All About Current Admin of Duterte

[firestarter]

---

Those are not for the courts alone. Ever heard of the expanded concept of judicial review? Since I presume naka Consti 1 and 2 ka, then yes, you probably have. Ang consequence anang expanded concept is that the rules of court apply when there is a danger to the Constitution.

Allegations are thrown at the leadership but you punish the entire CHR. You think that makes sense? If you are not for a higher level of discourse and democracy, then why are you still in this country? This is not how you do checks and balances. There is a proper procedure to follow in case there is grave abuse of discretion on the part of Gascon. But the Congress have nothing to show, hence they resort to bullying. Kibaw ka kinsay luoy? Ang mga tao na nangailanga sa CHR.

P.S., that "dog" you are talking about is a Constitutional body. Congress is mandated to "feed" it. If they want to kill the "dog" by taking it out from the Constitution, they can. But until they do that, they cannot constructively abolish it.

Balik na pud koooooooo... for the nth time until this gets somewhere.

Akong i quote ang akong kaugalingon for 3 times now na.. para mosulod gyud..

They (Lower House) have always stressed that it is about the leadership not the commission.. Resign , so we can talk about revising the budget...

We wouldn't be talking about this here if this guy resigned at the start.

It's Congress talking sir ... It's political in nature.. Should Gascon feel the need for expanded Judicial Review.. He can always seek remedy from the courts or some other proper forum..

You keep on stressing rules of court which does not apply to the Legislature ....

Executive (political) -- Legislative (political) -- Judiciary (judicial - This is were your Rules of Court apply) ...

Let Gascon seek grievance from Judiciary.. But while we are talking about Congress Political Maneuver ... Let's talk politics.. .

Sige... Granting that your argument is correct... not that I agree with it... .. Granting that this was constructive abolishment of the CHR itself..

1. Why did Congress explicitly mention that if Gascon would resign they will restore the budget for CHR?? -- don't forget there is a condition here.. .

Also,

2. If you can show me a Jurisprudence were the Supreme Court overturned Congress Constructive abolishment of a Constitutional body I might slightly agree with you that this was constructive abolishment on the part of the Lower House.

- - - Updated - - -

Puros jud way ayo ang balita sa crappler, abs cbn og uban pang y ayo nga media.
karong tuiga wala jud ko kadungog og ingon ani nga balita gikan ana nila.
walay pang boost morale puros pang daot imong madunggan sa mga kanahan

First batch of dressed chicken from Duterte arrives in Marawi - The Filipino Times

This coming days mokusog pa gyud na ang ilang pampanaut kay hapit na ang National Day of Protest..

Ok rana because the majority knows ug unsa ang tinuod..

[firestarter]

Lets say Congress managed to removed CHR from the constitution, does it bring more good than bad?. If yes then Im all for removal of CHR in the constitution.

Congress (Lower House) will probably not abolish the CHR, even if they do the Senate will restore it. Even if the Senate will approve of the Lower House moves to reduce the budget, the people (needy coupled with those LP senators) will probably do a public outcry .. and Congress will be forced restore it... But that is just me.

The issue really is that Congress (Lower House or even some Senators in the Senate) is not happy with CHR's head politicizing the body. Even going through the lengths of using the body (commission) to LP's undermining advantage. Thus, the pressure (lowering the budget) on Gascon, this may not sound fair, but this is how politics work. It has to be through a vote, and now Congress has voted.

They can't vote out Gascon because it is as what they say a Constitutional Body and beyond the Congress grasps.. What they do is use other means allowed within the bounds of the law, thus the reduction of budget, moves like this hasn't been on any judicial review and no decision from the Supreme Court too. Thus, with the presumption of regularity what they (Congress) are doing is regular and not unconstitutional.

These moves are brought under the what they call checks and balances, the same way that we still have that nonsensical Commission on Appointments where if you don't have horses to trade you are out.

Come to think of it..

From Corazon Aquino herself...

President Corazon Aquino, signed Executive Order No. 163 on May 5, 1987, creating the Commission on Human Rights and abolished the Presidential Committee on Human Rights.

Kinsay nag abolish ?

[slakker]

^ang nag abolish kay ang numero uno nga tig violate sa human rights ni-adtong panahon...

[disk88]

It's Congress talking sir ... It's political in nature.. Should Gascon feel the need for expanded Judicial Review.. He can always seek remedy from the courts or some other proper forum..

You keep on stressing rules of court which does not apply to the Legislature ....

Executive (political) -- Legislative (political) -- Judiciary (judicial - This is were your Rules of Court apply) ...

Let Gascon seek grievance from Judiciary.. But while we are talking about Congress Political Maneuver ... Let's talk politics.. .

Ako sad balikon sir ha para masabtan. Ang expanded concept of judicial review kay gibutang na ngara sa Constitution para naay say ang Judicial branch sa mga political questions. Kay ang political questions become questions of law when it interferes with the Constitution. Dili na nimo matawag ug political maneuver kung unconstitutional diay kay question of law nana.

Wala pa niya na question sa Courts kay wala pa na-pass ang bill.

Sige... Granting that your argument is correct... not that I agree with it... .. Granting that this was constructive abolishment of the CHR itself..

1. Why did Congress explicitly mention that if Gascon would resign they will restore the budget for CHR?? -- don't forget there is a condition here.. .

Who knows? Again, this question is a matter of opinion na. But let me ask you, has Congress really been known to pass laws for the common good? Do you really think what they're doing here is not for their selfish interests?

Do you really think this is a guy who has your best interests in mind?
http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/09/18/1...-for-lawmakers

2. If you can show me a Jurisprudence were the Supreme Court overturned Congress Constructive abolishment of a Constitutional body I might slightly agree with you that this was constructive abolishment on the part of the Lower House.

I assume na naka first year law ka. So you should know na relatively new pa ni siya na concept ang Judicial review. Hence, wala pa koy nabasa na jurisprudence ana.

Wait, dili ka mu agree na if hatagan nimog in.ana na budget ang CHR kay tabla rag gi.abolish na nimo?

[firestarter]

Ako sad balikon sir ha para masabtan. Ang expanded concept of judicial review kay gibutang na ngara sa Constitution para naay say ang Judicial branch sa mga political questions. Kay ang political questions become questions of law when it interferes with the Constitution. Dili na nimo matawag ug political maneuver kung unconstitutional diay kay question of law nana.

Wala pa niya na question sa Courts kay wala pa na-pass ang bill.

Who knows? Again, this question is a matter of opinion na. But let me ask you, has Congress really been known to pass laws for the common good? Do you really think what they're doing here is not for their selfish interests?

Do you really think this is a guy who has your best interests in mind?
Fariñas wants immunity from minor traffic violations for lawmakers | ABS-CBN News

I assume na naka first year law ka. So you should know na relatively new pa ni siya na concept ang Judicial review. Hence, wala pa koy nabasa na jurisprudence ana.

Wait, dili ka mu agree na if hatagan nimog in.ana na budget ang CHR kay tabla rag gi.abolish na nimo?

Since, wala paman diay gi question na and wala pamay Jurisprudence ana, mobalik nalang ko sa daan nako na pud nga argument. Nga this is a political matter by the HOR.

Mao bitaw again and again sir, I was saying this as a political action by the Congress under the guise (or whichever you call it) of checks and balances, directed towards what they think is a political opposition. Who so happens to be the leader of the CHR.

If you ask me for evidence as to his political bias, what I can give you are those previous posts I made. If you want a more concrete evidence, we can't have it here because again this is political and not the courts. Thus, we are talking about the legislature here. Again, not the courts. Should Gascon seek remedies for grievance he can go to the courts.

Aw you worry so much about the 1,000 budget when it is still in the lower house, naa pamay Senate.

Just to get a little technical, asa man diha sa Constitution naka ingon nga unconstitutional gibuhat sa Congress karon? If ila diay i pressure ang leader sa usa ka Constitutional Body through a political maneuver unconstitutional diay na?


Ibalik na pud nako ha.

Gibuhat ni nila to pressure Gascon to resign, and NOT to abolish the CHR.

Want a possibly higher budget for the Commission on Human Rights? One condition, said House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez: let Chairman Chito Gascon resign.

This was according to CHR Commissioner Gwendolyn Pimentel-Gana who met with him prior to the budget deliberations at the House of Representatives.

"He just expressed, of course his feelings, the same way as he said in public that he intends to pursue the P1,000 budget for the CHR," she told reporters on Tuesday, September 12. "He did mention that if the Chair would step down, probably the budget would be increased or given to the CHR."

https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/in...taleon-alvarez

Akong ibalik sir ha..

Mao ni ang klaro nga abolishment ai.

President Corazon Aquino, signed Executive Order No. 163 on May 5, 1987, creating the Commission on Human Rights and abolished the Presidential Committee on Human Rights.

[disk88]

Just to get a little technical, asa man diha sa Constitution naka ingon nga unconstitutional gibuhat sa Congress karon? If ila diay i pressure ang leader sa usa ka Constitutional Body through a political maneuver unconstitutional diay na?

Ibalik na pud nako ha.

Gibuhat ni nila to pressure Gascon to resign, and NOT to abolish the CHR.

Yes, but ila essentially g.abolish ang CHR by pressuring Gascon. Why not file a case against him? Wala, kay kutob ra sila sturya. Walay evidence. Unsai Constitutional provision? Ang kana diayng provision na ni.establish sa CHR. Inviolable na siya. Meaning, if nakapasar kag Statutory Construction kay any act which contravenes it is unconstitutional. Cge nimog separate ang political questions pero wa ka ka.realize na question of law na ni.

https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/in...taleon-alvarez

Akong ibalik sir ha..

Mao ni ang klaro nga abolishment ai.

That is FAKE news. Read this and be informed. Bautista v. Salonga, G.R. No. 86439 April 13, 1989.

[©harlie M©]

hahahahahah

maka tawa man pud ta aning topic ninyo sa CHR

[MarlboroMan]

maski unsaon ninyo ug lalis diri, dili gyudna mo hawa si Gascon kay daghan laki ga salig ana

[lstorya]

Hapit na mahurot akong popcorn!

[gjore]

Kaning pag-akusa ni Duterte nga kuno daghan mga tinagoang yaman si Trillanes, mura ra ni'g gisalod ni Duterte sa medyas ang iyang tae ug gitamparos ra sad sa iyang kaugalingong aping.

Nia na ang resulta sa iyang gihimo.

Makahilak gyud og popcorn sa kaulaw ang mga kampon ni Duterte aning balitaa:

In Singapore trip, Trillanes refutes bank account claims

Trillanes went to the DBS branch in Singapore's Alexandra Road with a printout of a supposed account registered under his father's name.

..A DBS teller however said there was no such account at their bank.

Trillanes tried but failed to get a certification from DBS because he was not a client.

The opposition lawmaker then went to the Raffles City Tower to check business listings for the "Hongkong Shanghai Bank," where he also allegedly concealed account with a balance of some SGD 278,000.

He found no listing for the supposed bank.

Trillanes last week signed a waiver for 12 bank accounts being linked to him, and dared Duterte to do the same.

The senator claimed Duterte only accused him of amassing hidden wealth to divert public attention following his allegations that the President's son, Davao City Vice Mayor Paolo Duterte, is part of a syndicate that allegedly smuggled P6.4 billion worth of shabu into the country last May.

Asa na man tong mga dutertards diri sa istorya.net nga magsige'g quote ni Goebbels?