Makatarungan ba na harangin ng DOJ ang pag-alis ni CGMA ng bansa?

[judE_Law]

^hahaha... josemamontelibano... a certified critic of gloria arroyo... and number 1 supporter of the Aquinos... enlighten? lol! tsk! tsk!

[pong]

^hahaha... josemamontelibano... number 1 critic of gloria arroyo... and number 1 supporter of the Aquinos... enlighten? lol! tsk! tsk!

mmm... I read it carefully and I didn't see any hint of bias. Oh well, Michelangelo was right, the pen cannot draw the real intent.

[judE_Law]

^hahaha... josemamontelibano... number 1 critic of gloria arroyo... and number 1 supporter of the Aquinos... enlighten? lol! tsk! tsk!

mmm... I read it carefully and I didn't see any hint of bias. Oh well, Michelangelo was right, the pen cannot draw the real intent.

well... i've read a lot of his article before.. yun lang.

[pong]

^ siguro nga. This will be his first article in Inquirer that I am reading. I'm more of CDQ kaya lang he sounds prejudicial as well. Manila newspapers are tiring to read anyway, lalo na yung mga tabloid na 6 pages showbiz news at 2 pages national issues, the rest: crossword, horoscope, hula hula, confessions, etc. Newspapers however puro kakonyohan ang palaman.

OT na yata ako hahaha

[judE_Law]

The Noynoy Aquino government is turning the Philippines into a vindictive society
November 20, 2011
By Ilda

There is a list of the alleged crimes of former Philippine President Gloria Arroyo (GMA) making its rounds on social networking sites like some kind of chain letter. The list comes with a photo of GMA in a wheelchair wearing her neck brace and facemask looking gaunt and distressed. The photo is obviously not a very flattering portrait of her. It is a far cry from her regal stance during her time in office as the head of state.


Since the list has become viral, it is safe to assume that some people take pride in passing on a photo of the sick and vulnerable just for fun. They seem to think that sharing the picture is amusing and more importantly, a sign of victory against corruption and a symbol of GMA's downfall. With the way some people are celebrating her arrest, you would think that the courts have already found GMA guilty. But in fact, the legal proceedings haven't even begun. The haste with which the arrest warrant was issued already tells us that the case is not a very solid one and not only that, proceedings will be done with the usual circus-like and operatic acts that always appeal to the gullible.

This tells us what kind of mentality some Filipinos have – malicious and vindictive. This despite most having a religious upbringing. Ironically, some people who pass on the said photo are the same people who you will see posting religious or feel good quotes on the said social networking sites. The veneer of "compassion" has been unmasked to reveal the hate in the heart of the "God-fearing" lot as a show of misguided patriotism.

This also tells us that there are a lot of Filipinos who do not have empathy. Empathy is defined as the capacity to recognize and, to some extent, share feelings (such as sadness or happiness) that are being experienced by another being. They say that people may need to have a certain amount of empathy before they are able to feel compassion. It makes sense because a truly smart person would think twice about doing something to someone lest the same thing be done to him or her.

When images of a bloodied Muammar Gaddafi, the deposed Libyan dictator before he was shot to death made its rounds in the news, the whole world witnessed what a mob could do once they turn against their dear leader. One would think though that the Libyan temperament is different from the Filipino temperament on account of the "peaceful" Edsa revolution in 1986. In other words, one cannot imagine Filipinos treating their public officials in the barbaric way Gadaffi was treated by the Libyans.

However, with the recent chaotic scenes at the airport involving the anti-Arroyo group and GMA, it is obvious that some Filipinos are also capable of turning into a lynch mob once incited. And inciting more Filipinos into an angry pack is definitely the purpose of the list of GMA's supposedly "crimes" being passed around. Whoever came up with that list is a genius in mind manipulation. Whoever came up with that list knows that most Filipinos do not really bother to confirm if any of the "crimes" listed in the unofficial list have any basis or truth.

Like I said in the past, the enormous number of men and women charging ahead with President Noynoy Aquino without really understanding why they are doing so is enough indication of what the most likely outcome of this latest circus act will be. Unfortunately, the power of emotionally charged and enraged people moving in large numbers is greater than those who can think rationally and objectively. We all know that when emotion is involved, things always turn ugly.

Going back to the unofficial list of GMA's supposed "crimes", any rational being would see through the deception and propaganda involved in this attempt to further damage the reputation of the former President. The list is a long one and is designed for maximum shock value. It should be noted that the only reason the list is long is because many of the items are repetitive. One's initial reaction upon seeing the list, which goes up to 39 items would be to feel indignant. But some of the items just sound so ridiculous. One which says "200 plus other illegal midnight appointments" during her time in Malacanang does not really have any details or specifics of who they are and what post they got. Another item that is quite suspect says, "Denial of pork barrel funds to Malacanang's political enemies". To which one would be inclined to say, the onus is on the accuser to prove the accusation and once again, the list does not provide specifics.

What is most shocking in all this is how the average Filipino can fall for this kind of mind trick. You would think that when one considers the fact that the current administration has had a tough time filing charges against GMA and had only managed to file one – which is the electoral sabotage during the Senatorial election in 2007 – out of the long list after almost two years in office, Filipinos would apply a bit more healthy skepticism when regarding this list. But no, sirree. Most Filipinos still believe that GMA had all the time in the world to craft those under-the-table deals while still managing to get a lot of things done — the deployment of the troops during the Iraq war, avoiding the financial crisis that hit Europe and the US really hard, attending to international conventions, upgrading the country's infrastructure, and many other things.

In fact, much of the gains in the Philippine economy felt during the first year of the administration of Noynoy Aquino (not to mention the growth and resilience it was noted for before it) can only be attributed to GMA's management. This did not stop Aquino for taking credit for all that in a speech in Singapore before the Filipino community in March of 2011.

Something is really amiss with most Filipinos. It's as if their mentality is still stuck in the 18th Century — a time when witch hunting was in vogue. Even former Aquino ally and economist, Solita Collas-Monsod finds the series of events in the last few days "disturbing":

What I find disturbing, however, is the rush by the Comelec to file charges, particularly since it is supposed to be an independent constitutional body, not a Malacañang lackey. Consider the following timeline:

On Aug. 15, 2011, in a five-page joint order signed by De Lima and Comelec Chair Sixto Brillantes, the DOJ and the Comelec created the joint preliminary investigation committee and the joint fact-finding team regarding the allegations of electoral sabotage against Arroyo and others. I don't know what that order contained, but on the face of it, creating the two bodies at the same time must carry with it the assumption that the fact-finding team was going to find facts that would lead to a preliminary investigation.

On Oct. 21, 2011, according to De Lima, the fact-finding team was to have submitted their report, forwarding it to the joint preliminary investigation committee. I was unable to secure a copy of the fact-finding team's report, but from the news reports, it seemed to me that everything was hearsay, until Oct. 11, when former Maguindanao Gov. Andal Ampatuan Sr.'s chief aide, Norie Unas, revealed that he had overheard Arroyo ordering Ampatuan to deliver a 12-0 vote for the administration candidates in 2007. That was the only eyewitness account (and Ampatuan has just called Unas a liar and denied that the conversation took place).

On Nov. 14, or five days ago, the joint preliminary investigation committee completed its investigation.

On Nov. 16, per the Comelec chair, he received a copy of the report of the Comelec lawyers involved in the investigation, and its recommendations. Note: Only two days elapsed between the time of completion of the investigation and the recommendations.

On Nov. 17, the Comelec en banc voted to file charges against Arroyo, with two commissioners refusing to sign because they had not read the report.

Does that sound rushed or not?

Given that only one case has been charged out of the 39 "crimes" in the unofficial GMA list of crimes and that it is even turning out to be a bit "pilit", one cannot help but see all these activities perpetuated by the incumbent President, Noynoy Aquino and condoned by the majority of the Filipino people as nothing more than sad jokes.

http://getrealphilippines.com/blog/2011/11/the-noynoy-aquino-government-is-turning-the-philippines-into-a-vindictive-society

[marvinofthefaintsmile]

It is clearly shown that the bobonic President PNoy is taking credit for GMA's accomplishments while making the former president look like a bad person so PNoy will shine and appear to be like a hero or something..

Sadly, a lot of Pinoys are eating food in their bobonic plates kea kung anu-anong mga kabobohan ang laman ng utak nila.

[jazaustria]

not me!!!! go GIBO pa rin! hehe i hate PNOY

[maykel]

Makatarungan ba na harangin ng DOJ ang pag-alis ni CGMA ng bansa?
My answer is NO.

But with the question, sang ayon ka ba na magpagamot si CGMA sa ibang bansa?
My answer is also NO.

[marvinofthefaintsmile]

PNoy should focus on the Ampatuan's killing spree instead of the GMA's issues. Pero xempre, papogi points ung panot na un, so ke GMA siya. Kung ako magiging presidente eh ipapapublic execution ko ang buong clan ng mga Ampatuan. At ipapa-auction ko ung mga kagamitan at properties nila at gagamiten ang pera pra makapagpatayo ng mga schools at hospitals sa mga msusukal na lugar.

[judE_Law]

Dato Arroyo Speaks



Good afternoon.

The past few weeks have been extremely difficult for our family. Hindi lang po dahil sa walang-humpay na paninira sa aming ina o ang mga tila walang-katapusang kasong kanyang hinaharap, kundi dahil sa napakahirap sa amin na makita ang pisikal na paghihirap ng aming ina.
Na-diagnose po ang aking ina ng malubhang karamdaman sa cervical spine at umabot pa sa punto na napasailalim siya sa tatlong operasyon. Dahil sa pagbale-wala ng ilang mga opisyal sa kautusan ng Korte Suprema, natigil ang paglabas ng aming ina upang makapagkunsulta sana sa espesyalista tungkol sa natuklasang di-pangkaraniwang kalagayan ng metabolismo ng kanyang mga buto, at kalakip nito ang magkaroon sana ng kinauukulan na medical treatment.
Habang abala kami sa pagpapa-schedule ng mga appointment sa mga medikal na espesyalista sa ibang bansa, ang mga propagandista naman ng administrasyon ay mas lalong abala sa pag-imbento ng kung anu-anong anggulo tungkol sa tunay na intensyon ng kaniyang pagbiyahe. Sa pagpakita ng pamahalaang ito ng kanilang kakayahan na pahirapan at ipahiya ang aming ina doon sa NAIA, ipinakita rin ng ng administrasyon ang pagkawala ng tiwala nila sa sarili nilang kapasidad na i-monitor ang pagbalik ng aming ina sa bansa.
Allow me to state the obvious: We have no intention of seeking political asylum abroad. Ang aming buong pamilya, ang Pamilyang Arroyo, ay walang balak magtago at humingi ng political asylum sa ibang bansa. Maski pa ilang unverified text message ang pagbasehan ni Sec. De Lima.
Ang Dating Pangulo ay isang matapang na tao. Kung ginusto niya, nakaalis na sana siya at hindi na bumalik mula pa noong pagkababa niya sa puwesto, bago pa siya nasampahan ng mga katakot-takot na kaso na alam naman niya'y siguradong parating.
Ngunit wala po ito sa kaniyang pagkatao. Ang kanyang pagkatao ay ang klase na sumasabak at humaharap sa mga bagyo at kalamidad, at ang walang takot na gumawa ng mga desisyon na maaaring hindi magustuhan ng karamihan ngunit kailangan pa ring gawin para mai-angat ang bansa sa parating na krisis pinansyal.
Kalokohan po ang isipin na tatakasan nya ang kaniyang mga paglilitis. Ang katotohanan nga ay itinuturing niya itong pagkakataon na magpaliwanag sa husgado at linisin ang kanyang pangalan.
Mabait at mapagmalasakit po ang aming ina. Pinauwi niya po ang ating mga sundalo sa Iraq, maski alam niyang maaaring magalit sa atin ang US coalition, para lamang masagip ang buhay ni Angelo De La Cruz. Pinayagan niya ang Dating Pangulong Estrada na makalipad sa Hong Kong para sa operasyon ng kaniyang tuhod, at maski maraming ang tumututol, pinagbigyan pa nga ang kahilingan ni Dating-Pangulong Erap na mabigyan ng Presidential Pardon, lalo na't noong panahon na iyon lumalala ang kalagayan ng kaniyang ina na si Dona Mary.
Sa lahat ng ito, ang aming buong pamilya—mula sa aking ina, at ang masakit pa doon, hanggang sa mga anak at pamangkin ko na mga bata pa lamang—ay nakaranas ng pangungutya at galit mula sa publiko. Pinili naming manahimik. Madalas ipinapaalala ng aming ina na ang kanyang economic achievements para sa ating bayan, lalo na ang 38 quarters ng patuloy na paglago ng ekonomiya ay mas mahalaga sa paghanga ng madla; at ang buhay ay laging nangingibabaw sa pulitika.
Ngunit ngayon, bilang isang anak na nakikitang naghihirap ang kaniyang ina, hinihingi ko po sa inyong lahat: Ipagdasal natin siya. Ipagdasal natin na tratuhin siya ng patas at kasama ang presumption of innocence na nakasaad sa ating Saligang Batas. Isantabi ang pulitika at bigyan nating halaga ang mga proseso ng ating mga demokratikong institusyon.
Maraming Salamat Po.

(Delivered 4PM, St Luke's Medical Center, Taguig)

http://1rgcruz.wordpress.com/2011/11/25/dato-arroyo-speaks/

[judE_Law]

HERE IT IS, a summary of the oral arguments regarding the TRO... please read on!

------------------------------------------------------------

SUPREME COURT ON DELIMA DURING ORAL ARGUMENTS ON THE LEGALITY OF THE TRAVEL BAN DE LIMA ISSUED AGAINST ARROYO LAST MONTH:


New York USA Dec 2--WORLD NEWS: IN SHORT, THE MEANING OF WHAT THE PHILIPPINE JUSTICES TELL NONOY AQUINO'S CHIEF LAW ENFORCER LEILA DE LIMA , " YOU ARE NOT THE LAW NOR POWERFUL THAN THE LAW, WE ARE NOT A COMMUNIST STATE". DOJ Secretary de Lima was toasted and came under tough questioning from the JUSTICES OF THE PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT, with one of the JUSTICES accusing her of acting "like you are more powerful than the court.". Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro said, "The way you interpret the law shows that you are more powerful than the court."

De Lima replied that the Department of Justice (DOJ) Circular No. 41 should be deemed "constitutional as it is constitutional." De Lima added, "The infringement of an individual's right to travel is justified under the general principle of the exercise of the (state's) police power,". De Lima even asserted an "inherent power" of the government as embodied in Executive Order No. 292, or the Administrative Code of 1987. De Lima denied insinuations that she had arbitrarily or abused her authority to have placed ex-prez Arroyo and her husband, Jose Miguel "Mike" Arroyo, in the immigration bureau's watch list.

LIKE ORDERING A WELL-DONE STEAK, JUSTICE DE CASTRO TELLS DE LIMA

JUSTICE De Castro pointed out that EO 292 did not explicitly give the DOJ the power to restrict a private citizen's right to travel to protect the interest of the state. JUSTICE De Castro said De Lima did not even mention a single "law" enacted by Congress which allowed the DOJ to "impair" or "Stop" the individual rights through the exercise of the state's police power. JUSTICE De Castro said,
"If you look at all the decisions of the court involving the exercise of police power, there is always a state interest involved. That is where the balancing interest would come in," De Castro continues roasting De Lima, "Tell us what law grants the DOJ to impair a private citizen's right in order to serve public interest ? " she firmly asked the De Lima and De Lima lamented, There is no law which expressly gives the DOJ [the authority] to impair one's rights. We don't need a law to do that because what we are invoking is the state's inherent police power."

JUSTICE DE CASTRO PUT THE FIRE UP ON DE LIMA

JUSTICE DE CASTRO IMMEDIATELY said, "although the state had police power, there should be a law prescribing the guidelines on how such authority should be implemented by the government so as not to violate the rights of the citizens. In view of that authority granted to you by law, you can deny anyone a right which is guaranteed under the Constitution,". THEN JUSTICE De Castro threw the quiz to De Lima, "what is your authority to issue watch-list and hold-departure orders even without giving the concerned individuals a chance to defend themselves."

THE MESSAGE OF JUSTICE DE CASTRO IS NO ONE IS "ABOVE THE LAW," PHILIPPINES IS NOT A COMMUNIST STATE BUT "DEMOCRACY" UNDER THE "RULE OF LAW"

"In other words, you are more powerful than the court because the court can only issue an HDO (hold-departure order) only after the filing of the information and the issuance of an arrest warrant," JUSTICE De Castro told Justice Secretary De Lima. JUSTICE De Castro pressed, "Here, it is completely within your discretion to go over the complaint even without hearing the other side. The way you interpret the law shows that you are more powerful than the court," JUSTICE De Castro told De Lima.

DE LIMA SAID ARROYO IS FLIGHT RISKS BUT THE MEANING OF JUSTICE DE CASTRO'S MESSAGE TO DE LIMA IS: SAID WHO ? "FROM AN UNKNOWN TEXTER" AND DE LIMA'S PUBLIC REPLY PUBLISHED BY "THE DAILY TRIBUNE" QUOTING DE LIMA, " SO WHAT IF MY SOURCE IS "MERE" UNKNOWN TEXTER OR GOSSIP"

Defending her position, De Lima said she was only being careful not to be blamed should Arroyo fail to return to the Philippines and stays abroad. De Lima reiterated that since ex-prez Arroyo was charged with a nonbailable offense, the DOJ considered her a "real flight risk."

JUSTICE De Castro rebuffed De Lima, "there was no reason for you to be worried since the high court had already issued a temporary restraining order (TRO), which momentarily invalidated DOJ's watch-list order. It's not accurate to say that you will be blamed because the court has already assumed that responsibility by issuing the TRO and yet you went on,".

JUSTICE DE CASTRO DIRECTED DE LIMA

JUSTICE De Castro then directed the De Lima to submit copies of the watch-list orders WLO issued during the Arroyo administration which De Lima revoked when she assumed office in 2010.

ANOTHER SUPREME COURT JUSTICE FRIED DE LIMA ON "RULE OF LAW" AND "PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE" BECAUSE PHILIPPINES IS A DEMOCRACY NOT A COMMUNIST STATE

Associate Justice Roberto Abad questioned De Lima's impartiality in handling the criminal complaint against ex-prez Arroyo, pointing out that the decision to stop the former President Arroyo from traveling "set aside the presumption of innocence." COMING FROM THE RULE OF LAW, JUSTICE Abad questioned De Lima, "Did the former President enjoy the PRESUMPTION OF INNONCENCE ?
Have you been treating her [MRS. ARROYO] as if she's innocent? " Abad quizzed De Lima.

De Lima answered: "Definitely, your Honor. There's a presumption of innocence here. But the presumption of innocence here is not to establish the guilt or innocence of the accused. It is to establish "probable cause" and it doesn't mean that he or she would have the full enjoyment of his or her rights."

JUSTICE Abad immediately told De Lima, "you're reluctant to say that the former President is innocent."

ANOTHER JUSTICE COOKED DE LIMA ON "BILL OF RIGHTS" AND "RULE OF LAW"

Associate Justice Arturo Brion questioned De Lima of her understanding of the Bill of Rights and the legal principle of the RULE OF LAW. JUSTICE Brion quizzed De Lima, "do you fully, properly and correctly understand the Constitution and the laws ? To properly execute the laws, the executive branch must, in the first place, understand the Constitution and the laws and when you say properly execute, to properly follow the rule of law,"."If the Department of Justice or the justice secretary does not understand the Constitution or the laws, then it is possible that the executive department will be misguided in observing the rule of law," JUSTICE Abad told De Lima.

The Supreme Court has not indicated when it will issue a ruling. www.radiopinoyusa.com 24/7
(via Lino Celle)

[judE_Law]

Cold Neutrality of Judges

By: Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas S. J.
Philippine Daily Inquirer
Monday, November 28th, 2011


The ideal virtue that is desired of a court, whether it is a single-judge court or a collegial body, is "the cold neutrality of an impartial judge."  This, of course, is a consummation devoutly wished but not always attained.
An interesting phenomenon to watch is an oral argument in the Supreme Court. Those expected to argue are the lawyers of the opposing parties. The justices are expected to be neutral observers, more or less. Sometimes it is more and sometimes it is less. You can tell from the questions of the justices to whom their minds belong.
Sometimes you can also tell the leaning of the justices from their vote even on preliminary matters. Take the vote on whether to remand the issue of the validity of the joint Commission on Elections-Department of Justice panel. A preliminary question was whether to remand the preliminary matter to the redoubtable Judge Jesus Mupas or to keep it in the Supreme Court. Remanding the case to a one-judge court can make a big difference. You can get speedier action from a one-judge court than from a collegiate court. In a one-judge court you only have to "convince" one judge, whereas in a collegiate court you have to work harder to "convince" more judges who might have the backing of invisible forces.
Also part of the judicial system is the prosecutorial power of the executive arm of government.  The executive arm also has to show fairness. And determination, of course. And, ah, yes, speed. As one admiral is reported to have commanded his men during a naval battle, "Full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes."
But how to handle the torpedoes in litigation?  In an effort to balance things and to do away with criminal impunity, the temptation to appeal to a thousand past wrongs as justification for looking at present wrongs as remedially right can be blinding. Can an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth save the nation? She did it to 5,000; let's do it to her! Is this higher law?
Indeed, what we often see—confirmed again and again—is that, in an imperfect world, we do not always have perfect justice. We work to achieve the ideal. But in the end, we just have to wait for the Last Judgment when the sheep will finally and fairly be separated from the goats.
The central issue. To my mind one central issue in the ongoing litigation is whether the executive department, independently of court orders, can curtail a citizen's right to travel. This issue in turn depends so much on the meaning of the tricky phrase "as may be provided by law."
The Bill of Rights says "Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law." Is the phrase "as may be provided by law" limitive or expansive? In other words, should the provision of law authorizing impairment always be related to "national security, public safety, or public health," or does the phrase mean that Congress is free to provide grounds for impairment in addition to national security, public safety, or public health? If it is the latter meaning, the phrase added by the 1986 Constitutional Commission should have been "or as may be provided by law."
On the other hand, if the meaning of the phrase is limitive, that is, any restrictive provision of law must be related to national security, public safety, or public health, how closely must the law be related to these three? A case in point is the current justification of hold-departure orders (HDOs) and watch-list orders (WLOs). DOJ Circular 41 purports to base it on a provision of the Administrative Code which authorizes the Department of Justice to "investigate the commission of crimes, prosecute offenders, and provide immigration regulatory services . . . to institute measures to prevent any miscarriage of justice, without, however, sacrificing the individual's right to travel." If this broad prosecutorial and investigatory power of the DOJ can authorize restriction on the constitutional right to travel, can it also justify restriction on other constitutional rights—e.g., the rights of the accused found in Section 14 of the same Bill of Rights?
Conceivably, the DOJ restriction on GMA (Arroyo) is being imposed on the argument that she is a flight risk and can therefore frustrate investigation and prosecution and that therefore, to that extent, her escape from investigation and prosecution can be a threat to "public safety." Voila, the Constitution is satisfied! Should the Supreme Court buy that argument?
And what about her health condition?  To my mind the argument based on the state of her health is a distraction or a decoy. (Incidentally, a fellow Jesuit who had a similar surgery in St. Luke's in the same week as GMA is back in his post in Naga but with a neck brace.) The fact alone that her condition might not be life threatening is not sufficient to justify denial of the right to travel. The denial must be based on something else and not on the lack of humanitarian basis. We are waiting for the Court to sort out the arguments.
Speaking of speed. This week the Maguindanao massacre of two years ago was recalled. The clamor, especially coming from relatives of victims,  is for speedier justice. The prosecution is encountering torpedoes all around. What can the admiral do? Will the supersonic speed and the triple determination in the GMA prosecution be applied to the Maguindanao massacre? If this is what the Palace rhetoric means, it is a welcome development. Full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes!

[pinoybrusko]

Makatarungan ba na harangin ng DOJ ang pag-alis ni CGMA ng bansa?


super super makatarungan siya