News Commentary by Raïssa Robles
The Supreme Court decision ousting Maria Lourdes Sereno was very specific.
She was being ousted as CHIEF JUSTICE.
By a vote of 8-6, her appointment as CJ was declared void.
If her appointment as CJ was voided, but nothing was said about her being permanently barred from holding any public office, does this mean she reverts back to her previous status?
As sitting Associate Justice of the Supreme Court?
Further explanation added – May 14, 2018
I am asking this because for such a historic feat – the ouster of a Chief Justice by her own peers – the decision penned by Associate Justice Noel Tijam does not adequately explain what a quo warranto petition means in ousting a sitting Chief Justice who happened to be an Associate Justice before she was appointed to that post.
Tijam himself said that the only thing that a quo warranto petition does is ouster from or forfeiture of the contested post. He said:
“The remedies available in a quo warranto judgment do not include correction or reversal of acts taken under the ostensible authority of an office or franchise. Judgment is limited to ouster or forfeiture and may not be imposed retroactively upon prior exercise of official or corporate duties.”
The public is merely made to assume that with Sereno’s ouster as Chief Justice, she is being bodily ousted from the Court and is forfeiting her current post. How about her previous post? Does she forfeit that, too? The Tijam decision is silent on that.
The ruling did not state that she was also not qualified for the post of Associate Justice when she applied in 2010. It would seem unjust to assume that she was not qualified as well in 2010 when there was no discussion among the justices on this particular point.
The public is also made to assume that she has to leave the court because otherwise there would be no vacancy for the post of Supreme Court Chief Justice since there would still be 15 justices.
Not quite. Since this is such an extraordinary case with no precedent, the selection of the Chief Justice would necessarily be confined among the other sitting 14 justices.
IMPORTANT UPDATE as of May 13, 2018:
I just read the 153-page decision of Associate Justice Noel Tijam and noticed a very interesting thing.
Associate Justice Francis Jardeleza, who was counted as having voted “YES” to the quo warranto, DID NOT SIGN THE DECISION!
Here is what is stated above his name.
Was he sick? Why did he not sign the decision himself?According to justice beat reporter Marlon Ramos of Philippine Daily Inquirer, sources said Jardeleza was abroad and had left his “YES” vote.So did Justice Estela Bernabe but in her case, she had left a “NO” vote. Sources had earlier told Marlon that both had left “YES” votes.
Still, let’s hear from Jardeleza.
I will write about the decision as soon as I finish another deadline.
FURTHER UPDATE as of May 13, 2018:
I just read the 43-page “Opinion” written and submitted by Justice Jardeleza on May 11. It is mostly about himself and why he does not deserve to be called a “traitor” by Sereno but Sereno deserves to be called THAT.
In the end, on page 34 however, his “Opinion” merely states that he had decided not to inhibit himself from the Sereno case. In other words, he was denying Sereno’s Motion for Inhibition.
HE WROTE:
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the Ad Cautelam Respectful Motion for Inhibition of Hon. Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza filed by Respondent Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno is hereby DENIED. SO ORDERED.
That was all he said.
The rest of the pages (35 to 43) contain a speech that he had delivered in 2016 on the issue.
Please note that JARDELEZA’S OPINION DID NOT SAY WHETHER OR NOT HE WAS VOTING “YES” OR “NO” TO OUST SERENO THROUGH A QUO WARRANTO. He hardly mentioned Sereno’s SALNs.
He had merely left a “YES” vote, thus making the vote eight in favor of ousting Sereno and six not in favor.
Here is a video blog I made about the implications of the CLOSE VOTE to oust Sereno.
Sam says
Using their justification on QW, that an impeachable officer may be removed. Maybe someone can test their justification to file a QW against the crazy old man. He made a promise to take a jetski to stop China but later said that it was a joke. Majority did vote for him on this promise, but deceived the us.
It should be expected that the SC should accept the Petition and act on it upon receipt of the complain just like what they did diba?
bank says
the quo warranto questioned sereno’s inegrity. in the same light, does duterte have integrity? after having won only on fake credentials, having taken ZERO stand on WPS, fake war on drugs, hidden wealth, etc?
kalahari says
High court says JBC should have disqualified and excluded Sereno
It asserted that a quo warranto plea “is the proper legal remedy to determine the right or title to the contested public office or to oust the holder from its enjoyment.”
“Logic, common sense, reason, practicality and even principles of plain arithmetic bear out the conclusion that an unqualified public official should be removed from the position immediately if indeed Constitutional and legal requirements were not met or breached.” the court said
The ruling cited Section 2, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, which said impeachable officers such as the President, Vice President, members of the Supreme Court, and Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman “may be removed from office” through impeachment.
The majority said the word “may” should be taken to mean “discretion and cannot be construed as having a mandatory effect.”
“We have consistently held that the term ‘may’ is indicative of a mere possibility, an opportunity or an option. The grantee of that opportunity is vested with the right or faculty which he has the option to exercise. An option to remove by impeachment admits of an alternative mode of effecting the removal,” the majority said, striking down Sereno’s defense.
It said such provision in the Constitution “allows the institution of a quo warranto action against an impeachable officer.” (more)
http://news.abs-cbn.com/news/05/11/18/sc-quo-warranto-remedy-ensures-only-qualified-hold-public-office
Sam says
Carpio: Supreme Court rewrote Constitution with Sereno ouster
————————————————————————————————-
He could have said it this way “Supreme Court Violated the Constitution with Sereno ouster”
When ordinary citizen violated the ordinary laws are prosecuted, but being a justice has the right to violate the fundamental law of the country.
arc says
uhm, what constitution is carpio talking about? there is no more constitution, only the bent eight now.
Ivan says
From 8 justices, sino naman kaya ang may chances na mag change nang vote?
Any hints po? I havent read all their opinions..
raissa says
I don’t know.
Ju Co says
if the craven six will recuse themselves because they violated the CJ’s rght to due process because they did not have the impartial neutrality of a judge as required by jurisprudence, only two votes will remain and overruled by the six who dissented.
martial_law_baby says
Ms. Raissa, in case you have not thought of doing it, can you please reach out and do an interview on one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution? I know some of them are still around. Since Sereno’s case involves the interpretation of the Constitution, both on the SALN requirement, and the impeachment process, the supreme court (lower case na lang at hindi na sila kagalang galang) should have at least invited the framers of the Constitution under the “amicus curiae” principle. They should have been asked on their take on how the Constitution is being interpreted and compared on what was its intent. Just a humble suggestion lang po.
raissa says
True, but they wanted their OWN interpretation.
They were not interested in anything else.
I will try.
Ju Co says
unfortunatelym their opinion are no longer definitive but merely persuasive as the Constitution takes on a life of its own once ratified by the people.
arc says
consti was/is made to undergo bad metamorphosis! and so ordered to become ugly duckling.
ang understanding ko po dyan ay yong dating framers ng 1987 consti are now working as consultants for digong, earning heaps and hopefully getting paid with real money and not empty promises, pushing for digong’s ill fated federalism. trying hard to sell federalism to the public, spruiking how good and how better off we shall all be are under federalistic yokel. promise of better future, better lives, promises, promises, promises, such brazen promises. and behind all these promises, craven politicians and their equally craven followers gloat, the public to be duped yet again with more promises in the offing. the public been duped once, twice, thrice, keep the promises going and the public can still be duped.
leona says
There is a statement or RULE in the Rules of Court which pronounces this way:
“RULES OF COURT
Pursuant to the provision of Section 5(5) of Article
VIII of the Constitution, the Supreme Court
hereby adopts and promulgate the following
rules concerning the protection and enforcement
of constitutional rights , pleading, practice
and procedure in all court, the admission to
the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, and legal
assistance to the underprivileged:
Let us call the above as the ‘Pursuant’ Clause.
x x x
Thus begins the Rules of Court when one opens the Book on the RULES OF COURT.
The pronouncement is clearly worded: ‘the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights’ . . .
Is Sec. 2 of Art. XI on Accountability of Public Officers, on ‘impeachment’ not a provision on the protection of public officers re: impeachment process or not? Is Sec. 2 of the same
Article not requiring the ‘enforcement’ of CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS?
Quo Warranto, under (c) of SEC. 3 Rule 1 of the RULES OF COURT, on CASES governed by
the Rules of Court, includes: ‘A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party
seeks to establish a status, a right or a particular fact.’
Quo Warranto action is part and parcel of what is known the Great Writs [ per US judicial termimnoly ] – Rule 66 of the Rules of Court and Rule 65 – Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus.
Did the majority of the 8 justices observe and follow ‘the pronouncement’ or statement that says about the ‘protection and enforcement of constitutional rights? What does this PURSUANT clause mean?
There are ‘rights’ in the PURSUANT clause. Does it include ‘duties’? When ‘rights’ are spoken about necessarily ‘duties’ are following or follows and are included, whether not expressly given or worded to protect those ‘rights’. That is the acceptable logic of the rule or law.
So, my first impluse is the 8-majority votes of the SC did not heed the PURSUANT clause of the RULES OF COURT on impeachment clause but rather rashly went into Quo Warranto action (Rule 66) in a most ‘(i)lliberally’ construed way in order to promote their objective [ ousting the CJ Sereno ] as their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of action’ SEC. 6 RULE 1.
It appears the ‘ousting’ is or was unjust, terribly speedy and maybe inexpensive than that of the impeachment and trial proceeding as provided by the CONSTITUTION.
The 8-6 voting is so close that the CJ’s cannot vote but had to abstain. The reality is it was a 8-7 voting including the CJ’s vote. In the Senate, on impeachment trial when there is a tie, the Senate President vote, isn’t it not? In elections, a candidate for office votes for himself/herself, isn’t not?
The 6 justices who were asked to INHIBIT by the CJ unfairly and deliberate refused to inhibit themselves and all VOTED as part of the 8 majority opinion. All of them should have ABSTAINED also like the CJ who did. The picture shows how UNFAIRLY the ousting of the CJ is done. Terribly speedy to repeat the speed taken.
What next? A ‘MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION’ pleading probably to follow.
Impeachment and trial should be the course of action under the law and Rules of Court.
raissa says
Let’s see what happens.
leona says
CJ Sereno was appointed by the President [ Benigno C. Aquino III) pursuant to law and as recommended by the JBC council.
What is the Judicial and Bar Council?
Created through Article VIII Section 8 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the JBC screens individuals aiming to be part of the judiciary, including the leads of the office of the Ombudsman, Deputy Ombudsman, Special Prosecutor, and the offices of the Chairperson and Regular Members of the Legal Education Board.
The council comes up with a short list of nominees in which the President is expected to choose from to fill in the vacancy.
What is the process in drawing up a short list?
Once applicants have filed their requirements and the deadline has passed, a list containing the candidates is published. The JBC also encourages the public to report information, whether a complaint or anything derogatory, that could help the council in screening the applicants.
– ‘their requirements’ – one of which is/are SALNs.
– ‘The JBC also encourages the public to report informaton, whether a complaint or
anything derogatory, that could help the council in screening the applicants.’
– Was CJ Sereno reported to have ‘any derogatory’ data after the deadline passed?
No.
Was CJ Sereno validly appointed by the President as recommended by the JBC? Yes.
And the recommendation was published!
Thus, the recommendation because the CJ Sereno passed under the following:
– ‘According to the revised rules of the JBC, as of October 2016, interviews are conducted to:
1. Observe an applicant’s personality, demeanor, deportment, and physical condition
Assess ability to express themselves, especially in the language of the law in court trials or proceedings, and in their decisions or rulings.
2. Test their mastery of the law, jurisprudence, and legal principles.
3. Inquire into their philosophies and values.
4. Determine their probity and independence of mind.
5. Evaluate their readiness and commitment to assume and fulfill the duties and responsibilities of judgeship.’
What happens when the short list reaches the President?
-The Philippine president then will have to choose one from the submitted list. The chosen one does not need to be confirmed by Congress or any other government branch.
The entire process should be completed within 90 days from the vacancy of the judiciary position.
What happens when the names on the short list are not to the liking of the president? Rules of the JBC and the Constitution do not have any provision that addresses this question.’
– * * * What happens when the names on the short list are not to the liking of the president?* * *
Rules of the JBC and the Constitution do not have any provision that addresses this question.’ No rule or rules for an answer. In short, anything goes to dislike or like the applicant. – What period is allowed? 90 days from vacancy.
Any sentiments by presidents? Once there was:
-‘Past presidents had |aired sentiments about the JBC’s short list submitted to them.
In 2009, then president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo returned the short list to the JBC and requested for more nominees for the two SC positions left vacant by the retirement of then Associate Justices Dante Tiñga and Alicia Austria-Martinez.
The JBC, led by then chief justice Reynato Puno, did not accommodate her request and sent back the exact same list. Malacañang had no choice but to select from the existing list.
Then. . .
– ‘Former president Benigno Aquino III, meanwhile, in 2012 also expressed dissatisfaction with the short list given to him by the JBC for the position of chief justice. He, however, did not return the list and eventually chose current Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno.’
After 2-3 Years, this Quo Warranto action is filed against CJ Sereno. SC grants it and oust the CJ.
What was ‘used’ for the Q.W. action? The current President [ he denies it though ] dislike the CJ. If this was an election case, the quo warranto after 1 year period from assumption of office by the respondent would have to be dismissed. But why not with the CJ case?
Overall, these matter or matters, are troubling, very much at that, that the Q.W. was granted despite clear provisions of the Constitution and the Rules of Court per the ‘Pursuant’ clause of the Rules.
Will such ruling be reversed in time? Who knows. . .?
leona says
https://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/iq/152640-judicial-and-bar-council-philippines-explainer
. . . someone dislikes or hates RAPPLER
leona says
The majority decision of 8 by the SC DID NOT hold that the appointment of CJ Sereno by the president is invalid:
“WHEREFORE, the Petition for Quo Warranto is GRANTED. Respondent Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno is found DISQUALIFIED from and is hereby adjudged GUILTY of UNLAWFULLY HOLDING and EXERCISING the OFFICE OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE. Accordingly, Respondent Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno is OUSTED and EXCLUDED therefrom”
How then can the majority say the CJ Sereno ‘usurped’ the position, guilty of unlawfully holding and exercising the office of the Chief Justice and granted the quo warranto action to oust the CJ when she was factually appointed by the appointing power?
Did the Court overlooked this invalidity declaration?
The reason also for denying the motion to inhibit the 6 justices – runs counter to normal day-to-day life of persons who have a dislike for one – the CJ Sereno, saying no proof shown that their is bias on the 6 justices. The hatred shown during the unfinished impeachment proceeding clearly without any iota of doubt shows bias.
If the 6 biased justices were inhibited, quo warranto is dismissed by a vote of 6-2 in favor of the CJ Sereno.
leona says
My further blog is under moderation.
leona says
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2018/may2018/237428.pdf
leona says
Look. . . on PAGE 61 of the decision it says: – ‘The former [quo warranto] questions the validity of a public officer’s appointment while the latter [impeachment] indicts him for the so-called impeachable offenses without questioning his title to the office he holds.’
Again, the dispositive portion of the decision does not invalidate CJ Sereno’s appointment in order to grant the quo warranto action.
If the appointment remains valid as it is not declared otherwise, why grant the quo warranto?
Hatred provokes disputes,
love covers over all offenses
Jerusalem Bible, Proverbs 10:12
Yun 6 justices refusing inhibition had hatred on CJ Sereno. Proofs? Not in words but in their FACES. . . watch did they look while uttering their testimonies in the unfinished (yet) impeachment proceedings. Tama si TIJAM – no clear proof of hatred in words but their faces showed otherwise!
Lalo na si J. De Castro. . . ang mukha na galit-galit kay CJ Sereno.
Yun 5 naka poker face without any trace of love for the CJ Sereno.
LOOK AGAIN AT THE VIDEO! he he
arc says
tijam is too biased to be giving opinion about hatred.
hatred is in the heart . the action of not giving sereno due process of impeachment is full of malice and usurping of justice, hatred manifested and personified in the action. so much so that constitution is breache, butas na. bastos na. he, he, he.
arc says
good thought yang motion for recon, but with the bent eight still very much in the domain, tight fisted, wrecking havoc and gone for the kill, I doubt if motion will go far.
may blood lust ang bent eight and wont settle for anything less. duterte must be proud of them, wont be long before they have party.
Yvonne says
The Justices of the Supreme Court are pillars of our Judicial Branch of government, just like the President and Vice-President are pillars of our Executive Branch.
To ensure the stability, independence, equality, fairness, and democratic empowerment of our branches of government, these government officials are shielded from nuisance, capricious, retaliatory, and politically-motivated attacks on their office such that our Constitution requires more than a simple majority, 2/3 votes to be exact, to remove them from their office.
The action of the gang of eight from the Duterte-Marcos-Arroyo clique in ousting CJ Sereno effectively destroys our democratic institutions, if not held in check.
To borrow a phrase from my typing exercise, “NOW IS THE TIME FOR ALL GOOD MEN TO COME TO THE AID OF THEIR COUNTRY.”
raissa says
You are right, Yvonne.
Impeachment needs a two-thirds vote.
The SC has just made up its own rule about tossing out even impeachable officials.
kalakala says
baka naoverlook lang ng SC ang 2/3 votes. dahil sa sobrang tuwa ng 8. sana mayroong mag appeal sa sc na dapat 10 votes to oust the cj. maraming salamat yvonne
Sam says
Quo Warranto is only the beginning, in fact they are in their next step, which is to disbarment of Sereno.
Read Rappler’s headline it say “Disbarment threat hangs over Sereno’s head in SC ouster”
“Respondent Sereno is ordered to show cause within 10 days from receipt hereof why she should not be sanctioned for violating the Code of Professional Responsibility and the Code of Judicial Conduct for transgressing the sub judice rule and for casting aspersions and ill motives to the members of the Supreme Court,”
Who among the 8 decided or call for this? My wildest guess would be….. I guess your guest is as good as mine :)
arc says
uhm, justice carpio could be in danger of losing his job as well, numbero unong contra china kasi. carpio is always harping digong to stand and defend out territory and not be duped by china’s offer of fake friendship. to protest and lead by example that our country comes 1st and foremost at kung mapuno si digong sa mga panayam ni caripo, he’ll go after carpio, flatten him and have him removed from office too.
one thing digong has to remember, no matter how many good people he ordered remove from office, shamed and dismissed and impoverished, taumbayan wont give him peace, resentful of the way he imposed his whims and caprices on them.
the bent ocho think they have the number, the upper hand to do as they please whatever,whenever, however, no longer about law na.
we in our oneness, the wronged taumbayan, the deceived and the maligned, also have the number. we can move more than mountains too. stuff the law.he, he, he.
raissa says
They think only of the present.
The wheel will turn.
Hats says
Digong will never go against AJ Carpio. Babae lang ang kaya niya. Pagdating sa lalaking dissentere tiklop siya. Minsan feeling ko gender equality parin ang isa sa root cause ng lahat ng to. Di kaya ni Digong na babae ang dissenter niya because for him mas mababang uri ang mga babae. I hope to hear more from Carpio, Leonen.
arc says
una po, the bent justices of the supreme court could lay the ground work and move against acting cj carpio as per digong’s order. work and work and work carpio over and over hanggang maging ‘boneless’ bangus si carpio, trapped with nowhere to swim.
and to save his own bacon of a pension and prized job of acting cj, carpio may well end up changing his tune and become a convert extraordinaire, suddenly a die hard duterte supporter and friendly to china. and next on target will be leonen, then del castillo . . . iisa-isahin sila. that’s what I think. morbid!
raissa says
And they won’t disbar Gadon.
LOL.
Antonio Paglinawan says
SC Spokesman Theodore Te clarified that Sereno “cannot be an associate justice as her seat was vacated and filled by Associate Justice Marvic Leonen. So she’s ousted as chief justice because that’s her only position.”
Yvonne says
The force behind the ouster of CJ Sereno is operating like clockwork.
Already, someone posted this entry in Wikipedia:
“The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines (Filipino: Punong Mahistrado ng Kataas-taasang Hukuman ng Pilipinas) presides over the Supreme Court of the Philippines and is the highest judicial officer of the government of the Philippines. The most recent chief justice was Maria Lourdes Sereno, who was appointed by President Benigno Aquino III on August 24, 2012.[1] but was later removed from her post through a grant of a quo warranto petition on May 11, 2018.”
I would think that CJ Sereno remains Chief Justice until her successor is qualified and sworn into office.
arc says
if due process is followed, the vetting of the next chief justice will take time. there are hoops and hurdles, forms to fill and requirements to busisi, tests for candidates to undergo, then series of interviews to follow. if duterte is in a hurry, there is no due process and merely appoints a chief justice . . .
raissa says
Thank you for noting that.
leona says
No, there is NO HOLD OVER in this situation.
What is there is MOVE OVER. . .out!
he he
Yvonne says
OUSTER OF CJ SERENO IS ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL
There is a legal precedent in the U.S. whereby an attorney general’s quo warranto action seeking the ouster of a secretary of state where the court held that the only method provided in the constitution for the removal from office of statewide elective official is through impeachment. The court held that the legislature is without authority to enact statutes that provide for the removal from office of any elective executive official of the state, other than by impeachment.
Thus any law in the Philippines that allows for the removal of CJ Sereno from her office, other than my impeachment is unconstitutional.
Even if we assume for the sake of argument that a quo warranto is legally binding, which it is not, the Constitution provides a specific majority of 2/3 votes to remove from office an impeachable officer, such as in the case of former CJ Renato Corona.
Clearly the 8/6/1 vote did not meet that threshold. It would require 10 votes to remove CJ Sereno.
arc says
biased justices voted and did not abstain and ended up rigging the voting their way.
kalakala says
sasabihin ng walong associate justices na 2/3 votes pag impeachment dahil ito ay qw pataasan ng boto kahit hindi umabot sa 2/3 ousted na kaagad si cj sereno. LOL
they made their own constitution.
Sam says
They say that Sereno is unfit to be the CJ for not complying with the rules which makes her “lack of Integrity”
Does bending the Constitution gives them the integrity ? They also cited the late Corona was removed from office, because of SALN. (but not via QW).
Can De Castro explain this? or Maybe Calida i’m sure Gadon will just put out his dirty finger if he will ba asked
netty says
‘Everybody is feeling the heat now and the Senators are washing their hands,….’ They won’t have the time to wash their hands for they are the next to be abolish.
Even the existing court would possibly be gone anyway with all the grab, grab grab, impeach impeach, abolish , abolish. Very pitiful the state of the country now, where are the patriots? Everyone is a coward, qou warranto look alike NOT QUALIFIED to be a brave Filipino blatantly abused by the mentally challenged men.
UNITE, UNITE .. THAT’S THE ONLY WAY.Godspeed.
arc says
if the senators have any decency left, they’ll go ahead with the impeachment. illegal and unconstitutional ang quo warranto and senators ought not to legitimize it by acquiescing.
raissa says
Many of them need Duterte’s backing to be re-elected next year.
Bey Dumlao says
Leila then
Lourdes now
Leni tomorrow??
raissa says
Next.
Sam says
Obviously …. they totally ignored Comelec’s resolution with regard to the “shading” rules.
#leaveourshadesalone
curveball says
Hindi ko mapigil ang sarili ko madismaya, mainis, magalit, mabad-trip, magmura halo halo na sa nangyari kaninang umaga.
Bakit ganito na ang Pilipinas? Bakit puro pakaliwa, pabalik, pabulusok pababa at paurong ang usad ng mga bagay?
Sa araw-araw na pagbabasa at panonood ng news, palala ng palala.
Nagtataka lang ako nasaan ang “opposition”?
Tama si Agot.. matagal ng may Quo Warranto issue bakit ngayon lang nagsisipagsalita ang mga senador? Dapat nuon pa ng nagsisimula ito o bago ang araw na ito.
Marami naman ako nababasa na anti sa gobyerno na ito. Bakit wala tumayo at mamuno. Baka ito ang inaantay ng mga tao. Isang tao na magbubuo at magbibigay ng lakas ng loob sa nakararami. Sino kaya ang “bagong bayani” na ito?
Kung sino ka man, meron isang tao na pwede makagawa nito…
pwede ba kilos na!
arc says
so, senators trust is misplaced, hoping kasi sila na supreme court will uphold the law and dismissed quo warranto vs sereno. na hope in vain tuloy sila.
it’s not too late for senators though. they can still uphold the constitution and disregard the decision of the bent ocho. scary, but. no precedent, but.
they can make history, the senators can. senate vs supreme court’s bent ocho.
Parekoy says
Putang Ina ang Gobyerno!
Lantaran ng gaguhan ang nangyayari sa bayan!!!
Panawagan ko sa mga Bloggers: Ireneo, Joeam, Pinoy Ako Blog, Get Real, at kung sinu-sinu pang may natitirang pagmamahal sa ating Inang Bayan, mag-kaisa tayong iparamdam ang ating pagkadismaya at pagkaburido sa pambabastos at panggagago sa ating Konstitusyon at mga Mamamayang Pilipino!
Paki-ulit na lang itong sigaw ng karamihan ng ating mga kababayan:
Putang Ina ang Korte Suprema!
Putang Ina ang Kongreso!
Putang Ina ang Senado!
Putang Ina ang Mga Marcos!
Putang Ina ka Duterte!
Paki share na lang sa FB at Twitter para naman manginig ang mga hayup na ito!
Parekoy
05-11-2019
Parekoy says
@raissa,
To answer your question, Sereno is ousted and no longer a member of the Inferior Court, also previously known as Supreme Court, as CJ or Assoc. Justice. Inferior Court chose to implode by abusing and raping the Constitution they themselves are tasked uphold! Everything that they decide now is invalid for how could there be validity for an institution who is an Invalid, they are paralyzed not the spinal injury kind, but with their Logic, Reason, Credibility and Integrity! Fuck Them!
Everybody is feeling the heat now and the Senators are washing their hands, now that they could see that the citizens are now protesting on this blatant rape of the constitution and now believe that indeed we are a Failed State! Fuck them too!
Irineo B. R. Salazar says
Parekoy, nagparamdam na ako ng galit noong isang araw.. “DDS, is that what you wanted?”
http://filipinogerman.blogsport.eu/talo-si-sereno-panalo-si-duterte/ ayan mga DDS, inyo na ngayon ang Pilipinas. Si VP Leni napakadali na lang sigurong tanggalin. Tapos si Panot kukulungin na dahil sa Dengvaxia. Wala nang husgadong aayaw sa kaso ni De Lima dahil puwede silang ikuwaranto ni Calida. Ayan makakaganti na kayo sa wakas. Sa mga elitista. Magiging pare-pareho at pantay-pantay na ang Pilipino. Siyempre may mayaman pa at mahirap. Pero wala na iyong sobrang galing mag-Ingles. Wala na iyong mga pa-rule-of-rule-of-law diyan. Lahat ng desisyon manggaling kay Tatay Digong. Tulad noong panahon ni Mahoma at Lapu-Lapu.
Walang Korte Suprema noon. Walang Katoliko. Walang mga Unibersidad na puro demonstrasyon. Walang mga borloloy na batas na sobrang komplikado. Walang dilawan na druglord. Walang adik. Pero wala pang Facebook at Globe. Huwag kayong matakot, hindi tayo babalik nang todo-todo ano. Pero iyong mga nagmamagaling ngayon hindi na pupuwede. Lahat na parang iisang barangay. Kung ano iyong kaya ng Presidenteng kantahin, iyon lang ang tugtog. Rakrakan ni Baste OK din. (click para basahin ang karugtong..)
Parekoy says
Habang Ikuwaranto ni Calida si Sereno, Ikinwarto naman ni Digong si Insomniac!
Mild pa nga ang banat mo sa mga DDS. :)
Kung naalala mo, bale drinibol nila Bongbong ang protesta kay Leni sa PET. Ang purpose noon is to buy time para hwag madesisyunan habang ang CJ ay si Sereno. Ngayon na tanggal na si Sereno, full steam ahead na ang pagmaniobra ng kampo ni Bongbong sa PET/SC. Iniba na ang basis ng shading para mapaboran si Bongbong, meron na ring black ops ngayon sa pagmagic sa mga balota at mga thumb drives dahil bale may unimpeded access na sila sa imbakan ng mga balota na under protest at ang mga files nito.
Tapos na ang desisyon, VP na si Bongbong!
Joeam from now on should start to be careful in his language, Duterte will be applying pressure on bloggers and media to intimidate them by warning them about the Cyber Libel Laws that the SC will be upholding to muzzle the critics.
You are ok since you are not under the jurisdiction of Philippine Laws, but not Joeam.
After this Barangay elections is wrapped up, Duterte will focus on tightening his grip on the Media since Bongbong’s wi in PET will embolden a lot of factions to protest and Duterte is just waiting for an excuse to declare Martial Law in the entire archipelago!
The wheels of authoritarianism are already rolling and starting to accelerate!
Irineo B. R. Salazar says
You mentioned Get Real above – they are gloating about the Sereno removal.
One of the writers there, Paul Farol, seems to already be working in the Palace.
Si Ben at Ilda wala pang puwesto, tulad ni Sass, kaya todong nagpapakita ng gilas.
leona says
. . . unang P’%^&*# ina – para sa WALO – OTSO-OTSO
sila yun MISinterpreters not interpreter of the Consti & laws of the land.
. . . puede rin twisters!
kalakala says
of all the numerical numbers, it takes lots of TWISTS to form “WALO – OTSO-OTSO”
Waray waray says
I hope that people will realize what this decision means to the justice system and the rule of law. If these 8 people can twist a VERY clear provision of the constitution what would prevent them from doing the same on other cases. They can twist the law on ordinary cases before them to make you win or loss. Therefore, winning a case before the supreme court is no longer dependent on the LAW of land but on the wishes of these people. Are back to having a Marcos era supreme court. But let these justices remember that the justices who were with marcos during martial law were never able to recovery their dignity and the respect of the people. So let history remember these 8 justices and I am sure they will be judged harshly just like their predecessors who acted in the same way.. but maybe these justices does not have the credibility and integrity after all.
arc says
not just people but senators as well to realize what is being done to our justice system. as law makers, senators ought to step up and correct the wrong done by the bent eight of the supreme court. if the decision of the biased justices is indeed illegal and unconstitutional, senators are not obligated to uphold it.