NEW SENATE COMMITTEE CHAIRS
The new Senate majority bloc elects its members as chairs of the following committees after Sen. Sherwin Gatchalian was elected Senate President Pro Tempore and Acting Senate President due to the majority bloc’s absences.
READ RELATED STORY: https://t.co/2Wt29wHDxj
Alam mo, @robinpadilla23, kung anong hindi “allegedly”?
Ito:
1. Yung convicted criminal ka of a crime involving moral turpitude, at it was a huge mistake for you to be pardoned because you are a menace to society.
2. Yung mahina ang utak mo, tamad ka pa na aralin mga issues. You are unbecoming of a Senator, at sayang ang pasweldo sayo ng taumbayan.
3. Yung kunyari eh nationalistic ka na ayaw mo malitis si Bato ng mga tinatawag mong banyaga, pero makitid lang talaga kokote mo na hindi mo naiintindihan na ang International Law ay part of the law of the land, batay na rin sa ating SARILING Saligang Batas. Pero sa issue ng Tsina at West Philippine Sea, nga-nga ka.
4. Yung katotohanan na wala ang loyalty mo sa taumbayan kundi sa mga Duterte at kaalyado mo lang.
5. At bukod sa lahat, yung hindi ka talaga namin deserve.
Layas dyan sa Senado. Binababoy mo ang institusyon.
Senators were seen crying yesterday as a colleague was being arrested for plunder.
This is in no way an indictment of the accused senator but I would like to remind our lawmakers…
Iyakan n’yo ang ninanakawang Pilipino.
Iyakan n’yo ang binabaha dahil sa nakawan sa flood control.
Iyakan n’yo ang gutom nating mga kababayan.
Get out of your bubble. Please.
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.
Anim na buwan na hindi nagtrabaho habang sumisweldo. Tapos ngayon naman gustong mag-fulltime na work from home?
Hiyang-hiya naman ang mga minimum wage earners sa Pilipinas sa’yo, Sen!
Taumbayan ang nagpapa-sweldo sainyo. Kahit konting kahihiyan man lang sana.
Marcoleta’s attempt to question Sen. Risa’s credibility on the basis that she is not a lawyer just shows this deep patriarchal insecurity about the presence of a strong and influential woman in political discourse.
Makulong ka na Marcoletaaaa
JOINT STATEMENT ON THE SENATE MINORITY WALKOUT
We strongly condemn what appears to be an attempt to rush a major change in the Senate Rules, especially when several members of the minority still wanted to speak and raise serious questions on the floor.
Bakit kailangang madaliin? Bakit kailangang pigilan ang mga gustong magsalita? Bakit kailangang i-divide ang house kung marami pang senador ang nagtatanong tungkol sa proseso?
Minamadali ba ang rule change na ito dahil gusto nilang maka boto si Senator Bato? At ngayong may mga ulat na may mga majority senators na maaaring arestuhin?
We walked out because what happened on the floor looked less like orderly deliberation. The proposed rule change affects how senators may attend sessions, participate in proceedings and exercise their mandate through remote means, and such a measure should be opened to healthy public debate instead of being rushed by the tyranny of the majority.
We have always welcomed healthy discussions on the floor, but this should mean allowing all members to be heard, not forcing the chamber to move at the speed preferred by the majority.
At the time the motion was taken up, there was no duly constituted Committee on Rules and there was not even an elected Majority Leader who could properly guide a rules amendment through the regular process.
How could there have been any action or discussion before the Committee on Rules when no Committee on Rules has been organized to date?
With due respect, the answer that no Senate rule had been violated does not settle the matter, because the rules cannot be treated as a matter of convenience when the very process for amending them is under serious question.
The timing raises a question that the public deserves to hear debated openly. Kaya pinili naming tumayo at iwan ang majority sa plenary. Kaya kami nagdesisyon to question the quorum and call for adjournment.
If the proposal is truly defensible, then let it pass through the proper route.
We owe it to the people who voted for us to do our mandate. This is why we want more time to discuss this further.
MINORITY MASTERFULLY DELIVERED A BIG WIN AGAINST THE MAJORITY.
Bakit? Heto po:
1. They stopped the voting of a Senate Rule change proposal na sisira sa maraming pillars ng Senate.
2. Stopping that rule change in crucial in not opening the doors to even worse moves by Senate 1/
Praying for all the journalists risking their lives tonight just so the public can see the truth of what’s happening in the Senate.
There is no substitute for a free press. No alternative to people willing to stand in the middle of chaos so the country can witness the truth in real time.
The first teaser trailer for the film adaptation of Colleen Hoover’s ‘VERITY’ has been released.
Starring Anne Hathaway, Dakota Johnson, and Josh Hartnett.
In theatres October 2.