What if Corona does not accept a GUILTY verdict?

[æRLO]

---

semi-flooding the threads eh.. hmm.. bitter!

semi-flooding? 2 posts is considered flooding? It's relevant to the topic, ain't it?

Am I bitter? Of course I am. Bitter from the hypocrisy.

[leo_trams]

adto na siya mag opisina sa kilid sa SC.
himo siya ug kanang parehas sa city hall...notary services.
murag pungko-pungko office.

kada adlaw, report gihapon siya sa SC...pero sa kilid lang.

[PagkahomotSAimongUTOToi]

we all know how stressful it is and as Miriam D. said, "Destroys a Persons Life", samot na kung ma disbar cya. murag mas nadaot iyahang apelyido ron kesa kang Arroyo nga naglaroy2 lng. this thread has to be closed.

[rare_phoenix]

not done yet??


SC urged: Don't implement Corona 'guilty' verdict

By Ina Reformina, ABS-CBN News
Posted at 06/05/2012 1:06 PM | Updated as of 06/05/2012 1:06 PM
Tweet

MANILA, Philippines - Lawyers Alan Paguia and Homobono Adaza and taxpayer Hernan Laurel filed with the Supreme Court (SC) today an urgent motion that seeks to stop the implementation of the Senate impeachment court's judgment on the impeachment trial of former Chief Justice Renato Corona.

The petitioners, who filed petitions in January questioning the validity of the impeachment complaint lodged by the House of Representatives against Corona, urged the high tribunal to immediately issue a writ of preliminary injunction to prevent the "enforcement of the [constitutionally] infirm decision of the Impeachment Court" and call for oral arguments on their petitions.

They alleged that the impeachment trial is in violation of Sec. 3 (2) Article XI of the 1987 Constitution on the verification required of impeachment complaints against impeachable public officers, and Sec. 1 of Article III (Bill of Rights) on rights to due process and equal protection of the laws.

Petitioners claimed that the impeachment trial and the subsequent judgment of the Impeachment Court is null and void on the basis that the Senate does not have jurisdiction over the "constitutionally infirm" complaint. They alleged that the complaint was not verified by the overwhelming majority of the complainants; the House of Representatives committed grave abuse of discretion by transmitting the complaint to the Senate; the Senate committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction by accepting the Articles of Impeachment and giving it due course.

"The Senate, assuming jurisdiction on a mere scrap of paper, and holding and completing the trial, despite constitutional and legal objections, as well as the pendency of 6 petitions in the Supreme Court, clearly disputing the holding of the trial, led to the serious misinterpretation of the provisions of the Constitution resulting to distortions of the fundamental legal document, which should never be allowed..." the motion read.

Petitioners maintained that the Supreme Court may perform its power of judicial review in spite of the conclusion of the trial since it is constitutionally mandated to "review all acts of all branches of government that commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction."

"It is imperative at this stage in time for the Honorable Court (Supreme Court) to rule on these matters at the earliest opportunity to put the disturbed national situation to rest since it is the Supreme Court that has the final word on what the law is, not the Impeachment Court," the motion read.

"At stake in the successful and immediate resolution of the pending petitions is not only the viability of the Constitution and other existing institutions, including all the three branches of government, but the fate and destiny of this country," the motion read.

The motion also stated that senator-judges Franklin Drilon, Alan Peter and Pia Cayetano, Francis Pangilinan, Edgardo Angara, Aquilino Pimentel III, Jinggoy Estrada, Panfilo Lacson, Francis Escudero, Teofisto Guingona III, and Serge Osmena appeared "biased, prejudiced and partial... behaving like judges-prosecutors, even to the point of badgering witnesses, just so the points which could not be achieved by the House prosecutors could be obtained."

"The conduct of these senators is in rank and blatant violation of Sec. 1, paragraph 2 of Rule 137 of the Rules of Court and the Gingoyon doctrine of this [Supreme] Court which [states] that a judge should inhibit himself from presiding over a case where his independence, bias, prejudice and partiality [are] being questioned..." the motion read.

Corona was impeached by the House of Representatives last December 12 for alleged graft and corruption, betrayal of public trust, and culpable violation of the Constitution. His trial began on January 16. He was convicted on Article II of the Articles of Impeachment last May 29.

The petitions filed by Paguia, Adaza and Laurel remain pending at the high court, along with the other petitions that also assailed the constitutionality of the impeachment complaint against Corona.

[ambokz]

as per Sen. Jingoy Estrada,tama na,pabayaan na c Corona.enough of this issue,kay wla jud tay padulngan ani,hanap pa rba nang matuwid na daan iyang gi ingon.