Palawan, the Philippine's LAST FRONTIER, is known for being pristine and biodiverse. It is now under threat from deforestation due to mining. @DENROfficial, protect our trees and mountains, not the greedy mining companies.
Nah, man. If you look at it, sobrang chef’s kiss ng composition ng new minority.
Veteran senators in Senators Kiko, Tito, Bam, Risa, JV, Ping, Win, and JV.
Two of the newer ones who happen to be good at speaking when needed and have the spine to stand up in the Tulfo brothers.
You have a lawyer in Sen. Kiko, a former PNP chief in Sen. Ping, two members of the media in the Tulfo brothers, a statesman who is focusing on education in Sen. Bam, a Mindanao representation in Sen. Migz, the former SP in Sen. Sotto, a good committee head in Sen. Win, and a progressive in Risa Hontiveros.
Alan Peter Cayetano and Pia,
It is best that first, you admit that you have caused all these mess in the Senate.
Alan’s producing of Bato just to steal the Senate leadership, and the conspiracy of Pia, Villar siblings, Loren in order to succeed in that traitorous coup, definitely proved themselves to be prioritizing personal and political interests over the welfare of the Filipino people and the country.
My unsolicited legal advice to the House of Representatives:
1. The House is a co-equal of the Senate. The Senate cannot order the House around. Once the House transmits the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate—its work as a House is done. It will only need to send a delegation to act as prosecutors in the actual trial and it is its designated prosecutors that participates as prosecutors and not the House itself. In other words, while the Impeachment Tribunal can order the prosecutors to comply with reasonable and legally sound procedural requirements, it cannot order the House to re-do its processes.
2. To begin with, the act of the House enjoys the presumption of regularity. The Senate, even if it is acting as an Impeachment Court, cannot second-guess whether the House followed its own processes or that “it did not violate the Constitution.” As such, the act of remanding the Articles of Impeachment “to certify that it did not violate the Constitution,” is, ironically, what is unconstitutional because it second-guesses a categorical act of the House to transmit the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate that is the latter’s exclusive domain pursuant to the Constitution. Make no mistake: the House has the exclusive power to transmit the Articles of Impeachment and not even the Senate as an Impeachment Court can second-guess such exclusive power.
3. It has long been settled in Constitutional Law that the Journal of the House cannot be inquired upon or reviewed even by the Supreme Court. In US v. Pons (August 12, 1916, GR No. 11530), the Supreme Court held that the certification through the Journal of the House that a bill became law is CONCLUSIVE upon courts of law. Similarly, the Impeachment Court cannot also meddle with the processes of the House when it transmitted the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. In Pons, the SC looked into the Journals to ascertain the date of adjournment but the SC refused to go beyond the recitals in the legislative Journals. Said the Supreme Court: “Said Journals are CONCLUSIVE on the Court and to inquire into the veracity of the journals of the Philippine Legislature, when they are, as the SC have said, clear and explicit, would be to violate both the letter and the spirit of the organic laws by which the Philippine Government was brought into existence, to invade a coordinate and independent department of the Government, and to interfere with the legitimate powers and functions of the Legislature.” It is clear that the Senate second-guessing the processes and records of the House showing what transpired in the House when it transmitted the Articles of Impeachment is a CLEAR INTERFERENCE in the exclusive domain of the House.
4. The remand also does not have constitutional basis. it is only a convenient excuse for the Senate to be able dribble the proceedings, despite the clear imperative by the Constitution to FORTHWITH PROCEED WITH TRIAL once the transmitted Articles of Impeachment are received by it. There is only one course of action based on the command of the Constitution: to proceed with trial.
5. The Senate is not an appellate court. It cannot “remand” the proceedings as if it is capable of reviewing the acts of the House as a constitutional body or that it is a “higher court” and the House is a “lower court.”
6. My advice to the House, therefore, is to refuse the remanding and just say that it has already done its job pursuant to the Constitution which is to transmit the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. The ball is with the Senate to ACTUALLY commence with the trial, not to further delay the matter through contrived technical hurdles.
7. To begin with, it must be pointed out that the Senators seem to be acting like lawyers of Sara instead of behaving as IMPARTIAL JUDGES pursuant to the oath that they just made. Why are they the ones raising all of these cosmetic technical questions, instead of Sara’s defense lawyers? Abogado ba sila ni Sara Duterte?
🚨Giveaway🚨
This @WorldBackupDay, keep your data secure—and win one of our new Seagate Ultra-Compact 1TB SSDs. Repost and follow us to win!
More chances to win next week, stay tuned.
Only available in selected markets, T&Cs: https://t.co/xE71JgPNRZ
#SeagateGaming#Giveaway
@jesusfalcis I think you haven't considered the justice system here in PH na pinapagalaw lang naman ng 💰 and power. Let's say the girl chose to file a case, what's next? a cover up? a settlement? which ultimately doesn't serve justice at all.