 |
Wednesday, November 9, 2016
What the dissenting justices say about Marcos burial
 What the dissenting justices say about Marcos burialABS-CBN News |
MANILA – The Supreme Court on Tuesday voted to allow the burial of the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos in the Libingan ng mga Bayani, serving a blow to the cause of human rights victims during the Martial Law period.
Nine justices sided with the Duterte administration in allowing the burial at the heroes’ cemetery in Taguig City, while 5 magistrates, namely Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, Associate Justices Marvic Leonen, Benjamin Caguioa, Francis Jardeleza, and Antonio Carpio, opposed the interment in the LNMB.
With the exception of Carpio, the dissenting justices were all appointees of former President Benigno Aquino III, whose mother Corazon was a key figure in the 1986 popular revolt that toppled the Marcos dictatorship.
Here are the highlights of the opinions of the dissenting justices:
SERENO
-- President Duterte acted with grave abuse of discretion in ordering Marcos’ burial at the cemetery because it violated domestic law and international law in relation to the obligations to do justice for human rights victims.
-- Marcos’ burial in the LNMB would run counter to the duty to combat impunity as well as to preserve memory - all of which are international commitments that the Philippines is bound to observe.
-- Marcos’ burial in the LNMB would run counter to the original intention of the cemetery, as both branches of government - the legislative and judicial – have already recognized that Marcos was a dictator, plunderer and a human rights violator.
-- The invocation that Marcos’ burial would bring about national unity and healing, by itself, is insufficient to justify the use of public funds absent a public purpose.
CARPIO
-- Marcos is ineligible to be interred at heroes’ cemetery because of the sovereign action of the people of removing him from office, known as the People Power Revolution.
-- Despite being a Medal of Valor awardee, Marcos ceased to be qualified when he was ousted on February 25, 1986.
-- Marcos’ forcible removal in February 1986 amounted to “the strongest form of dishonorable discharge from office since it is meted out by the direct act of the sovereign people.”
-- The majority’s opinion that Marcos could not be considered dishonorably discharged as his separation was not in accordance with a 1987 Armed Forces of the Philippines guidelines is wrong as this could not be applied “retrospectively to undo a final act by the sovereign people.”
-- Marcos’ ouster is beyond both judicial and administrative review and cannot be undone by a mere circular of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.
-- Marcos is the “very antithesis of freedom and democracy because he was a dictator as declared by this Court.”
-- No public purpose is served by transferring of Marcos’ remains at the heroes’ cemetery and public funds cannot be used for this purpose.
LEONEN
-- Marcos is no hero and was not even an exemplary public officer.
-- Marcos’ burial at the heroes’ cemetery would be in violation of Republic Act 289, which created the national pantheon. Section 1 of the law states that those buried must have led lives worthy of “inspiration and emulation.”
-- The order allowing Marcos’ burial at the heroes’ cemetery violates Republic Act 10368 or the Human Rights Victims Reparations Act.
-- The order allowing Marcos’ burial violates the Revised Administrative Code because there is no public purpose for the interment of the late dictator at the heroes’ cemetery.
-- The order allowing Marcos’ burial at the heroes’ cemetery encourages impunity.
-- “The burial of Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani is not an act of national healing. It is an effort to forget out collective shame, to bury our inaction for many years. It is to contribute to the impunity against human rights abuses and the plunder of our public trust.”
CAGUIOA
-- The argument that Marcos’ burial in the Libingan ng mga Bayani does not make him a hero “disregards the status of the LNMB as a national shrine.”
-- The Solicitor General’s argument that President Rodrigo Duterte’s power to reserve land for a public purpose under the Revised Administrative Code 1987 was not sufficient basis for the President’s decision to inter the Marcos remains.
-- The President’s order to inter Marcos’ remains at the heroes’ cemetery is “a verbal order, which falls short of the manner prescribed by law for its exercise.” The Revised Administrative Code and the Public Land Act both required the President to exercise this power by proclamation or executive order.
-- The order to inter Marcos’ remains does not serve a public purpose, noting Solicitor General Jose Calida’s admission that the burial of the Marcos remains was a campaign promise of the President to the Marcos family.
SHARED FROM
Tuesday, November 8, 2016
86TH PERSUASIVE APPEAL_9NOV16_TO SCP JUSTICES : 8 JUSTICES PROVEN TO BE CONSISTENTLY SHOWING AFFINITY TO THIEVES.
  
President Duterte constantly demanding that people in
government that corruption must be stopped. This had
been a battle cry in almost all of his public speeches.
Similarly, it is of public knowledge that among his
revelations is there was nobody pledged support for
his candidacy except a governor from Bataan and one,
Imee Marcos and it follows even without saying that
burial of the Marcos remains at the heroes ground as
a campaign promise is borne out of debt of gratitude to
Imee and the Marcos family who holds vast amount of
amassed ill gotten wealth enough to finance his bid and
catapult him to the presidency even without the support
of the rich oligarchs of the country. President Duterte
openly despised these oligarchs as those who posed
stumbling blocks to the progress of the country which
is true but he had been noticeably quiet on the role of
the Marcoses while plundering the country at its worst.
While the president hated the Americans for having
massacred Moro people in the past but ridiculously
failed to blame Marcos for the massacre of Moros in the
Jabidah or Corregidor Massacre which gave birth to the
Muslim rebellion in Mindanao. Out of his indebtedness he
was constrained to save the day for the Marcoses hoping
that the justices would exercise wisdom while declaring
that he will abide by the ruling of the court as it passed
judgment on the issue, heroes burial for the late dictator.
The majority of the justices who refused to help the
the president to correct the wrong he had done out of
this predicament remained concerned only on matters
closed to their stomachs farthest away from their
conciences, As in real corruption drama anthologies
portray, since the loot had been shared therefore it is
decreed that all wrong be right and villains be heroes.
ANTONIO L. BUENSUCESO JR.
|
The Man Who Fixed His Own Heart
When Tal Golesworthy was told he was at risk of his aorta bursting, he wasn’t impressed with the surgery on offer — so he came up with his own idea.
Lunchtime at a small medical engineering company in Tewkesbury. The entertainment thoughtfully laid on to garnish our sandwiches is a colorful video: a neat bit of cardiovascular surgery featuring someone’s heart and blood vessels.
Someone? Well, not quite anyone. The exposed and beating heart at which we’re gazing belongs to one of my dining companions. Tal Golesworthy, 60, is balding, quick-talking and often outspoken. He’s also – a clue here – tall, with unusually long fingers.
Getting on for 15 years ago Golesworthy learned that unless he was prepared to undergo major surgery on one of the vessels carrying blood away from his heart, he faced an increasing risk of premature death. He didn’t relish the prospect of an operation; but even more upsetting was the knowledge of what this particular procedure would involve.
Golesworthy is neither a doctor nor any kind of medical researcher. He’s an engineer. But with characteristic self-belief he reckoned he could devise a simpler and safer way of fixing his problem. And he did. He then persuaded a surgeon to take him seriously, became the guinea pig for the first operation, and now runs a company set up to manufacture implants like the one buried in his own chest. It’s been there for a decade, and it’s keeping him alive.
READ MORE HERE
|
85TH PERSUASIVE APPEAL_8NOV16_TO SCP JUSTICES : MARCOS AS PREDICTED WILL WIN 8 OUT OF THE 15 SC JUSTICES VOTES LIKE GLORIA AND ENRILE HAD.
having joined Shell in keeping me in continuing shame with your inaction which effectively sealed the validity of the rigged ranking thereby destroying my honor, dignity and reputation perpetually in front of my co-employees, the public, friends and family, I have no recourse but to profusely return the same tenor of shame to all of you as a matter of my quest for the restoration of my honor, dignity and reputation by virtue of Article II Section 11 of the 1987 CONSTITUTION, which yourselves violated first. AGAIN, YOU YOURSELVES VIOLATED FIRST. AGAIN, YOU YOURSELVES VIOLATED FIRST. AGAIN, YOU YOURSELVES VIOLATED FIRST.
EACH ONE OF THE 8 JUSTICES WEARS THE NEW ROBES ADAPTED FROM THE STORY "THE EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES". THE ROBES WHICH THESE 8 JUSTICES ARE WEARING ARE INVISSIBLE BY IDIOTS AND PEOPLE WHO ARE UNFIT TO THEIR POSITION. HENCE WHEN ONE IS UNABLE TO SEE THESE 8 JUSTICES NEW ROBES THEN HE MUST BE AN IDIOT OR SOMEBODY WHO IS UNFIT TO HIS/HER POSITION.
  |
Monday, November 7, 2016
Living life without honor is a tragedy bigger than death itself
|
When will the State’s cloak of invincibility against suit and liability be shredded
When will the State’s cloak of invincibility against suit and liability be shredded
On the issue regarding the state immunity doctrine, the Commissioner cannot escape liability for the lost shipment of goods. This was clearly discussed in the UNIMEX Micro-Electronics GmBH decision, where the Court wrote:
Finally, petitioner argues that a money judgment or any charge against the government requires a corresponding appropriation and cannot be decreed by mere judicial order.
Although it may be gainsaid that the satisfaction of respondent’s demand will ultimately fall on the government, and that, under the political doctrine of “state immunity,” it cannot be held liable for governmental acts (jus imperii), we still hold that petitioner cannot escape its liability. The circumstances of this case warrant its exclusion from the purview of the state immunity doctrine.
As previously discussed, the Court cannot turn a blind eye to BOC’s ineptitude and gross negligence in the safekeeping of respondent’s goods. We are not likewise unaware of its lackadaisical attitude in failing to provide a cogent explanation on the goods’ disappearance, considering that they were in its custody and that they were in fact the subject of litigation. The situation does not allow us to reject respondent’s claim on the mere invocation of the doctrine of state immunity. Succinctly, the doctrine must be fairly observed and the State should not avail itself of this prerogative to take undue advantage of parties that may have legitimate claims against it.
In Department of Health v. C.V. Canchela & Associates, we enunciated that this Court, as the staunch guardian of the people’s rights and welfare, cannot sanction an injustice so patent in its face, and allow itself to be an instrument in the perpetration thereof. Over time, courts have recognized with almost pedantic adherence that what is inconvenient and contrary to reason is not allowed in law. Justice and equity now demand that the State’s cloak of invincibility against suit and liability be shredded.
Accordingly, we agree with the lower courts’ directive that, upon payment of the necessary customs duties by respondent, petitioner’s “payment shall be taken from the sale or sales of goods or properties seized or forfeited by the Bureau of Customs.”
WHEREFORE, the assailed decisions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 75359 and 75366 are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. PetitionerRepublicof the Philippines, represented by the Commissioner of the Bureau of Customs, upon payment of the necessary customs duties by respondent Unimex Micro-Electronics GmBH, is hereby ordered to pay respondent the value of the subject shipment in the amount of Euro 669,982.565. Petitioner’s liability may be paid in Philippine currency, computed at the exchange rate prevailing at the time of actual payment.
SO ORDERED.[14] [Emphases supplied]
In line with the ruling in UNIMEX Micro-Electronics GmBH, the Commissioner of Customs should pay AGFHA the value of the subject lost shipment in the amount of US$160,348.08 which liability may be paid in Philippine currency computed at the exchange rate prevailing at the time of the actual payment.
SOURCE FROM BATAS PINOY
https://bataspinoy.wordpress.com/2012/03/02/when-will-the-states-cloak-of-invincibility-against-suit-and-liability-be-shredded/ |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
SYNDICATED ESTAFA
MY QUEST FOR SWINDLED
RETIREMENT PAY BY SHELL
 
SWINDLING ITO, SYNDICATED ESTAFA
HOT PURSUIT
DUTY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES
SHELL SWINDLING OF RETIREMENT PAY 5TH YEAR
|
