Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst ... 234567 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 112
  1. #31

    Default Re: The new Chief Justice of the SC: Ma. Lourdes Sereno


    ayay..matuman MAHAL NA HARI....ng SABLAY



    __________________________________________________ ___________
    DILI PANI TINUOD OI;;DAPAT MO PALIT MO NEWSPAPER PARA MA CONFIRM

  2. #32

    Default Re: The new Chief Justice of the SC: Ma. Lourdes Sereno

    Quote Originally Posted by arnie121 View Post
    never intended to... never thought you had one though... hehehehaw! peace up!
    haha... you should enlighten yourself more about midnight appointments..

  3. #33

    Default Re: The new Chief Justice of the SC: Ma. Lourdes Sereno

    Jack, I did read the entire dissenting opinion of Sereno. Indeed it was well crafted and the points she raised regarding compensation legally justifiable. However, this is no longer just a legal issue, but a moral one considering the plight of several thousand Farmer beneficiaries and the more than 50 years they have waited for justice. Consider the timeline of this property: Hacienda Luisita: Timeline

    Note that when the property was acquired by the Cojuanco's:

    November 25, 1957
    The Cojuangcos obtain a P5.9-million loan from the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) provided that Hacienda Luisita would be “subdivided among the tenants who shall pay the cost thereof under reasonable terms and conditions.
    Cojuangco Sr. requests GSIS to change the phrase to “…shall be sold at cost to tenants, should there be any.” after four months. This would be quoted in the future as justification not to allocate the land.

    From the very beginning, there was already a dubious intent with the request to change the phrases in the agreement. One that they will use later to justify NOT allocating the land.

    Moving forward:

    May 7, 1980
    The national government lodges a case before a Manila court to force Hacienda Luisita’s management to surrender the estate to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform so that hacienda land could be given to farmers.
    January 10, 1981
    The Cojuangcos argue that sugar lands are not covered by existing agrarian reform legislation and cry harassment against Ninoy’s kin.

    Granting that Ninoy was indeed being harassed by Marcos, was it right for the Cojuangcos to argue that the sugar lands were not covered by the existing land reform? What about the agreement with the government back in 1957?

    December 2, 1985
    The Manila court orders Tadeco to submit Hacienda Luisita to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform. The order is criticized as an act of harassment because Corazon Aquino is set to run against Marcos in the February 1986 snap polls. The Cojuangcos bring the matter to the appellate court.

    Again the Cojuangcos argue harassment. But then again, what about the original agreement? this is now 25 years of the Cojuangcos exploiting the Hacienda and its farmers.

    January 22, 1987
    Thousands of frustrated farmers troop to Malacañang demanding land reform and distribution of land at no cost to beneficiaries. Thirteen protesters are killed in the “Mendiola Massacre.” The massacre happens after 11 months of the Corazon Aquino administration.

    Following these were the introduction of the SDOs and on May 11,1989 The farmers’ ownership of the plantation is pegged at 33 percent, while the Cojuangcos retain 67 percent, under Carp that is imposed on Hacienda Luisita in 1989. Isn't this pure exploitation? 1989 is also the year that the SC ruled should be the basis for valuating the property for the farmers to pay. At this point in time, the value per hectare was only 40,000 as against Sereno's opinion when the valuation is pegged at One million pesos per hectare.

    Going back to Sereno's dissenting opinion, what is there to enlighten us? That the land can still be distributed while the issue on the just compensation is being argued in special courts? That "Although the State is obliged to pay the fair market value of the agricultural lands in accordance with the law, rules and jurisprudence, the State does not shift that burden to the FWBs that would receive the expropriated properties. It shall subsidize the repayment schemes for the distributed agricultural lands and offer terms that are affordable to the farmers and allow them to simultaneously pursue their chosen agricultural enterprises on the lands." If the state subsidizes, where will the funds come from? Our taxes, right?

    The dissenting opinion is well crafted indeed, but does not give justice to the farmers whose plight worsens for every delay that this issue encounters. The fact is, from the very beginning, the agreement was to distribute the land to the farmers. Over 50 years, and this has not been done. For 50 years the Cojuangcos gained from a property that is NOT rightfully theirs, and still want to get more out of it with a favorable valuation.

    Is that right, Jack?

    Anyway, congratulations to the President on his new Chief Justice appointee. Sereno was the obvious choice among the nominees.

  4. #34

    Default Re: The new Chief Justice of the SC: Ma. Lourdes Sereno

    Let's give her a chance to prove her worth. Also, there is no guarantee that she could complete her 18 years as CJ. Basin ang next Pres after 2016 dili sila magkasinabot ni Sereno unya ipa-impeach na pod. So wait and see nalang ta.

  5. #35

    Default Re: The new Chief Justice of the SC: Ma. Lourdes Sereno

    Quote Originally Posted by eezychair View Post
    Jack, I did read the entire dissenting opinion of Sereno. Indeed it was well crafted and the points she raised regarding compensation legally justifiable. However, this is no longer just a legal issue, but a moral one considering the plight of several thousand Farmer beneficiaries and the more than 50 years they have waited for justice. Consider the timeline of this property: Hacienda Luisita: Timeline
    bro, ang dissenting opinion was not against agrarian reform but was about land valuation

    Quote Originally Posted by eezychair View Post
    Note that when the property was acquired by the Cojuanco's:

    November 25, 1957
    The Cojuangcos obtain a P5.9-million loan from the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) provided that Hacienda Luisita would be “subdivided among the tenants who shall pay the cost thereof under reasonable terms and conditions.
    Cojuangco Sr. requests GSIS to change the phrase to “…shall be sold at cost to tenants, should there be any.” after four months. This would be quoted in the future as justification not to allocate the land.

    From the very beginning, there was already a dubious intent with the request to change the phrases in the agreement. One that they will use later to justify NOT allocating the land.

    Moving forward:

    May 7, 1980
    The national government lodges a case before a Manila court to force Hacienda Luisita’s management to surrender the estate to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform so that hacienda land could be given to farmers.
    January 10, 1981
    The Cojuangcos argue that sugar lands are not covered by existing agrarian reform legislation and cry harassment against Ninoy’s kin.

    Granting that Ninoy was indeed being harassed by Marcos, was it right for the Cojuangcos to argue that the sugar lands were not covered by the existing land reform? What about the agreement with the government back in 1957?

    December 2, 1985
    The Manila court orders Tadeco to submit Hacienda Luisita to the Ministry of Agrarian Reform. The order is criticized as an act of harassment because Corazon Aquino is set to run against Marcos in the February 1986 snap polls. The Cojuangcos bring the matter to the appellate court.

    Again the Cojuangcos argue harassment. But then again, what about the original agreement? this is now 25 years of the Cojuangcos exploiting the Hacienda and its farmers.

    January 22, 1987
    Thousands of frustrated farmers troop to Malacañang demanding land reform and distribution of land at no cost to beneficiaries. Thirteen protesters are killed in the “Mendiola Massacre.” The massacre happens after 11 months of the Corazon Aquino administration.

    Following these were the introduction of the SDOs and on May 11,1989 The farmers’ ownership of the plantation is pegged at 33 percent, while the Cojuangcos retain 67 percent, under Carp that is imposed on Hacienda Luisita in 1989. Isn't this pure exploitation? 1989 is also the year that the SC ruled should be the basis for valuating the property for the farmers to pay. At this point in time, the value per hectare was only 40,000 as against Sereno's opinion when the valuation is pegged at One million pesos per hectare.
    bro, lets reckon back the time when HL was awarded to the Cojuangco's, that was the most economical decision a President magsaysay could ever have.. considering economical survival.. tanan man loans, naay requisite.. and tanan requisite naay exemptions.. why would you make a fault to an exemption provided for in the loan agreement?

    Quote Originally Posted by eezychair View Post
    Going back to Sereno's dissenting opinion, what is there to enlighten us? That the land can still be distributed while the issue on the just compensation is being argued in special courts? That "Although the State is obliged to pay the fair market value of the agricultural lands in accordance with the law, rules and jurisprudence, the State does not shift that burden to the FWBs that would receive the expropriated properties. It shall subsidize the repayment schemes for the distributed agricultural lands and offer terms that are affordable to the farmers and allow them to simultaneously pursue their chosen agricultural enterprises on the lands." If the state subsidizes, where will the funds come from? Our taxes, right?

    The dissenting opinion is well crafted indeed, but does not give justice to the farmers whose plight worsens for every delay that this issue encounters. The fact is, from the very beginning, the agreement was to distribute the land to the farmers. Over 50 years, and this has not been done. For 50 years the Cojuangcos gained from a property that is NOT rightfully theirs, and still want to get more out of it with a favorable valuation.

    Is that right, Jack?

    Anyway, congratulations to the President on his new Chief Justice appointee. Sereno was the obvious choice among the nominees.
    never Sereno mentioned nga dili dapat e distribute ang HL.. ang gist sa dissenting opinion was land valuation.. ALL SC DECISION are encompassing, meaning tanan affected due to jurisprudence.. the key term here is land valuation dpending on date of TENDER.. bro, kung dili cojuangco or aquino ang involved ani, ka luoy sd sa apektado noh, nga ang TENDER gamiton was on a later DATE..

    ang eminent domain gani, the obligations of the sovereign for expropriations with just compensation.. DILI lang ni nato e apply, abi kay politiko man? unsa man kaha effect ani sa ordinaryo nga taw?

    kita ka sa execution clause, ni ingon c Brion nga para ra ni sa HL issue nga decision? SINGLED out ang Luisita?

    *** im not too certain if c Brion ba ni write sa ponencia.. i'll correct it tomorrow..

  6. #36

    Default Re: The new Chief Justice of the SC: Ma. Lourdes Sereno

    Quote Originally Posted by jack_bauer View Post
    haha... you should enlighten yourself more about midnight appointments..
    Did Article VII Section 15 (on midnight appointments) apply to the Judiciary? The answer is NO.

    "The Supreme Court effectively ruled that if the framers of the 1987 Constitution had intended Article VII, Section 15 to include the member of the Judiciary, they would have written it so but did not. Thereby ruling that the entire article is limited to the Executive branch only. Note also that in the decision, the Supreme Court quoted the separation of powers doctrine espoused by the framers of the 1987 Constitution as lifted from the Record of Proceedings and Debates of the Constitutional Commission. The SC also said that the very creation of the JBC points to the intent of the framers to exclude the judiciary from Articles VII, section 14, 15 and 16."

    This page is also enlightening, Jack: Corona’s “Midnight” Appointment: Legal or not? « Teki Abary Repalda

  7. #37

    Default Re: The new Chief Justice of the SC: Ma. Lourdes Sereno

    makabotar na gyud kong bongbong ini dah aron naa say ma impeach ini puhon. hehe...

  8. #38

    Default Re: The new Chief Justice of the SC: Ma. Lourdes Sereno

    Quote Originally Posted by arnie121 View Post
    Abnoy, sigi kag panaway ni Gloria. Parehas ra mo.
    hehe.. agree ko nimo ini bro. nakuha gyud nimo. it is all power play kung kinsay makalingkod ug naa sa kinatas-ang gahum. si GMA gibutang niyas Corona to keep away HL from the Cojuangcos and lands distributed to the tenants. Si Penoy sad, gitangtang si Corona ug gipuli si Sereno (nice ryhme corona-sereno, corona-sereno....) to keep the tenants away from the HL and perpetuate their ownership of the lands they loaned and financed by the government. asa man gud na paingon anha man gyud ana. dakong pildero si Carpio sa katapusang sumada. nadaut pa gyud iyang relasyon sa iyang kumpare nga si Corona.

  9. #39

    Default Re: The new Chief Justice of the SC: Ma. Lourdes Sereno

    Quote Originally Posted by eezychair View Post
    Did Article VII Section 15 (on midnight appointments) apply to the Judiciary? The answer is NO.

    "The Supreme Court effectively ruled that if the framers of the 1987 Constitution had intended Article VII, Section 15 to include the member of the Judiciary, they would have written it so but did not. Thereby ruling that the entire article is limited to the Executive branch only. Note also that in the decision, the Supreme Court quoted the separation of powers doctrine espoused by the framers of the 1987 Constitution as lifted from the Record of Proceedings and Debates of the Constitutional Commission. The SC also said that the very creation of the JBC points to the intent of the framers to exclude the judiciary from Articles VII, section 14, 15 and 16."

    This page is also enlightening, Jack: Corona’s “Midnight” Appointment: Legal or not? « Teki Abary Repalda
    kinsa ng buhat sa ilang kaugalingon nga exemptions? sila ra...!!! the spirit of law asa nman..

  10. #40

    Default Re: The new Chief Justice of the SC: Ma. Lourdes Sereno

    Quote Originally Posted by jack_bauer View Post
    bro, ang dissenting opinion was not against agrarian reform but was about land valuation

    Like I said, I read the whole dissenting opinion, so I know Sereno was not against Land Reform. I know too it was all about the land valuation.

    bro, lets reckon back the time when HL was awarded to the Cojuangco's, that was the most economical decision a President magsaysay could ever have.. considering economical survival.. tanan man loans, naay requisite.. and tanan requisite naay exemptions.. why would you make a fault to an exemption provided for in the loan agreement?

    What exemption? I merely pointed out that the change of phrase used in the agreement had a questionable intent, which was proven right when litigation started as the phrase was used to justify NOT allocating the land. The original phrase (Which I can assume is what Magsaysay wanted) clearly stated that the land was to be subdivided among the tenants. By adding 'should there be any' meant the burden of proving that there are tenants shifted to the farmers themselves, which then gave the Cojuangcos an upper hand.


    never Sereno mentioned nga dili dapat e distribute ang HL.. ang gist sa dissenting opinion was land valuation.. ALL SC DECISION are encompassing, meaning tanan affected due to jurisprudence.. the key term here is land valuation dpending on date of TENDER.. bro, kung dili cojuangco or aquino ang involved ani, ka luoy sd sa apektado noh, nga ang TENDER gamiton was on a later DATE..

    The gist of the SC Final ruling is valuing the property using 1989 as basis. The dissenting opinion no longer matters, but leaves an impression of subjectivity rather than objectivity. It will be jurisprudence alright, but how many people in the Philippines own 6,000+ hectares of land, Jack, who would be affected by this ruling. How many compared to the 6,000+ Farmer beneficiaries?

    ang eminent domain gani, the obligations of the sovereign for expropriations with just compensation.. DILI lang ni nato e apply, abi kay politiko man? unsa man kaha effect ani sa ordinaryo nga taw?

    I never mentioned anything about politics here. As to the effect, well, like I said above, how many people own 6,000+ hectares of land? Will the ordinary people be affected by this?

    kita ka sa execution clause, ni ingon c Brion nga para ra ni sa HL issue nga decision? SINGLED out ang Luisita?

    If there's another tract of land this big owned by a family, then rightly so it should be distributed and valued in the same manner. But is there another one this big, held this long, and having wasted so many lives?

    *** im not too certain if c Brion ba ni write sa ponencia.. i'll correct it tomorrow..

    My comments are in blue.

    Sereno is now the new chief justice. She has 18 years ahead. People will be watching her very, very closely. I wish her the best. Congratulations too, Jack. I believe she was your choice too.

  11.    Advertisement

Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst ... 234567 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

 
  1. Who will be the next Chief Justice in the Philippines?
    By Sparrow Unit in forum Politics & Current Events
    Replies: 149
    Last Post: 10-02-2012, 02:49 PM
  2. The New First Family of the Republic of Phils.
    By GOSPELofROCH in forum Humor
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-12-2010, 12:28 AM
  3. Vote for the NEW 7 WONDERS of the World
    By cebu-future in forum Politics & Current Events
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: 09-04-2008, 11:46 AM
  4. Choose the NEW 7 WONDERS OF THE WORLD....
    By Zirv in forum Politics & Current Events
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 05-27-2007, 02:28 PM
  5. Bush Nominates Roberts as the next Chief Justice of the U.S. of A.
    By HoundedbyHeaven in forum Politics & Current Events
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-09-2005, 01:10 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
about us
We are the first Cebu Online Media.

iSTORYA.NET is Cebu's Biggest, Southern Philippines' Most Active, and the Philippines' Strongest Online Community!
follow us
#top