Osteopathy Blog

Fxclearing.com SCAM! – G R NO. 174153 RAUL L. LAMBINO AND ERICO B. AUMENTADO, TOGETHER WITH 6,327,952 REGISTERED VOTERS, PETITIONERS, VS. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT.ALTERNATIVE LAW GROUPS, INC., INTERVENOR.ONEVOICE INC., CHRISTIAN S. MONSOD, RENE B. AZURIN, MANUEL L. QUEZON III, BENJAMIN T. TOLOSA, JR., SPhilippinesN V. OPLE, AND CARLOS P. MEDINA, JR., INTERVENORS.ATTY. PETE QUIRINO QUADRA, INTERVENOR.BAYAN REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON DR. CAROLINA PAGADUAN-ARAULLO, BAYAN MUNA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON DR. REYNALDO LESACA, KILPhilippinesNG MAYO UNO REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY GENERAL JOEL MAGLUNSOD, HEAD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY GENERAL DR. GENE ALZONA NISPEROS, ECUMENICAL BISHOPS FORUM REPRESENTED BY FR. DIONITO CABILLAS, MIGRANTE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON CONCEPCION BRAGAS-REGALADO, GABRIELA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY GENERAL EMERENCIANA DE JESUS, GABRIELA WOMEN’S PARTY REPRESENTED BY SEC. GEN. CRISTINA PALABAY, ANAKBAYAN REPRESENTED BY CHAIRPERSON ELEANOR DE GUZMAN, LEAGUE OF FILIPINO STUDENTS REPRESENTED BY CHAIR VENCER CRISOSTOMO PALABAY, JOJO PINEDA OF THE LEAGUE OF CONCERNED PROFESSIONALS AND BUSINESSMEN, DR. DARBY SANTIAGO OF THE SOLIDARITY OF HEALTH AGAINST CHARTER CHANGE, DR. REGINALD PAMUGAS OF HEALTH ACTION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, INTERVENORS. LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES, MARIO JOYO AGUJA, AND ANA THERESA HONTIVEROS-BARAQUEL, INTERVENORS. LUWALHATI RIACASA ANTONINO, INTERVENOR. ARTURO M. DE CASTRO, INTERVENOR. TRADE UNION CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES, INTERVENOR. LUWALHATI RICASA ANTONINO, INTERVENOR. PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION PHILCONSA, CONRADO F. ESTRELLA, TOMAS C. TOLEDO, MARIANO M. TAJON, FROILAN M. BACUNGAN, JOAQUIN T. VENUS, JR., FORTUNATO P. AGUAS, AND AMADO GAT INCIONG, INTERVENORS. RONALD L. ADAMAT, ROLANDO MANUEL RIVERA, AND RUELO BAYA, INTERVENORS. PHILIPPINE TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS ORGANIZATION PTGWO AND MR. VICTORINO F. BALAIS, INTERVENORS. SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, MANUEL VILLAR, JR., INTERVENOR. SULONG BAYAN MOVEMENT FOUNDATION, INC., INTERVENOR. JOSE ANSELMO I. CADIZ, BYRON D. BOCAR, MA. TANYA KARINA A. LAT, ANTONIO L. SALVADOR, AND RANDALL TABAYOYONG, INTERVENORS. INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES, CEBU CITY AND CEBU PROVINCE CHAPTERS, INTERVENORS. SENATE MINORITY LEADER AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR. AND SENATORS SERGIO R. OSMEGA III, JAMBY MADRIGAL, JINGGOY ESTRADA, ALFREDO S. LIM AND PANFILO LACSON, INTERVENORS. JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA AND PWERSA NG MASANG PILIPINO, INTERVENORS. G.R. NO. 174299 MAR-LEN ABIGAIL BINAY, SOFRONIO UNTALAN, JR., AND RENE A.V. SAGUISAG, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN BENJAMIN S. ABALOS, SR., AND COMMISSIONERS RESURRECCION Z. BORRA, FLORENTINO A. TUASON, JR., ROMEO A. BRAWNER, RENE V. SARMIENTO, NICODEMO T. FERRER, AND JOHN DOE AND PETER DOE, RESPONDENTS.D E C I S I O N Supreme Court E-Library – FXCL STOLE MONEY!

Facebook
Twitter

 

                                                                  Philippines Anti-Cybercrime Police Groupe MOST WANTED PEOPLE List!

 

 

 

#1 Mick Jerold Dela Cruz

Present Address: 1989 C. Pavia St. Tondo, Manila

If you have any information about that person please call

to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines:

Contact Numbers:

Complaint Action Center / Hotline:
Tel. +63 (8) 723-0401 local 7491
Smart/Viber: +63 961 829 8083

#2 Gremelyn Nemuco

Present Address; One Rockwell, Makati City

If you have any information about that person please call

to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines:

Contact Numbers:

Complaint Action Center / Hotline:
Tel. +63 (8) 723-0401 local 7491
Smart/Viber: +63 961 829 8083

#3 Vinna Vargas

Address: Imus, Cavite 

If you have any information about that person please call

to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines:

Contact Numbers:

Complaint Action Center / Hotline:
Tel. +63 (8) 723-0401 local 7491
Smart/Viber: +63 961 829 8083

#4 Ivan Dela Cruz

Present Address: Imus, Cavite

If you have any information about that person please call

to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines:

Contact Numbers:

Complaint Action Center / Hotline:
Tel. +63 (8) 723-0401 local 7491
Smart/Viber: +63 961 829 8083

#5 Elton Danao

Permanent Address: 2026 Leveriza, Fourth Pasay, Manila 
Present Address: Naic, Cavite

If you have any information about that person please call

to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines:

Contact Numbers:

Complaint Action Center / Hotline:
Tel. +63 (8) 723-0401 local 7491
Smart/Viber: +63 961 829 8083

#6 Virgelito Dada

Present Address: Grass Residences, Quezon City 

If you have any information about that person please call

to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines:

Contact Numbers:

Complaint Action Center / Hotline:
Tel. +63 (8) 723-0401 local 7491
Smart/Viber: +63 961 829 8083

#7 John Christopher Salazar

Permanent address: Rivergreen City Residences, Sta. Ana, Manila

If you have any information about that person please call

to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines:

Contact Numbers:

Complaint Action Center / Hotline:
Tel. +63 (8) 723-0401 local 7491
Smart/Viber: +63 961 829 8083

#8 Xanty Octavo 

If you have any information about that person please call

to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines:

Contact Numbers:

Complaint Action Center / Hotline:
Tel. +63 (8) 723-0401 local 7491
Smart/Viber: +63 961 829 8083

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

#9 Daniel Boco

Address: Imus, Cavite

 

If you have any information about that person please call

to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines:

Contact Numbers:

Complaint Action Center / Hotline:
Tel. +63 (8) 723-0401 local 7491
Smart/Viber: +63 961 829 8083

 

 

#10 James Gonzalo Tulabot

Permanent Address: Blk. 4 Lot 30, Daisy St. Lancaster Residences, Alapaan II-A, Imus, Cavite 
Present Address: Pasay City

If you have any information about that person please call

to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines:

Contact Numbers:

Complaint Action Center / Hotline:
Tel. +63 (8) 723-0401 local 7491
Smart/Viber: +63 961 829 8083

#11 Lea Jeanee Belleza

If you have any information about that person please call

to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines:

Contact Numbers:

Complaint Action Center / Hotline:
Tel. +63 (8) 723-0401 local 7491
Smart/Viber: +63 961 829 8083

#12 Juan Sonny Belleza

If you have any information about that person please call

to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines:

Contact Numbers:

Complaint Action Center / Hotline:
Tel. +63 (8) 723-0401 local 7491
Smart/Viber: +63 961 829 8083

       

 

FXCL SCAM Company Details:

OUTSTRIVE SOLUTIONS PH CALL CENTER SERVICES

OUTSTRIVE SOLUTIONS PH CALL CENTER SERVICES



Stating that the One Hundred Seventy-Six parcels of land mentioned in the same motion, together with the fruits and improvements thereon could already be awarded to the parties under the terms of the settlement agreement spelled out in the trial court’s Order dated June 24, 2002. One last matter to be considered is whether the petition may be allowed under RA 6735, since only amendments to the Constitution may be the subject of a people’s initiative. The latter is an informal expression of the views of the court and cannot prevail against its final order or decision. While the two may be combined in one instrument, the opinion forms no part of the judgment. So there is a distinction between the findings and conclusions of a court and its Judgment. While they may constitute its decision and amount to the rendition of a judgment, they are not the judgment itself. It is not infrequent that the grounds of a decision fail to reflect the exact views of the court, especially those of concurring justices in a collegiate court. We often encounter in judicial decisions lapses, findings, loose statements and generalities which do not bear on the issues or are apparently opposed to the otherwise sound and considered result reached by the court as expressed in the dispositive part, so called, of the decision.

It is urged that Section 1 of Article XVII gives the power to amend or revise to Congress acting as a constituent assembly, and to a Constitutional Convention duly called by Congress for the purpose. Section 2 of the same Article, it is said, limited the people’s right to change the Constitution via initiative through simple amendments. In other words, the people cannot propose substantial amendments amounting to revision. Our people were guided by this traditional distinction when they effected changes in our 1935 and 1973 Constitutions. Oppositors-intervenors contend that Sections 1 and 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution, only allow the use of people’s initiative to amend and not to revise the Constitution. They theorize that the changes proposed by petitioners are substantial and thus constitute a revision which cannot be done through people’s initiative. Thus, any person aggrieved by the act or inaction of the respondent tribunal, board or officer may file a petition for certiorari or mandamus before the appropriate court.

Sandoval Notes – Political Law Part IV The Judiciary

On the other hand, I daresay that the same weakness of the Court becomes its strength when it speaks independently through decisions that rightfully uphold the supremacy of the Constitution and the Rule of Law. The strength of the judiciary lies not in its lack of brute power, but in its moral courage to perform its constitutional duty at all times against all odds. Upon assuming office, each of the justices of the Supreme Court took a solemn oath to uphold the Constitution. Being the protectors of the fundamental law as the highest expression of the sovereign will, they must subject to the strictest scrutiny any attempt to change it, lest it be trivialized and degraded by the assaults of the mob and of ill-conceived designs. The Court must single-mindedly defend the Constitution from bogus efforts falsely attributed to the sovereign people. Former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada and Pwersa ng Masang Pilipino likewise submitted to this Court a certification issued by Atty.
scam
In the present initiative, the 6.3 million signatories had to rely on the verbal representations of Atty. Lambino and his group because the signature sheets did not contain the full text of the proposed changes. The result is a grand deception on the 6.3 million signatories who were led to believe that the proposed changes would require the holding in 2007 of elections for the regular Parliament simultaneously with the local elections. The Lambino Group’s statement that they circulated to the people “the petition for initiative filed with the COMELEC” appears an afterthought, made after the intervenors criminals Integrated Bar of the Philippines and Atty. Quadra had pointed out that the signature sheets did not contain the text of the proposed changes. In their Consolidated Reply, the Lambino Group alleged that they circulated “the petition for initiative” but failed to mention the amended petition. Lambino finally stated during the oral arguments that what they circulated was the draft of the amended petition of 30 August 2006. The proponents of the initiative secure the signatures from the people. The proponents secure the signatures in their private capacity and not as public officials.

CARLOS P. MEDINA, JR. AND HENEDINA RAZON-ABAD, PETITIONERS, ATTYS. ROMULO B.

If these restrictions and limitations are transcended it would be inconceivable if the Constitution had not provided for a mechanism by which to direct the course of government along constitutional channels, for then the distribution of powers would be mere verbiage, the bill of rights mere expressions of sentiment, and the principles of good government mere political apothegms. Certainly, the limitations and restrictions embodied in our Constitution are real as they should be in any living constitution. In the United States where no express constitutional grant is found in their constitution,the possession of this moderating power of the courts,not to speak of its historical origin and development there, has been set at rest by popular acquiescence for a period of more than one and a half centuries. In our case, this moderating poweris granted, if not expressly, by clear implication from section 2 of article VIII of our Constitution. The COMELEC should not be allowed to shun its constitutional mandate under the second paragraph of Article XVII, Section 4, through the summary dismissal of the petition for initiative filed by Lambino and Aumentado, when such petition is supported by 6.3 million signatures of registered voters. Should all of these signatures be authentic and representative of the required percentages of registered voters for every legislative district and the whole nation, then the initiative is a true and legitimate expression of the will of the people to amend the Constitution, and COMELEC had caused them grave injustice by silencing their voice based on a patently inapplicable permanent injunction. Clearly, following the foregoing procedural rules, the COMELEC is not authorized to conduct any kind of hearing to receive any evidence for or against the sufficiency of the petition for initiative. Rather, the foregoing rules require of the COMELEC to determine the sufficiency or insufficiency of the petition for initiative on its face. And it has already been shown, by the annexes submitted by the petitioners themselves, their petition is, on its face, insufficient in form and substance.

The quantitative effect of the proposed changes is neither broad nor extensive and will not affect the substantial entirety of the 1987 Constitution. As indicated earlier, we may apply the quantitative/qualitative test in determining the nature of the proposed changes. Needless to say, the requirement of setting forth the complete text of the proposed changes in the petition for initiative is a safeguard against fraud and deception. If the whole text of the proposed changes is contained in or attached to the petition, intercalations and riders may be duly avoided. Only then can we be assured that the proposed changes are truly of the people and that the signatories have been fully apprised of its implications. The Constitution is a sacred social compact, forged between the government and the people, between each individual and the rest of the citizenry. Through it, the people have solemnly expressed their will that all of them shall be governed by laws, and their rights limited by agreed-upon covenants to promote the common good. If we are to uphold the Rule of Law and reject the rule of the mob, we must faithfully abide by the processes the Constitution has ordained in order to bring about a peaceful, just and humane society. Assuming arguendo that six million people allegedly gave their assent to the proposed changes in the Constitution, they are nevertheless still bound by the social covenant — the present Constitution — which was ratified by a far greater majority almost twenty years ago.

– Impeachment shall be initiated only by a verified complaint for impeachment filed by any Member of the House of Representatives or by any citizen upon a resolution of endorsement by any Member thereof or by a verified complaint or resolution of impeachment filed by at least one-third (1/3) of all the Members of the House. In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives. The Sandiganbayan was originally empowered to promulgate its own rules of procedure.
ALFREDO C. LIGON, JOAN P. SERRANO AND GARY S. MALLARI, PETITIONERS, WORLD
He alleges that submitting to this Court’s jurisdiction as the Senate President does will undermine the independence of the Senate which will sit as an impeachment court once the Articles of Impeachment are transmitted to it from the House of Representatives. Clearly, Senator Pimentel possesses a legal interest in the matter in litigation, he being a member of Congress against which the herein petitions are directed. For this reason, and to fully ventilate all substantial issues relating to the matter at hand, his Motion to Intervene was granted and he was, as earlier stated, allowed to argue. With respect to the motions for intervention, Rule 19, Section 2 of the Rules of Court requires an intervenor to possess a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both, or is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof. While intervention is not a matter of right, it may be permitted by the courts when the applicant shows facts which satisfy the requirements of the law authorizing intervention. At all events, courts are vested with discretion as to whether or not a taxpayer’s suit should be entertained.This Court opts to grant standing to most of the petitioners, given their allegation that any impending transmittal to the Senate of the Articles of Impeachment and the ensuing trial of the Chief Justice will necessarily involve the expenditure of public funds. Respondents are also of the view that judicial review of impeachments undermines their finality and may also lead to conflicts between Congress and the judiciary. Thus, they call upon this Court to exercise judicial statesmanship on the principle that “whenever possible, the Court should defer to the judgment of the people expressed legislatively, recognizing full well the perils of judicial willfulness and pride.” In cases where a verified complaint or a resolution of impeachment is filed or endorsed, as the case may be, by at least one-third (1/3) of the Members of the House,impeachment proceedings are deemed initiated at the time of the filing of such verified complaint or resolution of impeachment with the Secretary General.

The dean maintains that even assuming that the Articles are transmitted to the Senate, the Chief Justice can raise the issue of their constitutional infirmity by way of a motion to dismiss. The instant petitions raise in the main the issue of the validity of the filing of the second impeachment complaint against the Chief Justice in accordance with the House Impeachment Rules adopted by the 12thCongress, the constitutionality of which is questioned. The questioned acts having been carried out, i.e., the second impeachment complaint had been filed with the House of Representatives and the 2001 Rules have already been already promulgated and enforced, the prerequisite that the alleged unconstitutional act should be accomplished and performed before suit, as Tan v. Macapagal holds, has been complied with. A party must, at the very least, still plead the existence of such interest, it not being one of which courts can take judicial notice. In petitioner Vallejos’ case, he failed to allege any interest in the case. Standing is a special concern in constitutional law because in some cases suits are brought not by parties who have been personally injured by the operation of a law or by official action taken, but by concerned citizens, taxpayers or voters who actually sue in the public interest. Hence the question in standing is whether such parties have “alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.” The major difference between the judicial power of the Philippine Supreme Court and that of the U.S. Supreme Court is that while the power of judicial review is only impliedly granted to the U.S. Supreme Court and is discretionary in nature, that granted to the Philippine Supreme Court and lower courts, as expressly provided for in the Constitution, is not just a power but also aduty, and it wasgiven an expanded definitionto include the power to correct any grave abuse of discretion on the part of any government branch or instrumentality.

  • Officer in charge of election.—The councilor assigned to the barrio shall take charge of the election.
  • A person is not an indispensable party, however, if his interest in the controversy or subject matter is separable from the interest of the other parties, so that it will not necessarily be directly or injuriously affected by a decree which does complete justice between them.
  • Consequently, the shift from presidential to parliamentary form of government cannot be regarded as anything but a drastic change.
  • Given that a clear majority of the members of the Court, eight Justices, concurred in the decision in Santiago, the pronouncement therein that RA 6735 is “incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned” constitutes a definitive ruling on the matter.
  • Quo warranto proceeding dismissed without prejudice by equal division of the court on question of constitutionality of statute involved.

At the outset, it must be underscored that initiative and referendum, as means by which the people can directly propose changes to the Constitution, were not provided for in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions. Thus, under these two Constitutions, there was no demand to draw the distinction between an amendment and a revision, both being governed by a uniform process. The distinction between an amendment and a revision becomes crucial because only amendments are allowed under the system of people’s initiative. Revisions are within the exclusive domain of Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members, or of a Constitutional Convention. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered votes, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein. Santiago v. COMELEC was decided by this Court on March 19, 1997 or more than nine years ago. During that span of time, the Filipino people, specifically the law practitioners, law professors, law students, the entire judiciary and litigants have recognized this Court’s Decision as a precedent.

RESPONDENT-IN-INTERVENTION.LEONILO R. ALFONSO, PETER ALVAREZ,

Heeding these decisions, several lawmakers, including no less than Solicitor General Antonio Eduardo Nachura when he was then a member of the House of Representatives, have filed separate bills to implement the system of initiative under Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution. At this point, it is well to recall the factual context of Santiago as well as the pronouncement made by the Court therein. Jesus Delfin, the People’s Initiative for Reforms, Modernization and Action , et al., invoked Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution as they filed with the COMELEC a “Petition to Amend the Constitution, to Lift Term Limits of Elective Officials, By People’s Initiative” . They asked the COMELEC to issue an order fixing the time and date for signature gathering all over the country; causing the necessary publications of said order and their petition in newspapers of general and local circulation and instructing municipal election registrars in all regions all over the country and to assist petitioners in establishing signing stations. The Rhode Island militia, under the authority of martial law, entered and searched the house of Martin Luther, a Dorr supporter.

  • The signature sheets do not also explain what specific amendments or revisions the initiative proponents want the interim Parliament to make, and why there is a need for such further amendments or revisions.
  • Individual callers were Speaker Protempore Daniel Z. Romualdez; Sen. Decoroso Resales; Reps. Wenceslao Lagumbay of Laguna, Godofredo Ramos and Carmen Dinglasan-Consing of Capiz, Reynaldo P. Honrado of Surigao, Guillermo Sanchez of Agusan, Augusto Francisco and Angel Castaño of Manila, Francisco Pajao and Alberto Aguja of Leyte, and Jose Roy of Tarlac; Govs.
  • The only question involved is jurisdiction, either the lack or excess thereof, and abuse of discretion warrants the issuance of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari only when the same is grave, as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice or personal hostility.
  • That RA 6735 has failed to validly implement the people’s right to directly propose constitutional amendments through the system of initiative had already been conclusively settled in Santiago as well as in PIRMA.
  • That principle has informed the members of this Court as they deliberated and voted upon contentious petitions, even if this consideration is not ultimately reflected on the final draft released for promulgation.
  • IN the afternoon, the President said that the victory of Mayor Arsenic H. Lacson and his team in the recent elections in Manila was significant in that it meant the victory of clean and honest government.

If it should appear that the required number of signatures has been obtained, the Commission shall set the initiative or referendum in accordance with the succeeding sections. If it should appear that the required number of signatures has not been obtained, the petition shall be deemed defeated and the Commission shall issue a declaration to that effect. – The Commission shall act on the findings of the sufficiency or insufficiency of the petition for initiative or referendum. Legislative district must be represented by at least three percent (3%) of the registered voters therein. Section 3 on the power of Congress to call constitutional convention to amend or revise the Constitution. The Constitution received its force from the express will of the people. An overwhelming 16,622,111, out of 21,785,216 votes cast during the plebiscite, or 76.30% ratified the present Constitution on February 2, 1987. In expressing that will, the Filipino people have incorporated therein the method and manner by which the same can be amended and revised, and when the electorate have incorporated into the fundamental law the particular manner in which the same may be altered or changed, then any course which disregards that express will is a direct violation of the fundamental law. The intention rather is to improve the 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 seemed obsolete, or dangerous, or misleading in their effect.

More to explore

What sort of Virtual Data Room Works

A virtual data place is a protected and hassle-free way to maintain and share records. Because the bedrooms are organised on the

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Your Downloads

Download Price Chart

This feature is not available yet.

Please come back later.