@jonJ_ilobela@radyopilipinas1 Dapat sibakin na yan binigyan pa ng importansiya yung May Ari ng mga bus dapat tow na agad mga yan sa ginawang traffic violation halata na takot siya sa mga amo niya na INC . .
@tsuperdaddy ang camaderi ng PMAyer at PNP example sila honasan naka detain sa barko sa dagat Pinatakas Ping Lacson nakalabas ng bansa ngayon naman si Bato . . .
@tsuperdaddy Hanggang nasa loob ng Senado si Bato distraction sa incoming impeachment ni Sara sa senate . . Kaya nag order si PBBM kay Matibag at Jonvic na isecure ang senate bldg at hayaan na makaalis si Sen Bato . Huhulihin na lang siya sa labas at kung Saan magtatago.
@tsuperdaddy Ang ending nag order si PBBM kay Jonvic na isecure ang senado para sa safety ng mga senator and staff stand down walang aarestuhin . .
Kaya nakita sa meeting sila Cayetano at ibang senator ma DDs kasama si jonvic na nag tatawanan pa . . They all agree na let Bato escape .
On PhilHealth fund transfer SC ruling
A Misrepresented Justice Leonen’s Position by some media, The Supreme Court Decision Did Not Find President Marcos Committed Grave Abuse
The claim that Justice Marvic Leonen said President Marcos committed “grave abuse of discretion” is misleading and taken out of context.
First, Leonens statement appears only in his separate opinion, which does not carry the force of the Court’s ruling. A separate opinion is a personal legal view, not the Supreme Court’s finding.
Second, the Supreme Court En Banc, the official ruling, explicitly held that the President did not commit grave abuse in issuing the urgency certification. This is written directly in the Decision. No justice in the majority said otherwise.
Third, Leonen’s argument focuses on constitutional procedure, not presidential misconduct. He believes the certification lacked a valid emergency basis, but this is a minority view that did not change the outcome and did not void the GAA. The Court rejected his reenactment proposal and upheld the validity of the 2024 budget.
Fourth, even Leonen did not accuse President Marcos of bad faith. His critique is legal , not political. He questioned the standard for urgency, not the President’s intent, honesty, or constitutional fitness.
Finally, using Leonen’s lone dissent to claim the President “committed grave abuse” is dishonest. In constitutional law, only the majority opinion binds. And the majority said the opposite.
#ResponsibleReporting #ReportItRight
#MediaAccountability
Clearly you did not understand the decision of the court, the context and content of my post that you are replying to,
Page 132 doesn’t say President Marcos committed grave abuse, that’s wrong.
The ruling uses that term only for Congress’s unlawful budget rider and the DOF’s illegal PhilHealth fund transfer.
It does NOT refer to the President. In fact, the Supreme Court clearly said President Marcos’s urgency certification is not unconstitutional.
The only one who claimed grave abuse was Justice Leonen, and his view is a separate, non-binding opinion.
A dissent isn’t the ruling. The majority of justices said the opposite of what Leonen said which makes the formal decision of the court. Gets mo? ✌🏽