This impeachment has shown us that there are good, intelligent and competent people within the government ranks and bureaucracy.
The elected officials are the problem, the people who vote for them are the bigger problem.
JUST INday Badiday
DDS Schubert Macarat, a critic of Leni Robredo who is facing 47 felony counts in Florida, including capital sexual battery, and is eligible for the death penalty! 👏👏👏
ctto: nutribun republic/fb
Taena. Philippines, now you see why Diokno should have been a Senator.
Iyong intelligence, iyong statemanship, iyong fundamental understanding of what a public office means—in full display with this slice of his appearance before the court.
Ito pala ang “HILING?”
So creepy!!! The idea seems so primitive and smacks of slavery and barbarism! Good grief, how did they ever come up with that idea?
RISA HONTIVEROS FOR PRESIDENT?
WATCH:
The groups Akbayan and Magdalo have endorsed Sen. Risa Hontiveros as their presidential candidate for the 2028 Philippine presidential election.
They believe that Hontiveros is the most qualified person to become the next President of the Philippines. | via Isaiah Mirafuentes, https://t.co/9R0Mcay5im
HOUSE EXPELS BARZAGA
BREAKING: The House of Representatives has expelled Cavite 4th District Rep. Kiko Barzaga over gross disorderly behavior and conduct unbecoming of a lawmaker.
Voting 265 in favor, 14 against, and 8 abstentions, the chamber adopted the ethics panel's recommendation to enforce the ultimate penalty.
The committee noted that Barzaga, who had already served two separate 60-day suspensions, showed a pattern of behavior that continuously tarnished the image of the institution, rendering further suspensions useless. | via @mariannenriquez /News5
Simple lang ang tanong: Kung walang itinatago, bakit ayaw ng trial?
Malinaw sa Konstitusyon: “The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment.”
Ibig sabihin, hindi puwedeng hatol muna bago trial. Kung nais malaman ang katotohanan, dapat munang marinig ang mga testigo at masuri ang lahat ng ebidensya sa isang bukas at patas na pagdinig.
Sundin ang Konstitusyon.
Sundin ang due process.
Walang special treatment sa mata ng batas.
SEVERAL weeks ago, political circles were discussing the dehumanizing tongue-lashing suffered by the mild-mannered labor secretary Benny Laguesma. A senator, in the minority then but now part of the current Senate leadership, was furious at Laguesma over a tangential and local issue that, in the real world, was not part of the then-secretary’s concern: the implementation of the Tulong Panghanapbuhay sa Ating Disadvantaged/Displaced Workers (Tupad) program at the local government level.
Read more: https://t.co/l26vw66zwc
🚨 Sabi ni tweety bird, concerned ang mga SC Justices sa corruption sa Sandiganbayan lalo pa’t napaka talamak daw NUON.
To our Sandiganbayan Justices, know that the people are watching.
History will know.
Your conscience will know.
🙏
#Accountability#FloodControlScam
Ano kamo Lorna Regina? Ulit ulitin yung pagsabi ni Sen Kiko ng “Noted” for what? Kung di ka pa nilapitan ni Matet to tell you na nakafocus camera di ka titigil…
Dyan kayo magaling… pakitang tao pero kitang kita kung paano kayo nagpaplano ng inyong evil schemes… tapos sasabihin nyo para sa tao ang ginagawa nyo? Pulos kayo BS!
Kumusta po kayo? Sagutin ko na po ito nang hindi pasigaw, since may sufficient legal background naman ako dahil nagtuturo ako ng Law on Obligations and Contracts.
Sa batas, Article 1174 of the New Civil Code in particular, ang force majeure ay itinuturing na isang event that “could not be foreseen, or which, though foreseen, were inevitable.” Sa Tagalog, “hindi inaasahan o kung ito man ay inaasahan, ay hindi maiiwasan.”
Ngunit, hindi dahil may force majeure na, maaari na natin itong gamitin bilang dahilan upang baguhin ang existing rules o sabihing balakid ito para magampanan ng isang tao ang kanyang tungkulin o obligasyon.
Upang maging applicable ang force majeure, may apat itong requisites:
(1) The cause of the unforeseen and unexpected occurrence or of the failure of the obligor to comply with its obligations was independent of human will (ang sanhi ng hindi inaasahang pangyayari, o ng pagkabigo ng may obligasyon na tuparin ang kanyang tungkulin, ay malaya o wala sa kontrol ng kagustuhan ng tao);
(2) It was impossible to foresee the event or, if it could have been foreseen, to avoid it (imposible na maasahan ang pangyayari o, kung sakaling maasahan man ito, imposible itong maiwasan);
(3) The occurrence rendered it impossible for the obligor to fulfill its obligations in a normal manner (dahil sa pangyayaring ito, naging imposible para sa may obligasyon na tuparin ang kanyang tungkulin sa normal na paraan); and
(4) Said obligor was free from any participation in the aggravation of the injury or loss (ang taong may obligasyon ay walang kinalaman o hindi nakibahagi sa pagpapalala ng pinsala o pagkawala).
Hindi rin dahil applicable ang force majeure sa isang sitwasyon ay pwede na itong basta-basta gamitin sa ibang sitwasyon.
Ngayon, gamitin natin ito sa kaso ni Senator Bato. Kunwari gagamitin itong ground para payagan siyang bumoto online habang ang ibang mga miyembro ng Senado ay physically present sa isang pagpupulong. Sa tingin ko, hindi pwede. Walang force majeure na masasabi.
Una, ang sanhi ng pagkabigo ni Senator Bato na tuparin ang kanyang tungkulin ay hindi independent of human will. Walang pumipigil sa kanya na pumasok sa Senado. Siya mismo ang umiiwas pumasok.
Pangalawa, dapat ang mismong force majeure ang dahilan kung bakit imposible para sa kanya na makapasok. Ano ang kinalaman ng mga sinasabing giyera sa pagpasok niya sa Senado? Bakit ngayon lang ito binanggit? At kung totoo man, bakit siya lamang ang hindi makapasok? Bakit ang ibang mga senador ay nakakadalo naman?
Kailangan tandaan na ang force majeure ay dapat magdulot ng actual impossibility, hindi mere difficulty, inconvenience, o personal preference lamang.
At huli sa lahat, bakit hindi ilagay sa resolution ang tunay na purpose kung bakit kailangang baguhin ang rules? Kung may sapat na basehan, bakit kailangang madaliin? Bakit hindi pwedeng pag-usapan nang maayos sa plenaryo? Bakit hindi na lamang sagutin ang mga tanong ng mga kapwa senador?
If the amendment is supported by compelling institutional necessity, then transparency as to its purpose should not be difficult to provide.
Hindi dapat binabago ang rules dahil lamang gusto ito ng mas nakararami. May proseso ang institusyon ng Senado. Galangin natin ito.
Okay? Okay.
No longer shall they be known simply as the Solid Bloc.
Henceforth, let them be known as The INDOMITABLE ELEVEN
Eleven who would not bend the rules to suit the moment.
Eleven who would not break their resolve &
Eleven who stood their ground when it mattered.
Courtesy of Sen. Francis Pangilinan