MERGED: All About the Corona Impeachment

[monroy]

---

hahaha no law? or perhaps wala lang ta kbaw?.. well naa may mga nagstudy ana for them to mention what ive said.. just because deli ta sweto sa ato law that doesnt mean there is now such law.. hahaha

what kind of thinking is that?..

It's good manners to cite the law otherwise it's safe to assume there's no law. It's just heresay for you to mention that some lawyer on TV mentioned it without citing the specific law. It's not the job of other posters to substantiate your claim. I'm not even interested in studying if such a law exists because in the first place it was your responsibility to mention what law you were talking about when you said "according to law". Otherwise it's a waste of time for everyone don't you think? Cos we have lots of laws...

[monroy]

its not mind conditioning. just the talk . if theres no smoke there's no fire. must be something's brewing. the joker is at it again.

That's disingenuous. The correct statement should be "if there's smoke, there isn't necessarily fire" because as we all know we Pinoys are fond of blowing smoke everywhere without any basis...

[reptoid]

Off-topic guys, but is anybody else getting malicious URL warnings from their anti-virus on istorya today?

* Update: Must be a recent update to Kaspersky. The anti-virus is reporting a link displayed in ads is blacklisted. This is affecting other Philippine sites too.

[æRLO]

Which law? Bot 2x.. man ni uy...

SC decisions can be overturned, if congress amends the constitution to deem the decision unconstitutional, OR the SC can make a contradictory decision on an ongoing case. It's an implicit power of the legislative and judicial branches. The SC is the state's "final arbiter", but as being in a co-equal tripartite government, there are strings attached.

[dartzed]

It's good manners to cite the law otherwise it's safe to assume there's no law. It's just heresay for you to mention that some lawyer on TV mentioned it without citing the specific law. It's not the job of other posters to substantiate your claim. I'm not even interested in studying if such a law exists because in the first place it was your responsibility to mention what law you were talking about when you said "according to law". Otherwise it's a waste of time for everyone don't you think? Cos we have lots of laws...

actually its not my claim i'm just sharing what i've heard yesterday from a law person.. i wish i have recorded that for your own satisfaction.. i didn't meant to push someones idea on you either i'm just sharing..

still even if i can't give you such law kay deli man ko lawyer but thinking that way nga just because i can't give you such, means there is no Law and wala sad kay interest in studying.. well then good luck sa imo pov no pressure..

all i know is everything in the LAW can be amended/change in due process and that is a fact..chacha

[Sparrow Unit]

kabalo ba mo kinsa adviser ni Pres. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo? Pres. Fidel V. Ramos!katong mga batan-on medyo dili kau familiar aning Ramos.

[monroy]

SC decisions can be overturned, if congress amends the constitution to deem the decision unconstitutional, OR the SC can make a contradictory decision on an ongoing case. It's an implicit power of the legislative and judicial branches. The SC is the state's "final arbiter", but as being in a co-equal tripartite government, there are strings attached.

Ok that's your claim. But still no law cited to support any of these claims. SC being the final arbiter is in the Constitution though so I give you that. It's never been challenged that the SC can overturn itself, but the chances of that happening in a case that was unanimous decision is practically nil. That's the point I'm getting at when I say it's kinda nuts to generate conspiracy theory when the decision was unanimous. If it was a split vote or something close to it then yea, maybe.. though it'd still be kinda nuts imo...

[Golden Thief Bug]

sakto jud ka noy sparrow unit

[æRLO]

Ok that's your claim. But still no law cited to support any of these claims. SC being the final arbiter is in the Constitution though so I give you that. It's never been challenged that the SC can overturn itself, but the chances of that happening in a case that was unanimous decision is practically nil. That's the point I'm getting at when I say it's kinda nuts to generate conspiracy theory when the decision was unanimous. If it was a split vote or something close to it then yea, maybe.. though it'd still be kinda nuts imo...

I'll give you an example. In January 2004, the SC nullified the Mining Act of 1995/ RA 7942 (which allowed foreign mining firms to mine in the Philippines), by December of the same year, the SC reversed its decision and upheld the 1995 act. There are numerous instances of the SC reversing its decision, kani a very good example because of the span of time it took to reverse it.

[dartzed]

murag daghan2 naman ug naamend nga LAWs oi..