Yown! Huli sa bunganga ang isda... He divested without Congressional approval 😆
Franchise law (1987 Constitution, Article XII, Section 11): Any transfer, sale, or divestment of control requires Congressional approval.
WHY THE SUPREME COURT DECISION DECLARING THE IMPEACHMENT OF SARA DUTERTE AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL IS WRONG; WITH ALL DUE RESPECT
I’ve read the full Supreme Court decision written by the ponente Justice Marvic Leonen.
MASSIVE INCONSISTENCIES or illogical writing permeate his ponente and justifications.
1. Leonen says that the first three impeachment complaints COMPLIED with the constitutional requirement that they be included in the Order of Business of the House of Representatives within ten (10) session days - with the 36th session day of the HoR falling on February 3 to February 5 - because the first three complaints were included in the Order of Business on February 5. (Page 64 of the decision)
2. However, Leonen made a logical jump or out of this world conclusion when he said in the same paragraph that: “Such action is incomplete if the first three impeachment complaints are to be considered initiated because they were still not referred to the proper committee, i.e. the Committee on Justice.”
This quasi conclusion is confusing - the Respondents were arguing that the first three complaints did not initiate the one-year ban because they were not referred.
And yet, here comes Leonen ADMITTING that the first three impeachment complaints were indeed not referred to the Committee on Justice on February 5 AND YET in the same breath wants to come to a forced conclusion that the first three complaints are still considered to be initiated… “because they were still not referred to the proper committee”???
3. Then on Page 68 of the Decision, Leonen comes to the conclusion that “These turn of events show that the first three complaints were neglected or even willfully unacted upon.”
How disgusting to presume and conclude that the House was negligent - why would they act on the first three complaints for referral to the Committee on Justice when that would already be unnecessary given the filing of the 4th impeachment complaint signed and endorsed by 1/3 of the House ON FEBRUARY 5 as well??
4. Regardless, if the Supreme Court admits that the 4th impeachment complaint was filed, signed, endorsed by 1/3 Congressmen and referred to the Senate on February 5, then there can be no violation of the one year bar rule BECAUSE it was on the same day that the first three impeachment complaints “died” or “effectively dismissed.”
1/2
#WATCH: Alyssa Solomon shares a quick moment with Angel Canino, Shev Laput, and the DLSU Lady Spikers before joining the NU Lady Bulldogs' championship celebration 💙💚
📹 @justinvalencia_ /Tiebreaker Times
#UAAPSeason87
One of the images of Pope Francis that will always be remembered is this one:
Crossing St. Peter's Square alone, empty due to the pandemic, in the rain and silence. No words were needed to capture the moment.
#UAAPSeason87 Men's Basketball Finals Game 3 @spinph
✊🏹 JD 🫂 TOPEX
UP's JD Cagulangan shares a special embrace with La Salle head coach Topex Robinson!
“Walang titigil. Hindi dahil natalo tayo, titigil na tayo ngayon. Walang titigil!”
-Angel Canino
The heart of this kid is immeasurable. A formidable competitor, a fierce leader and a true fighter. 💥💚