Page 14 of 25 FirstFirst ... 41112131415161724 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 250
  1. #131

    Default Re: Impeachment Part II


    House body junks 7 of 8 impeach raps v. Arroyo



  2. #132

    Default Re: Impeachment Part II

    ^^ was not surprised at all.

    naa pa usa nahabilin... pero medyo baga jud ang mga arroyo tingali, iyang anak wala ni inhibit. na hala...

  3. #133

    Default Re: Impeachment Part II

    GMA IS TOO STRONG resistance is futile they should know better....

  4. #134

    Default Re: Impeachment Part II

    Losers stuck in a time warp with their destructive politics, the opposition are. Instead of passing beneficial legislation they spend their time (and taxpayer's money!) trying to revive dead issues.

  5. #135

    Default Re: Impeachment Part II

    before they say that the 2 complaints are barred because the 1st complaint was initiated on June 25, 2005... but now they say that the 7 complaints are barred because the last years complaint was initiated on July 26, 2005, so kanos-a man jud d i na initiate ang last year's complaint.

  6. #136

    Default Re: Impeachment Part II

    Quote Originally Posted by FK
    before they say that the 2 complaints are barred because the 1st complaint was initiated on June 25, 2005... but now they say that the 7 complaints are barred because the last years complaint was initiated on July 26, 2005, so kanos-a man jud d i na initiate ang last year's complaint.
    inig year 2010 nalang bai FK para walai samok bah

  7. #137

    Default Re: Impeachment Part II

    before they say that the 2 complaints are barred because the 1st complaint was initiated on June 25, 2005... but now they say that the 7 complaints are barred because the last years complaint was initiated on July 26, 2005, so kanos-a man jud d i na initiate ang last year's complaint.

    taken from this site:
    __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___
    The one-year bar applies to the first impeachment complaint against the President that was filed and referred to the committee at 4:20 p.m. on July 26 last year. This means that the one-year ban expired at 4:20 p.m. of the 26th of July of this year.

    Representative Edcel Lagman, vice chairman of the House Justice Committee, said seven complaints -- all filed before July 27 -- were barred in line with a constitutional rule prohibiting more than one impeachment complaint against the president in a year.
    __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ___
    Shut Up! Let your GAME do the talking!

  8. #138
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    153

    Default Re: Impeachment Part II

    haha... pagka sad ana nila uy, di man siguruon nang ilang lihok... daugon lang na sila sa mga ing-ana mga technicality ba to nang term ana?...

    pero mao, gahi gyud nas arroyo... pero kung magpatuyang sila, aw di man gyud na malinaw, klaro ana hanap hanap pa kung unsa gyud... she has a tik fes... hehehe...

  9. #139

    Default Re: Impeachment Part II

    mao gani bai Omad... kay last year ingon ang mga congressman nga dili kno to pwede pansinon ang ammended nga complaint tungod kay nag una to kng Lozano. Kng sa ila ron definition nga ang impeachment na initiated pag hatag sa complaint padulong didto sa justice committee, that means katong tulo ka complaint last year kay ga dungan to. Mura inconsistent ila definition ron.

  10. #140

    Default Re: Impeachment Part II

    Quote Originally Posted by FK
    before they say that the 2 complaints are barred because the 1st complaint was initiated on June 25, 2005... but now they say that the 7 complaints are barred because the last years complaint was initiated on July 26, 2005, so kanos-a man jud d i na initiate ang last year's complaint.
    The PRO GMA Congressmen always changed the rules so that the impeachment process will not succeed and the truth will not come out. Just take for example, the prejudicial question of Rep. edcel lagman last year. There is no provision on prejudicial questions in the impeachment rules, yet the majority Congressmen allowed that question in the impeachment case last year.

    Masyadong halata yung pag bababoy nila sa proceso.


    And heres Mikey Arroyo. He was asked by Rep. Alan Peter cayetano to inhibit because Mikey is one of the recipient of the fertilizer fund. But I admired Mikey's answer. "What could be more noble than to represent my constituents in the impeachment process." Mikey naman. Eh hindi na lang sa fertilizer issue na dapat ka mag inhibit. NANAY MO ang sinakdal dito. How could you be fair in the impeachment hearings? Naturally you will not vote against your mother. Thats why the opposition asked you to inhibit. But Mikey did not budge.

    Ang kapal naman ng mukha mo Mikey.


  11.    Advertisement

Page 14 of 25 FirstFirst ... 41112131415161724 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

 
  1. Very Affordable Houses And Lots In Cebu - Part II
    By MADAGASCAR in forum Real Estate
    Replies: 247
    Last Post: 07-12-2016, 08:27 AM
  2. Moving Out Sale Part II (05/23/08)
    By anya in forum Everything Else...
    Replies: 110
    Last Post: 08-14-2008, 11:44 PM
  3. Spot the difference part II
    By skadiboy in forum Humor
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 07-18-2008, 12:03 AM
  4. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 02-22-2008, 06:15 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
about us
We are the first Cebu Online Media.

iSTORYA.NET is Cebu's Biggest, Southern Philippines' Most Active, and the Philippines' Strongest Online Community!
follow us
#top