withdrawal of support

[Freeza]

---

what is exactly is that term "withdrawal of support" means, cause as i watch ABSCBN, GMA , and ANC it seems top caliber lawyers, well known politicians, credible professionals can't agree on its exact meaning and it's legal implications as they discuss and debate about it in TV...[br]Posted on: July 07, 2006, 10:15:49 PM_________________________________________________m y observations is that that lame edsa's like that edsa 1 when ramos, enrile,..etc withdraw support from then power hungryl Pres. Marcos there is still a question on its implacations whether its illegal or what but after that insecure Pres Cory declared a revolutionary gov. and there was a new constitution so what ever that withdrawal of support of ramos, enrile .... etc means is moot and academic ....

but that's not the case in another lame edsa edsa two then GEn reyes withdraw support from that immoral weakling Pres. Erap, and the all powerful Pres Gloria takes over and continued to operate at the current constitution which has no provision such as this term "withdrawl of support",, er though the SC ruled Pres. Gloria as a legitamate Pres, there is no such discusion or ruling on the Angelo reyes withdrawal of support if its legal or not or extra-lega;l or what ever.... it may have been better if they copy the edsa 1 style of declaring a revolutionary type Gov, and change the constitution so everything else is plain and simple

now come this TV Danny episode of another lame withdrawal of support its a mud for everybody in the political fence kinda like a catch 22,
the most logical comment i saw in TV was that of sec. gonzales commenting its legal if you win if you lose its illegal sounds practical and factual for most and in lay mans term but its really a mud for every players in the political game and for a blind law that "if you "
is not a good buy. oh well maybe that proposition of a new constitution is not a bad idea after all so everything else will be reseted again and they must specificaly put that term withdrawl of support is punishable by firing squad win or lose so there will no more coups or adventurism more on legal process like impeachment and filing of case in court in case of a dispute.. :mrgreen:

[istoryador]

Malacañang says it is variously plotting to oust Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, plotting to mutiny against GMA, plotting to coup-curucu-coup GMA. Take your pick.

Well, what Lim did say, as the video shows, was a “withdrawal of support.” Is that any different from the withdrawal of support of Angelo Reyes, or indeed GMA herself, from Erap?

Ah, but it is. For reasons that indict not Lim but the people he plotted to withdraw support from.

Reyes’—and GMA’s—withdrawal of support from Erap (former President Joseph Estrada) was a withdrawal of support from an elected president. At the time Erap was ousted, the impeachment proceedings against him hadn’t finished. Half the senators had merely walked out of the impeachment court. They had done so because their colleagues, who were the majority, had tried to block the truth from being known, the truth in the form of the so-called “Second Envelope,” which they voted not to open. To this day, that remains the fundamental moral justification for Erap’s ouster: He had betrayed the public trust; his supporters in the Senate-cum-impeachment-court had merely tried to prevent the truth from coming out.

By contrast, Lim’s withdrawal of support was a withdrawal of support from an unelected president. There is the “Hello Garci” to prove that beyond a shadow of doubt. That isn’t just a moral justification for ousting GMA, that is a legal justification for jailing her. GMA hadn’t just betrayed the public trust, she had screwed the voters’ votes. The only reason she remains in power is that her supporters act as though the “Hello Garci” does not exist, and she has prevented witnesses, like Gen. Francisco Gudani and Col. Alexander Balutan from showing her to have robbed the voters of Tawi-Tawi and environs of their votes.

Now, tell me, how is the desperate effort of Erap’s friends to prevent the Second Envelope from being opened different from GMA’s desperate effort to prevent Gudani and Balutan from opening their mouths? Well, the second is worse. Far, far, worse. Yet Erap is in jail and GMA is in Malacañang.

[istoryador]

Lim’s video saved Arroyo -- source

Angry junior AFP officers wanted to storm Palace

By Christian V. Esguerra
Inquirer
Last updated 01:10am (Mla time) 07/07/2006

Published on Page A1 of the July 7, 2006 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer

THE COMMANDER of the elite First Scout Ranger Regiment stood in the eye of a storm two nights before that fateful February day -- calm and deliberate as angry junior officers demanded that he lead a coup d’etat against President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

Brig. Gen. Danilo Lim cautioned prudence and saved Ms Arroyo from a bloody confrontation with rebellious soldiers, a key participant told the Inquirer yesterday.

He no longer wanted bloodshed, recalling the 1989 putsch against then President Corazon Aquino that had cost scores of soldiers’ lives. As a young captain, Lim had then led the military takeover of the Makati business district and, several days later, took them back to barracks as the bloodiest coup in the nation’s history fizzled.

Lim was subsequently amnestied, along with several thousand renegade soldiers. He had risen to become at 50 one of the youngest and most respected generals in the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP).

So that when restive soldiers again began mobilizing after allegations surfaced in June, 2005, that Ms Arroyo had stolen the presidential elections a year earlier, they had gravitated around Lim.

“He didn’t want any more violence, but the young officers were hot,” said the participant in the meeting on Feb. 22 -- two days before what Ms Arroyo described in her proclamation of a national state of emergency as an attempt by a leftist and rightist “cabal” to unseat her.

By agreeing to appear in the video, Lim essentially defused a potentially bloody confrontation between rebel soldiers and forces loyal to Ms Arroyo.

“In a way, the video even did the government a favor because it helped prevent violence,” he said.

The participant gave an account to the Inquirer of the events surrounding the Feb. 24 incident and Lim’s involvement in it on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of his position in the military.

Discussions went on through the night of Feb. 22, until Lim was able to dissuade the soldiers from resorting to violence to oust the 59-year-old President.

Earlier accounts pieced together and published by the Inquirer said that rebel soldiers had planned three attempts to “strike right in the heart of the Palace.”

The video

But intervention by the civilian component of the plan to get rid of Ms Arroyo managed to sell a nonviolent option -- the military’s withdrawal of support from the President.

It was the essential solution the West Point-trained Lim offered during the Feb. 22 meeting -- one grudgingly accepted by the disgruntled officers.

The officers belonging to the Scout Rangers, Marines and the Philippine National Police Special Action Force dropped their demand that Lim lead the putsch and instead asked him to appear in a video and read a statement disavowing loyalty to his Commander in Chief.

Their plan was to join a civilian march on the EDSA Shrine on the 20th anniversary of the People Power Revolution that overthrew the dictator Ferdinand Marcos and then announce withdrawal of support from the President in a bid to force her resignation.
“All right, in good faith, I’m with you. But I don’t want any violence. Let it be a peaceful march,” the source quoted Lim as telling the junior officers.

Planned demo aborted

The lieutenants, captains and majors were to lead their soldiers during the planned demonstration on Feb. 24. It was aborted when Ms Arroyo proclaimed the emergency and police broke up protest rallies in the capital.

The source said the taping took place in the afternoon of Feb. 23 somewhere in Metro Manila. With Lim were less than 10 officers. They stood behind Lim, forming an imposing backdrop as the general read the statement severing ties with Ms Arroyo.

The source said Lim was furnished a copy of the statement only shortly before the television filming. It was reportedly prepared by someone else involved in the plot.

Meeting with AFP chief

In the evening, the source said Lim and Marine Col. Ariel Querubin briefed Gen. Generoso Senga, the AFP chief of staff, about the “peace march” the following day during a meeting in his office in Camp Aguinaldo.

Senga was also told about the video, but the source didn’t say how he reacted to it.

Later that night, following another meeting that also included the heads of the Army, Navy and Air Force, the source said the rebel officers failed to get Senga’s unequivocal support. Senga was told that the junior officers would just destroy the tape.

The tape was intended for airing after the march to convince more soldiers and policemen to abandon Ms Arroyo, the source said.

The video never saw the light of day, until ANC television aired it on Monday night, stoking a controversy that had begun to die down, until the opposition last week revived an initiative to impeach Ms Arroyo when Congress resumes its session on July 24.

“In truth, there was really no coup,” the source explained. “There was no plan to attack Malacañang, take over networks, or hit police or military camps. Lim prevailed upon the junior officers and they finally agreed to a peaceful march.”


http://newsinfo.inq7.net/inquirerhea...rticle_id=8512

[tolstoi]

i know you'll be back

[baron]

The connotation of withdrawal of support coming from the military is equivalent to the idea that the president is without an armed forces which could protect him or her. In our present constitution, the idea of withdrawal of support was never mentioned. Hence, the emergence of the term "extra-legal". It is not seemed illegal if the people will join them, as in the case of two edsa's. However, if the people won't heed the call of the withdrawal of support, then that would be illegal because the soldiers, in this case, are already breaking the chain of command.

The thread starter is right. There are loopholes in the present constitution which we cannot validly answer in certainty. Hence, the circumstances will really take us to the idea that we should be amending the constitution so as to answer the gray areas our society is contemplating today.

[potterboy]

what is exactly is that term "withdrawal of support" means, cause as i watch ABSCBN, GMA , and ANC it seems top caliber lawyers, well known politicians, credible professionals can't agree on its exact meaning and it's legal implications as they discuss and debate about it in TV...[br]Posted on: July 07, 2006, 10:15:49 PM_________________________________________________m y observations is that that lame edsa's like that edsa 1 when ramos, enrile,..etc withdraw support from then power hungryl Pres. Marcos there is still a question on its implacations whether its illegal or what but after that insecure Pres Cory declared a revolutionary gov. and there was a new constitution so what ever that withdrawal of support of ramos, enrile .... etc means is moot and academic ....

but that's not the case in another lame edsa edsa two then GEn reyes withdraw support from that immoral weakling Pres. Erap, and the all powerful Pres Gloria takes over and continued to operate at the current constitution which has no provision such as this term "withdrawl of support",, er though the SC ruled Pres. Gloria as a legitamate Pres, there is no such discusion or ruling on the Angelo reyes withdrawal of support if its legal or not or extra-lega;l or what ever.... it may have been better if they copy the edsa 1 style of declaring a revolutionary type Gov, and change the constitution so everything else is plain and simple

now come this TV Danny episode of another lame withdrawal of support its a mud for everybody in the political fence kinda like a catch 22,
the most logical comment i saw in TV was that of sec. gonzales commenting its legal if you win if you lose its illegal sounds practical and factual for most and in lay mans term but its really a mud for every players in the political game and for a blind law that "if you "
is not a good buy. oh well maybe that proposition of a new constitution is not a bad idea after all so everything else will be reseted again and they must specificaly put that term withdrawl of support is punishable by firing squad win or lose so there will no more coups or adventurism more on legal process like impeachment and filing of case in court in case of a dispute.. :mrgreen:

ha? pls elaborate further.

[Freeza]

what is exactly is that term "withdrawal of support" means, cause as i watch ABSCBN, GMA , and ANC it seems top caliber lawyers, well known politicians, credible professionals can't agree on its exact meaning and it's legal implications as they discuss and debate about it in TV...[br]Posted on: July 07, 2006, 10:15:49 PM_________________________________________________m y observations is that that lame edsa's like that edsa 1 when ramos, enrile,..etc withdraw support from then power hungryl Pres. Marcos there is still a question on its implacations whether its illegal or what but after that insecure Pres Cory declared a revolutionary gov. and there was a new constitution so what ever that withdrawal of support of ramos, enrile .... etc means is moot and academic ....

but that's not the case in another lame edsa edsa two then GEn reyes withdraw support from that immoral weakling Pres. Erap, and the all powerful Pres Gloria takes over and continued to operate at the current constitution which has no provision such as this term "withdrawl of support",, er though the SC ruled Pres. Gloria as a legitamate Pres, there is no such discusion or ruling on the Angelo reyes withdrawal of support if its legal or not or extra-lega;l or what ever.... it may have been better if they copy the edsa 1 style of declaring a revolutionary type Gov, and change the constitution so everything else is plain and simple

now come this TV Danny episode of another lame withdrawal of support its a mud for everybody in the political fence kinda like a catch 22,
the most logical comment i saw in TV was that of sec. gonzales commenting its legal if you win if you lose its illegal sounds practical and factual for most and in lay mans term but its really a mud for every players in the political game and for a blind law that "if you "
is not a good buy. oh well maybe that proposition of a new constitution is not a bad idea after all so everything else will be reseted again and they must specificaly put that term withdrawl of support is punishable by firing squad win or lose so there will no more coups or adventurism more on legal process like impeachment and filing of case in court in case of a dispute.. :mrgreen:

ha? pls elaborate further.

what is exactly is that term "withdrawal of support" means, cause as i watch ABSCBN, GMA , and ANC it seems top caliber lawyers, well known politicians, credible professionals can't agree on its exact meaning and it's legal implications as they discuss and debate about it in TV...[br]Posted on: July 07, 2006, 10:15:49 PM_________________________________________________m y observations is that that lame edsa's like that edsa 1 when ramos, enrile,..etc withdraw support from then power hungryl Pres. Marcos there is still a question on its implacations whether its illegal or what but after that insecure Pres Cory declared a revolutionary gov. and there was a new constitution so what ever that withdrawal of support of ramos, enrile .... etc means is moot and academic ....

but that's not the case in another lame edsa edsa two then GEn reyes withdraw support from that immoral weakling Pres. Erap, and the all powerful Pres Gloria takes over and continued to operate at the current constitution which has no provision such as this term "withdrawl of support",, er though the SC ruled Pres. Gloria as a legitamate Pres, there is no such discusion or ruling on the Angelo reyes withdrawal of support if its legal or not or extra-lega;l or what ever.... it may have been better if they copy the edsa 1 style of declaring a revolutionary type Gov, and change the constitution so everything else is plain and simple

now come this TV Danny episode of another lame withdrawal of support its a mud for everybody in the political fence kinda like a catch 22,
the most logical comment i saw in TV was that of sec. gonzales commenting its legal if you win if you lose its illegal sounds practical and factual for most and in lay mans term but its really a mud for every players in the political game and for a blind law that "if you "
is not a good buy. oh well maybe that proposition of a new constitution is not a bad idea after all so everything else will be reseted again and they must specificaly put that term withdrawl of support is punishable by firing squad win or lose so there will no more coups or adventurism more on legal process like impeachment and filing of case in court in case of a dispute.. :mrgreen:

ha? pls elaborate further.

what do you mean pls elaborate further give your constructive inputs or opinion if you got any?

[Freeza]

The connotation of withdrawal of support coming from the military is equivalent to the idea that the president is without an armed forces which could protect him or her. In our present constitution, the idea of withdrawal of support was never mentioned. Hence, the emergence of the term "extra-legal". It is not seemed illegal if the people will join them, as in the case of two edsa's. However, if the people won't heed the call of the withdrawal of support, then that would be illegal because the soldiers, in this case, are already breaking the chain of command.

The thread starter is right. There are loopholes in the present constitution which we cannot validly answer in certainty. Hence, the circumstances will really take us to the idea that we should be amending the constitution so as to answer the gray areas our society is contemplating today.

yap thats 1 of the loopholes in the constitution in my view that should be address in the upcoming plan to change the constitution it should be crystal clear in specific terms and wordings ,the nation cant just go and live like this again and again recycle edsa shit.....

[wanderlust]

The connotation of withdrawal of support coming from the military is equivalent to the idea that the president is without an armed forces which could protect him or her. In our present constitution, the idea of withdrawal of support was never mentioned. Hence, the emergence of the term "extra-legal". It is not seemed illegal if the people will join them, as in the case of two edsa's. However, if the people won't heed the call of the withdrawal of support, then that would be illegal because the soldiers, in this case, are already breaking the chain of command.

The thread starter is right. There are loopholes in the present constitution which we cannot validly answer in certainty. Hence, the circumstances will really take us to the idea that we should be amending the constitution so as to answer the gray areas our society is contemplating today.

I don't think there is any fear that the so-called "withdrawal of support" will extend to more than the few discredited military officers. The circumstances are very much different from those which attended the massive withdrawal of support from Erap, including as it did the entire AFP and the entire PNP. As it is, the AFP are still very much behind GMA as she has clearly been supportive of reforms in the military. It is unavoidable that the military should have their own power play within their ranks, but the unrest can hardly be as the media portrays it (sensationalized).

[Freeza]

The connotation of withdrawal of support coming from the military is equivalent to the idea that the president is without an armed forces which could protect him or her. In our present constitution, the idea of withdrawal of support was never mentioned. Hence, the emergence of the term "extra-legal". It is not seemed illegal if the people will join them, as in the case of two edsa's. However, if the people won't heed the call of the withdrawal of support, then that would be illegal because the soldiers, in this case, are already breaking the chain of command.

The thread starter is right. There are loopholes in the present constitution which we cannot validly answer in certainty. Hence, the circumstances will really take us to the idea that we should be amending the constitution so as to answer the gray areas our society is contemplating today.

I don't think there is any fear that the so-called "withdrawal of support" will extend to more than the few discredited military officers. The circumstances are very much different from those which attended the massive withdrawal of support from Erap, including as it did the entire AFP and the entire PNP. As it is, the AFP are still very much behind GMA as she has clearly been supportive of reforms in the military. It is unavoidable that the military should have their own power play within their ranks, but the unrest can hardly be as the media portrays it (sensationalized).

that is a very good point wanderlust and that point was mention i think in debata GMA7 by mike vs digs..,, for me it would be much better if we can finally define it in the new constitution and plug all loopholes or avenues that could be use by the military or part of the military or anyone in the goverment that had a gun to change or overthrow by any means violent or peaceful any sitting civilian government and we will never have this lame withdrawal of support edsa shit from happening again in 2010 or 2030 ,2040 etc....and follow the book strictly in any political problem......