Jump to content


Photo

Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno

Judicial system Political system

  • Please log in to reply
195 replies to this topic

#181 tk421

tk421

    Lover

  • (07) Avid Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,649 posts

Posted 26 May 2018 - 08:37 PM

 

 

Bro, hindi. That wasn't an impeachment hearing yet. Wala pa pong impeachment kontra ke Sereno. Saka in-explain yun sa decision. Andun yun.

 

Napakalinaw din dun sa decision kung ano yung sinasabing "impartiality".  

 

Kung ipagpipilitang mag-inhibit yung 8 kasi "impartial" sila, hindi ba it's but fair, equitable and just na mag-inhibit din yung 6 kasi "impartial" din sila? Bakit yung against lang ang panggigigilan natin, hindi yung mga for?

 

Let's say it should be equal. sige mag inhibit yun 8, mag inhibit din yun 6. In the end, there should not have been a quo warranto hearing at all. It has already lapsed the 1 year period diba?

 

Bakit hindi sila nag initiate nyan before?

 

For all their talks about Sereno breaking internal SC rules, here they are breaking their own rules.

 

"Nothing contained in this Rule shall be construed to authorize an action against a public officer or employee for his ouster from office unless the same be commenced within one (1) year after the cause of such ouster, or the right of the petitioner to hold such office or position, arose."



#182 camiar

camiar

    Camiar

  • (10) Super Poster
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,428 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 May 2018 - 01:00 AM

 

Let's say it should be equal. sige mag inhibit yun 8, mag inhibit din yun 6. In the end, there should not have been a quo warranto hearing at all. It has already lapsed the 1 year period diba?

 

Bakit hindi sila nag initiate nyan before?

 

For all their talks about Sereno breaking internal SC rules, here they are breaking their own rules.

 

"Nothing contained in this Rule shall be construed to authorize an action against a public officer or employee for his ouster from office unless the same be commenced within one (1) year after the cause of such ouster, or the right of the petitioner to hold such office or position, arose."

 

Inhibiting themselves in participating just because the accused claims impartiality of the judges?

 

If all the accused can make the judge inhibit himself just because he (the accused) thinks the judge is impartial, wala nang matatapos na kaso.



#183 tk421

tk421

    Lover

  • (07) Avid Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,649 posts

Posted 27 May 2018 - 07:07 AM

The spin doctor is at it again. Sinabi na nga sige equally mag i inhibit ang mga may biased/emotional stake sa quo warranto hearing. ALL THINGS EQUAL dapat wala nang hearing diba?

#184 camiar

camiar

    Camiar

  • (10) Super Poster
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,428 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 May 2018 - 10:29 AM

The spin doctor is at it again. Sinabi na nga sige equally mag i inhibit ang mga may biased/emotional stake sa quo warranto hearing. ALL THINGS EQUAL dapat wala nang hearing diba?

 

Bakit? Do you feel that sense of dread everytime you see that I have a reply to your post? Hirap kang sumagot sa counter arguments ko, and it's easier for you to just label it as a spin rather than to counter it with an intelligent argument? Kasing baba  ba ni kapit-tuko ang level mo?

 

Anyway...

 

What you failed to understand is that the accused stands at the mercy of the judges. They are not on equal standing.

 

It follows the principle that the judges are inherently wise and just and only they can decide for themselves if they are not impartial enough to render judgement so as to inhibit themselves.

 

In that premise, the accused and his judges are not equal. So it was the judges' prerogative to continue with the hearing and they eventually rendered their judgement against Sereno. 


Edited by camiar, 27 May 2018 - 10:34 AM.


#185 Bolj

Bolj

    Libertine

  • (05) Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 862 posts

Posted 28 May 2018 - 10:09 AM

Bakit? Do you feel that sense of dread everytime you see that I have a reply to your post? Hirap kang sumagot sa counter arguments ko, and it's easier for you to just label it as a spin rather than to counter it with an intelligent argument? Kasing baba  ba ni kapit-tuko ang level mo?
 
Anyway...
 
What you failed to understand is that the accused stands at the mercy of the judges. They are not on equal standing.
 
It follows the principle that the judges are inherently wise and just and only they can decide for themselves if they are not impartial enough to render judgement so as to inhibit themselves.
 
In that premise, the accused and his judges are not equal. So it was the judges' prerogative to continue with the hearing and they eventually rendered their judgement against Sereno.


naalala ko tuloy si Miriam vs Conchita sa impeachment ni Corona, lols medyu may problema yan sa technicality bro. Judge vs the accused.

#186 will robie

will robie

    Philanderer

  • BANNED
  • 3,099 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 31 May 2018 - 09:57 PM

Pangilinan just got owned by Ping Lacson in their debate about the resolution regarding the quo warranto. The one-time police man owned the lawyer in a debate. That does not happen often. 


Edited by will robie, 31 May 2018 - 09:57 PM.


#187 Bolj

Bolj

    Libertine

  • (05) Regular
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 862 posts

Posted 01 June 2018 - 10:47 AM

Pangilinan just got owned by Ping Lacson in their debate about the resolution regarding the quo warranto. The one-time police man owned the lawyer in a debate. That does not happen often.


Bro sa PMA curriculum for several years merong debate class and subject kaya ready yang si Lacson.
  • will robie likes this

#188 will robie

will robie

    Philanderer

  • BANNED
  • 3,099 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 June 2018 - 06:16 PM

I can't help but laugh at how Sereno conducted herself during her interview with Sackur. There was even an instance when she completely missed the point. 



#189 AlecSexy

AlecSexy

    Devirginized

  • (02) Sinless
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 17 June 2018 - 04:00 AM

kapit tuko yang serene sa position nya, hindi naman deserving, that's why na qou warranto. Serve's the bitch, guard dog ng mga dilaw



#190 haroots2

haroots2

    Sensualist

  • (10) Super Poster
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,242 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 June 2018 - 09:35 AM

Maria Lourdes Sereno in a BBC interview with Stephen Sackur

Sackur to Sereno: You’re sounding very much like a politician and a die-hard Duterte opponent than a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

 

 

https://www.facebook...78860538997333/

 

 

Sana may ganyang interviewer dito sa Pilipinas.


Edited by haroots2, 20 June 2018 - 09:36 AM.


#191 whoaster

whoaster

    Experienced

  • (04) Casual
  • PipPipPip
  • 26 posts

Posted 20 June 2018 - 02:37 PM

Sackur of Hardtalk is correct, Sereno really does talk like shes running for public office which is very unbecoming for a chief justice

 

i wouldnt be suprised if she run for senator, shes quite popular with duterte's critics



#192 camiar

camiar

    Camiar

  • (10) Super Poster
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,428 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 June 2018 - 07:27 PM

Sackur of Hardtalk is correct, Sereno really does talk like shes running for public office which is very unbecoming for a chief justice

 

i wouldnt be suprised if she run for senator, shes quite popular with duterte's critics

I really hope she runs.

 

Another shameful defeat would wake her up to the reality that her time is up.



#193 tk421

tk421

    Lover

  • (07) Avid Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,649 posts

Posted 29 June 2018 - 06:49 PM

http://newsinfo.inqu...pamatong-ouster

 

I remember saying that because of what happened to Sereno, it is now possible to apply this to the president as well. Somebody disagreed with me that it couldn't happen because the president was an ELECTED official, not an APPOINTED official.

 

I did warn that this would open an undesirable floodgate, didn't I?



#194 will robie

will robie

    Philanderer

  • BANNED
  • 3,099 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 June 2018 - 10:57 AM

http://newsinfo.inqu...pamatong-ouster

 

I remember saying that because of what happened to Sereno, it is now possible to apply this to the president as well. Somebody disagreed with me that it couldn't happen because the president was an ELECTED official, not an APPOINTED official.

 

I did warn that this would open an undesirable floodgate, didn't I?

Good luck with that.



#195 will robie

will robie

    Philanderer

  • BANNED
  • 3,099 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 June 2018 - 12:28 PM

 

http://news.abs-cbn....o-warranto-plea

Floodgate daw. Hahaha! Dito pa lang, sablay na si Pamatong. Haha!

 

 

Under the Rules of Court, only the solicitor general, public prosecutors, and a person claiming the usurped public office or position may file a quo warranto petition. Pamatong is none of the above.  

Edited by will robie, 30 June 2018 - 12:33 PM.


#196 Jack Ma

Jack Ma

    Experienced

  • BANNED
  • 26 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 June 2018 - 12:32 PM

http://newsinfo.inqu...pamatong-ouster
 
I remember saying that because of what happened to Sereno, it is now possible to apply this to the president as well. Somebody disagreed with me that it couldn't happen because the president was an ELECTED official, not an APPOINTED official.
 
I did warn that this would open an undesirable floodgate, didn't I?


Well they can file all they want. But will they win???

I dont like the idea of not procceding the qou warranto because of fear it will opens the floodgates. Who cares about floodgates? Open them up and be subject to due proccess. If the president can be ousted by QW, which I highly doubt, then so be it. This is the beauty of democracy.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users