Francisco Jr. vs House of Representatives

[s.n.m.p.]

---

I see money all over in Congress

Edcel Lagay, este Lagman.

Simeon Datung-manong.

Puros-pera Nograles

Puros pera Pichay!

Money-ko Puentebella

[pandisal]

I see money all over in Congress

Edcel Lagay, este Lagman.

Simeon Datung-manong.

Puros-pera Nograles

Puros pera Pichay!

Money-ko Puentebella

nice and so creative! bravo!

[slyder]

talented man diay ka s.n.m.p. sa, gifted diay ka.

[wanderlust]

@wanderlust: you still haven't answered my question.
The person who filed a petition to the Supreme Court that was used by the administration congressman is now filing one against the congressman.

Last time he was successful... let's see if he will be successful again.

When was he successful?

Your question was about the verified complaint, right? It appears that the Lozano complaint, as it was written in an an affidavit by a lawyer, was, of itself, already verified.

That seems a moot point now.

[FK]

When was he successful?

That seems a moot point now.

please read again my post... I thought you know Francisco Jr...

on the question if he was successful... YES... that's why you are using his petition b4 as the basis for trashing the stronger complaint.

Francisco Jr. filed a petition to the SC

The person who filed a petition to the Supreme Court that was used by the administration congressman is now filing one against the congressman.

Last time he was successful... let's see if he will be successful again.

Your question was about the verified complaint, right? It appears that the Lozano complaint, as it was written in an an affidavit by a lawyer, was, of itself, already verified.

who said so... Lagman? can you verify this one... or you just said this because Lagman said so?

[slyder]

i saw this on ANC last night around 3 or 4am, it was cayetano and this person from the majority who keeps on explaining this verification to cayetano, he quoted a supreme court ruling about this verification thing while cayetano is showing signs of incoherence for ignorance of this ruling. in desperation cayetano even said that he was disappointed of what is happening and could have considered going up to the mountains joining the NPA. PAK!

what crap can a loser like cayetano having thoughts of joining the NPA. ang babaw pre, was he trying to make the house feel like he's a treat if he joins the NPA. hirap talaga maging desperado.

@FK you should buy a tv and watch the news bai, lisod ng walay alamag, makadaut na!

[FK]

@FK you should buy a tv and watch the news bai, lisod ng walay alamag, makadaut na!

mao gani tan-awon nato ma successful ba og balik si Francisco Jr. kay mo file man siya og petition og usab questioning the impeachment...

the administration said so... Francisco Jr. said otherwise... tan-awon nato ang final say sa SC.

sabot?

oh btw if you can give me 1 (TV) i will be very glad... guba man gud amo TV... lisud bitaw ning wa'y alamag bai samot ng may alamag pero nagpailad gihapon.

[s.n.m.p.]

i saw this on ANCÂ* last night around 3 or 4am, it was cayetano and this person from the majority who keeps on explaining this verification to cayetano, he quoted a supreme court ruling about this verification thing while cayetano is showing signs of incoherence for ignorance of this ruling. in desperation cayetano even said that he was disappointed of what is happening and could have considered going up to the mountains joining the NPA. PAK!

what crap can a loser like cayetano having thoughts of joining the NPA. ang babaw pre, was he trying to make the house feel like he's a treat if he joins the NPA. hirap talaga maging desperado.

@FKÂ* you should buy a tv and watch the news bai, lisod ng walay alamag, makadaut na!

With the kind of Congress that we have, I might join the NPA.

Â* Â*

[s.n.m.p.]

Complaint and proceedings are two different terms. The Constitution says proceedings not complaint. So the one year ban has not taken effect yet. The three complaints should have been consolidated and only when the House have deliberated on the issue that the proceedings could have taken place. But the House choose the strained interpretation of the word proceeding.

There goes the truth. . .

[FK]

Ako na lang mo hatag og definition sa Verified complaint.

Verification is when the author of the pleading or the complainant attests that: S/he prepared the complaint, and the contents thereof are `true and correct' of his or her `own personal knowledge' and based on `authentic or official documents/records'. Lozano did not declare this in his complaint. Therefore his complaint is not verified.

Can you use `interpretation' or `construction' in this case? The majority themselves have repeatedly declared during the debates, using a Supreme Court rule, that when the `rules or the law is clear, there is no room for interpreting or construction'. In this case the rule is clear: it must be verified in order for an impeachment complaint to be initiated, but the Committee stretched the definition of what is verified to accommodate the complaint. It was not verified, but the Committee found it sufficient in form. In fact, without the verified Amended Complaint which cured the Lozano Complaint's defects, no impeachment proceedings were initiated.

Another Supreme Court jurisprudence comes into play: `When the rule or the law does not distinguish, one should not distinguish' and supplant the letter and intent of that particular rule or law. The Constitution and the Rules said a complaint must be verified—it did not provide that lawyers or complainants are exempted. The Justice Committee, therefore, cannot exempt. They cannot distinguish. Declaring that the Lozano complaint is verified merely because he is the complainant and a lawyer at that, is clearly without legal and constitutional basis.

Ato lang tan-awon ang say sa SC ani.