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

[monroy]

---

Even ang SC sa US can correct its mistake "Does it mean nga ang US SC should not be respected ?" ... and it so happen in many countries in the world not just the Philippines .....

But we're not talking about the SC correcting its mistakes. Rather we're talking about the SC interpreting a plain and simple word "final" in a way that no other court system in the world has done. Cite an instance of the US SC interpreting a word to mean the complete opposite of what its plain meaning is, and I'll concede that ground to you. The American people respect the US SC because it is an efficient and honest body that rules swiftly and with utmost respect for their own rules and the law of the land.

You will never hear about a US SC justice engaging in plagiarism, nor will you see flipping jurisprudence more than once in a decade. Because of this, they have a stable justice system and strong rule of law. More importantly, there is finality and therefore complete resolution of cases before them. This is important, because if a "final" decision can be retracted then nobody who goes to court can ever be sure if they have really won the case and this leads to anarchy as people lose faith in the courts and resort to other more violent means to resolve disputes.

Why do you think there is so much extrajudicial killings in this country? It's because the policemen, sick and tired of seeing criminals walk free and cases drag on for years, are fed up with the system.

The SC doesn't have its own police or army so its only authority comes from moral authority, which is founded on integrity. Without moral foundation, the SC doesn't have any power and its orders become meaningless. The quickest way to destroy your moral authority is by engaging in hypocrisy, if you can't follow your own rules how can you expect others to follow them?

[AlbertCruz]

uh that's not quite right, man. while the constitution does list down the rules, it's all open to interpretation and, in the end it's the willpower to implement the rules that really matters.

Yep, and the interpretation is its broken and corrupt if it doesn't work like the way we want it to be

[hulagway]

that's really beside the point and, if you're going to go there, then it's fair for me to ask: if these people are without guilt, why are they so eager to get out of the country?

sus na unsa,para ma atiman na ang kahimtang sa panglawas ni GMA, pro maski pa ug guilty na sila kung wala pay kaso naka file pwde d i nimo na sila babagan? now ang pangutana? sa kadugay na nila sa pwesto ngano hantud karon wala man gihapon sila naka file sa case? unsa man ang nadugayan? remeber ka during elelction? unsa g sulti ni noynoy?

[AlbertCruz]

that's really beside the point and, if you're going to go there, then it's fair for me to ask: if these people are without guilt, why are they so eager to get out of the country?

again, stop with the teleserye logic. dili na sila kontra-bida na magdrama-drama para maka.ekyas. with all their resources, if ganahan jyud sila mawala dugay na unta na silang nawala.

[wildfire1203]

that's really beside the point and, if you're going to go there, then it's fair for me to ask: if these people are without guilt, why are they so eager to get out of the country?

Correct!

[fotbol101]

uh that's not quite right, man. while the constitution does list down the rules, it's all open to interpretation and, in the end it's the willpower to implement the rules that really matters.

Yap..SC justices already did interpret it....I think the are smart enough why they approve it...

[monroy]

Even with all those blunders by the SC, their past mistake still wont change the fact that allowing GMA to leave is within the Constitution. With or without the SC's decision, a person's right to travel cannot be taken away without probable cause. Stepping over the Constitution is the road to Tyranny

I'll quote Neal Cruz as my response:

"Sure the Constitution guarantees a person’s right to travel, but all rights have their limits, as when they collide with the rights of others. Freedom of the press is limited by the law on libel, freedom of speech is limited by the law on slander, the freedom of workers to strike is limited by other labor laws, the freedom to gather and seek redress for grievances is limited by many other laws.

Likewise, the freedom to travel is not absolute. It is limited by the right of the government and the people to seek justice. Of all the rights, I think the right to justice is the most important. Why should a person’s right to travel be more important than a whole nation’s right to justice? Travel is supposed to be taken at one’s leisure. Are a person’s leisure and pleasure more important than justice?"

You can't claim Constitutional rights to travel have been trampled on when they (SC) haven't even ruled on a constitutional issue regarding this in Arroyo's case. All they've done is issue a TRO, it's not a ruling but a TRO.. huge difference...

[ulyrich]

what Aquino's administration did was cruelty. this is purely personal attacks. pa choy choy lang na si abnoy. tapulan daku. abnormal. admin should let DOJ lawyers re-enroll on their law subjects. hahahaha!

[slyder10]

No case, so there's no reason to hold departure. i don't think the SC will be biased enough to issue a TRO on baseless grounds. it's simple. if you don't file a case against someone you accuse of wrong doing, he/she goes free. and why no case is being filed? insufficient evidence.

[trollolol]

gma owns this specific SC.. what kind of law are you people talking about?

That's probably the easiest thing an ignoramous would say. Which brings us to the point why it's your only argument.