember, it was Gloria who threw her magic wand and viola- new cities and province galore! She even made sure she got puppets in the sc before she left- talking about taking care of business.;)

Kintoy

April 18th, 2011, 09:05 AM

^^ like creating a new congressional district to benefit her son

manileño

April 18th, 2011, 07:01 PM

Meanwhile, this news almost went unnoticed.
So much for the gains in running after tax cheats and improving collection, the government stands to lose even more. :ohno:

Joker slams Palace silence on SC ruling on Danding shares

By Marvin Sy (The Philippine Star) Updated April 16, 2011 12:00

MANILA, Philippines - The government stands to lose more than P84 billion in the Supreme Court (SC) decision favoring businessman Eduardo “Danding” Cojuangco Jr. over his 20 percent stake in San Miguel Corp. (SMC), Sen. Joker Arroyo asserted yesterday.

Arroyo lamented the Aquino administration, for some reason, is taking the SC ruling lightly.

Arroyo said the administration was never shy of lambasting the SC in previous decisions that seemed adverse to them, but apparently changed after the high court ruling favoring President Aquino’s maternal uncle.

Arroyo noted Malacañang stated they would study the SC ruling but stressed the President has to attend to other issues of greater importance.

“This is the first time that the Supreme Court made a decision (against them) and they are quiet. They are not aggrieved. Where is their outrage over the Supreme Court (ruling)?” Arroyo said.

“The government is taking this lightly. What is involved is P84 billion. It is as if they are afraid to make a reaction,” he added.

While the government itself may not directly benefit from the recovery of the previously sequestered 20 percent stake of Cojuangco in SMC, Arroyo said it should consider the thousands of coconut farmers who will be the ultimate losers in the decision because after waiting for 25 years, they end up getting nothing.

“What did the thousands of coconut farmers get in exchange for the promised benefits they would get for the levies inflicted on them by martial law government? None. Zero,” Arroyo said.

“How about the government for their trouble in collecting the levies? Zero, likewise,” he added.

Arroyo compared the situation of the coconut farmers, who were forced to pay the levy to the government, to the controversy that rocked the country’s pre-need industry several years back.

Parents religiously invested their hard earned money into educational plans for years only to lose it all eventually because the pre-need firms encountered financial problems and lost the funds meant for their children’s education.

“It is just like that. They (coconut farmers) end up with nothing. It is like this, they were imposed the levy, they waited to get back their money and after that, thank you, all you get is nothing,” Arroyo said.

Arroyo pointed to the dissenting opinion of SC Associate Justice Arturo Brion who pointed out the value of the 20 percent stake of Cojuangco’s shares at SMC would be P84.56 billion at present value.

Arroyo said that amount was equivalent to 5.49 percent of last year’s entire national budget. The amount is also equivalent to more than half of the P160 billion that the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) has recovered from the late strongman President Ferdinand Marcos’ families, relatives and cronies since it was created in 1986.

Arroyo, who served as executive secretary of President Aquino’s mother, the late former President Corazon Aquino, recalled that the PCGG was created by virtue of Executive Order 1, which he said, was authored by no less than former Senate president Jovito Salonga.

Arroyo said the shares of Cojuangco were among the first cases studied by the PCGG, under the leadership of Salonga, whose mandate was to recover all ill-gotten wealth accumulated by the Marcoses and their cronies.

The PCGG was also tasked to adopt safeguards to ensure that those practices would not be repeated in any manner under the new government.

“What happens to President Cory’s first Executive Order No. 1, ‘to ensure that (such) practices shall not be repeated in any manner’? Sadly, it becomes a dead letter,” Arroyo said.

amigo32

April 19th, 2011, 12:05 AM

Daang matuwid di ko makita.

bitoy

April 19th, 2011, 12:40 AM

amigo32

April 19th, 2011, 12:55 AM

^^ :lol: Ngayon pa nag bubunganga si Joker, nuon pa dapat siya nagsalita nang panahon ni GMA....tameme siya nuon kahit na sangkatutak ang mga midnight appointments at mga corruption scandals ng mga politicians na lantaran..ooops, mga kaibigan pala niya yung iba ... :lol:

Kaya nga siguro Joker pangalan niya... :lol:

kasi marami na nagbunganga noon, kagaya nila peter cayetano:D:lol: staggered sila, ngayon namn sya. o di ba? di namn masama kung totoong meron dapat ipagbunganga ang Joker:lol:, di ba yan ang daang matuwid na gusto ni Noy,:lol: di ba dapat matuwa tayo? tayong lahat?:D:lol:

o, tayo na magkapit bisig sa pag bunganga sa mga kurapsyon na nangyayari nagyon:D

Askal82

April 19th, 2011, 02:11 AM

kasi marami na nagbunganga noon, kagaya nila peter cayetano:D:lol: staggered sila, ngayon namn sya. o di ba? di namn masama kung totoong meron dapat ipagbunganga ang Joker:lol:, di ba yan ang daang matuwid na gusto ni Noy,:lol: di ba dapat matuwa tayo? tayong lahat?:D:lol:

o, tayo na magkapit bisig sa pag bunganga sa mga kurapsyon na nangyayari nagyon:D

at lalo noon. :D

Askal82

April 19th, 2011, 02:14 AM