All About Current Admin of Duterte

[firestarter]

---

it would be perfect if pdut will declare nationwide martial law on sep 21...

I think he wouldn't as he will give the yellows what they have been wanting all along.

It is only under extreme conditions.. Invasion. Rebellion and lawless violence, that the Constitution permits the President to exercise or declare Martial sa kani nga case wala man. This probably is the reason nga mag apil2x ning mga NPA karon nga rally.

By all means mao ning gi sulti ni digong nga pag rally mo, pero don't bring guns or use force because I will use force if you force my hand to it.

Ang nakalahi aning karon lang is naa nay social media and he is giving media the free hand for transparency dili parehas sa una. So probably if magdeclare ug Martial Law karon nga panahon basin dili na parehas sa una.

[firestarter]

Fast forward 2 years, Duterte becomes the President voted by the people.

Duterte must be doing something right perpendicular to what CHR is teaching.

[disk88]

I'm still really eager to hear from you if tinuod ba to ang gisulti ni TP didto sa iyang mga dates nakabutang?

Let's say tinuod, what's your point?

Also, I'm still waiting for your answer regarding examples on what instances ipa inhibit sa SOJ ang PAO?...

Or are you referring to the states' power to give or not to give consent to be sued?

Murag naglibug ka usab sir. A criminal action is prosecuted under the direction and control of the public prosecutor. (Sec. 5, Rule 110, ROC) Public prosecutors here kay kanang under the DOJ, and not under the PAO. Kailangan silag permission mu prosecute from the DOJ.

The action of the provincial or city prosecutor or of the chief state prosecutor is not the final say on the case. The prosecutor's ruling is reviewable by the SOJ who has the power to reverse the prosecutor's determination [of probable cause to a case]. (Salapudin v. CA; Shu v. Dee) or pwede pud makit.an sa Sec. 1, DC no. 70, NPS Rule on Appeal, DOJ, 2000.

Ikaw sir, do you have any sources other than Mocha Uson or TP to prove bias?

[firestarter]

Let's say tinuod, what's your point?

Aw naa raman diay na... Why do you associate TP or Mocha with the dates? That was a simple question of verifying facts and as what you say circumstantial... But even if circumstantial na on what happened, those coincidental acts on those dates... In the most common sense dili ba nanimaho ug angso nganong during election period ni kalit siyag ka active to pursue Duterte and even went to the lengths of going international?

Akong question nimo.. Are circumstantial evidences still considered evidences?

To the mind of a simple none attorney like me sir, this spells bias.. Pero mao lage dili man ka moto-o kay wala may physical evidence to prove bias. Nahala diha nalang ta kutob.

I'm not sure if mo credit sa imong law books ang wikipedia.. and I quote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chito_Gascon

He was founding trustee and corporate counsel of the International Center for Innovation, Transformation, and Excellence in Governance (InciteGov) - the policy group of the so-called "Hyatt 10," and is part of its Advisory Group. He is Founding Trustee of the Institute for Leadership, Empowerment, and Democracy (iLEAD) and was in the organizing committee of the Asian Democracy Network (ADN). He was Director General of the Liberal Party from 2008-2011 and was Political Director of its successful 2010 National Electoral Campaign. He has taught Law, Politics, & Human Rights at the Political Science Departments at both the Ateneo de Manila and De la Salle Universities. He was also a Fellow at the Robredo Institute of Governance (RSIG).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyatt_10

Members[edit]
There were originally ten members of the Hyatt 10:

Corazon "Dinky" Soliman, Secretary of the Department of Social Welfare and Development[1]
Emilia Boncodin, Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management[1]
Florencio Abad, Secretary of the Department of Education[1]
Cesar Purisima, Secretary of the Department of Finance[1]
Rene Villa, Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform[1]
Juan Santos, Secretary of the Department of Trade and Industry[1]
Imelda Nicolas, Lead Convenor of the National Anti-Poverty Commission[1]
Guillermo Parayno, Commissioner of the Bureau of Internal Revenue[1]
Alberto Lina, Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs[1]
Teresita Deles, Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process[1]
It is believed however that there are more than ten members in the Hyatt 10: Soliman once claimed in 2006 that not only was the Hyatt 10 "intact", but that the group included "more than 200 other persons who had filed or signed impeachment complaints against Ms. Arroyo".[2]

Several members of the Hyatt 10 have since returned to government service under the administration of President Benigno Aquino III, appointed because he believed it would be "liberating" for them to do what they wanted to do in their respective offices, which he claimed they could not do under the previous administration.[3] Corazon Soliman, Cesar Purisima, Alberto Lina and Teresita Deles have since been reappointed to the posts they occupied before resigning in 2005. Florencio Abad is currently serving as the Secretary of Budget and Management, Imelda Nicolas is chairwoman of the Commission on Filipinos Overseas,[4] and Rene Villa was appointed to the board of directors of the Local Water Utilities Administration, replacing Prospero Pichay, Jr.[5]

Bug-at ra kaayo ang iyang connection sa LP sir.. Pero mao lage wala may physical evidence.. Nahala dili siya bias.

Let's say tinuod, what's your point?



Murag naglibug ka usab sir. A criminal action is prosecuted under the direction and control of the public prosecutor. (Sec. 5, Rule 110, ROC) Public prosecutors here kay kanang under the DOJ, and not under the PAO. Kailangan silag permission mu prosecute from the DOJ.

The action of the provincial or city prosecutor or of the chief state prosecutor is not the final say on the case. The prosecutor's ruling is reviewable by the SOJ who has the power to reverse the prosecutor's determination [of probable cause to a case]. (Salapudin v. CA; Shu v. Dee) or pwede pud makit.an sa Sec. 1, DC no. 70, NPS Rule on Appeal, DOJ, 2000.

Ikaw sir, do you have any sources other than Mocha Uson or TP to prove bias?

That is the reason why I asked.. If dili ba diay pwede mag ask ug help didto sa PAO ang mga human rights victim?

Also I think naa may daghan motabang pa nila..

Philippine Human Rights Groups

Ikaw sir, do you have any sources other than Mocha Uson or TP to prove bias?

Clearly you look down upon people.. Typical law students becoming lawyers..
I get my sources from all over the web bro.. Social Media to the rescue. At least through livestreaming I hear news directly from the mouth of the President in it's full unadulterated content. Dili parehas sa imong ABSCBN, Inquirer ug Rappler.

I don't don't hear much with regards to Mocha.. I only watch her livestreams if she's interviewing the President or somebody, as she has direct access to the President.

How about you bro, where do you get your sources, other the ABSCBN, Rappler, and Inquirer?

One thing that you have to consider here in this forum and outside the four corners of the screen.
Is that this is POLITICS where biases are permitted.

We are not talking about neutrality and impartiality here, leave that neutrality and impartiality to the courts.

Pero mao lage wala man kadaug si Santiago, lisod pud kaayo ug mao toy naka daug kay Status Quo napud ang LP ug ang drugs sa Philippines kay ang na vice si Leni man.

Paeta.

[disk88]

Aw naa raman diay na... Why do you associate TP or Mocha with the dates? That was a simple question of verifying facts and as what you say circumstantial... But even if circumstantial na on what happened, those coincidental acts on those dates... In the most common sense dili ba nanimaho ug angso nganong during election period ni kalit siyag ka active to pursue Duterte and even went to the lengths of going international?

Akong question nimo.. Are circumstantial evidences still considered evidences?

Bug-at ra kaayo ang iyang connection sa LP sir.. Pero mao lage wala may physical evidence.. Nahala dili siya bias.

The quality of evidence nga naa nimo is the same ra sa mga evidences gi-present ni Trillanes to the media. But we refuse to believe him gihapon. Why? Because of bias. That being said, your hatred of Atty. Gascon is based on bias. That is understandable, and you are entitled to that. But again, you are not allowed to pass it off as truth.

That is the reason why I asked.. If dili ba diay pwede mag ask ug help didto sa PAO ang mga human rights victim?

You mentioned Consti 1 and Consti 2 saona. I take it nag law ka? Or atleast naka tilaw kag first year law? Then you should know na ang DOJ through the public prosecutors ra ang pwede mu handle ug criminal cases. PAO is an independent body although attached to the DOJ. Pwede na sila mu provide ug lawyers to help the public prosecutors, but naay authority ang DOJ not to allow this.

Also I think naa may daghan motabang pa nila..

Philippine Human Rights Groups

You are missing the point. These are lawyers working pro bono. They can choose to REFUSE to help. Ang CHR is Constitutionally mandated to help if naay muduol nila and the case fits their mandate.

How about you bro, where do you get your sources, other the ABSCBN, Rappler, and Inquirer?

Daghan na kaayo kog gi.state na sources. Ni state pa gani kog jurisprudence.

[firestarter]

The quality of evidence nga naa nimo is the same ra sa mga evidences gi-present ni Trillanes to the media. But we refuse to believe him gihapon. Why? Because of bias. That being said, your hatred of Atty. Gascon is based on bias. That is understandable, and you are entitled to that. But again, you are not allowed to pass it off as truth.


You mentioned Consti 1 and Consti 2 saona. I take it nag law ka? Or atleast naka tilaw kag first year law? Then you should know na ang DOJ through the public prosecutors ra ang pwede mu handle ug criminal cases. PAO is an independent body although attached to the DOJ. Pwede na sila mu provide ug lawyers to help the public prosecutors, but naay authority ang DOJ not to allow this.




You are missing the point. These are lawyers working pro bono. They can choose to REFUSE to help. Ang CHR is Constitutionally mandated to help if naay muduol nila and the case fits their mandate.




Daghan na kaayo kog gi.state na sources. Ni state pa gani kog jurisprudence.

Aw naa raman diay na .. .. Yup pwede.. Pagkataas sa istorya..


Even if mo ingon kang Pro Bono.. the fact is there are people who can choose to help.. The question of refusal is naa nas abogado.

Naa nasad ng Constitutionally mandated .. What is stated in the Constitution is for the general public baya sir, dili lang para sa mga human rights victim, this is actually where the gray area is...

I cite daw asa dapit sa Constitution ang ni niingon nga diha ra sila mo focus?

[disk88]

Aw naa raman diay na .. .. Yup pwede.. Pagkataas sa istorya..


Even if mo ingon kang Pro Bono.. the fact is there are people who can choose to help.. The question of refusal is naa nas abogado.

Mao na ang naka kuyaw. Tungod ani, such right becomes a mere privilege. To simplify even further for you, dili na nimo pwede ma compare ang trabaho sa pro bono lawyer ug CHR. Kay ang CHR, mapugos nimo na mutabang nila and ang pro bono lawyer kay dili. Kung dili musugot ang pro bono lawyer, dili ka makadagan nila. Right na nimo, dili privilege. Kung wala ang CHR, mahug na ni ug privilege. Gets?

Naa nasad ng Constitutionally mandated .. What is stated in the Constitution is for the general public baya sir, dili lang para sa mga human rights victim, this is actually where the gray area is...

What?

Anyway, wala kay evidence na nag focus ra sila sa alleged government offenses. Opinion rana nimo. And since opinion rana nimo, no point at arguing kay we all have our biases with or without logical reasoning.

[firestarter]

The quality of evidence nga naa nimo is the same ra sa mga evidences gi-present ni Trillanes to the media. But we refuse to believe him gihapon. Why? Because of bias. That being said, your hatred of Atty. Gascon is based on bias. That is understandable, and you are entitled to that. But again, you are not allowed to pass it off as truth.

Actually I don't hate the guy.. I just don't like a yellow implanted sleeper cell holding such a position in the ranks of the government.
You speak about truth in a political forum. That is kind of ironic ..

Again.. lahi lage ang political strata as compared to the judicial spectrum..

- - - Updated - - -

You are missing the point. These are lawyers working pro bono. They can choose to REFUSE to help. Ang CHR is Constitutionally mandated to help if naay muduol nila and the case fits their mandate.




Daghan na kaayo kog gi.state na sources. Ni state pa gani kog jurisprudence.

Hay nako... Naa napud ning imong argument..

Diin lage nakabutang sa Constitution ang imong gi ingon nga Constitutionally Mandated na sila??

Kay as far as I can remember wala na didto nga diha lang sila mo focus.. Ang Constitution nag sulti nga ang "citizen" ang ilang customer.

[disk88]

Hay nako... Naa napud ning imong argument..

Diin lage nakabutang sa Constitution ang imong gi ingon nga Constitutionally Mandated na sila??

Kay as far as I can remember wala na didto nga diha lang sila mo focus.. Ang Constitution nag sulti nga ang "citizen" ang ilang customer.

Nag-tuyok2 na ta sir. Again, wala kay proof na mao rana ila focus. Just because mao ra imo nakita sa media, kay mao ra pud jud.

You do know right dili ra ang Constitution ang only law? Ni post nako saona atung Paris na document. Cge kag gamit sa Constitution as a basis ONLY. Dili rana siya pwede na mao rana imo basis.

[firestarter]

Nag-tuyok2 na ta sir. Again, wala kay proof na mao rana ila focus. Just because mao ra imo nakita sa media, kay mao ra pud jud.

You do know right dili ra ang Constitution ang only law? Ni post nako saona atung Paris na document. Cge kag gamit sa Constitution as a basis ONLY. Dili rana siya pwede na mao rana imo basis.

I wouldn't have reposted my comment if you hadn't reposted yours, but we are arguing in circles to the point that this goes nowhere.

The fact that he is taking heat from the lower house has something to do politically. And he has to answer allegations against him for being politically biased.

You do know that it was Alvarez and a lot more congressmen who had thrown allegations against him right? ... Did you ever hear Alvarez's allegations against him?

How can you answer a political question in a judicious manner? .. simple you can't.

Do you think Alvarez throwing allegations against the leader of CHR are at a whim?