ross

@timesofgaza 🇵🇸

[ris & that @meowrachas]

the first glaring red flag about this whole thing is that the U.S. is willing to offshore ai hub operations because they don't want to deal with any more environmental repercussion they bring to their own country. this should be good enough reason. #NoToPaxSilica

[Rai @AwkwrdRiceballs]

Alam niyo sabi ng tatay ko who works in the IT sector regarding PAX SILICA?

"Alam mo ba bilang na tao lang makakapag trabaho diyan? Mga maintenance at security lang. Yung initial lang yung marami for construction. Hindi naman factory ang Data Center."

#NoToPaxSilica

[kat ishikawa @katyrmiese]

y'all keep using "more jobs" as a lame excuse, but all that does is show how incompetent you are if the only way you can create jobs is by trading away the country's natural resources. besides, what good are those "jobs" if ppl end up losing access to something as basic as clean drinking water?

[judeciary bellingham @haalinghambappe]

the philippines has everything but good governance

[ross @roseleyaaaa]

what the hell

[militant @alasiye7e]

what the fuck????

last year pala may binuksan ang PLDT at ang Manny V. Pangilinan (MVP) Group na hyperscale AI data center sa Sta. Rosa Laguna? SHUT VITRO STA. ROSA DOWN!

[ly ♡ @favmultichic]

what's the point of creating more jobs if the basic needs such as water and food are compromised? if this is the only way for you to produce "more jobs", then it says a lot about how INCOMPETENT you are that you have to trade off the essential human needs and the environment.

[lily @dearlysunwon]

our country is literally crying for help. may scheduled power interruption, yung heat index yearly tumataas, sobrang init, yung mga tubig din ang bilis nauubos dahil nga sa sobrang init, ang bilis ding bumaha, AND our farmers are super underpaid. GISING NA. #NoToPaxSilica

[𝒿𝒽 𝑒𝓊𝓃𝑜𝒾𝒶 ♡💜 @jheunoia]

If you think the people in our government cares about the environment, Gina Lopez was kicked out from being the DENR secretary by 16 over 8 votes against her.

Within 10 months in her post, she closed 23 mining operations, banned open-pit mining and shut down half of the country's mining companies.

Unfortunately, members of the congressional committee decided to remove her, as some of the 16 members who voted are connected on the mining industry, which explains why most of mining operations resumed after Gina Lopez got fired.

This is one of the most disgusting examples of our politicians prioritizing their personal interest over environmental welfare.

If only Ma’am Gina Lopez were still here, ano kaya ang magiging situation ng environment natin ngayon? Baka mas marami pa sanang lugar ang naprotektahan, mas mahigpit ang laban para sa kalikasan, at mas may boses ang mga komunidad na naaapektuhan.

[ryan | rei/na ☆ save stars! @divisreina]

no. shut it down. nobody wants it. americans don't want it in their soil and they ran here to build it instead. we don't want it either. #NoToPaxSilica

[sj 💬 @ndeuintly]

- the U.S. pushing Pax Silica in the country
- claims by some Chinese scholars regarding Batanes
- Isra*el's water and agriculture project in Palawan
- reports of Isra*eli interests expanding in Siargao

please stay informed and pay attention to what's happening!

[` @crestieyy]

“huy bat ang payat mo, ano secret mo?” kahirapan, baket

[ross @roseleyaaaa]

marcos duterte walang pinag-iba, parehong tuta, diktador, pasista!

[News5 @News5PH]

SANDIGANBAYAN DISMISSES CASE VS. MARCOS FAMILY

Ibinasura ng Sandiganbayan ang isa sa pinakamalalaking kasong inihain ng pamahalaan laban sa pamilya Marcos kaugnay ng ill-gotten wealth.

Sa desisyong inilabas ng anti-graft court, na-dismiss ang Civil Case No. 0141 matapos ihayag ng Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) na hindi na ito maghahain pa ng dagdag na ebidensya.

Sa manifestation ng gobyerno noong nakaraang buwan, sinabi nitong na-recover na ang karamihan sa ari-arian.

Bahagi ang kasong ito, na isinampa noong 1991, ng tinatayang nasa $5-billion ill-gotten wealth.

[Tessy | You're My Favorite Song | Reality TV @CollabS12PBB]

EXPLANATION
Why Avelino vs Cuenco 1949 is enough for a quorum of 12

Normally, the Senate has 24 senators, so quorum is 13.

Senate PH Rule II says that for Senate officers: they are elected by “majority vote of all its members.”

So if all 24 are counted, 12 is not enough.

But the anti-Cayetano camp’s argument comes from Avelino v. Cuenco, 1949.

In that case, the Supreme Court accepted the idea that because one senator was outside the country and could not participate, the Senate could be treated as having only 23 participating members. That made 12 a majority.

The Supreme Court said that “an absolute majority (12)” of the Senate “less one (23)” could be quorum, and Justice Feria explained that the count may be based on “actual members or incumbents” who are not incapacitated or outside the Senate’s jurisdiction.

Applied today: if Jinggoy Estrada is unable to participate because he is arrested, they can argue the working Senate is 23, not 24.

So 12 becomes quorum under Avelino logic.

Now add the Cayetano issue.

A Senate President is not the owner of the Senate.

The Senate Rules say the Senate normally meets at 3 PM on weekdays, unless the Senate decides otherwise.

If a session is postponed, the Senate President must consult the Majority and Minority Leaders. And the Senate President cannot just suspend or adjourn a session by himself without a motion or resolution approved by senators present, except in the specific postponement situation.

So if Cayetano refuses to preside or tries to stop the chamber from functioning, the anti-Cayetano camp can say - the chair cannot kill the chamber.

That is also consistent with Avelino v. Cuenco, 1949.

In that case, the Senate President abandoned the chair and did not attend.

Worse, Cayetano not only was absent, he did not designate a Presiding Officer either - the Senate is not functioning.

The anti-Cayetano senators continued, and the case records say the deliberate abandonment made it necessary for the remaining members to continue “in order NOT TO PARALYZE the functions of the Senate.”

So the anti-Cayetano camp’s legal theory is basically this:

(1) The Senate is bigger than Former SP Cayetano.

(2) If he refuses to preside, and enough senators are present, the Senate can still function.

(3) If Jinggoy cannot participate, Avelino gives them an argument that 12 is quorum.

(4) Once quorum exists, the Senate can act on its internal organization, including committees per the Senate Rules.

They are on stronger ground when reorganizing committees, because committees are part of Senate internal organization.

Rule X says permanent committees are formed by the Senate after organization, including the Committee on Rules (take notice, yan ang unang call to motion ni Sotto).

So what did Cayetano did wrong?
Essentially by refusing to attend the Senate or any of the presiding officers (ie: Former Pro Tempore Legarda, and Former Majority Leaders), the situation became more and more similar to Avelino v. Cuenco, 1949.

The former Majority could even argue that Avelino v. Cuenco, 1949 is a "special circumstance" . However, the similarities between then and now became more apparent with the former Majority leaders absence and made the arguments of the anti-Cayetano camp stronger.

With this, the new Majority got their quorum and they rearranged leadership.

So why only the leaderships and not the actual Senate Presidency?

So the pro-Cayetano camp can ask: "If you truly have quorum, and the majority of all members, why not also elect a Senate President?"

Short answer: Because of the Constitution.

The Constitution makes electing a new Senate President more sensitive because it specifically requires a “majority vote of all its respective Members” for that office.

The Constitution then separately says each House may choose “such other officers as it may deem necessary.”

For Senate President:
The Constitution itself sets the rule. The Senate President must be elected by “a majority vote of all its respective Members.”

For President Pro Tempore and other officers:
The Constitution does not give a specific voting threshold. It only says each House may choose “such other officers as it may deem necessary.” (Sec. 16)

It also says each House may determine its own rules.

That is where Senate Rule II comes in:
the Senate used its rule-making power to say its officers, including the President Pro Tempore, Secretary, and Sergeant-at-Arms, are elected by majority vote of all members.

LOGICAL DIFFERENCE:
So the Constitution does not dictate the definition of "all members" for other Senate officers - only for the Senate President.

Thus, the dictation and definition of "all members" lies on Senate Rules per the Constitution Sec. 16, "...as they deem necessary..."

But with Avelino v. Cuenco 1949 coming in...

The Senate PH has already defined "majority of all members" to be "active members of the Senate - that could participate"

In the ruling,
Justice Feria said the count may be based on the Senate’s “actual members or incumbents,” excluding those unable to discharge their duties because of death, incapacity, absence from jurisdiction, or other causes making attendance impossible (ie: arrest).

Feria treated the Senate as having 23 actual members, so 12 became a quorum and majority.

[ross @roseleyaaaa]

ligalig netong mga to oh sarap pagsasapakin ng adams apple e

[The Philippine Star @PhilippineStar]

ALAN CAYETANO, ROBIN PADILLA AT THE SENATE

Senators Alan Peter Cayetano and Robin Padilla are seen inside the Senate plenary hall in Pasay City on Thursday, ahead of the anticipated resumption of the Blue Ribbon Committee hearing.

On the other hand, Senate President Pro Tempore Win Gatchalian stated that no Blue Ribbon Committee hearing is scheduled today. (Photos by Ryan Baldemor/The Philippine STAR)

LIVESTREAM: https://t.co/x8IbJnZ9Hr

[ALTStarMagic 💫 @AltStarMagic]

Senators Kiko Pangilinan, Risa Hontiveros and Bam Aquino were elected again as the committee chairman of Agriculture, Health, and Basic Education!!!

JUSKO BUTI PUMASOK KA CHIZ HAYOPCCA PERO AYOKO PA RIN SAYO 😭✋

[ross @roseleyaaaa]

go get his ass

[Leila de Lima @manayleila]

Excuse me, Sen. Robin. Huwag nyo nga akong gamitin sa baluktot nyong naratibo. Acquitted na ako sa hinarap kong mga gawa-gawang kaso. Napakalayo ng sitwasyon ko sa pinasakay mong fugitive from justice na si Sen. Bato.

Saka neutralizing drug lords talaga? Sabihin nya yan sa pamilya ng libo-libong biktima ng EJK. Ipaliwanag nya yan sa ICC.

[Kai @imnotkaiii]

reminds me of this.

[tey 🚬 @tey_zzzz]

happy pride month! 🥰

[ross @roseleyaaaa]

tangina nyo kasing mga bumoto rito e. hindi ko kayo mapapatawad lahat

[iMPACT Leadership @iMPACTPH2019]

ROBIN ON SENATE WALKOUT: 'SAYANG, ANG GANDA PA NAMAN NUNG DEBATE'

https://t.co/CQBr87iGEi