Francisco Jr. vs House of Representatives

[wanderlust]

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.Â* 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.

Tell that to Frank Chavez who filed the relevant case against GMA with the Ombudsman. Â*Now you are showing your ignorance.

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

There are five (5) grounds for impeachment, namely: culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. Â*Betrayal of public trust is catch-all phrase for offenses not falling under any of the previous grounds.

Sa di pa magp**ak p**ak imo baba, consult a lawyer. Ayg pataka ug istorya diha.

Maybe you ought to consult Frank Chavez about it...poor you. Â*You must be very insecure because there are people here who don't just take your crap as Gospel.

[s.n.m.p.]

So im better than Frank Chavez. Thanks for the compliment.

[pandisal]

of course you are... Frank Chavez is a politician and you are not... (its a compliment).

[FK]

Sa Inside kono gabii... kay usa sa guest si Lagman...

nya gi-ingnan ni Cez nga gipa-abot kono sa opposition sa SC ang about sa impeachment complaint.

Ingon si Lagman, dili kono pwede manghilabot ang SC kay political by nature kono ang impeachment.

Nya gi-ingnan siya balik si Cez... ngano man lagi nanghilabot man ang SC sa Francis Jr. nga case.

Wala kono ka tubag si Lagman... na amnestia ka noy?

[pandisal]

ah... di ko makaingon bugo., pero ga taka2x lang siguro to istorya,... for the first place, ang mo preside sa empeachment kay gikan man SC nga judge di ba? and all nga dibati kung ma stalemate, ang SC man ang
mo hatag ug absolute answers... tsk tsk tsk.. daghan lang gyud pataka ug pa pogi points... walay mapili
bisan asa nga side!

[wanderlust]

Wala nang maisagot si s.n.m.p. hehehe...

[s.n.m.p.]

Wa ko comment anang gi post ni pandisal kay wa manay hinungdan. It doesnt perk my interest.

[FK]

@wanderlust: you still haven't answered my question.

Francisco Jr. filed a petition to the SC

Francisco’s petition points out the defects and infirmities of the original Lozano complaint, namely:

it has not been verified but merely sworn;
it had no endorsement by a member of the House at the time it was filed on June 27, 2005;
it used a form foreign to the standard complaint or affidavit-complaint prepared and used by lawyers; and
its allegations may not be able to meet the standard of sufficiency of substance.
In fact, he adds, by filing a total of six supplemental affidavits of complaint to support his original complaint, Lozano admits as much to the insufficiency in substance.

Saying it is unfortunate that the "Francisco ruling" was being used by pro-Arroyo congressmen as their battlecry to block the amended complaint, Francisco argues that the said doctrine is not applicable to the impeachment proceeding before the House justice committee.

He said that in light of the recent developments, the Francisco ruling should be re-examined since by deeming an impeachment proceeding initiated by the mere filing of an impeachment complaint and its referral to the committee on justice makes it clearly susceptible to abuse and "will effectively shield a corrupt, impeachable official from impeachment."

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.

[pandisal]

Wa ko comment anang gi post ni pandisal kay wa manay hinungdan.Â* It doesnt perk my interest.

since it doesn't benefit either side,... its a negative post for both side kay guilty mana sila... naa mga
ga-pa pogi points nga hangtud di magkadimao ila gipang historya...

so kung ikaw one sided ra kaau,. di gyud ka maka kuha ug interest! :P
...pero again... i respect your opinion, of not having an interest on my post! :P PEACE

[s.n.m.p.]

Did the rule of law really prevail?

No. There is no rule of law to begin. The whole process was infact, using Edmund Reyes term, “bastardized� by pro-gma congressmen-lawyers.

The rule of law, in real sense, sees fairness and justice prevail. Other wise, its the rule of the LOW.

Not for LAWyers but LOWyers…Datumanong and Lagman, included