MikeLigalig.com

poor dog.  he cannot defend himself in court, much less hire a good defense lawyer like serafin cuevas.

the proof of the pudding is in the eating...  posibleng nadakin-as tawon na siya.  kun eget pa na, muna-muna na anang dagan ug tago sa restroom.  kun physics poy hisgotan, di ingon ana ang lama.  ang dagan ug eget is through the inner thighs.  maayog tubow pa na kay sayon ra untang iwarak sa inyong handsome faces.  mao nga, be good boys and shake hands with her.  pagkahuman, tilapi inyong tudlo if it makes you feel better to know the truth and nothing but the truth.

hahaha!  paskang ninyo... nangaunsa mo?  angay ninyo kanang makaputol.  mas barato gyod na kun naa kay baligya ana, flying segs, kay manginhas ra man kag taklobo unya imong sudlan dayon ug tujom.   

nagkadaghan man ang tingkagol uy.  ang gasuwat ani nga news apil na.  unsa kaha ang nag-post dinhi sa tb...  na, hala, apilon na lang pod ang tanang mobasa, hahaha!

Quote from: PR0CESS0R on January 22, 2012, 10:16:32 AM
Angay pasakyon ang taga LTO/LTFRB  Bohol sa Rural Transit & Super Five Mindanao area.

Tugkan siguro ni sila ug hubag2x labi na ang byahi Cagayan de Oro to Iligan or any point of destination in Mindanao.

Ka hinay managan sa City Transport ug Super Five Bohol. Natural ra na kusog mopadagan ang mga bus kay nag apas nga dili mabiya-an sa barko ang mga pasahero. Maayo ra ba mo refund ang taga LTO/LTFRB kong ma biyaan sa barko ang pasahero, dili ra ba.

wa man gyoy daotan kun mosunod lang sa speed limit.  ma-late sa barko kay di man moklaro ug schedule; maghuwat man nga mapuno ang bus up to the last minute.  mao nga maayo ning gipadagan karon nga legislation nga ang bus drivers henceforth sweldohan ug regular, di mag-agad ang ilang kita sa gidaghanon sa pasahero.  motunong pa sila sa schedule of trips, naay pasahero o wa, pareha sa ubang countries.  way maangol, way kabuhion.  ang maguol lang ang mga bus operators kay mahadlok momenos ilang profits.  but then, for everyone's sake, some have to sacrifice and be sacrificed.

sa una ra man nang reputation ug bohol bus drivers nga super ka-rush.  apil sa legend mao nga ang mga kaskasero nga bus drivers sa mindanao mga bol-anon.

Quote from: hubag bohol on January 20, 2012, 08:27:43 PM
Nganong mag-apil-apil pa man ang LTO ani kon ang LTFRB diay ang in charge aning mga butanga? Kulang sa pansin? Hahay, malooy man pud ta kon maohon...

inter-agency coordination tingali na.  no turf war necessary.  mora man god pod ug wa tingaliy local ltfrb, the way i see it.  kaayo na lang nga naay related agency nga motabang nila.

i watched a 45-minute fireworks display from our window.  luckily from our vantage point the chinese new year fireworks of the mall of asia in manila were quite near.  i wished our 10-year-old was with us to enjoy the show.

there are no sirens yet... good.  there are no fires in the vicinity after all, unlike last december 31 when a fire that broke out was just two blocks away.  and it looks like there won't be any smog in manila tomorrow morning.  now i know there's a difference between fireworks and firecrackers.   

bawt-bawt sa butay sa atong lubi...

So sees similar portents, but with an earthy twist.

“Indonesia, Pakistan, India and places in China like Sichuan, Yunnan and Guizhou are particularly disaster-prone.  They are likely to experience frequent earthquakes,” he says.

While the ancient Chinese were developing their systems of astrology and geomancy, people across the Pacific were finding other ways to predict the future.

The Mayans of modern-day South America purportedly had a calendar that showed the world would come to an end on December 21, 2012.

Like the historians who rubbish such interpretations of Mayan belief, So says there is no need to fear the end is nigh.

“Doomsday is just a bunch of make-believe,” he says.

http://lifestyle.inquirer.net/

But it has a stab anyway, even if some of its predictions are less than audacious.  For example, it says the stars point to a “job opening” for Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping, the man everyone expects to become China’s next ruler after the 18th Congress in October or November.

As for US politics, the soothsayers are more cautious.  When asked who will win the US elections, So refuses to make a prediction without precise information about the dates and times of the candidates’ births.

“Sometimes luck depends on the country itself, rather than an individual president,” he says enigmatically.

“For the US, they are starting to have luck on their side again, so it is going to be a good year no matter who’s elected.”

The five Chinese elements are wood, fire, earth, metal and water, and 2012 is tipped to be big on water. This could mean riches and abundance, but it could also spell disaster.

Well-known Hong Kong astrologer Alion Yeo says we should brace for storms and floods. “Expect to see a lot of flooding in areas like Thailand and southeast China,” he says.

In a picture taken on January 17, feng shui master
and TV personality Peter So poses for a picture while
holding a Chinese feng shui compass in Hong Kong.
China's feng shui masters tackle the big issues with
their predictions for the Year of the Dragon.
AFP PHOTO/AARON TAM

But be prepared for surprises, especially out of China where the Communist Party will hold its 18th Congress to select a new generation of leaders.

“In the second half of the year, a scandalous corruption case will be exposed in China,” warns Cheng, refusing to elaborate about who will be implicated.

“I can also predict that in Hong Kong and in mainland China, a number of high-ranking officials will be forced to step down.  Some may be thrown behind bars, or even pass away.”

Many Chinese take such predictions seriously and adjust their lives accordingly.  Feng shui, the ancient study of the forces of chi, or life energy, is a daily part of life in the Chinese world.

One of Hong Kong’s largest brokerages, CLSA, releases a Feng Shui Index every year, offering its “tongue-in-cheek” predictions for global markets and world affairs.

Lest anyone take it seriously, CLSA admits that feng shui’s “original purpose was to locate auspicious burial spots, not call the twists and turns of the equity markets or individual sectors.”

Riding the Dragon: 2012 predictions from Chinese masters

By: Joyce Woo
Agence France-Presse
Sunday, January 22nd, 2012

HONG KONGâ€"Want to know what’s in store for 2012? Who will win the US election?  Will the eurozone implode?  China’s feng shui masters tackle the big issues with their predictions for the Year of the Dragon.

As Chinese communities around the world prepare to ring in the new year on Monday, astrologers and geomancers are predicting the dragon will bring natural disasters and financial volatility, especially to crisis-hit Europe.

“The world economy will be unstable in the Year of the Dragon, because the economies in Europe and the US are still suffering from the effects of the recession,” Hong Kong feng shui master Anthony Cheng says.

Celebrity astrologer Peter So says the United States will provide some good news late in the year, but his charts for Europe make grim reading.

“Europe will not recover so soon â€" it is expected to suffer at least until 2014.  But what I can say is this, a recovery for the US economy is possible in 2013,” he says.

If you’re prepared to ride the dragon and invest in 2012, Russia and China could be your best bets.  The two emerging markets will be the best performers in a volatile year, says Cheng.

Dragon years/elements:

    16 February 1904 â€" 3 February 1905 / Wood Dragon (eldest tblander)
    3 February 1916 â€" 22 January 1917 / Fire Dragon
    23 January 1928 â€" 9 February 1929 / Earth Dragon
    8 February 1940 â€" 26 January 1941 / Metal Dragon
    27 January 1952 â€" 13 February 1953 / Water Dragon
    13 February 1964 â€" 1 February 1965 / Wood Dragon
    31 January 1976 â€" 17 February 1977 / Fire Dragon
    17 February 1988 â€" 5 February 1989 / Earth Dragon
    5 February 2000 â€" 23 January 2001 / Metal Dragon
    23 January 2012 â€" 9 February 2013 / Water Dragon
    10 February 2024 â€" 28 January 2025 / Wood Dragon (youngest tblander)

-sourced from wikipedia, except the italics

2012
The Year of the Dragon

恭禧發財

Gong Xi Fa Cai

Gong Hey Fat Choy

Happy (Chinese) New Year, TB Dragons!

Quote from: hubag bohol on January 22, 2012, 09:18:01 PM
Hmm, ang mga sapatos man ni ni Fr. Chic...

kay nahukasan man ug medyas, mangguyod na lang sa dining chair, mangangin.

Quote from: hubag bohol on January 21, 2012, 04:19:05 PM
Naa juy makawrasan og di oras. Mao bitaw nga safety ang unlan...

haraw maguhayguhay ang unlan...

pataka lang mog pili... pilion ba kaha mo nila?  aruyyyy, hahaha!

labad ra pod ning mga tawhana.  who knows?  the next thing they'll do is send their dog to school because, well, he doesn't have to think that he's a dog. 

kapila na kaha ko makadaog, matod pa sa mga texts nga akong nadawat.  gikan pa kunohay ug abogado ang uban.  naa pay DTI number kunohay ang uban.  i never ignored these texts.  i simply texted back for the sender to claim the prize for me unya magtunga na lang mi.  wa gyoy nitubag nako bisag usa.

lisod gyod diay ning act now ask questions later.

wow!  what a way to live life in luxury!

1
Adolf Hitler



The only one on the list to achieve political power.  Hitler rose up the ranks of the National Socialist German Workers Party, or Nazi Party in the 1920s and early thirties.  As the Weimar Republic was coming apart at the seams, Hitler was elected Chancellor in 1933, and promptly positioned himself as “der Fuhrer” or “The Leader”.  His rule was characterized by harsh anti-Semitic policies.  Jews were forbidden to marry “Aryan” Germans, display the national colors, etc.  Later, Jews and other “undesirables” were forcibly relocated to ghettos and later to concentration camps, leading to the Holocaust.  During his rule, millions died in these camps, as the Nazis pursued a policy of deliberate racial extermination which was only brought to an end by the defeat of Germany in World War II.

2
Richard Girnt Butler



An aerospace engineer by trade, Richard Butler graduated to racism and neo-Nazism when he founded the Aryan Nations in the 1970s.  The group was founded on a blend of racist neo-Nazism and Christian Identity, an interpretation of Christianity which holds whites as the “true Hebrews” of the Bible and blacks and other minorities as soulless “mud people” created with the other beasts of the field, as well as viewing Jews as the descendants of Satan through Eve, promoting the idea through their religious arm, the Church of Jesus Christ-Christian.  The group preached racial separatism and hatred of all non-whites, and was accused of attempting to foment a race war.  They even attempted to forge an alliance between them and al-Qaeda based on both their hatred of the American government and Jews.

Following Butler's death in 2003, the group collapsed as financial ruin from lawsuits brought them to their knees, and culminated in the group’s compound being given to the plaintiffs in one case.

3
William Joseph Simmons



William Joseph Simmons was a former preacher from Georgia who, in 1915, founded the second Ku Klux Klan after the collapse of the original Klan following the end of Reconstruction.  He formed the Klan as a fraternal organization dedicated to defending American values.  Unfortunately, his version of American “values” was odious.

The new Klan retained it’s predecessor’s anti-black attitudes, and added a whole host of new ones; the new Klan added Catholics, Jews, and immigrants to its list of enemies.  The new Klan fought long and hard against immigration and black equal rights, eventually numbering over 20 million members, until financial woes, government investigations and news stories of high profile scandals brought the organization crashing down.

4
The Mexica Movement



This is the only group that is on this list.  The Mexica Movement is an organization of “indigenous” activists with some very unique goals.  The group views (erroneously) all the indigenous groups on the American continent, from the Mayans in Mexico to the First Nations of Canada, as being one single ethnic group of a nation called “Anuhuac”, similar to white supremacist groups believing whites to comprise a single nation.  Consequently, the group supports the repatriation of all whites back to Europe, and I can only assume that this will include force if no one wants to go.

5
Ian Paisley



Ian Paisley is a Northern Ireland politician and leader of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) as well as being the Moderator (leader) of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, as well as being a member of British Parliament and of the Northern Ireland Assembly for the constituency of North Antrim.  Like Chick, Paisley is well known for his vicious anti-Catholicism.

Paisley frequently refers to Roman Catholicism as “popery” and founded the European Institute of Protestant Studies to promote his own particular brand of anti-Catholicism.  In 1988, he attacked Pope John Paul II at the European Parliament (of which he was a member), shouting “I Denounce you as the AntiChrist!” at the Pontiff while holding up a sign accusing him of being the Antichrist, causing him to have to be manhandled out of the hemicycle by several other MEPs.  In 1963, Paisley organized a protest against the lowering of flags following the death of Pope John XXIII.  He also stated that seat no. 666 in the European Parliament is reserved for the Antichrist and praised Slobodan Milosevic for fighting a “Vatican conspiracy” to destroy the Serbian Orthodox Church.

6
Jack T. Chick



Little is known about Jack Chick, a reclusive fundamentalist Christian preacher operating out of Rancho Cucamonga, California, and what little can be gleamed about him is only available on the website of his publishing house, Chick Publications.  What is known is the proliferation of tiny, hand drawn comic books, called “Chick Tracts” which he uses to evangelize.  The subjects of the tracts range from relatively typical to downright bizarre, but are best known for a particularly vicious brand of anti-Catholic bigotry, and anti-evolution.

Chick’s tracts portray the Catholic Church as sinister and conspiracy bent, especially in regards to Protestant Fundamentalists and himself in particular.  He portrays Church belief and practice as being born out of ancient paganism, and depicts demons as infesting every aspect of Catholic life, as though Catholics secretly worship Satan.  He frequently refers to the Church as the “Whore of Babylon”, “Antichrist”, insinuates the Church created Nazism as a means to exterminate Jews, and portrays Catholics as foul-mouthed, angry, abusive and prone to drunkenness.

7
Yahweh ben Yahweh



Born Hulon Mitchell Jr., Yahweh ben Yahweh is the leader of the appropriately named Nation of Yahweh, a religious group adhering to Black Hebrew Israelism, the belief that blacks are the true descendants of the Twelve Tribes of Israel.  While usually a rather harmless belief, ben Yahweh took it one step further; he declared that he was the Son of God and the Messiah, and that he was sent by God to vanquish white people and Jews, referring to white people as “white devils” in the same manner as the Nation of Islam once did.  He was later imprisoned in 1990 for conspiracy in relation to 23 gruesome murders that took place in the Miami area involving members of the group.

Quote from: windgate on January 22, 2012, 04:45:08 PM
kaklaro ana nga naa.  sa kadaghan sa words bigot pa jud napili... ngeee!

i appreciate your imagination.

Quote from: windgate on January 22, 2012, 04:36:13 PM
Kinsa may inyong gipatamaan ani??? Bato-bato sa langit....

ako wala, peks man krusmayhart.  interesado lang gyod kog bigots.

8
Samuel Bowers



Samuel Bowers was the Imperial Wizard (leader) of the White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, a particularly violent branch of the Klan that was active in Mississippi during the Civil Rights Movement.  He formed the group in 1963 and within a year were active in most counties in Mississippi.  Bowers believed that the Klan must fight back violently against the movement for black equal rights.  As such, his group became famous for giving, as one modern Klansmen, C. Edward Foster, on a recent History Channel documentary about the Klan put it, “bricks, bombs and bullets, not bullshit”.

In 1964, during the civil rights campaign known as “Freedom Summer”, the group murdered several civil rights workers, white and black, most famously James Chainey, Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman, an event which became the basis for the movie “Mississippi Burning”.  In 1966, under Bowers’ orders, Klansmen firebombed the home of Vernon Dahmer, who had been registering blacks to vote, and in 1967 they targeted Jewish establishments in a series of bombings.

9
Henry Ford



The founder of the modern American automotive industry was also the 1920s king of American anti-Semitism.  Henry Ford is best known for being the inventor of the assembly line method of manufacturing automobiles, but he was also an avid fan of “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, the famous Russian anti-Semitic forgery.  He was so convinced of its authenticity that he published it in serial form in his newspaper, The Dearborn Independent. He later took the Independent’s Articles and published them as a book, “The International Jew: The World’s Foremost Problem”.  In it, Ford blamed the Jews for everything from pornography to alcoholism to communism and beyond.  The book proved to be rather popular, and was especially so in 1930s Germany; so much that Adolf Hitler himself awarded Ford a medal, and Ford is the only American mentioned in “Mein Kampf”.  The book has recently proved to be popular with Islamic radicals, who use it in their preaching against Israel by portraying the country as part of a Jewish plot to destroy Islam.

10
Wallace Fard Muhammad



The founder of a group of black Muslims which became the Nation of Islam (NOI) in Detroit, Michigan in 1930, Muhammad’s theology was a blend of 50% theosophy, 50% traditional Islam, and 100% crazy.  Muhammad taught his followers that the Earth was over 76 trillion years old and at the time before the creation of Adam, there was one continent called “Asia”. He also taught a very bizarre view of the origin of the human race, and this is where the bigotry comes in.

Muhammad taught that long ago, God created blacks as the first humans, while white people were the result of an experiment by a renegade black scientist named “Yakub” to be a slave race to the blacks.  As such, whites are not fully human (Louis Farrakhan, the Nation’s current leader, has stated that “White people are potential humans…they haven’t evolved yet”).  This teaching continues to influence NOI beliefs and preaching to this day.  Most recently in 1993, former NOI spokesman, the late Khalid Abdul Muhammad, referred to Jews as “bloodsuckers” and advocated the murder of all white South Africans who would not leave the country in 48 hours.

10 Terrible Bigots in Modern History

by JustinJ

History is full of people who were just plain bigots.  The disease of racism and bigotry is a universal one, affecting people of every race, religion, nation, etc.  The following list is the top ten of these men who, through ignorance, are at the forefront of bigotry.

http://listverse.com/

Quote from: hubag bohol on January 22, 2012, 10:53:01 AM
An authoritarian personality has strong feelings of inadequacy, dependency, and hostility, particularly toward those in authority, even though they may be in a position of authority. Because of these feelings of worthlessness, they tend to displace this anger and hate towards themselves onto another group. The bigot is simply transferring their own sense of low self esteem and their own self hatred to another racial, cultural, or religious group. The bigot will stereotype, lie, about and persecute that group no matter what the truth. They will even go so far as to accuse the persecuted of being the persecutor or fabricate instances of persecution. -- http://www.religioustolerance.org/

ugh!  what food for thought...

may ligid na, molupad pa.  could you ask for anything more?  ah, yes, the set includes life vests.

kari ako kay angelic...

morag sa venice man na, mao nga tingalig puwede pod gondolaboats, angga ondol.

Quote from: hubag bohol on January 19, 2012, 02:09:43 PM
From the quarrelingest of them all... 

why man ibisto man ko nimo dayon?    nakasala ba ko nimo? 

Where political motives and loyalties inherent in a legislative chamber creep into the process, rightly or wrongly, the impeachment process may prove to be a juridical farce and political circus.  Any result, conviction or acquittal, will therefore be suspect.  The integrity of the process through which Corona is impeached will be a litmus test as to Davide's overall achievement in advancing the constitutional learning of the Rule of Law.  Moreover, it will be the ultimate test as to whether the Philippine legislative and political process deserves the right to say it has overcome its tainted and regrettable past.


*Daniel Wagner is CEO of Country Risk Solutions, a cross-border risk management consultancy based in Connecticut (USA), Director of Global Strategy with the PRS Group, and author of the forthcoming book, Managing Country Risk (March 2012). Edsel Tupaz is founder and managing partner of Tupaz and Associates, and a professor of international and comparative law, based in Manila. Jermaine C. Spence is an attorney-at-law and law professor who designed and taught the Offshore Finance Law course at Fordham Law School.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

Corona is specifically fingered for his appointment of one individual as court administrator, head of the Public Information Office, and chair of the Bids and Awards Committee leading to a diminished internal auditing mechanism.  No other specific allegation is made against him in the media report, perhaps with good reason, since delays in the project clearly started before Corona took office. While the buck stops with the man in charge, any insinuation in the media report that Corona is to be held responsible solely or mainly for the breaches in the program may be premature, at best, and possible propaganda.  What of the Program Management Office and other players in the program?  What of the role of individual justices who claimed for and/or received ineligible disbursements?  Surely, all knowing and willing participants in the alleged abuse of the program are individually and equally culpable, irrespective of administrative weaknesses.

When a former president and a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court can be hauled into court for alleged abuses, the Rule of Law is surely alive.  The question is, is it well?  Will the prosecution of both Arroyo and Corona result in convictions and meaningful sentences?  One must guard against overzealousness in expecting too much from a process that is politically charged.  The Rule of Law may be of little significance where an impeachment, which many argue ought to be akin to a judicial process, takes place in an otherwise political tribunal.  The legislative branch is not well rehearsed in processes meant to guarantee fairness in a trial, and with political interests which may be averse to such a process.

Amidst accusations by Corona's attorneys against the media and others of 'black propaganda', one has reason to question Sunday's pronouncements and the media's agenda, if the Philippine Daily Inquirer is an example to go by.  Could this be symptomatic of 'extra-judicial' attempts to prejudice the hearing of the complaint against Corona?

It has been reported that an audit was conducted by a World Bank task team in October and November 2011, which found that 'since Corona assumed his post in mid-2010, progress in reforming the judiciary "has been rated unsatisfactory," with "implementation delays and additional work required for smooth project closing."  Other World Bank complaints include the fact that the fiduciary environment pertaining to JRSP implementation had so deteriorated that the task team now rates the JRSP as 'high risk' and 'unsatisfactory' on project management, project procurement and financial management dimensions -- and that project financial statements can no longer be relied upon. The audit is said to have also uncovered "inaccurate/incomplete information" on the project's financial management report and "diminished existing internal check-and-balance mechanisms."

The impeachment of the head of the judiciary of any state can but be seen as the ultimate homage to the Rule of Law, and it is of particular resonance in the Philippines, where the establishment of the Rule of Law received primacy as part of Davide's agenda through his Action Program for Judicial Reform (AJPR).  With its six-pillared reform agenda, the AJPR sought to establish and ensure judicial autonomy and independence from political interference, and the speedy and impartial administration of justice.  The World Bank has endorsed it as 'among the most comprehensive and successful judicial and legal reform programs today.'

If recent media reports are anything to go by, however, the World Bank may be changing its tune.  Some sectors of the media seem intent on laying the blame for this debacle squarely at Corona's feet.  On January 15, 2011, a report in the Philippine Daily Inquirer pronounced that 'the Supreme Court, under the watch of Chief Justice Renato Corona, has been weighed and found wanting.'  This pronouncement is based ostensibly on a World Bank finding of questionable procurements and disbursements in the high court in connection with the Judicial Reform Support Project (JRSP), the World Bank's adaptation of the name of the APJR, designed to restore efficiency in the dispensation of justice in the country.

Of Politics and the Rule of Law in the Philippines


Daniel Wagner, Edsel Tupaz, Jermaine Spence
1/18/12

The impeachment of incumbent Philippine Chief Justice Renato Corona has commenced in the Philippine Senate, with the customary fanfare one would expect in Manila.  Consistent with the circus-like atmosphere that has prevailed throughout the course of former President Arroyo's prosecution for alleged corruption and electoral manipulation while she was president, pro- and anti-Arroyo forces were out in force.  The proceedings may ultimately become a commentary on whether the Rule of Law is taking substantial root in the Philippine judicial and political process, or whether pretensions to reform remain nothing more than political machinations dressed up in the emperor's new clothes.

Depending on one's viewpoint, Corona's impeachment may prove to be the crowning achievement of the so-called 'Davide Watch' -- the eponymous description given to the vision of former Chief Justice of the Philippines Hilario G. Davide Jr. (1998 to 2005) who, during his stewardship, envisioned and promoted "a judiciary that was independent, effective and efficient, worthy of public trust and confidence."  On the other hand, a conviction could in fact point to Davide's failure to inspire fundamental and normative change in judicial culture.  Much will depend on the aftertaste left by the process of the impeachment itself.

from the look on their faces, what they're seeing is very much one of their kind.

because something that's supposed to be there isn't there!

my sister right now is on forced leave from her job because of a thyroid infection.  she's based in cebu.  i'll warn her about this. 

Quote from: chicogon on January 19, 2012, 11:08:10 AM
I had thyroid cancer in 2005

so sorry about that, fr chic.  i hope everything's okay with you now, with god's grace.

bugsay, where are you now?

welcome, michael!  salamat sa imong pagduaw.  do come in, and stay.  we look forward to your continuing presence. 

it's nice here; we make friends, we quarrel now and then, but the latter is only in so far as ideas and opinions are concerned.  the possible friendships are personal, the potential quarrels are not.  enjoy!

Grandma said that Santa always insisted on secrecy.  Then she drove me over to Bobby Decker’s house, explaining as we went that I was now and forever officially, one of Santa’s helpers.

Grandma parked down the street from Bobby’s house, and she and I crept noiselessly and hid in the bushes by his front walk.  Then Grandma gave me a nudge.  “All right, Santa Claus,” she whispered, “get going.”

I took a deep breath, dashed for his front door, threw the present down on his step, pounded his door and flew back to the safety of the bushes and Grandma.

Together we waited breathlessly in the darkness for the front door to open.  Finally it did, and there stood Bobby.

Fifty years haven’t dimmed the thrill of those moments spent shivering, beside my Grandma, in Bobby Decker’s bushes.  That night, I realized that those awful rumors about Santa Claus were just what Grandma said they wereâ€"ridiculous.  Santa was alive and well, and we were on his team.

I still have the Bible, with the coat tag tucked inside: $19.95.

http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/

I was only eight years old.  I’d often gone shopping with my mother, but never had I shopped for anything all by myself.  The store seemed big and crowded, full of people scrambling to finish their Christmas shopping.

For a few moments I just stood there, confused, clutching that ten-dollar bill, wondering what to buy, and who on earth to buy it for.

I thought of everybody I knew: my family, my friends, my neighbors, the kids at school, the people who went to my church.

I was just about thought out, when I suddenly thought of Bobby Decker.  He was a kid with bad breath and messy hair, and he sat right behind me in Mrs. Pollock’s grade-two class.  Bobby Decker didn’t have a coat.  I knew that because he never went out to recess during the winter.  His mother always wrote a note, telling the teacher that he had a cough, but all we kids knew that Bobby Decker didn’t have a cough; he didn’t have a good coat.  I fingered the ten-dollar bill with growing excitement.  I would buy Bobby Decker a coat!

I settled on a red corduroy one that had a hood to it.  It looked real warm, and he would like that.

“Is this a Christmas present for someone?” the lady behind the counter asked kindly, as I laid my ten dollars down.  “Yes, ma’am,” I replied shyly.  “It’s for Bobby.”

The nice lady smiled at me, as I told her about how Bobby really needed a good winter coat.  I didn’t get any change, but she put the coat in a bag, smiled again, and wished me a Merry Christmas.

That evening, Grandma helped me wrap the coat (a little tag fell out of the coat, and Grandma tucked it in her Bible) in Christmas paper and ribbons and wrote, “To Bobby, From Santa Claus” on it.

christmas is way past, but i just read this now, so may i share this beautiful piece...

A Christmas tale



I want to tell you a lovely story sent to me by my good friend Chuck Agustin, for which I thank him. I think you will too:

I remember my first Christmas adventure with Grandma.  I was just a kid.

I remember tearing across town on my bike to visit her on the day my big sister dropped the bomb: “There is no Santa Claus,” she jeered.  “Even dummies know that!”

My Grandma was not the gushy kind, never had been.  I fled to her that day because I knew she would be straight with me.  I knew Grandma always told the truth, and I knew that the truth always went down a whole lot easier when swallowed with one of her “world-famous” cinnamon buns.  I knew they were world-famous, because Grandma said so.  It had to be true.

Grandma was home, and the buns were still warm.  Between bites, I told her everything.  She was ready for me.  “No Santa Claus?” she snorted....”Ridiculous!  Don’t believe it.  That rumor has been going around for years, and it makes me mad, plain mad!!  Now, put on your coat, and let’s go.”

”Go?  Go where, Grandma?” I asked.  I hadn’t even finished my second world-famous cinnamon bun.  “Where” turned out to be Kerby’s General Store, the one store in town that had a little bit of just about everything.  As we walked through its doors, Grandma handed me ten dollars.  That was a bundle in those days.  “Take this money,” she said, “and buy something for someone who needs it.  I’ll wait for you in the car.”  Then she turned and walked out of Kerby’s.

goodness gracious, i'm no lawyer myself but i can see that david needs a better slingshot when he tries to take on a goliath.  just what kind of an answer is this, attorney? 

Quote from: islander on January 18, 2012, 03:48:27 PM
c. What evidence will be presented on the alleged illegally acquired property?

Answer: A picture of one such property was published in the newspapers.

Article 8 (on the refusal to account for the Judicial Development Fund).

a. Involved in this is the interpretation of the extent of fiscal autonomy of the Court.  What is the jurisprudence on this?  Will the Senate apply or depart from existing jurisprudence on the subject?

Answer: No branch or agency of government is immune from fiscal accountability.  Fiscal accountability is not synonymous with impunity for malversation of public funds.

http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/

Article 7 (on the temporary restraining order allowing Mrs. Arroyo and her husband Mike to escape prosecution)

a. The constitutionality of the restriction on the right to travel through a Department of Justice circular on hold-departure orders is pending before the Court, with the decision expected after New Year.  Should the Senate preempt the Supreme Court decision?

Answer: The questioned TRO almost made the issue moot.  It was hence the Arroyo Court itself that preempted its own decision on the merits when it issued the restraining order.

b. What is the import, if any, of the existence of a House bill and a Senate bill disempowering the DOJ?

Answer: None whatsoever.  They are mere pending bills and have not become law.

c. The continuing effectivity of the TRO has been affirmed by the Supreme Court.  What power does the Senate have over it?

Answer: It is relevant on the issue of partiality of the Chief Justice in favor of Mrs. Arroyo.  Certainly, the dissenting opinions of Justices Lourdes Sereno and Antonio Carpio prove anomalies and irregularities in the promulgation of the questioned restraining order.

Article 4 ( on the disregard for separation of powers in the Gutierrez case)

What can be made of the fact that the status quo ante order was a resolution of eight justices?  How did Corona vote on the later reversal of the status quo ante order?

Article 5 (on wanton arbitrariness and disregard of the principle of res judicata)

a. Were not the League of Cities case and the Dinagat case collegial decisions upholding acts of Congress?  Were the laws involved statutory responses of Congress to the people as “master” as against the greed of the League of Cities?

b. Was not the Fasap (Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines) decision also collegial?

Common Answer: Again, what is being impugned as betrayal of public trust are the individual actions of the Chief Justice in these cases.  As emphasized in the Reply, it is, however, without prejudice to impeaching the other justices who disregarded the principle of res judicata.

c. Is the Supreme Court powerless to look into the activities of its members (e.g., plagiarism) especially if it involves things that might affect the reputation of the Court?

Answer: No, when the matter falls within the original jurisdiction of the Court such as bar and other administrative matters.  It has, however, no jurisdiction to deal with impeachable offenses, such as plagiarism, and certainly not in a manner that would preclude Congress from exercising its powers to initiate and decide on impeachment cases.

d. Was not the creation of new districts in Camarines Sur done by Congress, the representative of the people?

Answer: Yes, but what is being questioned is the individual vote of the Chief Justice in the case which impugned precisely the constitutionality and legality of the law creating a new district to favor a presidential son.

e. Who decides the application of the principle of proportionality (or “one man, one vote”) in the size of districts?

Answer: It is  law that defines proportionality.  Aquino in his case argued that the legal requirements were not met. 

Article 3 (on lack of competence, probity and integrity)

a. Is the flip-flopping of the Court in collegial decisions attributable to Corona alone or to a body struggling to arrive at justice? Did Corona himself flip-flop?

b. Is the Court prohibited from modifying prior decisions or doctrines?

Answer: The real question as stated in the House Reply is this: Did he do anything, as the constitutional and moral leader of the Supreme Court, to prevent or even discourage the never-ending change in the purportedly final decisions of the Supreme Court?  No, the Court can change its prior decisions.  But this requires changed circumstances -which were lacking in the cases of flip-flopping identified in the impeachment complaint.

c. When and by whom was Mrs. Corona appointed to John Hay Management Corporation?  Is a husband obliged to compel his wife to turn down an appointment?  Or did he try to dissuade her at all?  Or was he overruled by the wife?

d. Can a husband be made answerable for acts of the wife?

Answer: Under the circumstances mentioned in the Complaint, the appointment of Mrs. Corona was inappropriate.  Best proof of this was when she herself resigned after Corona became Chief Justice.  Why should an appointment be appropriate when the spouse was an Associate Justice and why should it become inappropriate after he has become CJ?  Truth is, it was inappropriate full stop.  It was inappropriate because  the appointment of a spouse of a Justice to a government-owned and -controlled corporation as a form of a political dole is wrong.

e. Will Justice Carpio be asked to testify about the alleged lobbying about pending cases?

Answer: I would hope to. Truth will set the nation free.

Article 2 (on the non-disclosure of the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth):

a. The command on making assets and liabilities public is qualified by the clause “in the manner provided by law.” Is there a law providing the manner and did Corona violate it?

Answer: Yes, the manner is provided in Republic Act 6713.  The law provides: that it shall be “made available for inspection at reasonable hours” and “shall be made available for copying or reproduction after ten (10) working days from the time they are filed as required by law”.  Corona, furthermore, had the duty as Chief Justice, to establish compliance procedures for the SALN requirement.

c. What evidence will be presented on the alleged illegally acquired property?

Answer: A picture of one such property was published in the newspapers.

Quick answers to Father Bernas



Last Monday, Fr. Joaquin Bernas posited questions for the Senate to answer in connection with the impeachment of Chief Justice Renato Corona.  Reading his questions closely, I realized that what he raised were, in reality, grounds why he believes the Senate should dismiss the Articles of Impeachment.  It becomes imperative thus, for believers in the rule of law, to address each of the questions raised by the Jesuit.

Article 1 (on partiality and subservience to Gloria Macapagal Arroyo)

a. May the Senate review the Court’s decision (in De Castro v JBC)?

Answer: Yes, insofar as it may impact on the resolution of the chief justice’s fitness to remain in office for accepting an appointment which is contrary to the language and intent of the constitution and hence, immoral and unjust.  This much Bernas has previously written: “Any person who accepted the post of Chief Justice from Mrs. Arroyo would open himself or herself to impeachment by the next Congress.”

b. Is it illegitimate to assume that the votes of Corona represented independent judgment?

Answer: Yes.  Given his voting record in favor of Arroyo and his very close personal and professional relationship with her, it is indeed illegitimate to assume that his decisions represented independent judgment.

Quote from: hubag bohol on January 18, 2012, 03:15:02 PM
Oi, nganong na-yellow man ang dapit sa lubot?

kay di man siya alien.  o wa ba kaha siya kakaon ug tangkong, otherwise, green unta.

This early on, it is becoming clear that the 188 signatories had no real inklings of the [pieces of] evidence on all the articles of impeachment.  The [pieces of] evidence were NOT there when they voted to impeach CJ Corona.  It now appears that they simply decided to impeach CJ Corona either because it was a marching order or simply they did NOT like the man.  What appears to matter now are not the [pieces of] evidence but the guaranteed mileage of ‘maximum exposures.’  Perhaps, it was thought that it would be that easy, because by shaming publicly CJ Corona, he would simply resign the way former Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez did.

But it was not the case for CJ Corona.  He decided to fight it out on the rule of evidence and the rule of law.  Would the impeachment body stick to the rule of evidence and the rule of law or the whole impeachment proceeding is simply a show?

This early, people claim that in the end, it is NOT the evidence or the law that matter.  It is the number!  And it is a hilarious entertainment!  Time and again, we are reminded that the impeachment proceeding is a political act.  But I always thought that politics is NOT simply number. 

There are things of greater values than simple numbers.  A stance for the rule of law and defense of democratic institution is a legacy beyond ‘pork barrel,’ electioneering and numbers.  We hope that the Senate of the Republic rises above all the ambiguities and pragmatism of politics as observed in the LOWER House and the Senate becomes truly the HIGHER House of Congress.  Abangan!

http://www.gmanetwork.com/

The House prosecutors would like to present [pieces of] evidence in Article 2 of the impeachment information but only to be informed that the ‘evidences to be presented were ‘computer-generated’ â€" no signatures as to their authenticity, no cross and the only proof is the so-called ‘bar code.’

The ensuing shock and laughter reached its zenith when it became clear that the House was NOT ready… and they simply want to ‘postpone’ the hearing for another day so the prosecutors can prepare.

So far, we have heard and seen the pitting of former Ateneo Law Dean Eduardo Angeles and Rep. Niel Tupas on the opening day â€" the former is for a court of law or impeachment body â€" cold reason, the points of law and to the point while the latter according to the eminent Fr. Bernas is good for Plaza Miranda.

On the second day, the exchanges brought the ‘roof down.’  People could hardly control their laughter and shocks.  This was truly a hilarious day â€" an entertainment of sort by way of a ‘tax rebate’ since the whole impeachment proceedings are on taxpayers’ money!  Former Justice Serafin Cuevas vs. Cavite Rep. Elpidio Barzaga Jr.  The former was not only brilliant but also awed all sundry on the beauty of the practice of the law.  The latter, oh well…! That’s ENTERTAINMENT!

Guaranteed entertainment

Fr. Jun Mercado OMI
January 18, 2012

This early, the nation is enthralled by the unfolding hilarious impeachment entertainment that we need badly as we face the difficulty of life’s nitty gritty. 

We all need a good laugh!  And we have to thank the Lower House of Congress for providing us a free and hilarious entertainment.  The first day was rather somber, simply dishing out whatever the senator-judges have established as their consensus on the standing motions of the defense.  The Senate in a silver platter gave the victory for the prosecution.

The second day turned out to be a ‘riot’ that even the presiding Senate President could not help but smile when confronted by the shock of his legal life that the House prosecution would simply present ‘[pieces of] evidence’ that are computer-generated.  There would be no signatures, no testimony to the veracity of the documents, no cross but simply a LOOK at the bar code.

Well, the laughter began when the House prosecutors decided to jump over Article 1 (betrayal of public trust) of the impeachment information and go to Article 2 (non filing of SALN).  This move was objected by the defense counsel only to discover at a latter stage that the House Prosecutors were NOT ready with their evidences in Article 1.

Uggie
Grade: A+

Uggie, the adorable pooch from “The Artist,” was the best dressed male of the night.  A dog in a bowtie … it just doesn’t get any better than that!

many happy returns, gibo, especially when you return to tb!

(still busy preparing for the next presidential race?) 

Quote from: TUBAGBOHOL.com on January 18, 2012, 01:57:33 PM

Still Fashionable

oh, well, policewomen still need to cook when they get home, so they might as well wear aprons ahead.  (why haven't our senators-jurors thought of this design for their robes?  what a waste of fashion advocacy.)

Quote from: TUBAGBOHOL.com on January 18, 2012, 01:57:33 PM

Yes, this is a policeman

my favorite.  he's well protected with a diaper.

the author:


Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas S. J.

Bernas earned a Bachelor of Arts in English, Latin, and Greek Classics and a Master of Arts in Philosophy from Berchmans College in 1956 and 1957 respectively.  He obtained a Bachelor of Laws from Ateneo Law School in 1962 and placed 9th in the bar examinations of that year.

Bernas earned degrees in Licentiate of Sacred Theology from Woodstock College in 1966, Master of Laws and Doctor of Juridical Science from New York University in 1965 and 1968 respectively. (wiki)

VII. Respondent betrayed the public trust and/or committed graft and corruption when he failed and refused to account for the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) and Special Allowance for the Judiciary (SAJ) collections.

a. Involved in this is the interpretation of the extent of fiscal autonomy of the Court.  What is the jurisprudence on this?  Will the Senate apply or depart from existing jurisprudence on the subject?

http://opinion.inquirer.net/column/sounding-board

VI. Respondent betrayed the public trust through his partiality in granting a temporary restraining order (TRO) in favor of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her husband Jose Miguel Arroyo in order to give them an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice, and in distorting the Supreme Court decision on the effectivity of the TRO in view of a clear failure to comply with the conditions of the Supreme Court’s own TRO.

a. The constitutionality of the restriction on the right to travel through a Department of Justice circular on hold-departure orders is pending before the Court with the decision expected after New Year.  Should the Senate preempt the Supreme Court decision?

b. What is the import, if any, of the existence of a House bill and a Senate bill disempowering the DOJ?

c. The continuing effectivity of the TRO has been affirmed by the Supreme Court.  What power does the Senate have over it?

V. Respondent committed culpable violations of the Constitution through wanton arbitrariness and partiality in consistently disregarding the principle of res judicata and in deciding in favor of gerry-mandering in the cases involving the 16 newly created cities, and the promotion of Dinagat Island into a province.

a. Were not the League of Cities case and the Dinagat case collegial decisions upholding acts of Congress?  Were the laws involved statutory responses of Congress to the people as “master” as against the greed of the League of Cities?

b. Was not the Fasap (Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines) decision also collegial?

c. Is the Supreme Court powerless to look into the activities of its members (e.g., plagiarism) especially if it involves things that might affect the reputation of the Court?

d. Was not the creation of new districts in Camarines Sur done by Congress, the representative of the people?

e. Who decides the application of the principle of proportionality (or “one man, one vote”) in the size of districts?

IV. Respondent betrayed the public trust and/or committed culpable violation of the Constitution when it blatantly disregarded the principle of separation of powers by issuing a status quo ante order against the House of Representatives in the case concerning the impeachment of then Ombudsman Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez.

a. What can be made of the fact that the status quo ante order was a resolution of eight justices?  How did Corona vote on the later reversal of the status quo ante order?

III. Respondent committed culpable violations of the Constitution and betrayed the public trust by failing to meet and observe the stringent standards under Article VIII, Sec. 7 (3) of the Constitution, which provides that [a] member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence in allowing the Supreme Court to act on mere letters filed by a counsel which caused the issuance of flip-flopping decisions in final and executory cases; in creating an excessive entanglement with Mrs. Arroyo through her appointment of his wife to office; and in discussing with litigants regarding cases pending before the Supreme Court.

a. Is the flip-flopping of the Court in collegial decisions attributable to Corona alone or to a body struggling to arrive at justice?  Did Corona himself flip-flop?

b. Is the Court prohibited from modifying prior decisions or doctrines?

c. When and by whom was Mrs. Corona appointed to John Hay Management Corp.?  Is a husband obliged to compel his wife to turn down an appointment?  Or did he try to dissuade her at all?  Or was he overruled by the wife?

d. Can a husband be made answerable for acts of the wife?

e. Will Justice Carpio be asked to testify about the alleged lobbying about pending cases?

II. Respondent committed culpable violation of the Constitution and/or betrayed the public trust when he failed to disclose to the public his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth as required Under Sec. 17, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution.

a. The command on making assets and liabilities public is qualified by the clause “in the manner provided by law.”  Is there a law providing the manner and did Corona violate it?

b. Alternatively, if there is no law applicable specifically to the Judiciary, may Corona follow instead the manner prescribed in Resolutions of the Supreme Court before him?  (Which I am told he does regularly.)

c. What evidence will be presented on the alleged illegally acquired property?

I. Respondent betrayed the public trust through his track record marked by partiality and subservience in cases involving the Arroyo administration from the time of his appointment as Supreme Court justice, which continued to his dubious appointment as a Midnight Chief Justice and up to the present.

a. I too opposed the exercise of the appointing power during the two-month prohibited period.  But the Supreme Court decided otherwise.  May the Senate review the Court’s decision?

b. Is it illegitimate to assume that the votes of Corona represented independent judgment?

Sounding Board

Quick questions for the Senate as jury

Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas S. J.
Philippine Daily Inquirer
Sunday, January 1st, 2012

By Constitutional mandate the Senate is the judge in an impeachment case.  Let me propose some questions arising from a summary of the charges filed by the House of Representatives.  I believe the Senate will ponder these after it has determined that the complaint was properly verified.

Quote from: hubag bohol on January 17, 2012, 07:43:42 PM
Si Islander baya. Kaya, di ba?

pikat. 

Quote from: Koolene on January 17, 2012, 09:25:29 PM
China's economic climate broadened from it's poorest speed within 2-1/2 many years within the most recent one fourth, using the loose property as well as foreign trade industries heralding the crisper slowdown within arriving several weeks as well as clean pro-growth steps in the federal government.

___________________


mesothelioma

uy, koleene, pagtarong diha bisag spammer ka.  welcome to tb diay. 

Mesothelioma (or, more precisely, malignant mesothelioma) is a rare form of cancer that develops from transformed cells originating in the mesothelium, the protective lining that covers many of the internal organs of the body. It is usually caused by exposure to asbestos. (wiki)

ugh.  mora man nig si yoda nga giango-ango...

kun strongest, ngano mang di man makaalsa ug lima ka kilong bugas ang dila?

Quote from: hubag bohol on January 16, 2012, 06:27:58 PM
“For men who are almost into necrophilia but not quite” say her ads on Maltapark.

hahaha!  naa man kahay mga taga-tb ani nga mogimaw... 

Quote from: hubag bohol on January 16, 2012, 06:27:58 PM
“Some historians say the invasion of Sicily might not have succeeded had the entire British 51st infantry division not spent a morale-boosting night with me before they shipped out.”

goodness gracious!  paskang...


just a teeny-weeny fraction of the 51st (highland) division.

madame is exaggerating... giango-ango na? 

hello, stef.  step into our parlor.  you and your movies are most welcome!

aye, aye, sir!  wa gyod hinoon ko kasuway ug pista sa balingsya sukad.  unsaon, tingklase man sa gamay pa ko. 

karon nga tiguwang na ko, kun di man ko layo kaayo, nabatasan pa gyod nako nga molikay ug pista, labi na sa bisperas, kay mora gyod kog mabuang anang siniyagit ug hilak ug mga baboy nga giihaw.  i cannot appreciate fiestas anywhere in the philippines because of that.

mo-honor na man lang gyod ug feast day sa ginoo ug mga santos, ngano man intawon nga pahilakon pa man ang baboy?  it's a nightmare.  why the torture?  why not a more humane way of slaughtering?  will our prayers be heard more because we torture pigs to death?

si bugsay, the true-blue valencianhon, sureness ko nga mamista gyod.  kumusta dinha, bugs?  ang cholesterol, bantayi.

hasta diay paa di motingog?

Quote from: islander on January 15, 2012, 11:54:39 PM

Lito Lapid
"May mga nang-iinsulto… Sila nga abogado, may abogado pa eh.  Ako pa kayang hindi abogado."

bigat!  how profound naman.  

uh, where's ramon revilla's statement?

Ralph Recto
"Who will commit resources in this country next year if they know there is instability of some sort, political stability… The executive and the Supreme Court are clashing. This is not good."



Pia Cayetano
“This is not a trial by publicity. The impeachment court has been constituted. Prudence dictates that we refrain from any discussion in deference to the impeachment court and the proceedings, and show respect for our Constitutional process."



Miriam Defensor Santiago
"These are very disturbing times. When you impeach the chief justice, those who are against his policies, maybe unrelated to the ongoing controversy, will also seize the opportunity to rise against him. So that becomes an atmosphere of instability."



Francis Escudero
"I think at the end of the day, the people will judge the senator-judges based on how they explained their votes and carry themselves, not necessarily how they vote."

Jinggoy Estrada
"I have to study hard for the trial so I can be at par with my colleagues who are brilliant lawyers."



Lito Lapid
"May mga nang-iinsulto… Sila nga abogado, may abogado pa eh.  Ako pa kayang hindi abogado."



Vicente Sotto III
"Hopefully, we can finish it [Corona impeachment trial] before the Easter break."

Antonio Trillanes IV
"The over-arching policy issue in this whole impeachment episode is whether the conviction or acquittal of Chief Justice Renato Corona would be good for our country.  To resolve this, I intend to use political acceptability as the sole criterion to evaluate the projected outcomes of either policy alternative of conviction or acquittal."



Sergio Osmeña III
"You really want a Supreme Court that can exercise fairness in all its decisions and it's very obvious that the majority, not every member but a majority of the Court, has been so openly partisan towards Gloria that I am scared for the country because there are a lot of important cases that fall before the Court."



Alan Peter Cayetano
"I think the Senate will be as much on trial as the Judiciary in proving its impartiality as an institution.  It's not only a judicial process, not being a criminal or administrative case but also a political process.  We can be political but at the same time remain impartial."

Edgardo Angara
"Is there really no hope for a truce so the entire country will not have to be caught up in the dispute between the President and the Chief Justice?  Let's first explore areas of reconciliation.  It is not too late."



Franklin Drilon
"All his decisions are for Gloria.  His own record shows that he favors Arroyo.  What is important here is how people perceive him."



Bongbong Marcos
"My job as senator/judge is cut out for me: understand the charges, appreciate the evidence presented, and most importantly, decide based solely on what I believe to be fair and just whether it be popular or not.  That's what I owe the people that voted for me.  That's what I can give to my country."

What the senators said before the Corona trial

abs-cbnNEWS.com
01/13/2012 9:08 AM



Juan Ponce Enrile
Senate President, Presiding officer
"I think that we have to accept the fact that there’s an adversarial position between the two departments of government. So, it’s better for us in the Senate to be as reticent as we could so we will be able to judge the issues carefully, impartially and fairly."



Joker Arroyo
"The net effect of this would be that President Aquino would achieve being an autocrat this time by stroke of genius. The president will be able to control the entire government without having to declare martial law."


   
Panfilo Lacson
"A great majority of us in the Upper Chamber are not for sale. That I can say with authority."

PROSECUTION’S COUNTER-ARGUMENTS:

1. The impeachment was filed by the Filipino people through their representatives in Congress.  It was a “sovereign act.”

2. The impeachment is not an attack on the judiciary and the Constitution.  “Corona is not the judiciary and the articles of impeachment are leveled against him and him alone.”

3. The impeachment seeks to strengthen the SC by removing Arroyo’s influence, restoring the people’s faith in it.

4. Corona should have seen his impeachment coming. Long before it was filed, the people had lost faith in him and the SC.

5. Corona’s argument that President Aquino wants a Chief Justice who would kowtow to him reflects his belief that an appointee is always beholden to the appointing power.  In effect, Corona admits being beholden to Arroyo, who appointed him.

6. On Corona’s claim that the impeachment complaint was defective and not properly verified:

     a. The impeachment complaint, having been transmitted to the Senate, is sufficient to proceed to trial.  Any objections based on technicalities should no longer be entertained.

     b. The number of congressmen who had not read the complaint is not enough to reduce the number of complainants to less than the required 1/3 of all the members of the House.

     c. Article 11 Section 3 (4) of the Constitution only requires filing of the complaint by at least 1/3 of House members, not verification by all of them.

     d. The verification requirements under the Rules of Court do not apply to the impeachment process, as it is political and not strictly judicial in nature.

     e. Those who have not read the complaint by now had sufficient time to evaluate it.  If they don’t agree with it, then they can withdraw their signatures.  But no one has withdrawn his or her signature so far.

OTHER ARGUMENTS OF CORONA AGAINST THE PROSECUTION AND IMPEACHMENT COMPLAINT:

1. The impeachment complaint, filed in a “blitzkrieg fashion” like a “thief in the night,” was the handiwork of President Aquino and other members of the Liberal Party to ensure an Aquino-friendly SC.  From the very start, Aquino has been against Corona.  He even refused to take his oath before the Chief Justice.

2. The impeachment process has become a “partisan orgy” meant to destroy Corona by associating him with the unpopular former President Arroyo.

3. The impeachment of Corona is an attack on the judiciary’s independence, and therefore also an attack on the Constitution itself.

4. The impeachment complaint should be dismissed for failing to fulfill the verification requirement: the signatories had not carefully read and evaluated its contents. (This is Corona’s main argument in his motion for preliminary hearing.)

Article 8. Respondent betrayed public trust and/or committed graft and corruption when he failed and refused to account for the judiciary development fund (JDF) and special allowances for the Judiciary (SAJ) collections.

ASSIGNED PROSECUTORS: Oriental Mindoro Rep. Reynaldo Umali (lead), Isabela Rep. Giorgidi Agabbao

BACKGROUND: Corona failed to remit to the Bureau of Treasury collections for the Special Allowance for the Judiciary, which comes from docket fees from people filing complaints, and the Judicial Development Fund sourced from legal fees.  He also reportedly failed to account for the funds spent for unfiled positions in the judiciary.  Unremitted funds to the treasury amounted to P5.38 billion, according to the annual audit report of the SC.  P559.5 million consisting of the SAJ, JDF, and General Fund, meanwhile, was misstated in the audit report.

CORONA’S ANSWER:

1. The prosecution is attacking the judiciary’s so-called fiscal autonomy in its accusations. 
The legislature seems to want to control its funds, which is not allowed under the Constitution.

2. All disbursement vouchers for the SAJ and JDF are submitted to the resident auditor from the Commission on Audit.

3. The Department of Budget and Management was furnished a copy of the report on the status of SAJ and JDF collections covering several periods on December 12, 2012 . The reports were also submitted to the COA, Senate, and House of Representatives.

4. Corona is not required to remit all SAJ collections to the Bureau of Treasury.  Under RA 9227, the judiciary has exclusive control over the SAJ.  Also, in a resolution on January 18, 2011, the SC resolved that interests on deposits of the JDF shall not be remitted to the National Treasury.

5. The SC did not fail to account for funds for vacancies in the judiciary.  It has submitted the Statement of Allotment, Obligation, and Balances for 2010 showing how the SC’s savings were used.  As Chief Justice, Corona is authorized by Article 6 Section 25 (5) of the Constitution to realign savings or use them for other purposes.

6. The alleged unremitted and misstated funds accumulated long before Corona became Chief Justice.  These matters have been reported to Congress in 2010.

PROSECUTION’S REPLY:

1. Corona’s answers are merely sweeping denials, without any documentary proof showing that he fulfills his duty of accounting for the funds.

2. Curiously, the day Corona submitted reports on the status of JDF and SAJ collections (December 12, 2011) was also the day the impeachment complaint was transmitted to the Senate.  It is a clear indication of Corona’s desperate bid to fend off the people’s cry for accountability.

Article 7. Respondent betrayed public trust through his partiality in granting a temporary restraining order (TRO) in favor of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her husband Jose Miguel Arroyo in order to give them an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the end of justice, and in distorting the Supreme Court decision on the effectivity of the TRO in view of a clear failure to comply with the conditions of the Supreme Court's own TRO.

ASSIGNED PROSECUTORS: Bayan Muna Rep. Neri Colmenares (lead), Northern Samar Rep. Raul Daza

BACKGROUND:

1. The SC under Corona quickly issued a temporary restraining order allowing former President Arroyo and her husband, Mike, to go abroad despite a watchlist order by the Justice Department.  This was done even without heeding the member-in-charge’s recommendation that a hearing be held first, and despite inconsistencies in Arroyo’s petition that cast doubts on her sincerity and the urgency of her need to leave the country to seek medical treatment.

2. The TRO for Gloria was extended to Mike because the SC consolidated their cases.

3. Events show the TRO was granted with undue haste: the SC extended its office hours to allow the Arroyos to post a P2-milion bond, and they booked several trips on the day the TRO was released, as if they knew about it beforehand.

4. The SC affirmed the TRO even if the Arroyos failed to comply with one of its conditions that they appoint a legal representative to attend to legal matters during their absence.  Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno pointed this out in her dissent.  The Court Administrator and SC spokesperson, Midas Marquez, misinformed the public by saying that the TRO was effective.

CORONA’S ANSWER:

1. The Rules of Court allows the consolidation of cases for actions involving common questions of law.  There was a common question of law in the separate petitions of Gloria and Mike Arroyo: whether Justice Secretary Leila de Lima violated their right to travel by issuing a watchlist order against them.  The consolidation of their cases was collegial and not just Corona’s own move.

2. There was no undue haste in issuing the TRO.  SC Justices received copies of the Arroyos’ petitions and deliberated on them carefully.

3. The en banc is not bound by the member-in-charge’s recommendations.  The decision of the majority prevails.

4. That the SC would take up the TRO on November 15, 2011 was widely known.  It is not surprising then that the Arroyos prepared for a possible issuance of it by, among other, booking several flights.  The SC never informed them about it beforehand.

5. Corona cannot be held liable for a collegial decision such as the release of TROs.

6. The SC expressly made the TRO “immediately executory,” and so it was effective even if one of the conditions was not met.  The Court ruled 9-4 that the TRO remained in force.  Thus, the prosecution’s claim that the SC’s ruling did not reflect what was discussed in its deliberations is untrue.

7. Corona did not feed Marquez wrong information on the Court’s deliberations on the TRO.

PROSECUTION’S REPLY:

1. Corona used his administrative powers as Chief Justice to expedite the issuance of a TRO.

2. Corona’s own arguments reveal his premeditated scheme to let the Arroyos leave.

3. Majority of the Justices (7-6) voted to keep silent on whether the TRO was effective despite the Arroyos’ failure to comply with a condition, because they believed it was commonsensical for it to be suspended.  But Corona told Marquez to tell the public that the TRO was still in full force.

4. Justice Sereno’s dissent filed on December 2, 2011, which details irregularities in the issuance of TRO, was promulgated only on December 13.

5. Corona’s actions show a clear bias for Arroyo.

Article 6. Respondent betrayed public trust by arrogating unto himself, and to a committee he created, the authority and jurisdiction to improperly investigate a Justice of the Supreme Court for the purpose of exculpating him.  Such authority and jurisdiction is properly reposed by the constitution in the House of Representatives via impeachment.

ASSIGNED PROSECUTORS: Ilocos Norte Rep. Rodolfo Farinas, Cibac Rep. Sherwin Tugna

BACKGROUND: The SC under Corona created an Ethics Committee to probe the case of Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo, who was accused of plagiarizing portions of several books and articles in international journals in a decision on Filipino comfort women during the Japanese occupation.  Because Del Castillo is an impeachable officer, however, only the House of Representatives through impeachment has the power to investigate him and hold him accountable.  Corona in effect disregarded the House’s power by forming the Ethics Committee, which later found Del Castillo not guilty.

CORONA’S ANSWER:

1. Corona did not create the Ethics Committee.  It was established during the term of former Chief Justice Reynato Puno to investigate “complaints involving graft and corruption and violation of ethical standards, including anonymous Complaints, filed against Members of the Supreme Court, and of submitting findings and recommendations to the Supreme Court en banc.”  The committee was not created for the purpose of absolving Del Castillo.

2. The SC en banc, not just Corona, referred Del Castillo’s plagiarism case to the Ethics Committee.  The en banc absolved him on a vote of 10-2.  Corona cast just one vote.

3. The committee’s power is only recommendatory.  If an offense is impeachable, the SC en banc will refer it to the House for investigation.  If not, the en banc will decide on the case and impose sanctions against the erring official if needed.

PROSECUTION’S REPLY:

1. A Supreme Court justice may only be investigated and removed through an impeachment proceeding.  Thus, it was improper for the SC to refer Del Castillo’s case to the Ethics Committee.

2. The law allows the SC to discipline members of lower courts, but not its own.  Only the House has the power to discipline SC Justices because they are impeachable officers.

3. Corona preempted Congress and protected a fellow Justice from impeachment.

Article 5. Respondent betrayed public trust through wanton arbitrariness and partiality in consistently disregarding the principles of res judicata in the cases involving the 16 newly-created cities, and the promotion of Dinagat Island into a province.

ASSIGNED PROSECUTORS: Cavite Rep. Elpidio Barzaga (lead), Pangasinan Rep. Marlyn Agabas

BACKGROUND:

1. The SC under Corona “flip-flopped” or reversed its decisions on a number of cases many times, violating the principle of res judicata, or the immutability of final judgments.

2. The SC ruled on November 18, 2008 in League of Cities v. Comelec that the conversion of 16 municipalities into cities was unconstitutional because they failed to meet the income requirements for cities under the Local Government Code.  Denying an appeal by the 16 municipalities, the Court affirmed its decision on April 28, 2009, and it became final on May 21, 2009.  Still, the 16 municipalities filed several pleadings, even a prohibited second motion for reconsideration.  Their lawyer, Estelito Mendoza, also wrote a letter asking the SC to reconsider its decision and allow the participation of judges who were not present when the November 18 ruling was being discussed.  On December 21 of the same year, the Court reversed its decisions and declared the conversion of the 16 municipalities into cities as valid.  But the League of Cities appealed the decision, citing the principles of finality of judgment.  On August 24, 2010, the SC reversed its decision again and said the 16 municipalities may not convert into cities.  Despite this, the Court again entertained an unprecedented fourth motion for reconsideration from the 16 municipalities.  On February 15, 2011, the Court granted their appeal and allowed their conversion into cities, in effect reversing the “reversal of the reversal of the original decision.”

3. In Navarro v. Ermita, the SC decided against the creation of the province of Dinagat Island on February 10, 2010.  The ruling was final and executory, and an entry of judgment was made on May 18 of the same year, meaning it was irrevocable.  But months later, the Court reversed its decision, acting on the motions of prospective officials and congressional representatives of Dinagat even if they were not parties to the original proceedings.

4. Associate Justice Arturo Brion said in his dissenting opinion on the Dinagat case, “Unlike the case of Lazarus who rose from the dead through a miracle, Dinagat resurrected because the Court disregarded its own rules and established jurisprudential principles.  Of course, it can similarly be called a miracle as no reversal could have taken place if just one of the series of transgressions pointed out did not take place.  How such resurrection can happen in the Supreme Court is a continuing source of wonder!”

CORONA’S ANSWER:

1. The prosecution may not question the SC’s collegial decisions.  That amounts to encroaching on the Court’s judicial power.

2. Corona was not yet Chief Justice when the SC received letters appealing its original decision on the case of the 16 municipalities.  As an Associate Justice, Corona was merely furnished copies of the letters.

3. Corona never flip-flopped; his votes affirming the constitutionality of the 16 municipalities’ cityhood was consistent.

4. Contrary to the prosecution’s claim, the May 21, 2009 decision declaring the cityhood of the 16 municipalities unconstitutional was not yet final because the SC recalled the entry of judgment.  Recalling entries of judgment is not unusual.  Thus, the second motion for reconsideration filed by the 16 municipalities was allowed.  Under the Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court allows a second appeal when it grants a motion for leave to file and admit a second motion for reconsideration.  This is usually done to correct errors in decisions.  A second motion for reconsideration is also not considered so and is thus allowed if it delves on a new issue or presents new evidence.

5. Corona refuses to comment on the cases of Dinagat and FASAP since these are still pending with the SC.

PROSECUTION’S REPLY:

The prosecution reiterates that the SC under Corona violated the principle of res judicata.  “No longer can the public look to the Supreme Court for a final resolution of disputes and controversies, for ay judgment, even if final, can still be revisited and reversed, at the whim of the Supreme Court.”