A commentary
By Raïssa Robles
Everyone assumes that all the US dollars that Chief Justice Renato Corona stashed in banks are covered by the bank secrecy law.
Let me offer the theory that they might not be ALL covered and the Senate impeachment court can legally look into them.
Yes, I know I am a mere reporter with no formal training in law. But I’ve had the experience of watching senators up close while they crafted our nation’s laws. And as a business reporter, I’ve covered retail banking. Anyway, this week I ran these ideas past two high-level bank officials. None of them wanted to be identified (I wonder why?), so let’s just call them Banker A and Banker B.
However, what they told me are all verifiable.
Now to go back to the Bank Secrecy Law
The mother law is Republic Act No. 6426 or An Act instituting a foreign currency deposit system in the Philippines, and for other purposes.
RA 6426 has no section defining what constitutes “foreign currency”.
However, it has three sections that suggest the definition by stating how banks are supposed to treat “foreign currency”.
First, Section 4 states that banks taking in such deposits “shall maintain at all times a one hundred percent foreign currency cover for their liabilities…”
Section 4 recognizes that the act of depositing by a client establishes a kind of relationship and obligation between the bank and the customer. As Banker B explained to me –
Once you give money to the bank, the bank is indebted to you as a depositor. This is the relationship – the bank is borrowing from you in the form of a deposit. For that debt they will now pay you a certain amount of interest.
The next section in RA 6426 that further suggests a definition of “foreign currency” is Section 6:
Section 6. Tax exemption. – All foreign currency deposits made under this Act, as amended by PD No. 1035, as well as foreign currency deposits authorized under PD No. 1034, including interest and all other income or earnings of such deposits, are hereby exempted from any and all taxes whatsoever irrespective of whether or not these deposits are made by residents or nonresidents so long as the deposits are eligible or allowed under aforementioned laws…
In other words, Section 6 gives all “foreign currency” deposits a 100 percent tax break.
The third section that suggests a definition of “foreign currency” is Section 9 which states:
Section 9. Deposit insurance coverage. – The deposits under this Act shall be insured under the provisions of Republic Act No. 3591, as amended (Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation), as well as its implementing rules and regulations: Provided, That insurance payment shall be in the same currency in which the insured deposits are denominated.
In other words, foreign currency deposits are insured by PDIC.
Now let me go to my theory that not all foreign currency deposits are guaranteed confidentiality by RA 6246 or the bank secrecy law. Section 8 of this law states in particular:
Section 8. Secrecy of foreign currency deposits. – All foreign currency deposits authorized under this Act, as amended by PD No. 1035, as well as foreign currency deposits authorized under PD No. 1034, are hereby declared as and considered of an absolutely confidential nature…
Please note the phrase here – “all foreign currency deposits authorized under this Act”.
It is part of my theory that bank secrecy only covers those foreign currency deposits defined by RA 6426. In other words, only those foreign currency deposits that contain the following elements enumerated by RA 6426:
- Those for which banks have to maintain a 100% foreign currency cover
- Those with interest earnings that are not taxed by the government
- And those that are insured by PDIC.
Why do I bring up these fine distinctions?
Because since RA 6426 came into law in 1974, banks have dramatically expanded the array of foreign currency products they offer their clients.
These are aside from the traditional savings, current and time deposits that were envisioned to be covered by RA 6426.
Today, clients can park their dollars in sovereign bonds, in commercial papers, unit investment trust funds (UITFs), mutual funds – all denominated in dollars and which are not tax-free and are not insured by the PDIC.
Why would a depositor want to move away from plain vanilla dollar accounts? One reason would be: Because the interest rate on dollar savings and time deposits are terrible.
According to Banker A, a US dollar time deposit now earns 0.25% per year. A US Treasury Bond earns 2% per annum. While a US dollar-denominated ROP (Republic of the Philippines) five-year bond can earn from 2% to 2.5%. In such transactions, “we merely act as a broker,” Banker B told me.
From this, we can see that if the client wanted to put his or her dollars to work earning something more than the miserable interest on time and savings deposit accounts, then investing in these products would make sense.
In fact, as Banker B explained to me, “with a UITF or mutual fund, there is no such promise by the bank that it will pay a certain amount. It is not a bank obligation. This is a separate vehicle from the bank. In that sense, UITFs are not considered as bank deposits.”
Banker B also explained that while even mutual funds can now be bought through banks, these money market instruments are actually regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. In this case, the banks merely serve as “brokers” for these products.
In the case of such products, the bank has no customer liability, Banker B said. The bank doesn’t pay interest to the customer. Rather, it is the customer that pays the bank a transaction fee for arranging the buy and doing the paperwork.
In such arrangements, the bank usually asks the customer to designate a particular bank account (either savings or current) as the “settlement account”. When the customer wants to liquidate the UITF or when a commercial paper or bond reaches maturity, proceeds including the interest earned from such products are deposited in this settlement account.
In addition, Banker A also explained to me further why a dollar bond or a UITF denominated in dollars, for instance, is not considered a foreign currency deposit as defined by RA 6426:
Iba nga talaga. Kasi hindi siya deposit. Hindi siya covered ng PDIC. Pag bumili ka ng bond, wala naman sa amin ang bond. You house it at a third party. We only facilitated. We act as a broker.
Halimbawa kung ikaw kliente, magpabili ka ng stocks, I give you confirmation of sale that you bought 10,000 shares. I deliver the receipt. Babayaran mo ko. Kukunin ko commission ko. That money goes to the central depository (PCD).
Pag nagpabenta ka. Ibibigay mo ang instruction, pupunta (yung instruction) sa broker. Kukuhanin namin shares sa PCD, ito ang pang-settle. Parang nagkaliwaan lang kayo.
From covering retail banking, I’ve also noted that while banks like PSB do not offer certain investment products, as its president Pascual Garcia III testified today, they do routinely refer their customers to the head office of the mother bank, in this case Metrobank. Such referrals are coursed through the retail bank like PSB which then transacts with the head office or mother bank and charges a transaction fee for this service.
Because of this, it may be necessary for the Senate impeachment court to ask Metrobank and Bank of the Philippine Islands head offices whether CJ Corona has “foreign currency” investments with them. And not just dollars because some banks now have expanded their foreign currency-related transactions to euros and even yen.
Senator-judge Serge Osmeña seems to be on the same line of thinking
An hour ago, Osmeña asked PSB president and CEO Garcia whether dollar bonds could be classified as deposits under RA 6426.
And so I would like to ask the following questions of the Supreme Court and the senator-judges:
Is my theory valid or plain hogwash?
If valid, can the Senate impeachment court now ask the banks to disclose any and all dollar transactions of CJ Corona revolving around such products? I believe that the moment an amount of foreign currency deposit from CJ Corona left the safe haven of savings and/or time deposit it loses the umbrella of confidentiality during that period. And these become legitimate subjects of inquiry by the Senate impeachment court.
For this piece, I had tried to interview a well-known lawyer who teaches banking law. But he declined to speak to me. Likewise, I tried to obtain an interview with officials of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas but no one would talk to me.
Because of this, I have decided to throw my questions to the public and see that maybe, just maybe, some lawyers and banking experts will respond and share what they know.
I am posting below RA 6426 –
REPUBLIC ACT No. 6426
AN ACT INSTITUTING A FOREIGN CURRENCY DEPOSIT SYSTEM IN THE PHILIPPINES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
Section 1.Title.– This act shall be known as the “Foreign Currency Deposit Act of the Philippines.”
Section 2.Authority to deposit foreign currencies. – Any person, natural or juridical, may, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, deposit with such Philippine banks in good standing, as may, upon application, be designated by the Central Bank for the purpose, foreign currencies which are acceptable as part of the international reserve, except those which are required by the Central Bank to be surrendered in accordance with the provisions of Republic Act Numbered two hundred sixty-five (Now Rep. Act No. 7653).
Section 3.Authority of banks to accept foreign currency deposits. –The banks designated by the Central Bank under Section two hereof shall have the authority:
(1) To accept deposits and to accept foreign currencies in trust Provided, That numbered accounts for recording and servicing of said deposits shall be allowed;
(2) To issue certificates to evidence such deposits;
(3) To discount said certificates;
(4) To accept said deposits as collateral for loans subject to such rules and regulations as may be promulgated by the Central Bank from time to time; and
(5) To pay interest in foreign currency on such deposits.
Section 4.Foreign currency cover requirements.– Except as the Monetary Board may otherwise prescribe or allow, the depository banks shall maintain at all times a one hundred percent foreign currency cover for their liabilities, of which cover at least fifteen percent shall be in the form of foreign currency deposit with the Central Bank, and the balance in the form of foreign currency loans or securities, which loans or securities shall be of short term maturities and readily marketable. Such foreign currency loans may include loans to domestic enterprises which are export-oriented or registered with the Board of Investments, subject to the limitations to be prescribed by the Monetary Board on such loans. Except as the Monetary Board may otherwise prescribe or allow, the foreign currency cover shall be in the same currency as that of the corresponding foreign currency deposit liability. The Central Bank may pay interest on the foreign currency deposit, and if requested shall exchange the foreign currency notes and coins into foreign currency instruments drawn on its depository banks. (As amended by PD No. 1453, June 11, 1978.)
Depository banks which, on account of networth, resources, past performance, or other pertinent criteria, have been qualified by the Monetary Board to function under an expanded foreign currency deposit system, shall be exempt from the requirements in the preceding paragraph of maintaining fifteen percent (15%) of the cover in the form of foreign currency deposit with the Central Bank. Subject to prior Central Bank approval when required by Central Bank regulations, said depository banks may extend foreign currency loans to any domestic enterprise, without the limitations prescribed in the preceding paragraph regarding maturity and marketability, and such loans shall be eligible for purposes of the 100% foreign currency cover prescribed in the preceding paragraph. (As added by PD No. 1035.)
Section 5.Withdrawability and transferability of deposits.– There shall be no restriction on the withdrawal by the depositor of his deposit or on the transferability of the same abroad except those arising from the contract between the depositor and the bank.
Section 6.Tax exemption.– All foreign currency deposits made under this Act, as amended by PD No. 1035, as well as foreign currency deposits authorized under PD No. 1034, including interest and all other income or earnings of such deposits, are hereby exempted from any and all taxes whatsoever irrespective of whether or not these deposits are made by residents or nonresidents so long as the deposits are eligible or allowed under aforementioned laws and, in the case of nonresidents, irrespective of whether or not they are engaged in trade or business in the Philippines. (As amended by PD No. 1246, from. Nov. 21, 1977.)
Section 7. Rules and regulations. – The Monetary Board of the Central Bank shall promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act which shall take effect after the publications in the Official Gazette and in a newspaper of national circulation for at least once a week for three consecutive weeks. In case the Central Bank promulgates new rules and regulations decreasing the rights of depositors, rules and regulations at the time the deposit was made shall govern.
Section 8. Secrecy of foreign currency deposits. – All foreign currency deposits authorized under this Act, as amended by PD No. 1035, as well as foreign currency deposits authorized under PD No. 1034, are hereby declared as and considered of an absolutely confidential nature and, except upon the written permission of the depositor, in no instance shall foreign currency deposits be examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official, bureau or office whether judicial or administrative or legislative, or any other entity whether public or private; Provided, however, That said foreign currency deposits shall be exempt from attachment, garnishment, or any other order or process of any court, legislative body, government agency or any administrative body whatsoever. (As amended by PD No. 1035, and further amended by PD No. 1246, prom. Nov. 21, 1977.)
Section 9. Deposit insurance coverage. – The deposits under this Act shall be insured under the provisions of Republic Act No. 3591, as amended (Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation), as well as its implementing rules and regulations: Provided, That insurance payment shall be in the same currency in which the insured deposits are denominated.
Section 10. Penal provisions. – Any willful violation of this Act or any regulation duly promulgated by the Monetary Board pursuant hereto shall subject the offender upon conviction to an imprisonment of not less than one year nor more than five years or a fine of not less than five thousand pesos nor more than twenty-five thousand pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.
Section 11. Separability clause. – The provisions of this Act are hereby declared to be separable and in the event one or more of such provisions are held unconstitutional, the validity of other provisions shall not be affected thereby.
Section 12. Repealing clause. – All acts, executive orders, rules and regulations, or parts thereof, which are inconsistent with any provisions of this Act are hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly, without prejudice, however, to deposits made thereunder.
Section 12-A. Amendatory enactments and regulations. – In the event a new enactment or regulation is issued decreasing the rights hereunder granted, such new enactment or regulation shall not apply to foreign currency deposits already made or existing at the time of issuance of such new enactment or regulation, but such new enactment or regulation shall apply only to foreign currency deposits made after its issuance. (As added by PD No. 1246, prom. Nov. 21, 1977.)
Section 13. Effectivity. – This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
Approved, April 4, 1974
helix says
im just wondering anybody help me,
How can a Republic Act (no. 6426 on this case) be approved on April 4, 1974 when Congress is already an extinct animal under Martial Law?
clementejak says
The Bicameral congress was abolished by Marcos in 1973 and replaced by a unicameral congress called the National Assembly under parliamentary type of governance.
helix says
do you mean the output law of “a unicameral congress called the National Assembly” is considered “Republic Act”? what i know was that it was called “Batas Pambansa” and not “republic act”. to cite an example is the “Anti-Bouncing Check Law” or BP #22. just wondering.
Legally_brown says
With all due respect, it still doesn’t answer the question. We know that then President Marcos abolished Congress right after he declared martial law in 1972. The unicameral Congress, also known as the Interim Batasang Pambansa was only convened in 1978. So during the period September 1972 up to mid-1978, the country had no legislative body since it was Pres. Marcos who was the one issuing Presidential Decrees which also had the full force of law. So I’m also wondering how this Republic Act 6426 was approved in 1974 when Congress was no longer existing during that time?
raissa says
by Marcos of course.
percy1007 says
As I understand UITFs, a client purchases a number of shares or units of the mutual fund. A client does not deposit any money but instead buys a part of a “corporation” or mutual fund.
This is the reason why SEC oversees mutual funds and not BSP.
Whatever the “corporation” earns or looses in the course of time determines the value of the stock or unit, in their parlance NAV- net asset value. Since stocks or shares in corporations are not covered by any bank secrecy law, these mutual fund stocks should not be either.
Mr. Y says
who are you to interpret the law?
raissa says
I’m human.
With a brain.
Anton Mendoza says
And a big heart.
bayonic says
and a genuine love of country.
jimmycoz says
AMEN!
Sylvester Dacat says
and With a passion for the truth!
Unlike Corona
-whose interpretation for the law is self serving,
-whose actuations betrayed public trust,
-whose penchant for technicalities to escape liabilities only unmask more
wrongdoings,
-whose interpretation for his position as Chief Justice is as Chief Lapdog for Gloria
Macapagal Arroyo and Chief Punisher of the Basa Guidote families
-whose interpretation for FCDU law is as refuge for laundering his money illegally
obtained
-whose arrogance and naked display of power is unparalleled in the annals of
Philippine judiciary system
Mr Y, “Yatot”, to some of your colleagues (Little Rat in english) are you also fed up with Corona’s interpretation of this law hence this inquiry before you “yatotize” (rat) on him? We understand your predicament. Everyone around him is as just perplexed and want to get away. Yatot, I feel your pain. You will not be the first one
to yatotize on him. A lot of the rats are leaving the sinking ship called MV CORONA
(MV i.e.most vile).
parengtony says
And a most responsible element of the sovereign people.
celised says
magmula sa dictador na marcos hangang sa mandarayang gloria arroyo, corruption in the philippine society is like a cancer. now, the new generation is smarter, information flows freely in the internet and anything can be exposed instantly. it won’t be long that the old philippine society will fade away, like cancer in this modern times can now be cured. marami pa ring natitirang mga followers ni marcos at arroyo, peru nabibilang na lang ang mga araw nila dahil ang presidente mismo ng ating bansa na suportado nang nakakaraming filipino ang nangu-nguna laban sa corruption. makapangyarihan pa rin ang mga corrupt dahil pera na ninakawan sa taong bayan ang ginagamit nang mga ankan ni marcos at arroyo. kailangan nating tulungan ang presidente laban sa corruption, sa ikaka-unlad nang bawat filipino and the next generation. miss raissa, you lead the way in the creation of online people power to support the president in fighting corruption…i was in the frontline when thousand of my fellow filipinos run towards malacanyang without fear from the security forces firing their machine gun as a warning…marcos was toppled at that time and i thought the country will prosper. but now, i see only government officials, politicians and corrupt businessmen have prospered. the poor remains poorer…(i have a poor writing skills, but pls. understand my point) …mag-kaisa po ang lahat laban sa corruption…mabuhay na muli ang pilipino…
Daisy Arcilla Brett-Holt says
Corruption in our country will carry on even if we have a good , honest and decent leader like PNoy, unless there is something in our Constitution that will deter our corrupt leaders from perpetuating their evil deeds.
We can unite and shout on top of our lungs to fight corruption but if there is no mechanism that is embedded in our Constitution to fight corruption then we will always fail. Why? Because a President with the help of Congress and the Supreme Court can cook up a law or tweak an existing law to protect them.
This is why we should have a Jury System (similar to the Impeachment Trial proceeding employed by the Senator-Judges) that is rooted in our Constitution. Jury System will shift the real power in government from the privileged few to the people. It is the same Jury System that keeps developed countries like Australia, Canada, USA, UK and many more, stable and progressive.
Our PEOPLE POWER REVOLUTIONS failed because we did not have an alternative to our flawed and rotten judicial system. We have a single-judge system that is easily corruptible whether the judge likes it or not. We kept on putting in power leaders who bought our votes and were intent on getting back their “investments”. It is a shame that our American colonisers and early leaders omitted from our American-patterned Constitution the Jury System. It is not a perfect system but if it is embedded in our law, it will:
• Empower the Filipino people in the administration of impartial justice to everyone;
• Deter our leaders and government from graft and corruption;
• Enable the enforcement of our country’s laws, thereby, prevent lawlessness and human rights atrocities; and
• Create a Judiciary that is independent and strong but not all-powerful as proven in progressive and truly democratic countries in the world.
Our organisations _ Philippine Jury Initiative (UK) and Katarungang Pansambayanan Inc have just launched an Online Petition to “PROTECT PNOY, THE FUTURE PRESIDENTS AND KEEP AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY”, so that PNoy can continue his fight against corruption. I hope you, Raissa and your friends will sign this petition. We need 10,000,000 signatures so the Members of Congress will take notice and hopefully amend Article VII Sec 4(3) of our 1987 Constitution.
The link to this Online Petition is: http://www.change.org/petitions/to-the-filipino-people-and-members-of-congress. PLEASE SIGN. Let it be our gesture of love for our country and our step to a better Philippines. With Raissa’s help, we will succeed.
JUDICIARY
Juan Alila says
and a true Filipino
chit jose says
and who are the justices of the supreme court to interpret the law?
majority of them were appointed by a President whose presidency is now being questioned at the Comelec…
…who owes their position to a “fake” president
whereas the blogger, Raissa Robles, supports her analysis with factual, logical information and does not owe her journalistic prowess to a “fake” person…
Jan says
These laws apply to all of us dear. We have the responsibility to know and understand them.
Buwaca Ng Inanyo says
and who are the justices of the Supreme Court who dared depart from the interpretation of laws that uphold centuries of established moral and ethical values and instead adopted interpretation conveniently suiting and protecting the wrongdoings of its member and allowing its Sponsor to evade prosecution.
When the Supreme Court chose the path of serving the interests of its chief and its sponsor to evade truth and prosecution, it has brought its majestic position down to the level of merely becoming a corrupt tool of its member who is no less than its chief. This Supreme Court’s supreme existence henceforth has become defined as an armor of corruption and for its chief and his interests a refuge of impunity.
Legally_brown says
Ms. Raissa is not interpreting the law. Only the courts are given the power to interpret the law. She is merely providing us with a different perspective regarding this antiquated law (RA 6426) which I hopefully, will be amended soon in the interest of transparency and accountability as this law is being used as a convenient shield by corrupt politicians to hide their unexplained wealth beyond reach even by our courts of justice. Senator Osmeña has made mention of Unit Investment Trust Funds (UITFs) during his questioning of PS Bank’s president, though I was clueless as to the point that he was driving at. It is only now after reading Raissa’s article that I came to appreciate the good Senator’s line of questioning. Good job Ms. Raissa!!!
raissa says
Sen. Osmena forgot to lay the predicate.
manuelbuencamino says
You can also ask PSBANK if Corona ever bought dollars. The act of purchasing dollars doesn’t touch on the secrecy of his dollar accounts because he would purchase dollars with pesos.
raissa says
YES!
parengtony says
Galing!
LuningningX says
Technically money laundering.
Pilosopong Tasyo says
PERSPECTIVE:PAGKATAPOS NG 19 DAYS OF TRIAL
1. MERON BANG NADISKUBRE BAGONG PERA SI CORONA?
A. MAGKANO?
B. ANONG NANGYARI, NANDOON PA BA O NAILABAS?
C. KUNG NAWITHDRAW ASAN NA NGAYON?
D. ANONG PALUSOT KUNG NASA PANGALAN NI CORONA?
2. MAGKANO NA LAHAT LAHAT ANG PERA AT ARI ARIAN NI CORONA?
3.. YUNG MGA PERA NI CORONA NA NAWITHDRAW KANINO NILIPAT O PAPANO
NAWITHDRAW?
A.TSEKE BA O CASH?
B. KUNG TSEKE, KANINONG TSEKE?
4. PAREHO PA RIN BA SA SALN YUNG MGA PERA AT ARI ARIAN NYA?
5. YUNG MALALAKING PERANG PUMASOK SA ACCOUNT NI CORONA ,
A. DINEPOSITO BANG CASH O TSEKE?
B. KANINONG TSEKE NAKAPANGALAN ANG NAGDEPOSITO?
C. KUNG HINDI KAY CORONA YUNG ACCOUNT,NG NAGPASOK NG PERA KAY CORONA
PUWEDE BANG SUHOL YON SA GINAWA NI CORONA PARA SA ACCOUNT HOLDER
NG TSEKENG NAGPASOK? .
Pinoyparin says
I hope that the “small lady” will bring the documents of the expropriation of the BGEI. I am sure that there is a complete records of this at the Office of the City Mayor of Manila and Possibly COA.
THe check was already marked as evidence by the DEfence. Kaninong pangalan nakapangalan ang Check? saang account nadeposit ang check? paano napunta sa account the Thief Justice.
I am sure that there is a board resolution in the opening of the account pwedeng isupena ang account na yon including the documents submitted when it was openned. normal bank requirement when a corporation is opening a bank account.
paano inapprobahan ng city goverment ang pagbili na ayon sa mga basa eh hindi nila alam. again Atienza is pandak ally and Corona is Chief of staff.
magic ang nangyari dito but there are incrimanating documents in the process
PAGING SMALL LADY SANA MAKUHA MO MGA DOKUMENTO.
MALYN says
Correct, dapat may authority o board resolution galing BGEI board na para ideposito sa pangalan ni Thief Justice Corona yong P 36 Million na winiddraw sa Time deposit from PS bank nong day of Empeached dated December 12, 2011 base sa sinasabi ng Defense lawyer ni Corona ito raw ay pera ng BGEI. naku delikado posibleng sabihin ng defense na lahat ng mga properties na hindi na declare sa SALn ni Corona ay pag-aari ng ng BGEI o ng kamag-anak, ano kayo hilo mababaw na depensa yan hindi lahat puwedeng maloko. Take note.
Johnny lin says
Latest news:
Coronas said the withdrawals from their bank accounts on the day of his impeachment was in the form of manager check.
Tips to prosecutor:
1. To whom was the check paid to? Coronas or BGE?
2. To what new account name was that check deposited? Coronas or BGE
if the name of BGE does not show up in the check or new accounts or BGE does not own the money. In US law, the holder of the money is the owner. Verbal acknowledgement is hearsay or the Coronas have to testify. The trail of the check is documented proof.
Investigation on those closed bank accounts could not be restricted by court because they are already in play. Money trail and ownership have to be established. If the account was changed during the course of the trial, then the incorporators of the corporation could be summoned.
Mrs. Corona has to prove she is acting officially for the corporation governed by SEC rules because opening new bank account of a corporation is governed by law including the enlisting of ITR number. IRS could be involved because if interests were paid to the corporation before and were not reported by Mrs. Corona that was also tax evasion.
percy1007 says
If the checks were to the account of BGE, a defunct entity with no legal personality, how would someone open a bank account and deposit the proceeds of the time deposits. You need a secretary certificate from BGE to open an account.
I think the checks were to payable to Corona but maybe until today, it is possible not encashed so there are no returned checks yet to PSB to trace where these are deposited.
He could be planning to hold on these checks until after the impeachment trial is finished before the checks become stale around June, 2012. Then pwede na ibalik sa banking system safe from the prying eyes of the senate court.
I just don’t understand why he did not do this with his other accounts.
percy1007 says
As I understand UITFs, a client purchases a number of shares or units of the mutual fund. A client does not deposit any money but instead buys a part of a “corporation” or mutual fund.
This is the reason why SEC oversees mutual funds and not BSP.
Whatever the “corporation” earns or looses in the course of time determines the value of the stock or unit, in their parlance NAV- net asset value. Since stocks or shares in corporations are not covered by any bank secrecy law, these mutual fund stocks should not be either.
Ten Tative says
CORONAPTIONS today feb 19, 2012:
Borrowing from SC’s TRO which made the TRO permanent.
Pare 1: Pare sa Sabado magkita tayo ha, tenatative na yan ha tentative
Pare 2: Sigurado ka ha, Basta tentative nayan, wala ng baguhan.
pare 1: Okay tentative na.
Watif Manila says
MINDSET AND PSYCHOLOGICAL RECORDS
Pnoy, in becoming President Identified that what will spur RP success is to meet head on the culture of impunity in government offices specifically vs Arroyo and company. If there will be a culture of accountability then people will be inspired by their leaders to better their lives and with an infectious effect contribute to the economy via less thievery on government funds, less factions less rivalries among turfs and more shared and focused activities towards growth and public service. This would require tough mindedness and grit. If this is my mindset, I’d rather have Pnoy’s psychological records than Corona and Gloria’s corrupt and scheming psychological makeup.
Niel Tupas and company (Rudy Farinas, Miro Quimbo. Sonny Angara, Erin Tanada & Prosec) must have realized their inadequacies in meeting head on the powerful Corona. Despite this realization, they forged on. Day after day they were subjected to the most number of public ridicule any politician ever received from the brilliant and scholarly Defensor Santiago/Justice Cuevas tandem to the intellectual giant in commercial law that is Enrile. Despite this, they successfully showed a new reality never before since in Philippine politics-the obscene and shameless wealth accumulation ever by a Chief Justice and the breadth of a chief Justice machinations of the Supreme Court. This mindset of Niel Tupas and company indicates intestinal fortitude (tibay ng sikmura-buo ng loob). I’d rather be fumbling but with this mindset and psychological frame of mind than Corona’s smooth image but kleptocratic mindset.
If Corona wants to shame Pnoy as one with mental problems and the prosecs as unschooled stupid group of fumblers, I’d rather be considered insanely mad even if fumbling to better my people than be considered mentally superior but full of deceptions,trickery and corruption.
Juan Alila says
Wow! very nice…
intrigued says
@Watif Manila— very well said. Thanks :)
Lumad says
@Watif Manila ~ Very well said =)
Joe StaAna says
Maybe Corona and the bitter co. is asking the wrong person about Psychological records. They should ask a senator about it.
jimmycoz says
:lol: :lol:
Dakilang Baliw says
HIndi puwedemg tanungin yung Manang Baliw kasi ang isang Baliw takot sa kapwa baliw.
Hanggang ngayon pag inisip ko lang, punong puno ako ng kaba at takot pag I imagine kung nagkatuluyan si BR (baliw renato) at BDS (baliw dakila ng senado). siguro binisita na talaga tayo ng nga Martian sa kabaliwan ng pinagsamang Senado at SC.
Hindi kaya may lihim na pagtingin ang BDS kay BR?
@Sta Ana & @jimmycoz, tigilan nyo na tong kabaliwan na to, pati akong siryosong tao napahalo sa usapan nyo.
Wacky Jabber says
Which one? The one who claimed to be a member of Mensa, but never was?
Mel says
ahh, isn’t he the one who just asked both (con en noy) of them to shut up.http://raissarobles.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_lol.gif
Cheng '86 says
Excellent point! this people who believe they are mentally superior because of their long list of academic achievement (harvard, phD, etc) . . .in real world they are idiots when they try to make us believe that 3.5 million is the same as 31.5 million . . . “they are not even smarter that 5th grader”
Ella Tovara says
Watif Manila, I agree with what you said …. Ms. Raissa Robles, keep using your God given talent to bring out the truth about the thief justice.
Sarah says
Hear, hear! I agree 100%
jimmycoz says
Well said :ugeek:
Mel says
On Friday, February 17th, 2012, R Corona, in response to PNoy’s speech delivered in Filipino at a “town hall meeting” with students from various universities and colleges at La Consolacion College near Malacañang, ‘challenged President Benigno Aquino III to make public his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN), bank and psychological records’.
I thought it is timely to recall Raïssa’s journalistic work pieces on this ‘psychological records‘ that R Corona so pathetically resurrected recently as his ‘nagging issue‘ so desperate to divert public attention to PNoy.
Be aware, R Corona’s ploy is to appeal to the uninformed, and carefree mentality (no pun intended) of some of our fellow countrymen on intriguing, petty & concocted issues – such as ‘psychological records‘ allegedly of PNoy.
Relevant news pieces written by Raïssa.
– Is Senator Noynoy Aquino really “Abnoy”? Please make sure you finish this article.
– Sen. Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III is “autistic”? Here’s the proof
– Aquino has no psychological record, says Palace spokeswoman
Mel says
Johnny lin says
@Mel
You posted “Sen Benigno Aquino III is Autistic, here is the proof”
Where did you you read that? I can guarantee you that writer did not present any documented medical proof because medical term Autism was named in nineties. Check WEB MD history of Autism.
Autism per se is congenital neurological disorder that it is impossible to attain the educational level of PNoy. The latest Canadian study in 2008 of Autism, only 4% progressed to adulthood at best achieving controlled volunteer work in a part time setting. Scientifically that author was already disproven.
Of course it was a nice piece of disinformation to poor Filipinos because even educated people or some doctors do not completely understand Autism. Hyperactivity, called ADHD now, is not Autism. In the Philippines during the eighties and before, we knew that children had mental retardation or were hyperactive but did not know different specific causes. Even the famous Filipino pediatrician, Fe Del Mundo did not diagnose or teach Autism then, I know, she was my teacher
percy1007 says
I am not saying PNoy is autistic but there are exceptional persons with autism (PWA) like Temple Grandin who received her PH.D in Animal Husbandry and who designed over 50% of cattle handling facilities in the U.S.
But then I have yet to know of a PWA who was arrested and charged with high crimes or impeached, or have been dishonest with his SALNs.
Mel says
Having read this, R Corona should be the one who must undergo a psychological examination.
kundi lang mahistrado, matagal na siyang pinawalang silbi sa gobyerno.
dahil nga may ‘karunungan’ kuno, kaya pinagpapasensiyahan pa ng taong bayan.
percy1007 says
Yes. Corona must undergo neuro-psycho exam. There are scientific evidence that the brains of criminal-recidivist have unique patterns according to research done on prisoners. Pero baka lumabas pathological liar siya but he may be able to lie also through the test and ang lumabas sa brain scan sobra liit ng structure kaya siya di maka distuingish ng tama o mali.
Dapat hamunin ni PNoy sabay sila mag-undergo nitong test na ito.
Grace Mary A. Tan says
Tama ka dyan sa sinabi mo siya ang dapat mag palabas ng psychological records hindi si pinoy
Johnny lin says
CORONA is absolutely suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. He exhibits all signs and symptoms related to this disorder. His frequent incoherent verbose contradictory alibis are proofs of his manifestation.
His refusal to take a leave during trial is the first symptom of this disorder, delusion of grandeur.
Johnny lin says
Although Grandin has been portrayed the poster child of Autism, hers is labelled as high functioning autism, so far she is only one tagged with that diagnosis.Some prominent neurologists are doubtful if she really had autism per se or a variant of Asperger syndrome related to minor form of autism.
Autism is developmental neurological disorder affecting the biological and chemical properties of the brain. If you look at Grandin biography, her history begins that she had brain damage and diagnosed with “autism” in 1950 while she was born in 1947. Actually she had symptoms similar to autism in her infancy but diagnosis of autism was belatedly attributed because of her signs and symptoms. Her brain damage could be traumatic or iatrogenic, no other descriptive medical findings exist on her biography from birth to 1950 which was suspicious historically on a medical standpoint. The movie on her life made her more heroic.
Some say vaccines cause autism but few latest studies disprove it but others believe it. Probably her brain damage was viral like equine virus affecting the brain or vaccine related brain injury. With her adulthood achievement despite her childhood illnessmaking her the poster child put autism in the forefront of medical breakthroughs.
Autism is still controversial in many aspects especially causation since its only two decades that it has garnered significant medical attention.
LuningningX says
Another thing is AUtism is neurological disorder.
Mel says
APuro na lang Autism, Altruism na lang.
Sa ganang aking opinion, iyan (Altruism) ang sakit o kalakasan ni PNoy. Pamana ng Bayaning Ama at pabuya ng yumaong Presidenteng Ina.
Mel says
typo correction.
re
APuro na lang Autism, Altruism na lang.Baltazar says
Mate, the writer is surely a typical paid mudslinger. Look at the age he mentioned which was also highlighted by Raissa. PNoy was three and saved by Kris from a Doberman’s attack? – that time, Kris wasn’t even conceived in Pres Cory’s womb for goodness sake! His writing was not only illogical. It’s stupid and the guy is big moron not to even verify the birthdays of the siblings. Sabi nga ng matatanda sa amin eh..kumakana na rin lang eh, tatanga tanga pa.. .. I also found out that he eventually became a big laughing stock in the blog sphere and journo world because of this article.This Butch Del Castillo is having the same feather as Ninez Cacho-Olivarez – they flock together; Contract writers. Comparing to a mobile account, they are prepaids. And you know what a prepaid means – CHEAP!
Gerardo Barrica says
Hahaha this kind of Butch del Cuchillo is very common in Philippine journalism. They are like askals, they survive on crumbs.
jimmycoz says
Hahaha! I like the “prepaid” part. :D
Mel says
@Baltazar
they have a common denominator, francisco tatad!
same handler, but different asking fees.
Baltazar says
@Mel
Yeah, mate. Tatad is another prepaid with 3G enabled. He must be more expensive.
3G – Gold, Greed, Grab :P
Mel says
@Baltazar
Nice one, the 3Gs of a political bogey man!
LOL!
And his advertising slogan, ‘Strong and Clear Signal on any Hotspots or Wi-Fi on Demand’.
Tapos duon sa fine print (6 or 7 point in size).
Only on designate coverage areas.
Mel says
@Johnny lin,
Hey máte, you asked ‘Where did you you read that?’
hahh? Where else máte, here at Raïssa Robles with a dot com.
Check the weblink again up above. The story title that Raïssa chose was a subtle presentation that there’s none, the accusation that PNoy was or is ‘Autistic’ is a MISNOMER. No proof, no medical nor psycho’s evidence nor credible official paper in the public domain nor stored somewhere. nada, ‘wala’, ‘awan’, ‘maed’, ‘alaa’.
The man is a GENTLEMAN! ibang klase kasi, hindi babaero, hindi sugalero, hindi bolero. hindi palikero. as it is. what you see, is what you get out of Noy. Iba lang ang ‘swagger’ kung maglakad, iba rin kung umasta’.
huwag kalilimutan ng taong bayan, Noy nearly died years ago, when he was ambushed, some of his bodyguards got killed, he has the effects left in his body of the wounds that nearly killed him.
the people who MAY have knowledge or something to do with that ambush is/are seating as Senadors and in other gov’t service. ibang klase talaga si Noy, marunong magpatawad at handang umabante kahit na…
I may sound bias or ‘all praise’. pero usisain ninyong mabuti.
mahilig lang sa sigarilyo – tulad ko. LOL!
agyaman ak
Gerardo Barrica says
Salamat mel sa pagkakita mo sa potential at weaknesses ng ating PNoy. Sasabihin na lang abno kasi nag gawa ng matino.
ba na talaga ngayon, ang tiwali ang siyang ipupuri.
Mel says
No worries bud[dy].
Bob’s your Uncle
intrigued says
@Mel–thanks for this piece- Pnoy is definitely not autistic. He has a good heart, good insights and has good established interpersonal relationships with his siblings, friends, colleagues and family. Ang makinarya at propagandists lamang ni Corona would stoop to this level na mag-akusa na there’s something mentally wrong with Pnoy.
Mel says
Hey @intrigued.
That’s it, máte.
Here is a better word, DEVIANT.
halimbawa, sa mga kalalakihan kung may isa na santo at walang bisyo (chickboy, sugalero) gaya ng kararamihan sa tropa, sususpetsahin mong charing o silahis. di bah?
pero kasama mo pa rin siya dahil, naiinggit ka rin dahil may prinsipyo siya, di bah?
Ginoo si Noy. May konsensiya siya. Malaking impluwensiya ang yumao niyang ina, at napakataas ang respeto niya sa mga kababaihan dahil marami siyang kapatid na babae. parang ‘do not do unto others, what you don’t want others to do unto your sisters‘.
kung ako lang, tatanawin kong ‘KUYA NG BAYAN’ si Noy.
Titignan muna niya ang kapakanan ng pamilya o ng bansa niya.
Gagawin niya ang makakabuti sa bayan.
O siya, tama na ang papuri, baka sabihin na miyembro ako ng yellow army at saradong maka PNOY. OO saradong maka PINOY!
dakal salamat keka yu ngan.
Anton Mendoza says
At maalala ko lang, si PNOY ay talagang hindi kunsintidor dahil noong panahon na may relasyon si Kris kay Joey Marquez, hindi niya kinausap si Kris ng ilang taon.ito ay sinabi mismo ni Kris on national TV.
Grace Mary A. Tan says
mahiya si corona sa sarili niya siya ang dapat magpatingin sa psychiatrist na doktor
jimmycoz says
…and mahilig din siya sa practical shooting using Glock just like me.
clementejak says
For Corona to saccumb and engaged Pnoy in a words of war only unmasked himself what kind of man he is.
It only reinforces what has been laid among the evidences that he is not a man of trust worthiness, integrity and propriety to occupy as chief of the highest court of the land.
He violated the most important code of judicial code, Canon 4
CANON 4
PROPRIETY
Propriety and the appearance of propriety are essential to the performance of all the
activities of a judge.
SECTION 1. Judges shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities.
The requirement that judges be free from impropriety or any appearance thereof is closely
related to the maintenance of integrity and promotion of confidence in the judiciary.
Judicial ethics cases decided before the adoption of this new Code were often decided on the grounds that improper acts tended to dilute public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the courts.
The new Code of Judicial Conduct significantly expands the provisions respecting the avoidance of impropriety. The new provisions on propriety complement and at times reiterate, principles also stated in the other canons, especially those on independence and integrity.
By prohibiting not only impropriety but even the appearance of impropriety, the code
recognizes that even acts that are not per se improper can nevertheless be perceived by the larger community as such. This is so because the community holds judges to higher standards of integrity and ethical conduct than attorneys and other persons not invested with public trust. For example, the United States Model Code of Judicial Conduct’s Commentary suggests that there is an appearance of impropriety when “the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge’s ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality and competence is impaired.”
The High Court held in a number of instances that acts done by a judge which are not illegal may still violate the Code of Judicial Ethics.Some examples include censure of a judge who heard cases on a day when he was supposed to be on official leave,and of another judge who heard a motion while on vacation, in his room dressed in a polo jacket.
In another case, the Court stated that even if there was no clear evidence of sexual congress between a judge and one of his subordinates, photos showing the two of them coming out of a hotel together was enough to give rise to the appearance of impropriety that the Code strongly warns against.
Under Philippine law, even a joking remark made by a judge to a litigant suggesting that the litigant prove he harbored no ill feelings towards the judge was improper,as was the admonition by a judge, after conducting a marriage ceremony, that the bride and groom should sexually satisfy each other so that they will not go astray.
In the United States, the judge’s own perception of motives is not relevant when considering the appearance of impropriety.For example, in one case, a Chief Judge’s racially insensitive remarks in a newspaper created an appearance of impropriety even though the judge alleged those remarks had been misinterpreted and did not reflect the judge’s personal beliefs. Because the comments “significantly eroded his ability to work effectively with all segments of the community in administering the courts,” the court removed the Chief Judge from his position.
The Philippine courts have also acknowledged the irrelevance of the judge’s perception of
impropriety. In Vidal v. Dojillo, the Court gave a reprimand with warning to Judge Dojillo for sitting beside the counsel for Dojillo’s brother in the hearing of an election protest filed by the latter. The Court was not convinced by Dojillo’s defense that he intended only to give moral support. As a judge, Dojillo should have known family concerns are only secondary to preserving the integrity of the judiciary as a whole.
SECTION 2. As a subject of constant public scrutiny, judges must accept personal restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly. In particular, judges shall conduct themselves in a way that is consistent with the dignity of the judicial office.
While judges are only human, their acceptance of the judicial position means that more is expected from them than from ordinary citizens, as their acts, both public and private, color the public’s perception of the judiciary as a whole. The New Code of Judicial Conduct requires judges to ensure not only that their conduct is above reproach, but also that it is perceived to be so by a reasonable observer. A judicial officer is subject to scrutiny for both public and private conduct. Such scrutiny is an unavoidable consequence of occupying a judicial position.Judges are thus held liable for acts that, if committed by any other person would not necessarily be deemed improper, including the use of intemperate language and succumbing to states of inebriation during parties.
Dignified conduct is best described as conduct befitting men and women possessed of
temperance and respect for the law and for others. Thus, the Supreme Court rebuked judges who made sexually suggestive advances to women, including inviting ladies to go with the judge and his companions to the beach,writing letters asking a married woman to come to the judge’s sala after five o’clock in the evening, and assigning a female stenographer to the judge’s chambers.A judge was similarly disciplined for confronting a former boyfriend and his female companion in a restaurant, and giving false and misleading information to the police.
SECTION 6. Judges, like any other citizen, are entitled to freedom of expression, belief,
association and assembly, but in exercising such rights, they shall always conduct themselves in such a manner as to preserve the dignity of the judicial office and the impartiality and independence of the Judiciary.
While judges are not expected to live a hermit-like existence or cease functioning as citizens of the Republic, they should remember that they do not disrobe themselves of their judicial office upon leaving their salas. In the exercise of their civil liberties, they should be circumspect and ever mindful that their continuing commitment to upholding the judiciary and its values places upon them certain implied restraints to their freedom.
A judge was admonished for the appearance of engaging in partisan politics when he participated in a political rally sponsored by one party, even though he only explained the mechanics of block voting to the audience.
The use of expletives is frowned upon by the Supreme Court. The court reprimanded a judge who used expletives like “putris” and “putang ina,” even thought they were not directed to any particular individual. In another case, the court found that the judge displayed unbecoming behavior by sarcastically commenting upon a complainant’s ability to read English and using phrases such as “moronic attitude,” “stupid,” and “putang inamo” to describe the complainant.
SECTION 7. Judges shall inform themselves about their personal fiduciary and financial
interests and shall make reasonable efforts to be informed about the financial interests of
members of their family.
This section of the New Code of Judicial Conduct should be read in conjunction with Section 7 of the Republic Act 6713, which prohibits certain personal fiduciary and financial conflicts.
“[A] judge shall refrain from financial and business dealings that tend to reflect adversely on the court’s impartiality, interfere with the proper performance of judicial activities, or increase involvement with lawyers or persons likely to come before the court.”When a judge, along with two other people, acted as real estate agents for the sale of a parcel of land for which he agreed to give a commission of P100,000 to each of his companions, and after the transaction was completed only gave the complainants P25,000 each, the high Court held that the judge violated the section of the prior Code of Judicial Conduct.
One way to avoid financial conflicts spawned by equity stock investments is to invest in
mutual funds because a holder of such funds is not considered to have a financial interest in the underlying stocks in the fund.
SECTION 13. Judges and members of their families shall neither ask for nor accept, any gift, bequest, loan or favor in relation to anything done or to be done or omitted to be done by him or her in connection with the performance of judicial duties.
This section should be read in conjunction with Section 7(d) of R.A. 6713 which prohibits
public officials from soliciting or accepting gifts. According to this provision:
Public officials and employees shall not solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any
gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or anything of money value from any person
in the course of their official duties or in connection with any operation being
regulated by, or any transaction which may be affected by the functions of their
office.
Thus, aside from constituting serious misconduct, the act of demanding and receiving
money or property from a litigant violates this provision of the Act. For example, a judge who accepts the free use of a car for a year or utilizes free battery charging services from the shop of the litigant or who allows a litigant to pay for the freight of for personal acquisitions also violates the Anti-Graft Law
telly c. bernardo says
Boy, it seems the senator-judges (and the prosecutors) missed this novel interpretation of the FCDU law! I think it’s brilliant. I’m glad I discovered your blog, Ms Robles. More power.
emmanuel42876 says
Sana tapusin na ng Prosecution ang presentation nila. For me, enough na for conviction ang article 2 re SALN issue. Excited na ako marinig paano dedepensahan ni Corona ang milyones na properties at pera sa bangko na hindi niya isiniwalat sa “sinumpaan” niyang SALN.
Kung ma-acquit siya, hindi constitutional crisis kundi “JUSTICE CRISIS” ang mangyayari sa Pilipinas dahil lahat ng nagsinungaling at magsisinungaling pa sa mga SALN nila eh ituturo ang desisyon kay Corona bilang depensa.
Hindi kailangang maging abogado o senador o mayaman o edukado para malaman na nagsinungaling si Corona sa SALN niya. Basta matino at parehas ang pag-iisip ng isang tao ay hindi pwedeng ikaila na lumabag si Corona sa batas na dapat ay siya ang maging huwaran sa pagpapatupad.
Akala ko ba CJ haharapin mo ang laban na ito? Na wala kang kinakatakutan? Bakit hindi mo pabuksan ngayon ang foreign currency bank accounts mo at ng magkaalaman na? Kung wala kang itinatago, isang napakalaking kahihiyan nito kay PNoy. Pagkakataon mo na na ipahiya ang Pangulo kung totoong malinis ang konsensya mo. At pwede mo na ring ipanawagan na magbitiw siya sa pwesto.
mieming says
Senator Judge Osmena go on …..pursue your line of questioning and please do expound your presentation linking your question to the direction you are taking. They are valuable.
Raissa, you are right. Both of you are on the same line of thinking. You outlined and presented the fine distinctions. These are tricky fine provisions. We sense Osmena is going to extract the information and in so doing, stumble and expose evidences.
You are so penetrating in dissecting the thin line of deposit, the transient of such deposit to the other banking instruments and the result… the end result of a transformed mode of transaction.
Nakakakiliti…following your theory …brings about the challenge of splitting phrases and re+reading the context of the provisions. Parang ….it is there but not yet.
I think the law was drafted in such a way that it could stand by itself but eventually overshadows some essential and vital elements. It is a trick and serves those who have the intention to profit from it.
The trick was on SCourt justices, on the Senate-Judges (except Osmena) and the prosecution. The defense?… well, they would not bother.
Raissa, your discerning eyes exposed the tricks underneath the shadows and deceptions disguise as of provisions of law. They intentionally did not define it.
Your not being a lawyer is actually an advantage. You can go out of the box or the legal narrow corridor of lawyers. This advantage is more appreciated by the majority of our people. They may not be able to write like you but they would easily understand and readily agree. They are tickled…. then they say ….tama! ang galing! talagang may tama ito si Renato Corona… sa utak…. manloloko…manluluko….manluloko…
Salute,Raissa…
raissa says
Thank you for reading :)
intrigued says
It’s good to know somebody in the Senate has his thinking cap on :)
Pinoyparin says
Read the INQUIRER article regarding the BGEI struggle between his wife and her relatives. Every corner of the Issue, the Thief Justice is there. Lalo na ang negotiations with Atienza the former Mayor of Manila.
Question RAISSA BAKA UMUBRA NA NAMAN ANG KAKULITAN MO
1- If there is no board resolution authorising MR. Corona to negotiate with the City government of Manila represented by Atienza or authorized representative paano nagawa ng mga Corona na maibenta?
2- Atienza was a very close ally of Pandak and Corona is Chief of Staff it will do the trick. but hard evidence is required.
3- Significant Asset of the BGEI ends up in the name of Thief Justice KAYA NGA SABI NIYA HINDI SIYA NAKIKIALAM HE HE HE EH PAANO NAPUNTA NA SA KANYA HINDI SA ASAWA NA KASALI SA PROBLEMA HA HA HA HA
GANYAN KATINDI ANG UTAK NI CORONA PAREHAS NA PAREHAS NI PANDAK AND JOSE PIDAL. KAYA AYUN DI PA MAILIBING LIBING. SI MARCOS BA NAILIBING NA?
CORONA MAGPAKATOTOO KA BAWASAN ANG PAGSISINUNGALING BAKA MAGAYA KA SA MGA NABANGGIT.
KAWAWA PO ANG SAMBAYANANG PILIPINO
Isderhope 4RP says
SA NEXT LIFE NALANG TAYO BUMAWI
So we have all these things with Corona seeming too powerful over all things. Sa SC dalawa lang ang nagdidissent pero wala rin. So papano na tayo, ganon na lang.
I reallly feel na hindi kaya ng bayan si corona, he’s just the most powerful guy around. Look at his lawyers, the nerve to accuse the Impeachment Court na full of bribe-able wimpy politicians and they got away with it. Nag alma ba, nagsisigaw ba si Defensor ng harap harapang akusahan silang puwedeng bayaran? (Samantalang sa boses lang ni Atty Arthur Lim ng Prosec,sabi nya wala kang respecto huwag mo akong bastusin,ayoko ng boses mo, at ikaw Tupas huwag mo kaming insultohin sa kawalan mo ng kaalaman sa procedures, yung pagiging bobo mo nakakainsulto sa aming matatalino) Ano ang sagot nila mula kay enrile hanggang kay recto-oo Corona tama kayo me jurisdiction sa amin yung SC. Isa pang sagot nila is taken from Honasan but this time threatening the Prosec na mapapahamak. So kung hindi pala umapela si Pnoy sa House na iimpeach si corona at kung hindi nagimpeachment, sabit pala talaga yung program of government natin. Ngayon lang natin nasukat yung extent ng lakas at at breadth ni GLOCOR Sindikato. Bale, doom na pala talaga from the start yung boto nating magbago ang kalakaran ng gobyerno. Imposible nag malinis na kalakaran. Eh kitamg kita mo ngayon yung bagsik ng sindikato ng GLOCOR-sabit ka pag binangga mo, kaya pala pati si Ping ganon ganon na lang numg araw kung maasar kay Gloria noon, buti hindi siya dinale. Ngayon the SC had the Impeachment Court,by the balls, pulpol pala yung yabang ni enrile at Defensor noon na “we are the sole trier and decider of (letseng) Impeachment.” Ngayon etong si (so young and so corr-ona) Jimeno, biglang nagkalakas ng loob na takutin yung nga prosec na makukulong. Para bang sinasabi ni corona na “eh ano ngayon me reklamo, kaya nyo ba kami?” Makinig sa radyo parang pinahahalagahan pa ang posisyon ng pagnanakaw sa bayan under the guise of protecting Corona’s rights.Manood ka ng TV, puro mga alyado ni corona ang nagsasalita, nabili sigurio yung blocktime (sa dami ba naman ng pera, ano pa ang hindi nya kayang bilhin). Miski si Pinoy, hanggang reklamo lang sa media sabay buwelta naman si corona na nagsesermon pa at parang nagsasabing Bobo tumigil ka. Saan ka naman nakakita ng ang linaw na nagkasala sa bayan, kulang nalang na kutusan yung Pangulong hinalal natin. Bilang mamamayan, saan tayo tatakbo kung hindi siya kaya ni Pinoy, yung Senado sana, pulpol pala, yung SC hawak nya sa bayag, media nanginginig sa kanya, Sa House, sasalubunguin ni JImeno at Esguerra ng sandamukal na kaso. Sa simbahang Katoliko, sabi ni Bishop Oscar cruz, abusado si Pinoy, sa mga Universities sabi ni Fr Bernas ng Ateneo tama ang Supreme Court puwedeng pakialaman yung Impeachment Court SA San Beda Law si Fr Aquno sabi tama si corona. Sa Inquirer at philstar hindi makasingit magkomento at pinutakte ng makakorona. Saan ka nakakita ng makacorona na kahit dito (si @truth_seeker) hinahamon pa tayong sige nga magrally kayo kung hindi kayo langawin.
Pagka ganito kalakas ang kalaban ng bayan: mga matatalinong gangsters (na nagaral sa Harvard/Georgetown at well connected with their mga sigang abugado at mga nagpahirap sa bayan noong araw , sa next life ka nalang makakabawi,
pelang says
tsk! tsk! tsk! totoo ang sinabi mo. kahit papano, kuha pa rin natin sa people power. kahit lousy man pakinggan, iyon lang talaga ang pag-asa natin. at saka, hindi natin kalaban ang presidente katulad ng marcos noon at panay mga bata na ngayon ang mga general. mag-rally sa harapan ng SC araw-araw!
intrigued says
@Isderhope 4RP—Tama at sang ayon ako sa iyong mga tinuran. Nakakapesteng panoorin ang mga Red shirts na nagra-rally para kay Corona. Kapag di ma-impeach itong Thief Justice it’s time for another people power. Hay naku kaawa-awang Inang Bayan.