June Mar Fajardo saved the day with double-doubles as he helped Petron escape the tough Alaska squad 86-85.read more
The absence of Maruja Banaticla from the lineup of the UST Golden Tigresses has made ripples in the volleyball world.read more
Jessy Mendiola's time is here. Patiently waiting for her turn in the spotlight, she is proof that good things come to those who wait.read more
While we don't espouse violence, one can't help get more adrenaline watching the game when you see players go at each other at all costs.read more
Get a chance to win advanced screening tickets to The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug!read more
It’s all over: Anatomy of a checkmate
by Dean Tony La Viña
Yesteday afternoon, the Senate acting as the impeachment court decisively handed down a guilty verdict in the impeachment case of Renato Corona. With a vote of 20 senator-judges in favor and 3 senator-judges against, the impeachment court judged Mr Corona guilty of Article II of the Articles of Impeachment filed by the House of Representatives and voted to remove him from his position as Chief Justice.
The decision was arrived at after 5 months of trial which saw evidence presented, documents produced, and testimony offered, including Corona’s. The decision was arrived at after due deliberation by the senator-judges, to whom the solemn decision was entrusted by the people – through the Constitution.
This is my first attempt to analyze yesterday’s May 29 decisions and what led to them. In my Eagle Eyes column Tuesday in the Manila Standard entitled, “Not yet over,” I actually thought that this might go to the Supreme Court. But Monday’s closing arguments and yesterday’s proceedings practically ensured the end. The individual and collective reasoning of the senator-judges, how they arrived at their decisions, and the acceptance by Mr Corona of the verdict indicated a finale.
But this may help regarding the rules between GENERAL and SPECIAL law.
To more specific dun sa sinabi ko before (linabas ko na libro ko) just for information (this is why we are here in PEX, to learn from each other and not mag-away):
If the general law was enacted after the special law, the special law remains unless:
a) there is an express declaration to the contrary
b) or there is a clear, necessary and unreconcilable conflict
c) or unless the subsequent general law covers the whole subject and is clearly intended to replace the special law on the matter.
Now, here we go. BOTH SALN law and FCDA are SPECIAL LAWS. Kaya rules i stated before and above dont apply. The relationship of the 2 laws cannot be that of special-general or specific-general kasi neither of the 2 are general rule. When we say general law, those are laws natin na naka "CODAL" which is gawa ng Code Commission and not the Congress. Examples are Revised Penal Code and our New Civil Code.
Now, ano gagamitin natin? We use Art 7 of the New Civil Code, which states:
"Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, ....."
Laws are repealed:
b) or impliedly (insofar as there are inconsistencies between a prior and a subsequent law)
Now, obviously there is no express repeal of the FCDA due to the SALN law kasi wala namang nakasulat dun eh. It did not even mention FCDA. Your claim or "repeal" is based on IMPLIED REPEAL kasi there is a perceived conflict between the 2 laws.
But the Supreme Court in the case of U.S vs Palacio (33 Phil. 208) held that:
"Implied repeals are not looked upon with favor"
So you can't really castigate Corona if he sticks to his interpretation of FCDA despite of SALN Law. Walang express repeal eh. Implied repeals can only be 100% obligatory if there is already a jurisprudence acknowledging such implied repeal. Kaso wala eh!
Art 526 (NCC):
" ....... Mistake upon a doubtful or difficult question of law may be the basis of good faith"
Art 527 (NCC):
"Good faith is always presumed, and upon him who alleges bad faith on the part of a possessor rests the burden of proof"
My point here is that Corona acted in good faith and his good faith is presumed by law. It is the prosecution's job to overcome such presumption. Na-overcome ba ng prosecution ang presumption? No! If Corona acted in good faith, he cannot be held liable. This is the basis of Bongbong Marcos for his acquittal.
For your benefit. Bigyan kita ng sample...
Sa school may policy/rule na NO EXAM, NO GRADE. Kapag di ka nakapag-exam, wala kang grade. Pero yung prof naglabas ng list of exempted at kasama ka doon. Pwede kang magtake ng exam pero mas pinili mong wag na dahil gusto mong lasapin ang pribilehiyong ibinigay ng prof mo. Kung aanalisahin mo, wala ka dapat grade dahil hindi ka naman kumuha ng exam. Pero dahil may exemption sa rule na iyon, meron ka pa ring grade.
Sa RA6426, pwedeng ilabas at pwede ring hindi ilabas ng depositor ang kanyang fcd depende sa gusto nya. Kaya nga kailangan pa ng sulat nya na nagpapahintulot.
Do you really believe Corona has 82 dollar accounts? Obvious naman na na-derive ang 82 from the total number all his dollar accounts in the past almost all of them are closed na kasi nilipat na sa ibang accounts o nag-mature na yung time deposit. I dont think na hindi yun alam ni
Carpio-Morales kasi its simple logic and common sense. She didnt lie in the witness stand but she stated things in a broader way at nagmamaang-maangan by using words which implies unsureness like "it seems" just to stir controversy. There is really an effort to exaggerate things from the administration.
si Noynoy Kalbo na ang nagsabi na kung political vendetta lang ito, tapos na ang istorya ni Corona sa pagpapatalsik sa kanya. Pero alam natin na political vendetta nga lang talaga ito. Pero mukhang kailangan nga talagang panindigan na hindi ito political vendetta, kaya huwag na tayong magulat kung magsasampa ng kaso sa Sandiganbayan.
^^ para sa bayan at katotohanan yan sila.. pero ang mantra nila ngayon eh 'kasuhan niyo muna'.. bwahahahaha.. ang pagka-ipokrito nga naman.. pipirma lang ng waiver kailangan pa kasuhan.. motto dati ng pnoy pex fans ang 'kung walang itinatago di matatakot'.. pero ngayon natapos na si corona, nag-iba ang ihip ng hangin..
lets move on
....ang matyagan natin ngayon kung sino ang susunod na kapalit ni CORONA
Bakit naman ako aasa sa gobyerno? I can talk all i want, this is a free country, I can do what i want. Uunahin ko sarili ko bago yung politika. Makikialam ako personally sa politika tapos sarila ko hindi ko maasikaso. I would do our government and our country much favor kung uunahin ko sarili ko at hindi aasa.
so ngaayon the table is turned, sino ang nagrereklamo ngayon? di ba mga galamay ni gluerya?
karma is a *****.
thanks to gluerya lahat ng kataran-tada-han nya balik sa kanya at sa galamay nya.