Francisco Jr. vs House of Representatives

[FK]

---

(3) at the time of the filing of such verified complaint or resolution of impeachment with the Secretary General.

Fuentebella said the original Lozano complaint was not verified while the other filed by Lopez had been withdrawn.

it was pointed out that both the Lozano and Lopez complaints were actually not verified, in violation of the impeachment rules.

so the third condition was not yet meet pa d i.Â* Coz the original lozano complaint was not verified.

[pandisal]

Wa ko magdahum nga PRO GMA diay daku ni si Sassy Lawyer, Connie VeneracionÂ* the no. 1 blogger sa pinas karun.Â* Pagkasayang bayhana.Â* Tsk.

Yah I know... is that weird!? :P anywaz, she's just pointing out the empeachment rules and how both sides are arguing... nothing else, it's just that plain and simple rule,...Â*

Its so ironic for anyone to make a comments that negates the oppositions arguement to be considered on the administration side, specifically as PRO GMA...

Bisan ni angkon na si GMA nga iyaha tong tingog sa tape?Â* Dong, waiver na jud to dong ni GMA. Niangkon na gud siya unya ang mga bagag nawong nga congressman ila pag gyud tabunan ang pag angkon ni GMA.

Naunsa man tawon mo uy.

'Nang/'Nong, wala man siguro siya hing angkon nga iya to voice naa sa tape, iya sulti nga nakig-hisgot siya sa usa ka
opisyalis sa comelec panahon sa eleksyon para e verify kung naa ba gyuy tikas. pero basin nasayop ko ani... basin naa
lain time nga hing sulti siya nga "Iya to nga tingog nga naa sa wiretapped recording"...

[FK]

O.T.

onsa man jud d i iya gipa-ngayo og sorry?
Kinsa man iyang ka istorya?
Ngano wa man niya gi-kumpleto kani nga pangotana sa panahon nga nangayo siya og sorry?

Kato iyang pagpangayo og sorry, wala jud gi-klaro kong onsa iyang gi-sorryhan og onsa iyang gi-sorryhan... basta nangayo lang siya og sorry. Without even naming the Comelec official that she has talked with.

[pandisal]

O.T.

onsa man jud d i iya gipa-ngayo og sorry?Â*
Kinsa man iyang ka istorya?
Ngano wa man niya gi-kumpleto kani nga pangotana sa panahon nga nangayo siya og sorry?

Kato iyang pagpangayo og sorry, wala jud gi-klaro kong onsa iyang gi-sorryhan og onsa iyang gi-sorryhan... basta nangayo lang siya og sorry.Â* Without even naming the Comelec official that she has talked with.

so you mean, that she didn't admit nga iya tong tingug,.? ang argument kay kung hing angkon siya nga iya to'ng tingog
sa audio or dili - personally. answer: wala.

[s.n.m.p.]

Lozano complaint is not verified. Lopez complaint has been withdrawn. So it leaves one complaint, that of the opposition.

But the gutless Congressmen still insist on the Lozano complaint.

The laws are virtually thrown out of the garbageby the so called lawmakers.

[FK]

so you mean, that she didn't admit nga iya tong tingug,.? ang argument kay kung hing angkon siya nga iya to'ng tingog
sa audio or dili - personally. answer: wala.

O.T.

from her own mouth... No, but from her spokesman? Yes... But Bunye was not reprimanded from it... so it must be true.

[pandisal]

so you mean, that she didn't admit nga iya tong tingug,.? ang argument kay kung hing angkon siya nga iya to'ng tingog
sa audio or dili - personally. answer: wala.

O.T.

from her own mouth... No, but from her spokesman? Yes... But Bunye was not reprimanded from it... so it must be true.

So, still she didn't personally admit it right

[wanderlust]

The thing is, the amended impeachment complaint prepared and signed by the opposition brings up new charges that were not included in the Lozano complaint and alters the substance of the first complaint.Â* Being so, it is in reality a new impeachment complaint, instead of a mere amendment.

isn't receiving jueteng money a betrayal of public trust?Â* isn't using public funds for her personal gains betrayal og public trust?Â* Isn't corruption betrayal og public trust?Â* Please answer my questions.Â*

mao ganing gi ammend para ma-klaro kong onsa jud ang nabuhat ni GMA.Â* Betrayal og public trust is very general...Â* gi specify lang sa ammended complaint kong onsa ang mga gibuhat ni GMA in betraying the publics trust.Â* If betrayal of public trust is all about lying... then sa una pa guilty na daan si GMA of betrayal of public trust.

The additional charges in the ammended complaint are all betrayal of public trust just given a different name.

Don't be hysterical. We're talking about impeachable (or non-impeachable) offenses here. That she used public funds for her personal gains was alleged to have been committed before her current term; thus, this is a non-impeachable offense and the proper forum for this is the Ombudsman.

You're also confusing "corruption" with "betrayal of public trust". Corruption allegations fall under "graft and corruption" which is a separate ground for impeachment.

If she has solid evidences which her lawyer claims... then she has nothing to fear of.

As I have said, in an impeachment case where the accused faces the serious consequence of removal from office, the laws are strictly construed against the State. It's not a question of the presence or lack of fear.

[s.n.m.p.]

Hey you wanderlust, dont lecture us about the laws because it will only show your ignorance.

You cannot file a case against an incumbent President before the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman has no jurisdiction. The President can only be removed by IMPEACHMENT. She will only be charged for graft right after she is conviceted or shall we say impeached by the Impeachment court which is the Senate.

As to "betrayal of public trust" thats a catch all phrase. Its broad. It is contemplated to be any act done that constitute a betrayal of his oath of office asa a public official. It even encompasses graft and corruption.

Sa di pa magputak putak imo baba, consult a lawyer. Ayg pataka ug istorya diha.

[FK]

@wanderlust

Why am I being hysterical?

asking a question if
- receiving jueteng payola
- using public funds
- violation of the constitution
a betrayal of public trust is being hysterical?

but I think you still haven't answered my question.

And one thing also... the Lozano complaint was not verified so the third condition was not yet triggered meaning the Ammended complaint was the verified complaint that was endorsed.