Supreme Court acquits Webb, et al

[punisher23]

---

bitaw bitaw mag pasko sata ani..

[RMK711]

klaruhon dw ni nato..nganu glagot mo sa SC?

Ky g.acquit c webb? ky wla mo n.uyon sa decision sa SC?

Well, don't expect things to always go your way..face it..he's acquitted..

prha sa g.ingon ni hubert sa headstart..para sa kd2 sure jd na guilty siya.."rid yourself of hatred first"

mgpdala mn gd mo sa inyo kalagot gd, basalon daun ang SC kng wla k.uyon sa decision..mangita daun og pasumangil, "ah gibayran mn na", "ah gifabricate mn na"..puro nlng ta ani pasangil..estoryaheee..

nya sure jd mo na si webb nipatay nila? or nk.ingon ra mo ana tungod sa g.ingon ni alfaro? yeah, alfaro, yeah right..where is she now? she should defend her testimony..

I can only speak for myself but I suspect most people who don't like the SC decision have the same reasons. I already mentioned it before but since you asked:

1. Supreme Court has no credibility. It can't clean house in its own department. It failed to speed up the glacial pace of justice in this country which is a joke. Simple cases take 5 years. Complex cases, like this one, take 15 years.

2. Supreme Court has no stability. It constantly flip-flops its own decisions. It doesn't respect stare decisis and so as a court it doesn't deserve any respect either. How can one respect an institution that doesn't respect its own rules or jurisprudence?

3. Supreme Court disrespects the English language and is hypocritical. Our laws are in plain English, but the Supreme Court does not know how to interpret them. Sometimes it applies double standards, such as when it ruled the Truth Commission illegal, but ruled the PET legal, even though the two were created without legislative consent. It has its own definition of the word plagiarism that's totally different from anywhere else in the world, wherein something is not plagiarism unless it's intentional. Go figure...

4. Supreme Court does not always provide finality in its judgments. It is the only court in the world that allows motions for reconsideration. Other courts don't do this, because it implies the court is careless AND it leads to needless delay in the dispensation of justice. The only reason I can think of why the court allows this, is because it allows the justices to squeeze more money out of convicted felons. Take the example of Imelda Marcos, convicted by Sandiganbayan, convicted on appeal to the SC and then acquitted upon motion for reconsideration. That's the kind of bullshit our Supreme Court engages in, and as a result it deserves to be called a bullshit court.

[ju-Luis]

ang construction sa law ug ang fact na gi presentb sa lower ourt.. when i say facts kanang material facts na

when the lower court says that a doc is inadmissble as evidence then for the SC to admit it the sc should point a particular law which should have been considered by the lower court to accept it as evidence..

sir, r u a lawyer?

[punisher23]

advance happy new year

[masakiton]

sah man gud nis media.... magsamok2x poisoning the minds of the public aka trial by publicity

dakong sakot
daghan nag pa dala sa ilang gi bati
sa kadto gusto ma priso ang groupo ni webb.. i prove ninyo nga sila ang nag buhat sa crimen

[punisher23]

nice avatar gwen...hehe

[KASAAC]

They are the real culprits. grrrrrrrrrrr I just hate our justice system, really no justice here!

[unsay_ngalan_nimo]

did you know that corona voted for the retention of the RTC and CA rulings?

yep.. which made me think basin naghuwat ra sila sa right timing.... maybe its not the SC...maybe its the presidency... lol..

[unsay_ngalan_nimo]

sir, r u a lawyer?

no... naa lang ko kaila... nangutana lang ko niya...

[unsay_ngalan_nimo]

why dont we ask lawyers here, what is the probability of criminal case being overturn by the SC to favor the accused...


im curious...