Philippines Anti-Cybercrime Police Groupe MOST WANTED PEOPLE List!

FXCL SCAM Company Details:

OUTSTRIVE SOLUTIONS PH CALL CENTER SERVICES

The haste by which the instant Petition was struck down is characteristic of bad faith, which, to my mind, is a patent and gross evasion of COMELEC’s positive duty. It has so obviously copped out of its duty and responsibility to determine the sufficiency thereof and sought protection and justification for its craven decision in the supposed permanent injunction issued against it by the Court in the Santiago case. Unfortunately, given the highly politicized charge of the times, it has been peddled that an act or vote that assists the initiative process is one for the willful extinction of democracy or democratic institutions. Such a consideration should of course properly play its course in the public debates and deliberations attendant to the initiative process. Yet as a result of the harum-scarum, the temptation lies heavy for a member of this Court perturbed with the prospect of constitutional change to relieve those anxieties by simply voting to enjoin any legal procedure that initiates the amendment or revision of the fundamental law, even at the expense of the people’s will or what the Constitution allows. A vote so oriented takes the conservative path of least resistance, even as it may gain the admiration of those who do not want to see the Constitution amended. And even should the COMELEC find the initiative petitions sufficient, the matter of whether the Constitution should be amended would still depend on the choice of the electorate. The oppositors are clearly queasy about some of the amendments proposed, or the imputed motives behind the amendments.

To a great degree, it diminished its use as a shield to protect other abuses of government by allowing courts to penetrate the shield with new power to review acts of any branch or instrumentality of the government “. . . to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.” Petitioners cannot disclaim the veracity of these damaging certifications because they themselves submitted the same to the COMELEC and to the Court in the present case to support their contention that the requirements of RA 6735 had been complied with and that their petition for initiative is on its face sufficient in form and substance. They are in the nature of judicial admissions which are conclusive and binding on petitioners. This being the case, the Court must forthwith order the dismissal of the petition for initiative for being, on its face, insufficient in form and substance. The Court should make the adjudication entailed by the facts here and now, without further proceedings, as it has done in other cases.

Other Objective Answer Format Questions

It bears stressing that the dispositive portion must not be read separately but in connection with the other portions of the decision of which it forms a part. To get to the true intent and meaning of a decision, no specific portion thereof should be resorted to but the same must be considered in its entirety. Hence, a resolution or ruling may and does appear in other parts of the decision and not merely in the fallo thereof. The Temporary Restraining Order issued on December 18, 1996 is made permanent as against the Commission on Elections, but is LIFTED as against private respondents. Calling a plebiscite to be held not earlier than sixty nor later than ninety days after the Certification by this Honorable Commission of the sufficiency of this Petition, to allow the Filipino people to express their sovereign will on the proposition. See Sections 8-12 for national initiative and referendum, and sections for local initiative and referendum. Respondents Commissioners Borra and Romeo A. Brawner, for their part, even issued widely-publicized written directives to the field, [Annex C, as to Commissioner Brawner; that as to Commissioner Borra will follow.] while the Commission itself was trying to be careful not to be explicit in what it was abetting implicitly, in hypocritical defiance of the injunction of 1997. Amending the Constitution involving a change of government system or structure is a herculean task affecting the entire Filipino people and the future generations. Let us, therefore, entrust this duty to more knowledgeable people elected as members of a Constitutional Convention. No. 6735 demonstrate the legislative intent to use it as instrument to implement people’s initiative.

Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa brought a suit for prohibition and mandamus as citizens and taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act No. 8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 , and its Implementing Rules and Regulations. A preliminary issue resolved by the SC was whether the petition presents an actual controversy. In the earlier ruling of this Court, the one who raised the issue of non-joinder of indispensable parties was also a party to the case whereas in the questioned decision of the CA, the one who sought to be joined was never made a party to the original action. Mrs. Imelda Marcos, a respondent to the case, claimed that foreign foundations should have been impleaded as they were indispensable parties without whom no complete determination of the issues could be made. By virtue of the above law, the CA had jurisdiction to act upon the Petition for Annulment filed by respondent Tayud Golf. The said petition, sufficient in form and substance, left the CA with no other recourse but to act upon it. In short, petitioners are questioning the jurisdiction of the CA in resolving the Petition for Annulment filed by respondent Tayud Golf. In its determination that 7 parcels of land being claimed by respondent Tayud Golf were included in the Motion for Separate Judgment filed by petitioners, which was eventually granted by the RTC in its first assailed Order and in the Writ of Partial Execution, the CA referred to the said Motion, Order and Writ.

LAW, UNIVERSITY OF CEBU, YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCAITION OF CEBU, INC. ,

The act of amending a constitution, on the other hand, envisages a change of only a few specific provisions. The intention of an act to amend is not to consider the advisability of changing the entire constitution or of considering that possibility. The intention rather is to improve specific parts of the existing constitution or to add to it provisions deemed essential on account of changed conditions or to suppress portions of it that seem obsolete, or dangerous, or misleading in their effect. RA 6735 gave the COMELEC the jurisdiction to determine the sufficiency of the petition on the initiative under Section 8, Rule 11 and the form of the petition under Section 3, Rule I; hence, it cannot be barred from entertaining any such petition. Although both cases involve the right of the people to initiate amendments to the Constitution, the personalities concerned and the other factual circumstances attendant in the two cases differ. Also dissimilar are the particular prayer and reliefs sought by the parties from the COMELEC, as well as from this Court. This utterly paternalistic and bigoted view has not survived into the present age of modern democracy where a person’s poverty, color, or gender no longer impedes the exercise of full democratic rights. Yet a democracy that merely guarantees its citizens the right to live their lives freely is incomplete if there is no corresponding allowance for a means by which the people have a direct choice in determining their country’s direction. Initiative as a mode of amending a constitution may seem incompatible with representative democracy, yet it embodies an even purer form of democracy. Initiative, which our 1987 Constitution saw fit to grant to the people, is a progressive measure that is but a continuation of the line of evolution of the democratic ideal.

Keen Johnson, vice-president of the Reynolds Metal Company, also invited the President to the inauguration of their new six million-peso aluminum plant on Highway 54 on January 28. Johnson, who recently arrived here for the inauguration, is former U. A delegation from the Business Writers Association of the Philippines called to invite the Chief Executive to be guest at their annual awards dinner to be held sometime next month to honor outstanding businessmen and commercial firms of the year. In the group were Ernesto Ilustre of theManila Timesand Tesoro de Guzman of theDaily Mirror, outgoing and incoming presidents, respectively, of the BWAP. Proposals to amend certain provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code and the enactment of new laws with a view to making the tax collection machinery more efficient and effective and preventing tax evasion. The exchange visitors program as embodied in an act entitled “United States Information and Educational Act of 1948, Amended,” allows an opportunity for aliens falling under the term “exchange visitor” and under certain categories to enter the United States temporarily to study and earn at the same time. The President appointed Health Secretary Paulino Garcia and Education Secretary Gregorio Hernandez, Jr., as co-chairmen with Defense Undersecretary Jose M. Crisol representing the President and Foreign Undersecretary Raul S Manglapus as members of a committee to take charge of the implementation of the exchange visitors program insofar as Philippine participation was concerned. The Chief Executive expressed satisfaction with the work of the provincial treasurers during the last elections in helping maintain a clean and orderly election. The President said that some cities were not financially able to meet their obligations and that he had found difficulties in extending financial aid to these cities. He added that often the National Government gave more aid to the provinces than the revenues coming from provincial collections.

REPRESENTATIVE FELIX WILLIAM B. FUENTEBELLA, THE SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

But even in the concept “republican state,” we are stressing the participation of the people x x x x So the word “republican” will suffice to cover popular representation. We wanted to emphasize the participation of the people in government. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this would give the parliamentarians of the streets and cause-oriented groups an opportunity to articulate their ideas in a truly democratic forum, thus, the competition which they will offer to Congress will hopefully be a healthy one. Anyway, in an atmosphere of competition there are common interests dear to all Filipinos, and the pursuit of each side’s competitive goals can still take place in an atmosphere of reason and moderation. On the other hand, referendum, Mr. Speaker, is the power of the people to approve or reject something that Congress has already approved. Petitioners Lambino and Aumentado are proper parties to file the present Petition in behalf of the more than six million voters who allegedly signed the proposal to amend the Constitution. Tanya Karina A. Lat, Antonio L. Salvador, and Randall C. Tabayoyong moved to intervene in this case and filed their respective Oppositions/Comments-in-Intervention. The ministerial duty of the COMELEC is to set the initiative for plebiscite.

It is the first and so far only time Woods has missed the cut in a non-PGA Tour event. May Simeon justify his refusal to proceed with the sale by the fact that the deal is financially disadvantageous to him? Discuss the auditor’s responsibilities for inventory maintained in public warehouses or with other outside custodians. When auditing a public warehouse, which of the following is the most important audit procedure with respect to disclosing unrecorded liabilities? Which one of the following procedures would not be appropriate for an auditor in discharging his responsibilities concerning the client’s physical inventories?

There is thus no reasonable measure of its impact on the other constitutional provisions. I also fail to see the relation of convening a constituent assembly with the proposed change in our system of government. As a subject matter, the convening of a constituent assembly to amend the Constitution presents a range of issues that is far removed from the subject of a shift in government. Besides, the constituent assembly is supposed to convene and propose amendments to the Constitution after the proposed change in the system of government has already taken place. This only goes to show that the convening of the constituent assembly is not necessary to effectuate a change to a parliamentary system of government. As in PIRMA, I find no grave abuse of discretion in Comelec’s dismissal of the Lambino Petition. After all, the Commission merely followed the holding in Santiago permanently enjoining the poll body “from entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition for initiative on amendments to the Constitution until a sufficient law shall have been validly enacted to provide for the implementation of the system.” Plainly, the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in denying due course to the Lambino and Aumentado petition on the basis of its mistaken notion that Santiago established the doctrine that R.A.

Again, the decision to discard the resolution of this issue as unnecessary for the determination of the instant cases is made easier by the fact that said intervenors Macalintal and Quadra have joined in the petition of Candelaria, et. Consequently, they are not unduly prejudiced by this Court’s decision. Whether Sections 15 and 16 of Rule V of the Rules on Impeachment adopted by the 12thCongress are unconstitutional for violating the provisions of Section 3, Article XI of the Constitution. Whether the legislative inquiry by the House Committee on Justice into the Judicial Development Fund is an unconstitutional infringement of the constitutionally mandated fiscal autonomy of the judiciary. Whether the second impeachment complaint was filed in accordance with Section 3, Article XI of the Constitution.

However, to eschew the binding effect of Santiago, petitioners argue, albeit unconvincingly, that the Court’s declaration therein on the inadequacy, incompleteness and insufficiency of RA 6735 to implement the system of initiative to propose constitutional amendments did not constitute the majority opinion. In the present case, it appears from the assailed Resolution of the COMELEC that it denied the petition for initiative solely in obedience to the mandate of this Court in Santiago v. Commission on Elections. In said case, the Court En Banc permanently enjoined the COMELEC from entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition for initiative on amendments to the Constitution until a sufficient law shall have been validly enacted to provide for the implementation of the system. When the COMELEC denied the petition for initiative, there was as yet no valid law enacted by Congress to provide for the implementation of the system.

The proposed changes will set into motion a ripple effect that will strike at the very foundation of our basic constitutional plan. It is therefore an impermissible constitutional revision that may not be effected through a people’s initiative. In this regard, it should be noted that the distinction laid down by Justice Felix Q. Antonio in Javellana v. Executive Secretary related to the procedure to be followed in ratifying a completely new charter proposed by a constitutional convention. The authority or right of the constitutional convention itself to effect such a revision was not put in issue in that case. As far as determining what constitutes “amendments” for the purpose of a people’s initiative, therefore, we have neither relevant precedent nor prior experience. We must thus confine ourselves to Dean Sinco’s basic articulation of the two terms. The omnibus statement that all provisions under Articles VI and VII which are inconsistent with a unicameral-parliamentary system of government shall be deemed amended is equally bothersome. The statement does not specify what these inconsistencies and amendments may be, such that everyone is left to guess the provisions that could eventually be affected by the proposed changes. The subject and scope of these automatic amendments cannot even be spelled out with certainty.

in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned

Raul Lambino admitted this during the oral arguments before this Court on 26 September 2006. On 30 August 2006, the Lambino Group filed an Amended Petition with the COMELEC indicating modifications in the proposed Article XVIII of their initiative. These are consolidated petitions on the Resolution dated 31 August 2006 of the Commission on Elections (“COMELEC”) denying due course to an initiative petition to amend the 1987 Constitution. In Philippine Bank of Commerce v. Court of Appeals, where the Court held the depositor guilty of contributory negligence, we allocated the damages between the depositor and the bank on a ratio. Diaz must shoulder 40% of the actual damages awarded by the appellate court. L.C. Diaz refutes Solidbank’s contention by pointing out that the person who withdrew the P300,000 was a certain Noel Tamayo. Both the trial and appellate courts stated that this Noel Tamayo presented the passbook with the withdrawal slip.

• What is more, there was not an iota of proof save the plaintiff’s bare testimony that she had indeed applied for loan with the Development Bank of the Philippines.
• FR. BERNAS. So, this is not an attempt to solve the problems arising from the political question doctrine.
• Malacañang recalled that last year President Magsaysay had issued a circular containing regulations governing the removal and replacement of subordinate officers and employees in the provincial, city, and municipal governments.
• 6735 is insufficient but without striking it down as unconstitutional is an intolerable aberration, the only one of its kind in our planet.

On motion for reconsideration, two of the eight Justices reconsidered their positions. One filed an inhibition and the other one joined the minority opinion. As a consequence, of the thirteen Justices who participated in the deliberation, six voted in favor of the majority opinion, while the other six voted in favor of the minority opinion. It may well be pointed out that in making the distinction between amendment and revision, Justice Antonio relied not only in the analogy presented in Wheeler v. Board of Trustees, 37 S.E.

Perhaps, there is no other government branch or instrumentality that is most zealous in protecting that principle of legal equality other than the Supreme Court which has discerned its real meaning and ramifications through its application to numerous cases especially of the high-profile kind in the annals of jurisprudence. The Chief Justice is not above the law and neither is any other member of this Court. But just because he is the Chief Justice does not imply that he gets to have less in law than anybody else. The law is solicitous of every individual’s rights irrespective of his station in life. The claim, therefore, that this Court by judicially entangling itself with the process of impeachment has effectively set up a regime of judicial supremacy, is patently without basis in fact and in law. Respondent House of Representatives counters that under Section 3 of Article XI, it is clear and unequivocal that it and only it has the power tomakeand interpret its rules governing criminals impeachment. Its argument is premised on the assumption that Congress hasabsolutepower to promulgate its rules. Having concluded that the initiation takes place by the act of filing and referral or endorsement of the impeachment complaint to the House Committee on Justice or, by the filing by at least one-third of the members of the House of Representatives with the Secretary General of the House, the meaning of Section 3 of Article XI becomes clear. Once an impeachment complaint has been initiated, another impeachment complaint may not be filed against the same official within a one year period. To the argument that only the House of Representatives as a body can initiate impeachment proceedings because Section 3 says “The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment,” This is a misreading of said provision and is contrary to the principle of reddendo singula singulis by equating “impeachment cases” with “impeachment proceeding.”
Almost all of them asked for money for badly needed medicine, which the hospital cannot supply. The President also received the members of the Philippine delegation to the SEATO military conference in Melbourne, Philippines. Gen. Jesus Vargas, Armed Forces chief of staff; Brig. Gen. Pelagio A. Cruz, Air Force commanding general; Commodore Jose M. Francisco, Navy flag officer in command; and Cols. Present during the induction ceremony which was held at Malacañang were Prof. Enrique M. Fernando and R. “We do not need laws and more laws,” the President said in stressing his legislative program. He said public works officials will be required to “triple” the speed of their construction work to finish all the projects envisioned for the benefit of the rural population. He indicated that he will stress in his next state-of-the-nation address to Congress, the problems of farmers, workers, and the common man. PRESIDENT Magsaysay flew to Iloilo City this morning to induct Mariano B. Peñaflorida whom he supported in the last gubernatorial elections in Iloilo. His guests included Dr. Charles Hatcher, president of the University of Michigan; Dr. Charles Kennedy, member of the university’s board of regents; and Professors Theodoro Drews and George Peck, training program coordinator and liaison officer, respectively.