MERGED: All About Gloria Arroyo - Past, Present, Future

[unsay_ngalan_nimo]

---

Under what conditions the bill of rights can be suspended?

I think the word is not suspended but limited. For example Marcos, back in 1989 the Sc ruled that He cannot go back in the philippines becasue he is a risk to national security this is even if the man is already dead. Disallowing the his body to be here in the Philippines. This is of course a violation of the right to travel or even the right of the person to be in his country. The SC said it because he is a risk to national security even if the person is already dead.

This is an example of such power of the state to limit rights.

[amingb]

SEc.1 Doj Cir 41
(c) The Secretary of Justice may likewise issue an HDO against any person, either motu proprio, or upon the request by the Head of a Department of the Government; the head of a constitutional body or commission; the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for the Judiciary; the Senate President or the House Speaker for the Legislature, when the adverse party is the Government or any of its agencies or instrumentalities, or in the interest of national security, public safety or public health.


isnt the case which GMA is under investigation the adverse party is the government?

Yes bro ang Gov. is the adverse party .... mas maau bro e post nimo kanang tanan nga Circular ....

Kanang akong gi post is analyses from a legal expert of views .... kna imo gi post is sec. 1(c)

Kini nga Circular is Only applicable sa mga tawong naay kaso ....

WHEREAS, while several Supreme Court circulars, issued through the Office of the Court Administrator, clearly state that "Hold Departure Order shall be issued only in criminal cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts," said circulars are, however, silent with respect to cases falling within the jurisdiction of courts below the RTC as well as those pending determination by government prosecution offices;


GMA is not applicable ani nga Circular .....

[networkguy]

utro pud ka mo sige lang kag putak nya way sad kay nahibaw-an. nganong si escudero man ang atong paminawon parte ani. mo file man kaha ug MR, then let the SC scrap that MR. ka simple ana, di gihapon nimo masabtan. palabi man lang ka.

dili lagi ka pwede fo file og MR sa TRO... pila naman ka lawyers ni explain ana oi maski taga SC nisulti na bahin ana

[emow]

I think the word is not suspended but limited. For example Marcos, back in 1989 the Sc ruled that He cannot go back in the philippines becasue he is a risk to national security this is even if the man is already dead. Disallowing the his body to be here in the Philippines. This is of course a violation of the right to travel or even the right of the person to be in his country. The SC said it because he is a risk to national security even if the person is already dead.

This is an example of such power of the state to limit rights.

So what you mean is that some sections of the Bill of Rights can be limited? or the entire Bill of Rights? That court ruling may have transgressed the Constitution, and may have been influenced by the recent memory of EDSA at that time....Anyways, I really don't know the applicability of the Bill of rights of someone in exile compared to someone who is not....

[hulagway]

Bcoz she is under investigation. DOj Circular 41 gives the right to Doj to put her name on the list....

dili ko lawyer..pro maski ba ng issue na ug TRO ang SC mo effect gihapon ba ang cirular 41 kay GMA?

[æRLO]

Yes bro ang Gov. is the adverse party .... mas maau bro e post nimo kanang tanan nga Circular ....

Kanang akong gi post is analyses from a legal expert of views .... kna imo gi post is sec. 1(c)

Kini nga Circular is Only applicable sa mga tawong naay kaso ....

WHEREAS, while several Supreme Court circulars, issued through the Office of the Court Administrator, clearly state that "Hold Departure Order shall be issued only in criminal cases within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts," said circulars are, however, silent with respect to cases falling within the jurisdiction of courts below the RTC as well as those pending determination by government prosecution offices;


GMA is not applicable ani nga Circular .....

Whether GMA is applicable ani or not.

I'm in question sad aning Circular 41 because it basically gave itself authority to curtail constitutional rights. Following this logic, this means that the justice secretary can dispense with the limitations of the Bill of Rights in the name of administration of justice.

[unsay_ngalan_nimo]

you should thank them for defending the constitution.

LOL. Have you seen the decision? Maybe you should be for you can say that.. dont stop at the dispositive do continue till the dissenting opinion. Because:

"It has been held in one case
that it is not only through court order
that the right to travel may be impaired. In fact, the Supreme Court itself has
issued stringent regulations on the right to travel, including the denial of the
travel authority request of employees who may be undergoing preliminary
investigation. An important question thus must be asked: why is the majority
not even willing to hear the government before issuing the TRO, when, in
the supervision of judiciary employees, a mere administrative officer of the
Supreme Court, and not a judicial officer, may deny the right to travel? "

-dissenting Opinon Justice Serano

[amingb]

I think the presence of the accused is needed during arraignement... and in case GMa is not around by that time walang kaso mapasaka because her counsel cannot plead in her behalf... the trial cannot go on without her presence there could be no trial in absentia unless the accused has entered her plea...

What a dilemma diba? very apt that DOJ sec is named de lima? LOL

arraignment bro needed jud ang presence sa accuse natural na,ug wala kay lawyer providan paman gani ka siguro ana ... pero sa case ni GMA is still Preliminary Investagation her presence is not needed ....


Preliminary Investigation in Criminal Cases at Philippine e-Legal Forum

[unsay_ngalan_nimo]

So what you mean is that some sections of the Bill of Rights can be limited? or the entire Bill of Rights? That court ruling may have transgressed the Constitution, and may have been influenced by the recent memory of EDSA at that time....Anyways, I really don't know the applicability of the Bill of rights of someone in exile compared to someone who is not....

maybe I shoudl just quote Justice Serrano then you weigh things yourself...

"It has been held in one case
that it is not only through court order
that the right to travel may be impaired. In fact, the Supreme Court itself has issued stringent regulations on the right to travel, including the denial of the travel authority request of employees who may be undergoing preliminary investigation. An important question thus must be asked: why is the majority not even willing to hear the government before issuing the TRO, when, in the supervision of judiciary employees, a mere administrative officer of the Supreme Court, and not a judicial officer, may deny the right to travel?"

[AlbertCruz]

dili ko lawyer..pro maski ba ng issue na ug TRO ang SC mo effect gihapon ba ang cirular 41 kay GMA?

ngano naabut naman ni circular 41. If pwede na, gigamit na unta na ni De Lima. puro rajyud fantasies ning mga yellow army, bisag unsa ray masulod sa huna-huna basta musuporta nila.