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

[unsay_ngalan_nimo]

so dapat ba mg comply ang DOJ o DILI?

Technically they should, the problem is that the SC as one of the three power it is seems not doing their job.

They should be acting in the best interest of the state. Unfortunately 8 out of 15 thought it is not in the interest of the state to at least give the government chance to be heard before they allow GMA. Anyway November 18 ang deadline sa government para pass ug comment.

mao nagdalidali si GMA ug lakw unta..

[amingb]

LOL.. this what makes it interesting diba? I hope you guys can see it... I am no lawyer either... But see the SC did not say its unconstitutional but it only suspend its effectivity for a particular person.

while not allow the government to make a comment first.

correct bro ... circular 41 is legal para sa mga criminal ... and unfortunately is not applicable to GMA that is why na TKO ... TRO diay

[PaYaSo]

correct bro ... circular 41 is legal para sa mga criminal ... and unfortunately is not applicable to GMA that is why na TKO ... TRO diay

literal ra kau ka ming. its says criminal cases not criminal.

mkuhaan gyud ka ug balls ana ming

[NapoleonBlownapart]

so you are sure that the Arroyos will come back? are you sure? and you are not speculating?

speculations ra jud na siya estor_boot mao nga ang basehan nato ang balaod. Whether mobalik si Arroyo or not ang ato unta sundon ang ruling sa Supreme Court.

[unsay_ngalan_nimo]

correct bro ... circular 41 is legal para sa mga criminal ... and unfortunately is not applicable to GMA that is why na TKO ... TRO diay

have you read the circular? it said Because(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
because(WHEREAS), apart from the courts, the Secretary of Justice as head of the principal law agency of the government mandated to, inter alia, investigate the commission of crimes, prosecute offenders, and provide immigration regulatory services, is in the best position to institute measures to prevent any miscarriage of justice, without, however, sacrificing the individual's right to travel;

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the provisions of existing laws, the following consolidated rules are hereby adopted:

Section 1. Hold Departure Order. - The Secretary of Justice may issue an HDO, under any of the following instances:

(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.


This even speak of House Speaker and Senate President in aid of legislation?

The SC did not even rule whether its applicable to GMA or not, the government is made to file a comment. This what makes it very interesting.

Why not hear the government first.

[amingb]

Yes kay kanang imo gibutang na "whereas" kay ang reason na behind sa nakabutang saubos ana.. mao na gibutang ang sec.1 a-c para sa whereas..

mao na sulod siya yellow color.. dili ko yellow army pero ganahn ko ug color yellow...

Mao ra gihapon bro kay si GMA wala may mga pending sa mga prosecution office .... mao na na TRO kay dili na applicable si GMA ana nga circular ... bisan unsaon ug tuis nato ana ... and the SC has already decided ...

[emow]

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?"

I can't seem to grasp what he's trying to say... Citing a precedent as a justification over the Constitution hardly nullifies the right to travel provision of the Bill of Rights... However, the suspicion of something irregular may have transpired in the issuance of the TRO may have some merit....

[PaYaSo]

that is the sad part of the SC's decision everything is not final, take for instance what happen to the League of 16 cities.

[NapoleonBlownapart]

IF indeed this is a ploy by Gloria, the administration has already been suckered in. Hook, line, and sinker.

haha.. mouyon jud ko ani.. kung ingon ani man gani ang plano ni ate Glo na pikatan lang nya ni ate nya si Abnoy & Co.. Moana lang nya si age Glo "pikat ninyo.. I'm always one step ahead"

[unsay_ngalan_nimo]

Mao ra gihapon bro kay si GMA wala may mga pending sa mga prosecution office .... mao na na TRO kay dili na applicable si GMA ana nga circular ... bisan unsaon ug tuis nato ana ... and the SC has already decided ...

Isnt she under investigation ss COMELEC for election sabotage?