Inside Philippine politics & beyond

Nearly 500 incredible photographs on People Power 1983 to 1986 in Trinoma QC up to Monday evening

Share:
LinkedIn0
Pinterest0

By Raïssa Robles

I urge everyone to drop by the Theater Level in Trinoma Mall (Quezon City) to view nearly 500 incredible photographs snapped by veteran photo journalist Sonny Camarillo.

I guarantee you, you will weep when you see these powerful photographs. Such as the one below taken in Luneta during the funeral of Ninoy –

When Ninoy Aquino’s coffin passed by Luneta. Photo by Sonny Camarillo. All Rights Reserved.

I met Sonny while covering a protest rally after Ninoy Aquino died.. Probably seeing that I was new to covering rallies, he took me by the hand and guided me. He told me where to position myself so that I could anticipate the action. He told me how to sniff out danger.

This year, Sonny has mounted an incredible collection of all the photos he took during the period starting with Ninoy’s wake and funeral to the Edsa People Power in 1986.

The photographs show the flowering of People Power.

After viewing them, you will realize how incredible it was that we did as a nation, kicking out a Dictator long past his shelf life with our bare hands.

People have asked me whether by siding with those who kicked out Marcos I was being biased against the Marcoses.

Let me put it this way. The Marcoses destroyed democracy. The media is a pillar of democracy for its role is to help guarantee the accountability of leaders who hold power. Which is why I was for the restoration of democracy in 1986.

What we have done with that democracy is another story.

If there is one thing you still have to do to mark the 30th anniversary of Edsa People Power, it is to view Sonny’s photographs.

Hurry. They are there for viewing only until 9 PM of Monday evening, February 29.

Comments

  1. A top official of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in the Philippines on Saturday lauded the recent landmark ruling of the Supreme Court allowing Senator Grace Poe to run for president in the May elections, saying the decision favored “foundlings as citizens.”

    “We welcome this development to recognize foundlings as citizens of the Philippines. The country has a strong humanitarian tradition of international protection in support of those at risk of being stateless,” said Bernard Kerblat, UNHCR representative in the country.

    “UNHCR commends the government of the Philippines for its ongoing efforts to consider acceding to the 1961 Convention, which establishes an international framework to ensure the right of every person to a nationality by establishing safeguards to prevent statelessness,” he added.

    http://thestandard.com.ph/news/-main-stories/top-stories/202135/un-agency-lauds-sc-tack-on-foundlings.html

    John Paolo Bencito continued his report with…

    “This significant decision from the Supreme Court is an important step in the country’s history and once again, the Philippines is a shining example of humanitarianism in taking concrete steps to reduce statelessness in the region. It sets a positive example that member states may wish to follow,” Kerblat added.

    So, nagpasikat kaya ang Korte Suprema natin o sadyang napag-utusan/nadiktahan???

    O talagang Obligasyon lang walang Personalan???

    Kaya nga tama ang ‘pangitain’ ko noon, eh!

    In a hurry lang…pero siguro ‘to be continued’ ito…

    • Now, it can not only be said but it can also be DONE –

      on ANY ELECTIONS in the ‘Pinas, a CoC new form by COMELEC has a ‘corner’ to fill up for CANDIDATES –

      . . . ‘Citizenship: [Natural-Born Filipino – BS]

      ‘Being Stateless’ for “BS”.

      Also, any person can GET ‘CtC’ = Community Tax Certificate = ‘NBFC- BS’.

      Also, any person MAY now be APPOINTED to any gov’t OFFICE – one of the credentials: ‘NBFC-BS’ for citizenship query.

      SC allowed ONE and it will be HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS from hereon. A lot of BS.

      Welcome . . . BS!

      • unhcr come to the defense of our belaguered supreme court, under attack kasi ang supreme court natin. gotta keep up the status quo, so in the future, unhcr can dump more refugees in our compassionate shores.

        • in a way, unhcr is trying to silence those criticizing the supreme court’s decision as regards foundling. dapat no opposition tayo, dapat no motion for recon, dapat obey tayo, no questions asked, dapat yuko tayong lahat to esteemed supreme court, not buts, no ifs.

          goodbye, constitution; hello, unchr.

    • “nagpasikat man, o sadyang napag-usapan/nadiktahan o talagang obligasyon lang walang personalan”

      ang sigaw ng mga mamamayan NOBODY IS ABOVE THE LAW. FOLLOW AND OBEY THE CONSTITUTION!

      • On the part of the US Supreme Court in some cases involving International laws, Mr. Noah Fieldman interviewee said of this –

        . . . “The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in March 2008 (Medellin v. Texas) that U.S. states were not bound by International Court of Justice judgment on staying the execution of a Mexican national, running counter to Bush administration wishes.”

        “In a separate judgment (PDF) (Boumediene v. Bush) in June 2008, the court gave Guantanamo Bay detainees the right to have federal judges review the reason for their detention. That also challenged the White House, this time on its policy of detaining non-enemy combatants. CFR Adjunct Senior Fellow Noah Feldman says the rulings could send confusing signals to the rest of the world about U.S. compliance with international obligations. ”

        “On the death penalty case, he says, the most important foreign policy consequence is that “legal institutions of the United States including the Supreme Court are very nervous about submitting the United States to the judgment of these international bodies.”

        “So taking one of the rulings, the death penalty ruling, it calls into question something like seventy other U.S. treaties of a similar nature. Going forward, does this mean Congress has to weigh in explicitly on these?

        “Yes, with respect to the series of agreements, many of them bilateral but some of them multilateral. Potentially there are even more than those seventy if one extrapolates. In any case where the treaty is arguably ambiguous with respect to whether it should be treated as law in a U.S. court, it is now fairly clear that it will not be treated as law in the U.S. courts unless Congress weighs in. That means that if you’re another country trying to figure out what we’re going to do, your safest bet is to assume we’re not going to apply that treaty in our own courts unless Congress makes a special determination to that effect.”

        Is there AMBIGUITY in ‘that’ Treat or International Law(s) the SC 7 accepted in the Poe cases that OUR Congress should WEIGH IN?

        Read the LINK below. . .

        • “Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008), is a United States Supreme Court decision that held that even if an international treaty may constitute an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless Congress has enacted statutes implementing it or unless the treaty itself is “self-executing.” Also, the Court held that decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law and that, without authority from the United States Congress or the Constitution, the President of the United States lacks the power to enforce international treaties or decisions of the International Court of Justice.

          Link

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medell%C3%ADn_v._Texas

        • Constitution is supreme against a treaty. . . the latter will make the Constitution SELF-DESTRUCTIVE –

          “HERE ARE THE CLEAR IRREFUTABLE FACTS: The U.S. Supreme Court has made it very clear that

          1) Treaties do not override the U.S. Constitution.
          2) Treaties cannot amend the Constitution. And last,

          3) A treaty can be nullified by a statute passed by the U.S. Congress (or by a sovereign State or States if Congress refuses to do so), when the State deems a treaty the performance of a treaty is self-destructive. The law of self-preservation overrules the law of obligation in others. When you’ve read this thoroughly, hopefully, you will never again sit quietly by when someone — anyone — claims that treaties supercede the Constitution. Help to dispell this myth.

          “This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.” – Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.

          Did our own SC 7 amend our Constitutions under the Poe decision?

  3. Elfren Cruz, 3/20/2016, Philstar:

    “…Two years ago, Global Finance Integrity, an international anti-corruption group, released a report that for the period 2001 to 2010, $5.86 trillion in illicit funds were illegally moved from developing countries to tax havens. According to that report, 60 percent to 65 percent was from tax evasion and 30 percent to 35 percent from criminal activities. The top 10 developing countries with the highest illicit cash outflows were China ($2.74 trillion), Mexico $276 billion) Malaysia ($285 billion), Saudi Arabia ($210 billion), Russia ($152 billion), Philippines ($138 Billion), Nigeria ($123 billion), India ($123 billion), Indonesia ($109 billion) and UAE ($105 billion).

    Since that time, almost every country in the list – including China – has taken additional steps to try and curtail money laundering in their country. The Philippines is the notable exception.

    The 2008 global financial meltdown was partly caused by illegal banking practices which escaped noticed because of lack of government monitoring and regulation. In 2009, the world’s 20 leading economies met in a Group of 20 summit in London and part of its communiqué said: “ the era of banking secrecy is over.” While the rest of the world has pursued bank accountability reforms by relaxing secrecy laws, the Philippines has gone against this global trend.

    The World Bank has pointed out that laundered illegal funds are detrimental to economic development. Instead of investment in productive channels, these funds are placed in “sterile” investments like luxury estates, jewelry, art, and high value investments like luxury automobiles which do not generate additional productivity for the economy. The purpose is to preserve the value of these laundered funds and make them easily transferrable. Imagine the tremendous benefits to our people if the $138 billion money laundered had been invested properly.”

  4. NO ONE IS ABOVE THE CONSTITUTION!

    By Yvonne

    U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antolin Scalia said that laws change when voters call for changes but the Constitution should not change through the rulings of judges. The Constitution does not change with society’s mores. “It’s a legal document… It means what it says and it doesn’t mean what it doesn’t say,” he said.

    That is why the recent Supreme Court ruling favoring Grace Poe’s candidacy is generating strong backlash against the Court for what is seen as a political accommodation of a leading candidate with strong clout with the country’s oligarch and power brokers.

    Poe might have won the battle but not the war. She failed to gain judicial capital from the Supreme Court because the 9-6 decision only serve to highlight the strongly fragmented and politicized Court. Two justices provided the swing votes that could have altered the result to 7-8 in the opposite direction. And there is no harmony or meeting of the minds even among the majority.

    The silver lining in the Supreme Court decision is that it exposed as blatant lie the sob story that foundlings are at big disadvantage in our society. If there is need for proof that foundlings have as much access to the opportunities that our country can offer to everyone else look no farther than Grace Poe who received economic gains and political clout, that remain just a dream for majority of Filipinos, in spite of her renouncing her Filipino citizenship at one time. Who cares anymore about loyalty and patriotism? Drop your Filipino citizenship if you wanted to send a message of independence to your parents! Drop your husband’s name if it suited you politically! Everything is fair game now, or so it seems.

    The other silver lining in the Court decision is that it totally blows away the mesmerizing siren call of the so-called “independent” candidate. If there is any travesty of our democratic system, it is not the story of Grace Poe. It is the story of thousands of patriotic Filipinos represented by the likes of Rizalino David who were disqualified by the COMELEC just because they do not have the financial resources to run a national campaign.

    Yes, Grace Poe the “independent” candidate have the resources to run a national campaign; she also has the resources to mount an assault at the Supreme Court, and at the social media, with a team of high caliber, high-priced legal counsels, the likes of Rizalino David cannot afford.

    Grace Poe has given new meaning to the word “independent” candidate. When she ran for senator as “independent” candidate she was “independent” enough to spend P129,109,598 for her senatorial campaign. Among others, she received P10 million cash each from businessmen Edwin Lee Luy, Michael de Leon Escaler, and Thomas Ang Tan; P7,500,00 from John Paul Ang; P5,000,000 each from Bryan Uy Villanueva, Edward So Lim, Kasigod Ver Jamias, Paolo Espiritu Campus. And many more!

    How much is she receiving now that she is running for the highest office of government? And from whom? We will not know until after the elections. But surely, it pays to become an “independent” candidate!

      • @ Leona, how about this? Now this is really free for all, so the non- Filipino citizens who are at least 2 years in the country, willing and able to vote for their choice can be allowed to vote. If the strict requirements can be waived for the presidential runners, then it follows that those in the land who wanted to participate are allowed, any citizen, dual or natural, why not, they are only voters.

        Born Spree! . . . BS.

        Vote Spree!…… BS.
        Don’t forget to keep your receipts, refund or exchanges only after 6years :)

        • netty . . . if ‘the non-Filipino citizens’ are ALLOWED to VOTE. . .

          . . . talo:

          si VP Binay,
          si Grace Poe,
          si Du30, and
          si Miriam!

          MAR ROXAS and LENI ROBREDO WINS by TWO MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND VOTES . . . abante!

          ha ha ha

  5. Poe reading a lot, being briefed by experts for Cebu debate

    http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/775129/poe-reading-a-lot-being-briefed-by-experts-for-cebu-debate

    She really doesn’t have a mind of her own yet, relying on others to do the thinking for her. Anyway, she can still prepare and be ready for the debate with all the briefings from the experts, and perhaps she wouldn’t fare bad considering the other participants except Roxas and Santiago are intellectual lightweights like her to reckon with. But even if she fared well that doesn’t mean that she’s ready to assume the presidency. You may buy and read all the books on how to win in the casino but it doesn’t mean you will surely win when doing the actual gambling. As many gamblers would tell you, you will burn lots of money before you will succeed. And that’s the danger of her being elected. And that’s because you cannot trust her doing the right thing as the people around her, the people behind supporting and financing her candidacy, are unscrupulous politicians and greedy businessmen ready to pounce on whatever they can get to take advantage of her being neophyte in politics and inexperience in governance. If that’s the case, bewail the sad and sorry fate that awaits this nation if she wins.

    • Funny how desperate people resort to clutching at straws.

      Akala ko ba walang alam (“neophyte and inexperience”) si GP. Bakit kayo takot na takot?

      Kasi po… may galing at may puso na, masipag at matatag pa.

      • grace’s heart belongs to danding cojuangco, hati sila ni chiz. we are not takot of grace, what we are takot of is what she can do to the country and to us, the people.

        • Senator Poe was ZERO MILES PER HOUR in helping facilitate the multi-billion peso coco levy fund for the farmers but she was so quick in putting the blame on PNoy on the Mamasapano issue. Though the Mamasapano operation succeeded in preventing a bomb maker from making more bombs, her committee has no recognition for this. If she is capable of taking action so quickly in the Senate committee, why did she not apply her quickness in helping avoid the stagnation of the coco levy that could have created lots of job opportunities for the coco farmers.

      • not afraid of grace poe but look around at her campaign supporters ALL CRONIES of MARCOS: the king of all DANDING COJUANGCO. don’t forget who was fpj to marcos and susan roces and rosemarie to grace poe llamanzares. the grandfather of grace poe llamanzares is the crony of marcos. the father of chiz escudero is the crony of marcos.

        talagang takot na takot kami para sa kinabukasan ng aming mga anak at sa kanilang magiging mga anak. KAYO po, gusto nyo din po bang matatakot kami sa iyo, bilang isang CRONING corrupt? (forgive me if and only if HINDI pa po kayo affiliated sa mga CRONNING CORRUPT).

        • correction po. the grandfather of grace poe llamanzares’ husband, niel llamanzares was also a marcos crony.

          it is also known that the husband of grace poe llamanzares is an employee of danding cojuangco as an IT expert.

        • puppet yang si grace, instead of strings, she’s in fiber optics pulled by puppet programmer danding cojuangco.

        • ang ganitong klaseng sitwasyon ang hindi nakikita ng mga supporters ng 2 independent candidates. our country will turn out like an opera house and the puppets will perform the way the fiber optics are being pulled. cronies enjoyed but the poor people are suffering sa koko ng lagim.

    • @T2 MAC. Well spoken. @Poerengtony. T2 MAC is speaking from solid ground. No need for straws.

  6. In USA citizens are allowed to participate as jurors in the judicial proceedings. What is holding us back from adopting such kind of Judicial System? Our present justice system should stop using “internal rules of court rule” in deciding a case. It’s not part of the Constitution.

  8. Comment # 185 : A differing view (by Homobono Adaza)

    The vicious attacks
    I was shocked to read the vicious attacks against Senator Grace Poe and the Supreme Court after the release of the Supreme Court decision. I never thought that people who pretend to have intelligence and education could come out with such vicious, ignorant and irrational attacks against Senator Poe and the SC. There are several reasons why I am passionately enraged. First, I hate ignorant and irrational discussion in any form. Second, I have no respect for arguments offered by people who are not authorities on the subject.
    Third, there is no room for argumentum ad hominem in a civilized discussion; that may be good for gutter politicians, who constitute the rule in our society, but not for polite and decent company. Fourth, I dislike the approach of people who lecture to us on honesty and morality when they have no basis for doing so considering their background. Fifth, I rage against injustice in any form.
    What these attackers should do?
    If these attackers do not like the decision, why don’t they just argue their position well, so the people can consider whether they are right or wrong? They don’t have to malign Senator Poe and the justices who rendered the decision in favor of Poe and the foundlings.
    The rule in decent debate and conversation is to avoid going into the motives, character and qualifications of Senator Poe and the justices; discuss the issues and present your legal and factual arguments for examination by your audience.
    Let’s leave the justices out of the public discussion and spare Senator Poe of the viciousness that characterizes street political debate in this country and in the world for that matter. Let’s just argue with a high degree of civility by presenting our arguments well.
    Since a motion for reconsideration is obviously an exercise in futility, the vicious attackers have these options: First, take the issue to the people and intensify their campaign against Senator Poe so she will not be elected President. Second, file an impeachment case against the justices that they hate under Section 2, Article XI of the Constitution. Third, mount a revolution under Section 1 or 3 of Article II of the Constitution, if they have the means, guts and intelligence that are necessary for victory.
    And let’s see how good they are. In the meantime, they should not pollute the air with their vicious, ignorant and irrational arguments.
    First things first
    These are things people should know about me. For the moment, I do not believe that elections will pave the way for the choice of a national leader, that is why I have no candidate for President, Vice-President or senators. Anyhow, my endorsement has no pragmatic value in electing any of these officials. I have shed off membership in all political parties except my own, which is for now dormant, the Mindanao Alliance. I have no ambition to be President or anything else except that I am working for a change of system. I believe in this country and the validity of my ideas, vision and principles. I don’t get disturbed by what people say of me or my writings – they can go to Hell for all I care. I will just do what is right.
    I believe in a peaceful constitutional revolution. If it is no longer possible, I believe in what President John F. Kennedy once said: “Those who make peaceful revolutions impossible render violent revolutions inevitable.”
    Back to Senator Poe, foundlings and the SC
    I am neither a campaigner nor supporter of Senator Poe; she has enough campaigners and supporters to elect her president. She does not need my vote. I am not a defender of the Supreme Court; the members are old enough to defend themselves and the institution. I am writing this piece as a contribution to intelligent, rational and civil discussion on the subject of foundlings and whether Senator Poe can run for president of this country. So let us go back to basics.
    What is a foundling? It is child found after it is abandoned by unknown parents.
    What is the citizenship of a foundling in the Philippines before the decision? There is no law in the Philippine, before the decision, which defines the citizenship of a foundling.
    In the absence of such law, who is empowered by the Constitution of the Philippines to resolve that issue if there is a case before the courts or any of her institutions? The body or institution which has the sole power to make that determination is the Supreme Court
    (SC) under section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution
    Why must the SC rule on the issue? It is because the Constitution says so and it is a legal doctrine in this jurisdiction that law abhors a vacuum and there is an existing vacuum in our laws on that particular issue.
    Absent the existence of such law that will resolve the issue on the citizenship of foundlings, what is the remaining point of reference of the SC to provide the answer to this question?
    There is nothing, except section 3, paragraph y of Rule 131 of the Rules of Court (RC) which states that “Disputable presumptions. – The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be contradicted and overcome by other evidence: …(y) That things have happened in the ordinary course of nature and the ordinary habits of life;”
    What is the ordinary course of nature and the ordinary habits of life? That the disputable
    presumption that foundling abandoned in the Philippines, as in the case of Senator Poe, is that her parents are Filipino citizens.
    Why should that be the disputable presumption? Because it is the ordinary course of nature and natural habits that only a Filipino parent/s could have left a foundling in the Philippines. It is absurd to imagine that a foreign parent/s would come to the Philippines just to abandon a child. And in this jurisdiction, under the rules of statutory interpretation, one should not give a law or rule an absurd interpretation?
    That being the case, what then is the citizenship of a foundling? Of course, she/he is a natural-born Filipino citizen. Being a natural-born citizen, he/she, as in the case of Senator Poe, can run for President under section 2, Article VII of the Constitution.
    Can the disputable be disputed and overcome? Yes, under section 1, Rule 131, if the one who disputes the presumption can present any credible contrary evidence.
    In the case of Senator Poe, have the claimants who maintain that she is not a natural-born Filipino citizen presented any contrary evidence to support their claim? Absolutely, none!
    This in a nutshell is the case of Senator Poe. Any other interpretation is not consistent with our laws and the English language.

    • Good point. Others may not agree but it is crystal clear that Adaza is still him.
      I cannot help but remember him during the canvassing of the 1986 snap elections at the Batasang Pambansa.

      His queries of Speaker Yniguez and Marcos minions on the manner of canvassing were always overruled but not before Marcos puppets were made to look like intellectual buffoons.

      Same breath but reverse portion. Remember “Mr. Noted” during the 2004 canvassing of elections between GMA and FPJ. Baligtad naman sitwasyon yun.

      • Mr Noted is leading the senatorial race after overtaking Sotto.

        Ang LP ni Mar, Mr Noted, Secretaries Abad at Abaya ay ibang iba sa LP ni Jovito Salonga, Ninoy Aquino, at Wigberto Tanada.

        • Atty. Homobono Adaza, a legal diminutive middleweight, is entitled to his legal opinions – and so are the likes of legal heavyweights AJ Antonio Carpio, Teresita Leonardo de Castro, Arturo Brion, Estela Perlas-Bernabe, and Bienvenido Reyes who ruled the contrary views that Poe is not an NBFC but only a naturalized citizen for being a foundling with unknown parents.

          Moreover, Atty. Adaza was suspended by the SC for 6 months in the practice of law for failure to comply with the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) under Administrative case No. 9834 promulgated on 8/26/15. He could have forgotten his legal obligation due to advancing age.

    • I do not know if Atty. Homobono Adaza is also an ‘expert’ on this legal issue of Sen. Poe. A very good lawyer too.

      I think he is over 80 years old also but lives and moves like he’s in his 50s and was suspended by the SC on non-MCLE compliance. He is a natural great guy to engage in any topic.

      ‘Vicious attacks’ – he starts his opinion on the Poe case. Like vicious dogs attacking viciously Sen. Poe and the Court. That is FREE SPEECH and of the Press. If he expects some hundred or thousands of Filipinos to SWALLOW in silence the SC decision, that is swallowing viciously too. A worst situation. During the Martial Law years some said against ones’ interest – ‘49,990,100’ Filipinos were cowards.’ Baka si Atty. was one of the braves.

      ‘Vicious ignorant and irrational attacks’ – by some people pretending with high I.Q. and education. These people are not entitled to his respect. So be it. People are also enraged in their attacks: as some justices do not know how to count due to error that 7 is majority of 15.

      ‘No room for argumentum ad hominem’ – what can some of the people do when simple Math is wrong. When the error is insisted – the only cure is attack AD HOMINEM the wrong justices insisting wrong answers in the Math and the decision.

      ‘Dislike the approach of people who lecture on honesty and morality’ – who is he directing this – the 7 justices? Congress? And public officials et.als.? The PEOPLE? Some of the PEOPLE? My Golly! People have every right to say their ‘attacks in lecture form. Mag PASALAMAT si Atty. it’s not yet physical attacks by the PEOPLE.

      ‘Rage against injustice in any form’ – what injustice? The decision of the 7 in the Poe case? The Atty. should RAGE! And OBJECT like he did during that COUNTING session at the BATASAN – ‘I OBJECT! . . .’Objection Noted!’

      His RECOMMENDATIONS:

      ‘If these attackers do not like the decision’ – Kaya nga uma-attack because they surely do not like the decision! It’s not ‘if’ anymore and that THEY ARE RIGHT together with the 6 dissenting justices.

      ‘They have to malign Senator Poe’ – Let Sen. Poe defend herself on it.

      ‘Avoid going to the motives, character and qualifications of Sen. Poe’ – attacks cannot be selective like the style of Atty. Adaza, a gentleman. Mixing these with the issues, legal and factual arguments is palatable for the public consumption. Free Speech yan. Did Atty. Adaza say something what Mayor Du30 said about Pope Francis’ coming here? I heard NONE. As a lawyer and a gentleman the Attorney should have condemned Du30’s words as AD HOMINEM also. Against Mar Roxas – not circumcized daw. Any recommendation to Du30?

      ‘Leave the justices out of public discussion’ – Ano yun? GAG and GAGGING the PEOPLE? Only lawyers allowed to be noisy in and out of the courtrooms?

      ‘M.R. an exercise in futility’ – pa guapo si Atty. sa supreme court. . . suspended siya kasi. Return to practice na Attorney?

      ‘Just campaign against Sen. Poe’ – there is on-going campaign Attorney.

      ‘Impeach case against the justices’ – only Lower House and for conviction by the Senate.

      ‘Mount a revolution’ – aha! You recommend that Attorney? You are CHALLENGING the People on that. Will you JOIN? Or remain SILENT?

      ‘People should know about me’ – I know you a little but why should PEOPLE know about you? Are you THINKING of something?

      ‘I have no candidate for P, VP or senators’ – So, why tell the People about that?

      ‘people won’t disturb you whatever they say about it. . . they can go to HELL for all you care’ – VICIOUS! ha ha ha

      ‘Back to Senator Poe’ – his last – “am writing this piece as a contribution to intelligent, rational and civil discussion on FOUNDLINGS’ – nothing VICIOUS. Nothing IRRATIONAL. Nothing IGNORANT. – to People who attacks.

      ‘There is no law in the Philippine, before the decision, which defines the citizenship of a foundling.’ – No law. Can SC legislate when there is no law?

      ‘Law abhors a vacuum’ – So SC fills up that vacuum by legislation and not any other legal and acceptable way?

      ‘And in this jurisdiction, under the rules of statutory interpretation, one should not give a law or rule an absurd interpretation?’ – That what the SC just did!

      ‘What then is the citizenship of a foundling? Of course, she/he is a natural-born Filipino citizen.’ – Of course! But that is ABSURD is it not? You’re the extra 8th VOTE then.

      ‘The claimants who maintain that she is not a natural-born Filipino citizen presented any contrary evidence to support their claim? Absolutely, none! –
      So also Sen. Poe NO EVIDENCE despite claiming SHE IS NATURAL BORN Filipino citizen! Absolutely none! The ‘FIRST’ affirmative claim counts first before what the claimants claim, the latter knowing that Sen. Poe cannot present evidence on her claim on COC for P and other SIGNED documents UNDER OATH, the reason why claimants did claim she is not NBFC.

      The ‘piece’ is nuts. But I like to eat peanuts btw.

        • bono is one voice of opinion.
          he can run for congress and put up a bill to shut the mouth of the vicious others. hehehe.
          napikon kaya lumutang na rin.
          he can’t monopolize people’s voices.

          on the otherhand, i believe poe knew her bio parents ever since.
          she can’t present the truth as it run counter to the old script/ palabas(na siya ay pulot).
          who believes na pulot siya?
          kaya hayun, nasa closet ang kanilang nagdudumilat na lihim na matagal nang alamat.

          paano pala kung nai-share na yun sa marvelous and serene niners?

      • Yes, well argued. Bono also ignores the 1.5 million foreigners in the Philippines of which only around 200,000 are registeted (600 illegal chinese workers arrested in Batangas power plant 2014) in making his case for foundlings to be automatically NBFC.
        He is clearly a closet Poe supporter despite claims to the contrary.

        • On Page 24 of SC decision – abandoning their children. . .

          – ” Filipinos abandon their children out of poverty or perhaps, shame.
          We do not imagine foreigners abandoning their children here in the
          Philippines thinking those infants would have better economic
          opportunities or believing that this country is a tropical paradise suitable for raising abandoned children. I certainly doubt whether a foreign couple has ever considered their child excess baggage that is best left behind.”

          Suppose by LAW of the father’s country provides that HIS children FOLLOWS his citizenship: like if the father is a Chinese citizen.

          Here is that J. Perez’ OPN on Page 24:

          ” From 1965 to 1975, the total number of foreigners born in the
          Philippines is 15,986 while the total number of Filipinos born in the Philippines is 15,558,278. For this period, the ratio of non-Filipino children is 1 :661. This means that the statistical probability that any child born in the Philippines on that decade would be a natural born Filipino is 99.83%.          ”

          Suppose the ‘Father’ is a Chinese national? Or the ‘Mother’ is a Chinese national? Or both parents are Chinese nationals?

          By Chinese law, birth abroad to Chinese nationals jus sanguinis or ‘by blood’ is the rule. Although Article 4 of their law on nationality has not yet settled this situation for a child born in a foreign country.

          Article 5 also states that a person born outside China to parent(s) with Chinese nationality, does not have Chinese nationality if a foreign nationality is acquired at birth and one of the Chinese national parents (or both) has gained that country’s permanent residency.

          Features of Grace Poe could also be that of a child of Chinese descent.

          Link on Chinese nationality

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationality_law_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China

        • I disagree on the logic. Unwanted children are abandoned and otherwise disposed of all over the world.
          Many of the illegal foreigners in PI are poor and from nearby Asian countries who may not want to be encumbered by a newborn child during their quest for wealth.
          The data quoted is 40 years old. The Philippines and the World are different places now.

      • I’m jealous !!

        You’re freaken good !! you humiliated parengtony with cheezzy bombshell and all !!

    • You said, ”I will just do what is right.”
      What is right for you could be everyone else’s folly.

      You said, ” If these attackers do not like the decision, why don’t they just argue their position well, so the people can consider whether they are right or wrong?’
      …that’s exactly what Carpio did. http://www.rappler.com/nation/politics/elections/2016/125509-sc-justice-carpio-dissent-grace-poe-citizenship

      You say,’ These are things people should know about me.’
      i say,” i don’t really care…you megalomaniac!! ”

    • “Second, I have no respect for arguments offered by people who are not authorities on the subject.”

      This presumption actually invalidates your point, because a suspended lawyer is no longer a lawyer which makes you non authority on the subject matter. Hence I will take your advice and will not respect your arguments. Justice Carpio though I would say is an authority on the subject, so I respect his arguments.

  9. End the Bank Secrecy law in the Philippines. Switzerland and European Union have DONE IT.

    – ‘The European Union and Switzerland have signed a tax transparency agreement that will put an end to Swiss banking secrecy for EU residents. The sides will start automatically sharing data on residents’ financial accounts from 2018.

    “Today’s agreement heralds a new era of tax transparency and cooperation between the EU and Switzerland. It is another blow against tax evaders, and another leap towards fairer taxation in Europe,” European commissioner for economic and financial affairs, Pierre Moscovici, said in a press release on Wednesday.

    The shared data will include names, addresses, tax identification numbers and dates of birth, as well as a broad set of other financial and account balance information, according to the document.

    “This new transparency should not only improve Member States’ ability to track down and tackle tax evaders, but it should also act as a deterrent against hiding income and assets abroad to evade taxes,” the press release said.” –

    Reason(s): Track HIDDEN MONEY and ASSETS of TAX EVADERS, etc.

    In the USA, it is –

    “The Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act of 1970 (which legislative framework is commonly referred to as the “Bank Secrecy Act” or “BSA”) requires U.S. financial institutions to assist U.S. government agencies to detect and prevent money laundering. Specifically, the act requires financial institutions to keep records of cash purchases of negotiable instruments, file reports of cash transactions exceeding $10,000 (daily aggregate amount), and to report suspicious activity that might signify money laundering, tax evasion, or other criminal activities. It was passed by the Congress of the United States in 1970. The BSA is sometimes referred to as an “anti-money laundering” law (“AML”) or jointly as “BSA/AML.” Several AML acts, including provisions in Title III of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, have been enacted up to the present to amend the BSA. (See 31 USC 5311-5330 and 31 CFR Chapter X [formerly 31 CFR Part 103] ).”

    Philippine bank secrecy law – R.A. No. 1404, as Amended – AN ACT PROHIBITING DISCLOSURE OF OR INQUIRY
    INTO, DEPOSITS WITH ANY BANKING INSTITUTION

    “Section I. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Government to give
    encouragement to the people to deposit their money in banking institutions and to discourage private hoarding so that the same may be properly utilized by banks in authorized loans to assist in the economic development of the country.”

    “Sec. 2. All deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking institutions in
    the Philippines including investments in bonds issued by the Government of the
    Philippines, its political subdivisions and its instrumentalities, are hereby considered as of an absolutely confidential nature and may not be examined, inquired or looked into by any person, government official, bureau or office,

    except when the examination is made in the course of a special or general examination of a bank and is specifically authorized by the Monetary Board after being satisfied that there is reasonable ground to believe that a bank fraud or serious irregularity has been or is being committed

    and that it is necessary to look into the deposit to establish such fraud or irregularity, or when the examination is made by an independent auditor hired by the bank to conduct its regular audit provided that the examination is for audit purposes only and the results thereof shall be for the exclusive use of the bank, or upon written permission of the depositor,

    or in cases of impeachment, or upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of duty of public officials,

    or in cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation. (As amended by PD No.1792, January 16, 1981)”

    “Sec. 3. Sec. 3. It shall be unlawful for any official or employee of a bank to disclose to any person other than those mentioned in Section Two hereof, or for an independent auditor hired by a bank to conduct its regular audit to disclose to any person other than a bank director, official or employee authorized by the bank, any information concerning said deposits. (As amended by PD No.1792)”

    Enacted – “APPROVED, September 9, 1955.”

    ‘deposit’ means – HIDE ‘your money.’

    Compare our law with USA’s and the deal between Switzerland and Euro Union.

    Who in Sept. 9, 1955 SPONSORED this Philippine law on secrecy of bank deposits?

    • “The United States is apparently particularly concerned about the Foreign Currency Deposit Act of the Philippines (FCDA), otherwise known as Republic Act No. 6426. The FCDA is a legacy of the martial-law era, having been signed into law by the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos in 1974.

      The FCDA makes the revelation of foreign currency details unlawful, except upon a written permission of the depositor.”

      Link
      http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/147567/ph-bank-secrecy-laws-strictest-in-the-world

      • Ang atin mga liderato pag gumawa ng Batas pahirapan. . . lalo na pag TAGO ng hindi ka rapatdapat. . . PERA.

        Indirectly, it results in deaths and injury as a ‘consequence.’

        Sa Death Penalty law, ayaw naman ibalik.

        GAD!

        • Paano kung nakaligtaan ng mga liderato na gumawa ng batas gaya halimbawa ng maliwanag na “specific provision for foundlings’ right to a nationality, natural-born at that?”

        • No. The leadership in Congress did not excusably forget or omitted to enact provisions for foundlings’ right to a nationality or NBFC because

          this TOPIC took place way BACK IN 1935 a PERIOD OF 81 YEARS AGO!

          Such ‘NAKATIGTAAN’ is worst than GAD of the SC 7! Call it a DELIBERATE idleness!

          Three Constitutions came over to this country already. THREE! Yet it was never taken up.

          Now, it is our supreme court that has to do it for them – CONGRESS. SC ironically legislating that FOUNDLING law by judicial acts.

          Minamalas ang Bansang Filipinas ng mga klaseng liderato natin. Malas talaga.

          Pag dating sa PERA ‘up-to-date’ ang mga liderato natin.

          Haaayyyy! Kailan kaya aalis itong mga ito.

        • A clear State neglect…in which they are either too ashamed to admit or too proud to acknowledge…

    • End the Bank Secrecy law in the Philippines.

      who will do it?
      not our congress. kapareho din halos iyan ng foi at anti-dynasty bills.
      dahil marami sa kanila ang direktang tatamaan ng kanilang gagawin.

      ano?, sariling martilyong pamukpok sa ulo nila?

  10. Diplomatic relations are the exclusive domain of the executive. Sereno, in the EDCA case, stated for the Court:

    The President also carries the mandate of being the sole organ in the conduct of foreign relations. Since every state has the capacity to interact with and engage in relations with other sovereign states, it is but logical that every state must vest in an agent the authority to represent its interests to those other sovereign states. (Page 6, EDCA decision).

    The responsibility of the President when it comes to treaties and international agreements under the present Constitution is therefore shared with the Senate. (Page 8, EDCA decision).

    Pursuant to the power to conduct foreign relations, the President (I mean the office, not the person), entered into the 1954 Convention, with consent of the Senate.

    Article 32 of the 1954 Convention states:

    The Contracting States shall as far as possible facilitate the assimilation and naturalization of stateless persons. They shall in particular make every effort to expedite naturalization proceedings and to reduce as far as possible the charges and costs of such proceedings.

    unhcr.org/3bbb25729.html (tatlong w sa harap)

    So the President only committed to naturalization of stateless persons. What presumably was done for those Indonesians, referred to in my earlier post. The President did not agree to the 1961 Convention, which grants citizenship, jus soli, to foundlings.

    unhcr.org/3bbb24d54.html (tatlong w sa harap). Wala ang NasPi sa listahan.

    That refusal signifies that the Philippines rejects conferring natural-born status to foundlings; for if it were otherwise, we would have adhered to the 1961 Convention. Neither Macapagal, nor Marcos, nor Cory, nor Ramos, nor Estrada, nor Macapagal-Arroyo, nor Noy, signed and sent the 1961 Convention to the Senate. It can be concluded, therefore, that the “sole organ in the conduct of foreign relations” bound the Philippines, only to naturalization of stateless persons (including foundlings). The Philippines was not bound by any President to confer natural-born citizenship to foundlings.

    The votes for the natural-born citizenship of Poe, however, point to the Constitution and its provision on “accepted principles of international law.

    Where is that found? In the Preamble, which is not positive law (not a command, as in “no person shall be denied due process, etc.). Even if the Preamble can be considered as positive law. What is the complete text?

    The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, and adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as a part of the law of the Nation.

    The prefatory (preface, paunang mukha) statement talks about war. So, the generally accepted principles of international law mentioned here, refer to principles on war i.e., the Geneva convention, etc. That conclusion is supported by jurisprudence we adopted from the Americans, which states:

    ” a word is known by the company it keeps to avoid ascribing to one word a meaning so broad that it is inconsistent with its accompanying words, thus giving unintended breadth to the Acts of Congress.” (In this case, Acts of the Constitutional Convention)

    Yates v. US 574 US _____ (2015)

    There is the strained discovery of the international law obligation to grant natural-born status to foundlings. There is also the express act of the President (by Treaty), to bind the Philippines only to naturalization of stateless persons. Clearly, the express act of the “sole organ in the conduct of foreign relations” prevails.

    • Sorry. Hindi Preamble. Declaration of Principles.

      Here it is again:

      Section 2. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.

      Aside from the phrase “renounces war”, there is the phrase adheres to thepolicy of peace, equality, justice, freedom cooperation, and amity…

      Lahat yan have to do with peace, as opposed to war. Walang citizenship or foundlings diyan.

      So clearly, the phrase “accepted principles of international law” must be defined by the company it keeps.

      • Erratum ulit. That was 1987.

        Here is 1935.

        Section 3. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, and adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the Nation.

        Mas maigsi. The only company that the phrase “generally accepted principles of international law” keeps is the renunciation of war. The conjunctive “and”, also indicates how the policy of renunciation of war is to be achieved – by adopting the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land. We negotiate, mediate, or arbitrate. We do not go to war.

    • Baliktanaw sa 2010 bago maratipika ang “1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons” noong Setyembre 2011…

      Ibig ba ng siyam (9) o ng pito (7) sa pamumuno ni Sereno na magpalapad ng papel o magpakitang-gilas???

      2.2 Nationality-specific instruments

      ASEAN countries have been less active in ratifying international agreements that focus specifically on nationality and statelessness. In fact, the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness have yet to attracted any accessions within the region.

      It should, however, be noted that the Department of Justice in the Philippines is currently engaged with UNHCR in policy discussions on statelessness and an analysis of the national legal framework with a view to pursuing the state’s accession to both statelessness conventions. [34]

      Meanwhile, the Convention on the Nationality of Married Women has just two ASEAN state parties. [35]

      Regardless of formal accession, the influence of these instruments and the fundamental principles that they espouse can be traced in the legislation of many ASEAN countries. For instance, several of the safeguards contained within the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness have made their way into domestic nationality laws. [36]

      Meanwhile, two countries have included a definition of statelessness in their law, which has been informed by the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons and customary international law. [37]

      Moreover, the ratification of the human rights instruments discussed above lays a firm foundation in the region for both protecting the rights of stateless persons and avoiding statelessness by promoting the right to a nationality.

      —–

      Footnotes:

      [34] Correspondence with UNHCR Philippines, October 2010. The Philippines has already signed the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons but has yet to complete the ratification process.

      [35] These are Malaysia and Singapore.

      [36] For instance, a safeguard to ensure that foundlings acquire a nationality can now be found in the nationality legislation of more than half of ASEAN countries. Those are: Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Singapore and Viet Nam.

      [37] Lao PDR and Viet Nam both include a definition of a stateless person in their nationality acts. This is discussed in more detail under section 3.5. Note that the Philippines Congres is currently considering legislation that would introduce the definition of a stateless person into the domestic framework, in accordance with the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons. Correspondence with UNHCR Philippines, October 2010.

      http://www.unhcr.org/4d7de5ec9.pdf

      On Footnote No. 36:

      G – Six (6) out ten (10) ASEAN Member States, excluding the Philippines, individually legislated for the foundlings

      Fast forward to 2016…

      S – The Portugal Perez Ponencia for Poe (4Ps) judicially legislated for the foundlings

      Mang Gani: “Sabi Binay dagdag niya 4Ps na maging 5Ps…”

      “Portugal Perez Ponencia for President Poe”

      Manung DUsip: “Sige na nga…6 Ps na…matigil ka lang, Gani…”

      “Portugal Perez Ponencia for Popular President Poe

    • So, it is clear that a ‘WORD’ such as ‘war’ is KNOWN, and a ‘new’ WORD such as ‘FOUNDLING’ is UNKNOWN but judicially LEGISLATED in the POE cases of that March 8th decision. . .

      The PLEA to reconsider that March 8th decision (that NUMBER 8 is UNKNOWN in the COUNTING) is pled –

      . . . ‘For the respondents, this defeated the point of the majority rule.

      “With the ruling of the majority today, a presidential candidate who is deemed a natural-born Filipino citizen by less than majority of this Court, deemed not a natural-born Filipino citizen by five justices, and with no opinion from three justices, can now run for President of the Philippines even after having unanimously found by the Comelec en banc to be not a natural-born Filipino citizen,” read the plea.

      “What is clear and undeniable is that there is no majority of this court that holds that petitioner Poe is a natural-born Filipino citizen,” it said. TVJ”

      Everybody is now into a additional WORD topic – a dispute INTO A JUDICIAL COUNTING.

      Ang MGA ‘KRISTO’ sa Sabungan are simply better in COUNTING. . . they count the money of course of bettors. Kaya much better sila.

      Pito-Anim; WaLo-Siyam; Sampu-Siyam; Sampu-Anim; Lo-Dyes; Lo-Tres and PAREHO.

      Mind you. . . the above are FRACTIONS of numbers a difficult/complicated for those who are poor in MATH. KRISTOS are much faster than calculator gadgets as to know the results of HOW MUCH is the BET – sa LLamado y Dehado.

      Pag yun Pitong huezes nasa loob ng Sabungan at nag bilang katulad ng Poe bilang, BUG-BUG sirado silang PITO. . . lalo na pag matalo. . . ‘O masaya pag manalo.

      POE-SIYAM!

  11. worth sharing.

    i got this from the comment section: newsinfo.inquirer.net/774918/lp-undaunted-by-negros-occiental-solons-move-to-back-poe-erice

    Attorney Jennifer Zamora • 2 hours ago
    Credit to the writer of this letter and hoping that this will reach to President Aquino.

    AN OPEN LETTER TO THE PRESIDENT

    H.E. Benigno Simeon C. Aquino, III

    Malacañang

    Dear Mr. President,

    This letter is not written in a spirit of hate or contempt, notwithstanding the rhetoric, which will betray a passionate loathing for some of the patently wrong decisions that have emanated from your esteemed Office.

    I write this letter because I am a responsible taxpayer who passionately loves his country and who has staked the future of his family – for better or for worse – in this beloved land. Impelled by this passion, my family vigorously supported you in 2010, just as we enthusiastically supported your Mother, the patron saint of our cherished democracy, in 1986. Thus, like many Filipinos who share our dreams, we have a stake in your presidency and I hope it is for better, not for worse.

    I refer in particular to the way you have packed the Supreme Court with legal lightweights whose credentials pale miserably when compared to the past illustrious justices whose exceptional legal wisdom and acuity and unassailable probity elevated the SC to its present eminence. We would not have minded that much that you brooked SC tradition in our highest court if you only had appointed a brilliant and sagacious legal eagle as Chief Justice. But you did not.

    Indeed, the impropriety of your choices was truly highlighted in the Llamanzares Case, which is certainly one of the most outrageous rulings ever inflicted on our people. This lamentable decision, which has very serious national security implications, is really a constitutional amendment masquerading as an SC ruling. What Llamanzares clearly lacked in legal qualification, the Sereno Court bestowed upon her by twisting and mangling our Constitution. And if incessant whispers along legal halls are to believed, these justices bowed to suit the whims of a few favored interests who will do anything to impose their rent-seeking ways on our nation. Why, your Chief Justice practically lawyered for the petitioner. In the end, she saved their favored foundling, but bastardized the Constitution in the process.

    Shorn of its legalese, the operative effect of this SC ruling is this: A Chinese or Indian couple intending to illegally settle in the Philippines with their 6-month old offspring could easily get the child to be declared a natural-born Filipino with full rights and privileges by simply paying and co-opting a poor Filipino couple to declare to authorities that the child was a foundling. Hence, with this Sereno-inspired doctrine, the floodgates will quickly open to an invasion of chinito or mestizo-looking foreigners (Asians mainly) whose kids will simply simulate being foundlings to automatically become natural-born citizens, when all the while they will be raised and mentored to be patriotic to their true fatherland. Thus, in just one generation, a pure foreigner can aspire to and become a Senator or Supreme Court Justice or even President of the Filipino people. Then our children and grandchildren will be forced to live through the grim nightmare of a Philippines led by non-Filipinos.

    What bewilders us is that all these transpired with nary a whimper from your end. This, to us, was very uncharacteristic of you, as you have been known to use the vast powers and persuasive influences of the presidency to advance principled causes. Are you saying now that you are honouring the supposed independence of the judiciary? But you already shredded to bits the hallowed seniority rule in order to appoint an outsider and a legal and intellectual lightweight. And now, you are doing nothing as they are bastardizing the Constitution and turning our nation’s most hallowed hall of justice into a den of lobbyists and influence-peddlers.

    Take note, Mr. President, that even your latest appointment — your very own classmate — did not uphold the sanctity of our Constitution, but seems to have caved in to the unrelenting and intractable lobby that supported the privileged foundling who once adjured her nation.

    Remember, Sir, that we are talking about the nationally critical work of ensuring the continuation of your Daang Matuwid, the Filipino dream and aspiration on which we Filipinos have staked the future of our children and grandchildren.

    In the office of the late Attorney General Robert Kennedy, there used to hang a sign, which says, “The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of moral crisis preserve their neutrality.”

    Mr. President, our nation is now gripped by a grave moral crisis, as your SC appointees, who are supposed to be of better moral and spiritual fibre than those of your predecessor, are now willing participants in the mangling and bastardization of our Constitution. Will you elect to still maintain your neutrality? If you do, then allow me to reserve that place for you.

    Respectfully but with all candor,

    One of your Bosses,.,

    • HE HE HE. . . whoever wrote this PIECE gave a HEAVY BIG WEIGHT!

      The present SET UP selecting CANDIDATES for the High Court, the President (I think or believe) DOES NOT screen the candidates but the JBC council. Doon PALAKSAN pa rin. Para MAKALUSOT.

      It is like: JBC gave the President a selection for only ONE from ADOBO, SINIGANG and KILAWIN for today’s lunch. . . he has not much choice.

      This method of selection will CONTINUE for decades to come until mag CHA-CHA ang Bayan.

      Now, BURATCHA is happening in appointments to the Court.

      Ngeeek! PNoy. . . mayroon ka na ‘reserve place’ after your retirement kuno.

      he he he

      • Kapag ang maigsing ‘menu’ ay nahaluan ng panis…

        May tsansang ma-order, sa kasawiang-palad, ang panis!

        —–

        Btw, ‘fresh’ pa sa isip namin dito sa aming issa na namang umpukan ang kabaligtarang ‘persona’ ni “Marciano.”

        Ito ang paalala…

        42.1.4
        Rene-Ipil says:
        June 18, 2015 at 2:30 pm

        Maybe our constitution could be amended to apply the doctrine of jus soli for foundlings found in the Philippines using the ASEAN practice as justification.

        But this would lead to a situation where the child of overstaying Chinese couple would be abandoned at the font of Quiapo church to be retrieved soon by a certain Eddie Mi Li Tang, a naturalized Filipino sibling of one of the couple. The foundling named Graciano would be adopted by Eddie and would become a natural-born Filipino citizen. Graciano could win as congressman of Quiapo district of Manila later on.

        42.1.4.1
        baycas says:
        June 18, 2015 at 3:53 pm

        By a sudden twist of imagination…

        Mr. Egay “Red” Sun Da Lo’s ward, Marciano, foundling of the same age as Graciano, became commander-in-chief and dictator in no time.

        He decreed the existence of the “9-gazillion-dashed line” annexing the whole Philippines to his adoptive country.

        —–

        http://raissarobles.com/2015/06/12/senator-grace-poe-thanks-me-for-baring-us-govt-records-that-she-dropped-her-us-citizenship-in-2012/#comment-308583

        • I tip my buli hat to the good writer for emphatically pointing the ill-effect to the country of the accidental president’s avowed KKK patronage that would inevitably lead to disastrous/divisive judicial crisis.

        • writer should also write letter to sereno also to sereno’s 9. might just hit the bull’s eye. complain to sereno 1st hand, her decision was so lopsided, people are reeling in the aftermath.

          if sereno is stymied and cannot response dahil she has not foreseen the backlash, and now, fears her legal skin would be scraped and lacerated and put on the cross to dry; then sent similar letters to the president of law society, to constitutionalists, and dont forget to send copy to the president as well. het him know how his appointees are doing.

        • that american atty. gen. mentioned na si robert kennedy at #185 above, was he the one involved in the cover up of sexy actress marilyn monroe’s death?

        • uhm, was there not also a kennedy involved in the chappaquiddick case where a girl drowned in a submerged car, and the kennedy dude who was with her fled the crime scene?

          the kennedys ought to be restrained in talking about hell.

        • The linked news item states that there are about 6,000 Indonesians in Mindanao. Some were given citizenship. I suppose, by naturalization.

          gulfnews.com/news/asia/philippines/hundreds-with-indonesian-roots-get-filipino-citizenship-1.1689988

          So, following Rene-Ipil’s point, what is to prevent them from abandoning their babies to each other, so that the babies are deemed foundings, and become natural-born, a la Poe?

          Any of those women impregnated by their compatriot Marwan? So is it possible, that sometime in the future, a Marwan descendant becomes a Presidential candidate?

          Yung mga bagong saltang Koreano, do we see them abandoning babies to each other, para maging foundling? How about Nanay abandoning to Lola, para maging foundling? Later, adopt ni Nanay. Kanya ulit, pero NoyyPi na. Natural-born pa.

          Will people game the system? Many NoyPis do that here in the US. Pumapasok na may pekeng passport (iba ang pangalan). Tapos, many years later, magpapa-petition. Oops, fraud. Hingi ka ng waiver. Prove that there will be extreme hardship to your US citizen or green card holder relative.

        • That is incorrect. The dispositive part of the decision states that the finding is that there is a presumption of being natural born. Moreover,it is a disputable presumption. Maybe rereading the decision might be helpful.

        • No need for you, @Ancient Mariner, the ‘NON-automaticity‘ as advanced in the comment above belies the Constitutionally-enshrined fundamental definition of a ‘natural-born.’ The rigorous administrative process of ‘naturalization’ of foundlings is illustrated as: Stateless –> Given legal status –> Naturalization…

          Stateless first –> next, Provided legal status upon the grant of Certificate of Foundling (after thorough determination of where the foundling was born AND that parents are unknown) –> then, further administrative process done by competent State authorities, such as in adoption cases where the State as parent will assign Filipino citizenship and accomplish the whole task for a foundling child to be adopted by law

          I gave the example of obtaining Philippine passport before.

          Suffice it to say that Baby Marciano’s founder’s Philippine passport must also be submitted together with the Certificate of Foundling, among other requirements the DFA mandates.

          On the other hand, the natural-borns’ Certificate of Live Birth always works in automatic mode.

        • @Ancient Mariner,

          After finality of the Perez Ponencia for Poe (MRs exhausted) the Executive Branch must know how to administratively handle foundlings’ cases.

          Baby Marciano will be delighted if the COF will be EQUAL to the CLB. In the hypothetical scenario I gave in the past, his founder died without having a Philippine passport, you know.

        • “3. On domestic and international law. Domestic law and international law on foundlings support the finding that a foundling enjoys the presumption of being natural born. ”

          This is the relevant excerpt on the SC’ s findings on points of law with respect to foundlings’ citizenship. This is distinct ftom its finding of fact that the foundling Grace Poe is natural born.

          Read more at http://www.mb.com.ph/sc-explains-how-justices-arrived-at-decision-on-poe-case/#gLHpoQfhgFLYG8r4.99

        • Sorry that may be your personal opinion, but it is the Philippine Supreme Court and not its dissenting justices, nor the Comelec, nor any legal experts including those at the this blogsite which the Constitution has given ultimate and final authority to interpret what it and other laws mean.

        • After finality of the Perez Ponencia for Poe (MRs exhausted) the Executive Branch must know how to administratively handle foundlings’ cases.

          Baby Marciano will be delighted if the COF will be EQUAL to the CLB. In the hypothetical scenario I gave in the past, his founder died without having a Philippine passport, you know.

          – baycas

          This presupposes that the March 8, 2016 Perez Ponencia for Poe is final and executory. The automatic nature of granting natural-born status to foundlings must be adhered to as a result of the ruling.

        • The word automatic or its connotation within the context of the SC decision finding foundlings are presumed natural born is irrelevant or erroneous. Neither do administrative procedures in response to the SC decision carry any weight or relevance to this issue which is judicial in nature.In other words and with all due respect, I have no idea what you are talking about.

        • Qualifications of a president
          Natural born Filipino
          At least 40 years old

          Requirement to become president
          Voted by majority of Filipino voters on Election Day.

          Pagtapos ng 40 years bago maging kandidato yung Indonesian Foundling dahil sa SC Poe decision. Kapag naging presidente siya KASALANAN ng majority ng Pilipino na HINDI FOUNDLING.

          Ganun din kay Grace Poe, magiging presidente lamang siya kapag nanalo sa election. Kung manalo siya, Ibig sabihin nagdesisyun ang majority ng botante. Kaya bumoto ang bawat Isang Pilipino para ipaglaban ang karapatan.

          Loser Loser Trash pusher
          Winner Winner Chicken dinner

        • Mang Bernie:

          “Nawa’y manalo ang ating magiging Presidente bilang ‘majority president’ at ‘di mistulang ‘plurality president.'”

          The barbers:

          “Aah-meeen”

        • Juana Manicurista: ikaw Bernie utak niyog ka talaga. Kayong barbero bao kukote. Ginugulo nyo ang usapan kapag walang makatwiran. Pulitiko pinaguusapan dinala mo sa ranggo ng sundalo. Anong Major Major at Corporal Pural pinagsasabi mo?

          Nida Tindera ng Isda: hindi Corporal, Plurarity na ibig sabihin ay paramihan lamang ng dalawang kandidato at Majority naman ay para sa maramihan kandidato na kung sino ang pinakalamang.

          Juana Manicurista: ha, Getz ko na. Major ang pinakamataas dahil ang General kinuha na ni Election. Hi hi hi

        • This GAD SC decision grants FOUNDLINGS nbfc everytime he/she files a COC for president, senator and congressman – and when a WINNER it COOKS into NBFC

          It will include APPOINTMENTS to all GOV’T OFFICES – all – Military PNP atbpa

          by JUS GADOLI – a legal jurisprudential PoeRule now.

          Ma Poerule talaga by lousy blacksmiths.

        • So, now it will be a REQUIREMENT by the JBC to ask every candidate for the Court on KNOW HOW TO COUNT topic. . .

          . . . ‘What is the MAJORITY of 15? Answer: SEVEN!

          . . . ‘Is Seven in compliance of the rule as MAJORITY of 15? YES!

          . . . ‘Does 6 WINS when there is 7 from 15? Answer – YES!

          JBC’s recommendation for the poor candidate – Yes, you are DQd!

          ha ha ha

        • May they enter this into the Rules from now on:

          1. All those who will deliberate, please enter the en banc room

          2. All those who will not deliberate, please do not enter the en banc room

          3. Inside the en banc room, before deliberation, do a head count in order to ascertain the denominator

          4. No one will leave the en banc room before the deliberation is finished AND the voting is final

        • he he he. . . . I also like this THOUGHT,

          . . . another one like this > in bunk ROOMS story:

          in bunk at Room 1 for those who will deliberate – 5 justices

          in bunk at Room 2 for those who will not deliberate – 7 justices

          IN BUNK at Room 3. . . there’s a 57-inch Toshiba colored TV, 15 Apple PCs, a GUITAR and a TABLE filled with 20 lauriat FOOD.

          2 justices gets out from Room 1 proceeds to Room 3 cannot deliberate

          1 justice gets out from Room 2 proceeds to Room 3 cannot deliberate

          Mysteriously, since there is now a POERULE, where are the other justices? Not at Room 1. Not at Room 2.

          So. . . justices from Rooms 1 and 2 takes a PEEP at Room 3. . . VIOLA!

          3 JUSTICES are inside. . . eating. . .singing. . . computing if 7 is really the majority of 15. . . watching AldDUb shows.

          PoeTres Kayo!. . . Come! Join Us! (says the happy TRES)

          Deliberation inside in bunk at Room 3 continues. . . Viola! 7 is NOT MAJORITY of 15! Busog pa sila. Happy.

          Result of VOTING on the M.R. : 15 all justices DQd Poe with CJ as now the Ponente.

          in bunk decision. Poe is bunked!

    • “Who is rich? One who is happy with what he has”
      “Who is right? One who embraces defeat with dignity”

      Atty Jennifer Zamora speaks about “upholding the sanctity of the Constitution” which states that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter. Unfortunately, the same framers of our Constitution intended 15 justices to sit as final arbiters. Each Justice has its own will and freedom to vote on every case. Every SC Justice’s decision may not conform with the wishes of every citizen, nevertheless his decisioni is counted while the opinion of an outsider, however righteous, doesn’t count provided by the Constitution. Majority wins in SC is the rule of the Land. Accept it until rescinded!

      Decision of the majority on Poe DQ case may not be acceptable to Atty Zamora or others; unfortunately, losing the case doesn’t grant righteousness to indict Justice Caguioa that with his vote with the majority he “did not uphold the sanctity of the Constitution”. It is one case that Atty Zamora has malign infinitely the integrity of ASJ Caguioa. One defeat doesn’t give right to a person to be judgmental on another fellow rather a defeat should make a person stronger to fight the principles for what he/she believes are always right. Keeping to argue the merits of the principle is personal right but at all cost one must refrain from personal attack on the opponent. Based on this open letter, Atty Zamora is no more than dignified than Caguioa in her loss in a battle.

      Loser Loser Trash pusher
      Winner Winner Chicken dinner.

      From Another Boss of PNoy.

      • You will be in the minority here where views that favor a chosen candidate and go against his perceived rival are very popular. But I for one support yours and your courage to voice it.

        • Thanks! Fact remains that when the SC makes a final decision it counts within the framework of the Constitution, outside of which stays as personal opinions.

          what I voiced out is the truth and reality known to everyone although not personally accepted by some.

        • Its okay not to accept the SC decion. or even disagree with or argue against it, but its not okay to misrepresent what it says. See my post above.

        • Everyone’s opinion is respected. Anybody can make a conclusion, give an opinion but when it comes as a final SC decision that somebody’s opinion has no bearing on the final vote of SC decision. Only an SC Justice vote is counted. Personal opinion is a right of every person but his personal vote has no bearing on SC decisions.

          It’s Okay to write in columns, blogs, Facebook,Twitter or appear on TV or movies rendering opinions on SC cases but on final tally an SC Justice vote on his decision( unacceptable, misconceived, or weird) is the only one that matters.

          An outsider cannot change a rendered SC final decision. Only SC en banc can reconsider it. The Decision,whether accepted or not by the outsider, becomes the ruling to be followed by government agencies. That is a Fact, truth and Reality.

          Endlessly, we could express our opinions and criticisms, misinterpret or not, agree and disagree on the subject in this blog, yet at the end of the day, each opinion remains personal opinions without putting a dent on the rendered SC Final decision. Moreover, anybody who demands that his/her personal opinion and interpretation of the laws on Poe’s DQ case are legally sound that should be followed officially by Comelec and the government instead of the SC ruling is hallucinating on his ego.

          Loser Loser Trash pusher
          Winner Winner Chicken dinner

        • I say, hurray to all for keeping the fire burning and continue on with the diatribe. such uncharacteristic decision by sereno et al cannot be allowed to set in concrete. already elemparo et al have initiated movements to the contrary. sereno et al should not celebrate just yet. there’s new battle up ahead.

      • Playing with words doesn’t make you intelligent and wise, not even right, but at best a buffoon like Vice Ganda. Say something sensible, imbued with meaning, and worth reading @Johnny Lin.

    • continuity is just a way to get away with impunity.

      why is leni robredo willing to be put in that situation?

  13. The other day a senator says that they might include casinos and real estate in AMLA coverage, but I think they should also include PhilRem and other remittance centers in AMLA coverage so they get those entities covered. Why exclude remittance centers?

    • if philrem has nothing to hide, then it has nothing to fear. all remittance centers ought to be included sa amla coverage, no exemptions. that way, scammers and hackers have nowhere to stack up their ill gotten laundry.

    • They are already covered, even pawnshops are covered (see (3) (iii)):

      http://www.bsp.gov.ph/regulations/laws_aml.asp

      (a) “Covered institution” refers to:

      (3) (i) securities dealers, brokers, salesmen, investment houses and other similar entities managing securities or rendering services as investment agent, advisor, or consultant,

      (ii) mutual funds, close-end investment companies, common trust funds, pre-need companies and other similar entities,

      (iii) foreign exchange corporations, money changers, money payment, remittance, and transfer companies and other similar entities, and

      (iv) other entities administering or otherwise dealing in currency, commodities or financial derivatives based thereon, valuable objects, cash substitutes and other similar monetary instruments or property supervised or regulated by Securities and Exchange Commission and Exchange Commission

    • NO WAY! – says all tongressmen and senatongs. THAT IS OUR HAVEN TO heaven afterwards to HELL. . . they added.

      REPEAL the Bank Secrecy Law ALSO. This law is a SIDE DOOR also to HELL directly !

      This law violates the BIR CODE on ‘equal’ (?) taxation- especially in favor of CORRUPT PUBLIC OFFICIALS.

      ‘Secrets’ are against the public policy of HONESTY especially as regards to hidden MONEY. The law on Bank Secrecy is unconstitutional.

      • There are very VALID and COMPELLING reasons behind the bank secrecy law., most of it having to do with an individual’s privacy and/or security. Just because one has so called “secrets” does not always mean one is dishonest, corrupt and evil.

        The right to privacy is a universal right, and IMO, we should all do our share to see that further erosion of our privacy in today’s Orweillian world is stopped at all costs. The argument, “I don’t care about privacy, cause I’ve got nothing to hide” is careless, and irresponsible, to say the least.

        In fact, Edward Snowden, the computer expert who is now hiding from US gov’t after he exposed the NSA’s illegal surveillance of Amercian citizens, countered that argument with:

        “Arguing that you don’t care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is NO different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say”

        I myself beleive that we should not be too hasty in repealing laws willy nilly just because some bad people are also using said laws to protect themselves.

        I remember Thomas More’s words in “A Man For All Season” and I quote it here cause I find it is very relevant and very apt reminder to this issue about the Bank Secrecy Law. Please think about it, about what you are wishing for, cause we may just get it to our regret:

        ********************************************************************************
        Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law!

        Thomas More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

        Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!

        Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?

        This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man’s laws, not God’s — and if you cut them down — and you’re just the man to do it — d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?

        Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.
        ***********************************************************************************

  14. ANOTHER CONVINCING ARGUMENTS ON “IS IT 9-6 OR 7-5-3?”

    “The decision written by Justice Jose Perez, concluded that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in canceling Poe’s CoC mainly because: (1) it did not have the authority to rule on Poe’s citizenship and residency qualifications as these qualifications have not yet been determined by the proper authority; and (2) Poe’s natural-born citizenship is founded on the intent of the framers of the 1935 Constitution, domestically recognized presumptions, generally accepted principles of international law, and executive and legislative actions: while her residency were backed up not only by jurisprudence, but more importantly by overwhelming evidence.

    “On the issue of lack of jurisprudence, immediately coming to mind here is Article VII Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code about the COMELEC and its powers and functions. In said section, it is clearly provided that: “A verified petition seeking to deny due course or to cancel the certificate of candidacy may be filed by any person exclusively on the ground that any material therein under Section 74 is false. The petition may be filed at any time not later than 25 days from the time of filing of the CoC, and shall be decided, after due notice and hearing, not later than 15 days before the election.”

    “The SC here ruled that a certificate of candidacy “cannot be canceled or denied due course on grounds of false representations regarding his or her qualifications without a prior authoritative finding that he or she is not qualified, such prior authority being the necessary measure by which the falsity of the representation can be found. The only exception that can be conceded are self-evident facts of unquestioned or unquestionable veracity and judicial confessions.”

    “It must be pointed out in this regard however, that the ponente in this case, Justice Perez himself has ruled in Ongsiako Reyes v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 207264, June 25, 2013) and Cerafica v. COMELEC (G.R. No.205136 December 2, 2014) that under Section 78, the COMELEC has jurisdiction to determine the eligibility of a candidate. In Ongsiako-Reyes v. COMELEC, the Court, speaking through J. Perez, affirmed the COMELEC’s cancellation of Ongsiako-Reyes’ CoC and its determination that Ongsiako-Reyes is neither a Philippine citizen nor a resident of Marinduque. The Court even affirmed the COMELEC’s capability to liberally construe its own rules of procedure in response to Ongsiako-Reyes’ allegation that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in admitting newly discovered evidence that had not been testified on, offered and admitted in evidence. In this case, Justice Perez reverses himself completely and overturned this existing jurisprudence recognizing the COMELEC’s jurisdiction to determine a candidate’s eligibility under Section 78.

    “On the issue of Poe’s residency, she personally declared under oath in her 2012 CoC for Senator that she has been a resident of the Philippines for at least “6 years and 6 months” before the May 13, 2013 elections. Six years and six months counted back from the day before the May 13, 2013 elections point to November 2006 as the beginning of her Philippine residence – which means that before the May 9, 2016 election her period of residency would only be 9 years and 6 months, short of the 10-year requirement for the presidency. Subsequently however, she claimed that she has been a resident of the Philippines since May 24, 2005 when she arrived in the Philippines and has allegedly decided to re-settle here for good. Thus, in her CoC for President, she personally declared under oath she has been a resident for “10 years and 11 months” which is contrary to her personal declaration under oath in her 2012 CoC. These conflicting declarations are the grounds for the cancellation of her CoC by the COMELEC.”

    “But the SC ruled that based on facts, Poe has indeed re-established her domicile here on May 24, 2005 and manifested her intent to stay here for good. In this connection, it must be pointed out however, that in coming back she used a balikbayan visa which does not confirm her intent to settle permanently in the Philippines. In fact as late as July 31, 2009, she still used her US Passport after already taking her oath of allegiance to the Philippines when she applied for dual citizenship under RA 9225 on July 18, 2006. Following its ruling in the recent case of Kauswagan Lanao del Norte Mayor Rommel Arnado, the SC should have likewise disqualified Poe to run for any public office. Why was this case not applied to her case?

    “On the issue of being a natural born citizen, the SC ruled that under the generally accepted principles of international law, Poe, who is a foundling, is presumed to be a citizen of the country where she was found. This presumption stems from the presumption that her parents are nationals of the Philippines. Obviously the SC here applied the principle of jus soli wherein the place of birth rather than relationship by blood or jus sangunis determines the natural born citizenship of a person which our Constitution follows. Clearly, the SC decision disregards our Constitution in favor of the generally accepted principles of international law. To be sure, ONLY SEVEN, NOT NINE JUSTICES have really voted in favor of the ruling on this issue (bolder for emphasis). So it cannot be said that the SC has indeed declared Poe as a natural born citizen.

    “Clearly, the SC decision has broken many precedents as to render it more questionable and inconclusive.”

    (from the Philstar column by Atty. Jose Sison 3/18/16)

    http://www.philstar.com.opinion/2016/03/18/1564174/inconclusive-and-questionable

      • MANILA, Philippines – After their defeat at the Supreme Court (SC), accusers of presidential candidate Grace Poe appealed to the High Court to reconsider its decision declaring her qualified to run for the 2016 elections.

        In their 48-page joint motion for reconsideration filed Friday, March 18, lawyer Estrella Elamparo, former senator Francisco Tatad, De La Salle University professor Antonio Contreras, and former University of the East Law dean Amado Valdez called the SC decision “a 47-page perversion of the Constitution.”

        “If not reconsidered and she is elected without any successful election contest afterwards, the decision will be the proximate cause of catapulting to power a candidate who does not comply with two of the most basic and important qualifications for the presidency: natural born Filipino citizenship and ten-year residency,” the private respondents’ prefatory statement read.

        They urged the Court to “take a second hard look at the undisputed facts” or else the votes of “millions of Filipinos” who support Poe “will be nullified and wasted.”

        In order to read the M.R. please follow the link above.

    • It is 7 against 6. . . the ‘3’ is stray vote – not counted.

      The law and rules says 8 Votes for a majority of the 15.

      1st Problems are: How many ISSUES in the Poe cases should be VOTED upon?

      GAD – one problem.

      Citizenship – one problem

      Residency – one problem

      2nd Problem – the 9 justices MIXED/consolidated all VOTES into ONE ‘solid’ votes for all the 3 issues. So, 9 against 6.

      3rd Problem – the 9 ‘twisted’ the counting of votes despite the law/rule in the Court voting.

      4th Problem – the 9 cannot read and understand ‘each justice’s “CONCURRING” and “DISSENTING” opn how and/or where he/she VOTED on each ISSUE.

      5th Problem – the alleged 9 majority justices’ votes is highly a ‘suspect’ decision that must be REVERSED.

      Here comes simple ‘Mathematics’ in counting – ‘to and from’ ‘where’ is the ‘9’ or the ‘6’ out of ’15’ or out of ’13’ numbers should be referenced.

      Imagine JUSTICES cannot agree the COUNTING. Whoa! My GAD!

      • It would be more entertaining if we were watching their deliberation on that ‘fateful’ March 8, 2016.

        It would’ve been fun to see them ‘in agony‘…like when I listened to Jardeleza’s interpellation while Comelec Commissioner Arthur Lim maintained his composure…

      • Pardon my ignorance Leona; why can’t these supposedly learned huzgados address the problems item by item and vote on each SINGULAR item and then tally the TOTAL number of votes. If the deliberation takes too much of their time, so be it.THAT’s what they are getting the people’s money for, their TIME and whatever scholarly erudition they might or might NOT have. They are deciding on the fate of millions of PINOYS, for Yahweh ‘s sake. Juan Luna kailangan ang PUNYETA !!!!!!!!!###

  15. Since GPL is a former teacher, she said, there are three books in her life that inspired her to run for the presidency. 1) The Bible, 2) The Panday story book, 3) Her back supporter’s checkbook… Sagot ng Roro supporters.. Book-ing ka na GPL :D

    • he, he, he, in the middle of the night when no one is around, grace recites verses from the book of the dead, her penance for disturbing the dead in guimaras.

      • I suppose, her gracious fave book is the grim noir, the bible of those who practice black magic and the dark arts.