Committee on Public Order and Dangerous Drugs (February 23, 2017)

Agenda: P.S. Res. No. 265 – Inquiring on the various reported incidents of kidnap for ransom perpetrated by members of the Philippine National Police

CLAIMING FOR A PARTIAL SSS RETIREMENT BENEFIT SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS ABANDONMENT OF CASES GR-183273 AND AC-10084 AND OTHER COMPLAINTS

"JUSTICE" ENRIQUETA VIDAL RULINGS BASED ON  TECHNICALITY AND FALSE ASSERTIONS XXX Ang muling pag-aaral po sa petisyong ito ay ipinagkait ng First Division ng Supreme Court sa dahilang hindi po napadalhan ng kopya ang Court of Appeals at ang iba pang adverse parties at kawalan di umano ng mga patunay sa mga kamalian ng Court of Appeals. Ganoon din po, di umano ay wala po akong naipakitang sapat na dahilan na para ang mga decision ng Labor Arbiter, NLRC at ng Court of Appeals ay baligtarin. BY: "JUSTICE" ENRIQUETA VIDAL as explained in Pilipino FROM motion for reconsideration dated  October 30, 2008 XXX EXCERTED FROM "MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION DATED OCTOBER 30, 2008 XXX MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION October 30, 2008 Hon. Reynato Puno Chief Justice Supreme Court of the Philippines Manila Mahal na Kagalanggalang na Chief Justice: Maligayang bati po sa inyo. Ako po si Antonio L. Buensuceso, petitioner sa kaso Blg. GR-183273 (Antonio L. Buensuceso vs. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation/Rico Bersamin) na sa kasalukuyang naninirahan sa 324 W. Casurina Pl. Beverly Hills, Florida, U.S. A. , naghahanapbuhay bilang janitor sa isang "nursing home" malapit lang po sa nabanggit na address. Mangyari pong lumiham ako upang manikluhod at magpakumbabang makiusap po sa inyo na bigyang daan ang muling pag-aaral sa aking petisyon. Ang muling pag-aaral po sa petisyong ito ay ipinagkait ng First Division ng Supreme Court sa dahilang hindi po napadalhan ng kopya ang Court of Appeals at ang iba pang adverse parties at kawalan di umano ng mga patunay sa mga kamalian ng Court of Appeals. Ganoon din po, di umano ay wala po akong naipakitang sapat na dahilan na para ang mga decision ng Labor Arbiter, NLRC at ng Court of Appeals ay baligtarin. Una po, Mahal na Chief Justice, nakasama ko po rito sa Amerika ang aking butihing maybahay at ang naiwan po sa Pilipinas ay ang tatlo ko pong anak at ang kanilang 90 anyos na lola na hindi nakatayo o nakakaupo sanhi po ng injury sa balakang. Sa dami po ng kanilang intindihin sa pang-araw araw na pagharap sa hamon ng buhay, paghahalihaliling pag aalaga sa kanilang lolang nasa banig ng karamdaman, sampu sa kalituhan at pagharap sa kaso ko laban sa Shell, na sila na lang tatlong magkakapatid ang nagtutulong -tulong sa dahilan pong wala na pong abugado ang may nais pang mag-ukol ng panahon dahil sa Shell daw po ang kalaban na kahit pa talo sa argumento ay mananalo pa rin sa kaso dahil sa malawak nitong impluensya at kapangyarihan. Dahil po dito sila pong magkakapatid ay kumikilos na walang lubos na patnubay ng isang abugado. Kaya po, Mahal na Chief Justice nag susumamo po ako sampu ng aking mag-anak ng inyong paglingap at pang-unawa. Sana po maunawaan ninyo kami at ganoon din po ang aming mga Kagalanggalang na Hukom ng First Division ng Supreme Court. xxx "JUSTICE " ENRIQUETA VIDAL THE CLERK OF COURT DECIDES WITH FINALITY Illegal dismissal case merits decided by the Clerk of Court Hon. ENRIQUETA VIDAL multi skilling of a kind and remarkably IT'S MORE FUN IN THE PHILIPPINES "JUSTICE " ENRIQUETA VIDAL Decision with FINALITY   ( one page ) by the Clerk of Court' "JUSTICE " ENRIQUETA VIDAL                          THE CLERK OF COURT DECISION dated 30 July 2008, BY  "JUSTICE " ENRIQUETA VIDAL "JUSTICE" ENRIQUETA VIDAL RULINGS BASED ON  TECHNICALITY AND FALSE ASSERTIONS XXX Ang muling pag-aaral po sa petisyong ito ay ipinagkait ng First Division ng Supreme Court sa dahilang hindi po napadalhan ng kopya ang Court of Appeals at ang iba pang adverse parties at kawalan di umano ng mga patunay sa mga kamalian ng Court of Appeals. Ganoon din po, di umano ay wala po akong naipakitang sapat na dahilan na para ang mga decision ng Labor Arbiter, NLRC at ng Court of Appeals ay baligtarin. BY: "JUSTICE" ENRIQUETA VIDAL  AS EXPLAINED IN PILIPINO FROM motion for reconsideration dated October30, 2008 XXX

157TH PERSUASIVE APPEAL_22FEB17_TO THE SCP JUSTICES : IN VIEW OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUSINESS AND REDUNDANCY ARE INCOHERENT

"IN VIEW OF THE  REQUIREMENTS  OF THE BUSINESS" Atty. Emiterio C. Manibog Atty. Joy Anne C. Leong-Pambid                                                                                   These defense counsels are from   ACCRALAW. BETTER BE THIS MONKEY THAN SOME LAWYERS THIS MONKEY FEELS SHAME SOME LAWYERS DO NOT Please read and find out why Atty. Manibog and Atty. Leong-Pambid  feared and removed this phrase "in view of the requirements of the business" from page 22 of their comments and/or pleadings. Atty. Raul Quiroz defense lawyers removed with malice intent this phrase "in view of the requirements of the business" from the original source quoted paragraph.  They cited this paragraph and prudence and honesty dictate this paragraph should be presented as a whole paragraph, no omission. This phrase,"in view of the requirements of the business", being removed from the paragraph greatly altered the whole context of the paragraph.  These lawyers deserve public disapproval and criticism based on this exposition.                   DOCUMENT                                                        SOURCE DOCUMENT WHERE the phrase"in view of the requirements  of the business" is omitted.                                                       click on image to enlarge  This phrase "in view of the requirements of the business" is a phrase which carries with it an admission of Shell  that there is no redundancy in the workplace during those times when Shell terminated my employment.  Shell and Mr Rico Bersamin  in fact,  since November 28, 2002 (Annex E) had announced redundancy of  positions and likewise informed me  through a letter dated 28 November 2002 that  they will be constrained to terminate my employment effective  31 December 2002.  If this redundancy of positions is true during those times why did Mr  Rico Bersamin needed to write me a letter  dated 17 December 2002 (Annex F) saying  " Further to our letter dated 28 November 2002, please be advised that "in view of the requirements of the business," the effectivity of cessation of your employment for reasons of redundancy shall be deferred from 31 December 2002 to 15 February 2003." If the redundancy of positions are true, why have  Mr Rico Bersamin had to extend my employment from December  31, 2002  to February 15, 2003?  If this redundancy of positions is true, Mr Rico Bersamin had no problem to end my employment by the end of December 2002 because there should be a surplus of operators at that time.  But there is none, and  this is the reason why Mr Rico Bersamin advised me to stay " in view of the requirements of the business " until February 15, 2003.  This clearly demonstrated that there was really no redundancy during those times.  The defense lawyers had intentionally remove this phrase "in view of the requirements of the business" purposely (malice intent) to avoid showing that there is actually no redundancy of positions during those times. "Ang isda ay nahuhuli sa sariling bibig." by Dr. Jose Rizal  The Fish is Caught by its Mouth HULI KAYO, NAKAKAHIYA  KAYO TALAGA.                      BETTER BE THIS MONKEY THAN SOME LAWYERS THIS MONKEY FEELS SHAME SOME LAWYERS DO NOT To Atty. Raul Quiroz,  Atty. Emiterio Manibog and Atty. Joy Anne Leong-Pambid :   Just in case you happened to feel being humiliated and lost your honor and dignity with this exposition,  I know how painful it is because I have been through it and all the three of you knew it well as the three of you joined Shell on this action against my person, my honor and dignity. You knew it well.  Both of you together with Atty. Raul Quiroz that taking me out employment by supporting a rigged ranking procedure which placed me among the poor job performers, and declared it publicly that had I not been at the bottom of the ranking list,  then I would not have been terminated. You knew well  that I have been greatly embarrassed, degraded and humiliated by this action and yet the three of you wholeheartedly supported this action though you knew as lawyers yourselves that this is unconstitutional as it is contrary to Article II Declaration of Principles and State Policies Section 11. The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights.  As the three of you yourselves,   Atty. Raul Quiroz, Atty. Emiterio Manibog and Atty. Joy Anne Leong-Pambid had violated Article II Declaration of Principles and State Policies Section 11: The state values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights. Your action forbids you to take refuge on this constitutional provision which you yourselves had violated in case you need to rely on that provision as a matter of defense alibi in connection with this case later. BETTER BE THIS MONKEY THAN SOME LAWYERS THIS MONKEY FEELS SHAME SOME LAWYERS DO NOT click on the image to enlarge  17th December 2002 click on the image to enlarge                    28th November 2002                     ALTERED                                                                          ORIGINAL SOURCE DOCUMENT ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ COMMENTS PAGE 22 SHOWING THE PHRASE "IN VIEW OF THE REQUIREMENT OF THE BUSINESS" IS MALICIOUSLY AND INTENTIONALLY OMITTED. FROM AC-10084 12TH DECEITFUL ACT BY ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ  PANG LABINDALAWANG PANDARAYA:                    HINDI PO TOTOO NA NOONG MGA            PANAHON NA TANGGALIN AKO AY            MAY "REDUNDANCY" NA             ITINAGUYOD NI ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ            (Contrary to  3.1.1  &  3.1.2.2  &  3.1.2.2 )           Your Honor,  nagsinungaling si              Atty. Raul Quiroz na noong  panahon           na tanggalin ako sa trabaho ay may            "redundancy" na  itinaguyod ni           Atty. Raul Quiroz . Sa totoo lang po,           wala pong "redundancy", siguradong           sigurado po ako noong panahong iyon.            Bakit ko nasabi yun? Ganire po yun :                           Your Honor, please, masdan po natin                ang  sulat sa akin ni G. Rico Bersamin                na may petsa 28th November 2002,                 sinasabi po rito:                XXX                "Dear Mr. Buensuceso,                 As already discussed with you, with the                  restructuring of the Tabangao Refinery,                 we have exhausted best endeavors to                  find a suitable position for you but we                  have been unsuccessful. Hence, to                  conforme  to normal legal requirements,                  we would like to serve notice that we will                 be constrained to terminate your                  employment effective close of business                  31st December 2002 with the redundancy                 package described in the following                                      paragraph."xxx                 PACKET 12 : LABEL 5.12.1  Complainant Position                                                               Paper,                                                                Annex "E"                                                            28th November 2002                                                        R. Bersamin letter 1st letter                   Dito po ay pinabatid sa akin ni G. Rico                    Bersamin na dahil sa restructuring ng                    Tabangao Refinery ay nagawa na nilang                    lahat para makakita ng "suitable position                   "sa akin pero sila ay nabigo.Kaya, upang                    makasunod sa panuntunan ng batas ay                  ipinagbibigay alam nila sa akin na ang                   aking pagtatrabaho sa SHELL ay hanggang                    31st December 2002 na lang, na may                    redundancy package na nakasaad sa                    sunod na talata.                 Mapapansin po natin ang apat na bagay :                   1. Restructuring ng Tabangao Refinery                        ay tapos na                                      2. Nagawa na nila ang lahat  ngunit                        nag-resulta sa walang suitable position,                       di umano, para sa akin                 3. At sinabing hanggang                      31st December 2002 ang trabaho ko                  4. At may redundancy package                        na ibibigay sa akin                 Your Honor,  please, ibig pong sabihin ni                  G. Rico Bersamin  sa isang pangungusap                  ay,  na  noong gawin niya ang sulat na ito                  sa akin, kung papaniwalaan natin siya,                  matapos ang Restructuring ng Tabangao                  Refinery ay  kalabisan na ako sa                  kinakailangang operator sa planta,                  kaya kailangan na niya akong tanggalin                  epektibo sa 31st December  2002.                  Tama po ba?                 Ngunit, Your Honor, hindi kaya ninyo                  pagdudahan ang kadalisayan ng mga                  sinulat niya sa akin,  hindi kaya ninyo siyang                 sabihing nagsisinungaling kapag nabasa                  ninyo ang pangalawang liham niya sa akin ,                 na may petsang 17th  December 2002?                 Tunghayan po natin :                 XXX                  Dear Mr. Buensuceso,                  Further to our letter dated 28th November 2002,                  please be advised in view of the requirements                  of the business, the effectivity of the cessation                   of your employment for reasons of redundancy                   shall be deferred from                  31st December 2002 to 15th February 2003. xxx                  PACKET 12 : LABEL 5.12.2  Complainant Position Paper,                                                              Annex "F",                                      17th December 2012 R. Bersamin 2nd letter                 Sinulat po sa akin ni G. Rico Bersamin, na                  susog doon sa kanilang sulat sa akin na may                  petsang  28th November 2002, Sabi niya ay                  ganito : "please be advised in view of the                  requirement of the business", ibig sabihin po ,                  Sana ay unawain mo na dahilan sa                  pangangailangan ng negosyo, ang                 "effectivity" ng pagtanggal sa iyo sa trabaho                  dahil sa "redundancy" ay ipinagpapaliban                 mula sa 31st December 2002 patungo sa                  15th February 2003.                  Hindi po ba tamang isipin na nagsisinungaling                   si G. Rico Bersamin sa pagsasabing may                   redundancy, na ako ay kalabisan na sa                    kinakailangan sa planta? Hindi po ba kung                   tunay na ako ay kalabisan na sa kinakailangan,                  sa totoo lang , eh kahit po ora mismo, ngayon din,                   ay maaari na niya akong pakawalan? Sa                   pangyayaring nagkaroon na sila ng plaso mula                   28th November 2002 to 31st December 2002                   ay humirit pa sila ng panahon hanggang                  15 February 2003 bago ako  tanggalin ,                   kaya maliwanag na may pangangailangan                  sa akin noong panahong iyon ; na si G. Rico                   Bersamin mismo ang nagsabing kailangan                 niya ako na manatili  Siya po mismo ang nagsabi ..                 Sa Ingles po ang sabi niya:XXX please be                 advised in view of the requirements of                  the business the effectivity of the cessation                  of your employment for reasons of                   redundancy shall be deferred from                 31st December 2002 to February 15, 2003.xxx                 Hindi po ba ninyo kaya naiisip  na naghanap                  muna si G. Rico Bersamin ng tao upang                 ipanghalili sa akin at hindi tunay na may                 "redundancy" na tulad ng sinasabi niya noong                  panahong iyon ? Kung totoo pong kalabisan                  na ako eh bakit hiniling pa niyang  manatili ako                  hanggang 15th February 2003?                 Your Honor, please, kung totoong labis                 kaming mga operator , eh  tsugi na agad                 sana ako sa buwan ng Disyembre pa lang,                  tutal nasunod na naman ni  G. Rico Bersamin                  ang sinasabi niyang  one month requirement                  na "notice" di po ba? Bakit humingi pa sila sa                  akin ng extension hanggang                 15 February 2003?                 Kaya po, Your Honor, wala pong kaduda                  duda hindi maaring magsinungaling                 ang dalawang sulat na ebidensya. Wala pong                 "redundancy," maliwanag pong walang                  kalabisan sa tao noong panahong iyon.                 Si  G. Rico Bersamin  ay buking  o  bistado na                 nagsisinungaling at ang pagsisinungaling                  naman niya ay buong lakas at talino at husay                  na itinaguyod ni Atty. Raul Quiroz.  Kaya,                 Your Honor, please, nararapat lamang  at                  dapat  tiyakin  ng lubusan  na si                 Atty. Raul Quiroz ay ma-disbar upang wala                 nang mangahas pang siya ay pamarisan.                With all due respect, Your Honor, DISBARMENT                 po ang karapat dapat sa isang abogadong                 katulad ni Atty. Raul Quiroz.               (Contrary to  3.1.1  &  3.1.2.2  &  3.1.2.2 ) ATTENTION SENATOR RICHARD "DICK" GORDON CHAIRMAN Accountability of Public Officers & Investigations (Blue Ribbon) HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE CHAIRMAN GENERAL RONALD DELA ROSA PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE CHIEF ATTY. DANTE  GIERRAN DIRECTOR NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION