MERGED: All About the Corona Impeachment

[monroy]

---

I'll give you an example. In January 2004, the SC nullified the Mining Act of 1995/ RA 7942 (which allowed foreign mining firms to mine in the Philippines), by December of the same year, the SC reversed its decision and upheld the 1995 act. There are numerous instances of the SC reversing its decision, kani a very good example because of the span of time it took to reverse it.

I'm aware the Philippine SC reverses its decision, the US Supreme Court does also. But was that example you cited a unanimous decision? These minor points of difference are important. Because I never claimed the SC doesn't reverse its decisions, what I said was that it's nuts to create a conspiracy theory when the decision was unanimous. You understand what unanimous is right? It's a 16-0 vote...

If you gonna stick to your claim that there's some kind of conspiracy to overturn a 16-0 vote then that's your call. But I've a right to call it how I see it... Still you haven't shows which law allows the Congress to amend the Constitution to overturn a SC decision. That's the first time I've ever heard that claim. It'd be nice if you can substantiate that, if not then ok rasad just so long as we agree that it was just your opinion with no basis in law.

And another point is, if this conspiracy were real instead of just in the minds of conspiracy theorists, then why during motion for recon for HLI did all Aquino appointees continue to vote for unanimous decision? Don't you think it would make sense for them to already play by admin's game and begin the process towards a split decision? Because that way, an overturning of a decision would be more believable whereas now since it was a unanimous decision, if they overturned a 16-0 vote it would appear anomalous. That's why I call total BS on these conspiracy theories. Edit: 14-0 vote I mean...

I've never heard a single SC case here or anywhere that flipped from a unanimous vote within a short period of time. If that happened and there is a case, I'd be surprised. Normally a flip of decisions occurs when it was a split decision or something close but suggesting that 8 judges would flip over and vote the other way to me is practically impossible. At least if you wanna make a crazy conspiracy theory, make one that's believable, imho..

[hlongimanus]

hapit na ang verdict...

[taga_ipil]

I rather hate Farinas for his mga palusot.. ang question why he allow ang palusot, if he had doubts on his mind then he should had confront Corona while he is on the hotseat. you cant blame Manalo for being defensive that his job while the burden of proof lies to the prosecutors and they didnt capitalize.

Bright pud ni si Manalo, he was still composing his final arguments while Farinas making his speech. Actually nice move ni sa defense one of them made a very detailed speech, manalo made a confrontational speech and cuevas made a semi-impromptu speech.

i guess people just want to hear what they like to hear

Don't get me wrong, he's argument are valid but sometimes and most of the time he is much carried by his emotions.

but seems like Enrile or probably some members of SIC already have a decision...
Enrile quizzes defense, prosecution on 'culpa' - Yahoo! News Philippines

[æRLO]

I'm aware the Philippine SC reverses its decision, the US Supreme Court does also. But was that example you cited a unanimous decision? These minor points of difference are important. Because I never claimed the SC doesn't reverse its decisions, what I said was that it's nuts to create a conspiracy theory when the decision was unanimous. You understand what unanimous is right? It's a 16-0 vote...

If you gonna stick to your claim that there's some kind of conspiracy to overturn a 16-0 vote then that's your call. But I've a right to call it how I see it... Still you haven't shows which law allows the Congress to amend the Constitution to overturn a SC decision. That's the first time I've ever heard that claim. It'd be nice if you can substantiate that, if not then ok rasad just so long as we agree that it was just your opinion with no basis in law.

16-0?

it was 14-0. 2 abstained. Not really "unanimous" to the strictest sense of the word.

Again, irregardless if unanimous, majority ang decision. I'm explaining that the court has the power to do so. As do the legislative branch. I'm just annoyed that people keep postulating that it can't be overturned, because it can. I'm not saying they will, I'm saying that they can, you know, because you said nga "bot2x" ra. Also, I did not allude to the HL case in any way..

[Golden Thief Bug]

if they would only sign that waiver tbh, i dont care what will happen to corona, what i care about is coronas offer to them, that waiver. the people should know!

[dartzed]

start naaahhhhh!!...

[monroy]

16-0?

it was 14-0. 2 abstained. Not really "unanimous" to the strictest sense of the word.

Again, irregardless if unanimous, majority ang decision. I'm explaining that the court has the power to do so. As do the legislative branch. I'm just annoyed that people keep postulating that it can't be overturned, because it can. I'm not saying they will, I'm saying that they can. Also, I did not allude to the HL case.

What the heck 14-0 isnt unanimous because 2 abstained? What u smokin bro!

[hulagway]

at the end of the day..politicians flock together...

[Golden Thief Bug]

at the end of the day, we still have a hypocrite president

[æRLO]

What the heck 14-0 isnt unanimous because 2 abstained? What u smokin bro!

do you know what "strictest sense of the word" means? pila ka possible votes, and pila ni concur. That means not all of them voted, hence, my deduction.