473RD PERSUASIVE APPEAL_4JUNE18_TO THE SCP JUSTICES : 'THE SUPREME COURT IS NOT INFALLIBLE. ONLY THE CONSTITUTION IS SUPREME' says young lawyer Audrey Ng

New lawyers risk contempt with purple ribbon at Supreme Court rites 'The Supreme Court is not infallible. Only the Constitution is supreme,' says young lawyer Audrey Ng MANILA, Philippines – On Friday, June 1, Audrey Ng took her oath as a new lawyer, and she did so rather daringly, as she tied a purple ribbon on her hands and risked being held in contempt of the Supreme Court. The warning made days ahead was ominous: do not disturb decorum, or you will face contempt. Moments before they recited their lawyer's oath, Associate Justice Lucas Bersamin's threat sounded even more severe: criticize the Court outside "guidelines" and "lose your privilege of membership in the Bar." "The fact of the matter is, the Supreme Court has just unseated its own Chief Justice after openly, albeit passive-aggressively, calling for her resignation," Ng said. Indeed it was an oath-taking in the strangest of times. The Supreme Court's quo warranto ouster of former chief justice Maria Lourdes Sereno led a United Nations prober to declare the country's judicial independence as under attack. "Foreseeably, how citizens view this institution had been affected. The purple ribbon is to remind ourselves of this quote from Justice JBL Reyes: 'No master but law. No guide but conscience. No aim but justice,'" Ng said, referring to former Supreme Court Justice Jose Benedicto Luis Reyes, who championed human rights during the late president Ferdinand Marcos' martial law. Despite warning Ng and several other batchmates from the University of the Philippines (UP) College of Law wore the purple ribbon on their hands and wrists during the oath-taking. She said Bersamin's warnings did not scare her, but surprised her instead. "We all knew that the oath-taking would be done in a special en banc session, so there was a certain level of decorum expected of us. I don't think we needed to be reminded of the Court's contempt power just to behave," Ng said. She added: "I don't believe there was anything contemptuous about wearing a purple ribbon. It would not have disrupted the order and security of the ceremonies." The purple ribbon, although a subtle way of voicing out opposition, spoke the loudest on Friday inside the massive plenary hall of the Philippine International Convention Center (PICC). After all, these are young, newly sworn-in lawyers who are resisting what was, in effect, a directive to get in line. As Bersamin told the 1,724 new lawyers: "Let us always detest and reprove a fellow lawyer who joins a public demand for disrespecting the courts and their rulings. Let us rethink that strategy, lest you and that other lawyer become unworthy of the Lawyer's Oath. If that happens, you would thereby assault the Judiciary of which you are but its mere officers." Ng said: "The Supreme Court is not infallible. Only the Constitution is supreme. Early on, my professor in constitutional law instilled in me the belief that in order to approximate what is right and true, it is always wise to encourage a marketplace of ideas. So I think it is the duty of every citizen – members and non-members of the legal profession alike – to contribute to this marketplace of ideas, with the end in view of upholding the supremacy of our Constitution." The social media generation Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo De Castro's speech had the same tone as Bersamin's insofar as calling out lawyers who criticize the Supreme Court. De Castro lectured about how it is brave to take an unpopular view, especially in the age of social media where "many put premium on social acceptance." "There may be a few among you who fear that some talented netizen would put a shot of your most unflattering photos and make a viral meme out of them. If you truly subscribe to the popular view and you let that guide your legal decisions, then, good for you. Doing that does not require you to be brave, and entails no personal cost. It makes you feel safe and secure," De Castro said, addressing the millennial generation which Ng is a part of. Ng had this to say: "What is right and just does not depend on popularity. Maybe what makes an opinion unpopular is not the absence of brave lawyers, but the absence of reason and justice. And maybe what makes an opinion popular is not the abundance of people playing safe, but a general agreement that it is grounded and just." The ceremony was a bizarre event. Six dissenters on the stage, and more oppositors among the law professors there, listened as De Castro riled against "incendiary" opinions. Ng instead focused on her oath – the part of the ceremony which inspired her the most. "'I will maintain allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines; I will support and defend its Constitution and obey the laws as well as the legal orders of the duly constituted authorities therein.' Our oath clearly puts primacy on the rule of law. There is nothing about making the law yield to what one seeks to achieve," Ng said. "I hope we all live by the statements we made that day," she added. – Rappler.com "The Supreme Court is not infallible. Only the Constitution is supreme.                                                _Audrey Ng 'No master but law. No guide but conscience.  No aim but justice,'"                                                          _Justice JBL Reyes HONOR CODE OF THE PMA REIGN SUPREME  THAN THE CONSTITUTION PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THE SCP JUSTICES DELIBERATE  INTENTIONAL FAILURE  TO UPHOLD  THE SUPREMACY OF THE  CONSTITUTION  AT ALL TIMES. HONOR CODE REIGN SUPERIOR THAN THE CONSTITUTION                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            CONSTITUTIONAL LAW LECTURE EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE  13 JUDASSES OF  SUPREME COURT DOCTRINE OF CONSTITUTIONAL SUPREMACY DOCTRINE OF CONSTITUTIONAL SUPREMACY LAWS & JURISPRUDENCE Under this doctrine, if a law or contract violates any norm of the Constitution, that law or contract, whether promulgated by the legislative or by the executive branch or entered into by private persons for private purposes, is null and void and without any force and effect. Thus, since the Constitution is the fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is deemed written in every statute and contract. (Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS, G.R. No. 122156, Feb. 3, 1997) Justice Isagani A. Cruz eloquently expound the essence of this great doctrine in this wise: “The Constitution is the basic and paramount law to which all other laws must conform and to which all persons, including the highest officials of the land, must defer. No act shall be valid, however nobly intentioned, if it conflicts with the Constitution. The Constitution must ever remain supreme. All must bow to the mandate of this law. Expediency must not be allowed to sap its strength nor greed for power debase its rectitude. Right or wrong, the Constitution must be upheld as long as it has not been changed by the sovereign people lest its disregard result in the usurpation of the majesty of the law by the pretenders to illegitimate power.” (Isagani A. Cruz, Philippine Political Law, Central Lawbook Publishing, Co., Inc. 1991 Ed., p. 11) BAR QUESTION (2004) BNN Republic has a defense treaty with EVA Federation. According to the Republic's Secretary of Defense, the treaty allows temporary basing of friendly foreign troops in case of training exercises for the war on terrorism. The Majority Leader of the Senate contends that whether temporary or not, the basing of foreign troops however friendly is prohibited by the Constitution of BNN which provides that, "No foreign military bases shall be allowed in BNN territory." In case there is indeed an irreconcilable conflict between a provision of the treaty and a provision of the Constitution, in a jurisdiction and legal system like ours, which should prevail: the provision of the treaty or of the Constitution? Why? Explain with reasons, briefly. ANSWER: In case of conflict between a provision of a treaty and a provision of the Constitution, the provision of the Constitution should prevail. Section 5(2)(a), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution authorizes the nullification of a treaty when it conflicts with the Constitution. (Gonzales v. Hechanova, 9 SCRA 230 [1963]). shared from http://www.prohealthlaw.com/2015/04/doctrine-of-constitutional-supremacy.html SHELL AND SSS CONSPIRACY TO INFLICT PROLONGED INJURY, PAIN AND SUFFERING TO THEIR COMMON VICTIM BUENSUCESO 1 CERTIFICATE OF SEPARATION FROM LAST EMPLOYER COMPLAINT SHELL AND SCP JUSTICES CONSPIRACY   TO INFLICT PROLONGED INJURY, PAIN, AND SUFFERING TO THEIR COMMON VICTIM BUENSUCESO 2.  MY QUEST FOR SWINDLED  RETIREMENT PAY BY SHELL 617counts SEE BELOW FOR THE 617TH   TIME THE REITERATION OF DEMAND PAYMENT OF RETIREMENT PAY WHICH SHELL REFUSED TO HONOR IN THE PRESENCE AND DEEMED APPROVAL OF THE HONORABLE MAGISTRATES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINE GEUS_15MAR16_66th FOLLOW UP_REITERATION OF DEMAND  PAYMENT OF RETIREMENT PAY Dishonest scales are an abomination to the Lord, but a just weight is His delight... Proverbs Chapter 11  v. 1 Retirement Pay Law circumvented by Shell subject to penal provision provided for by Article 288 of the Labor Code of the Philippines.