Impeachment against CJ Corona..

[acedal]

^
they are talking of tax declarations (properties). therefore, teddy boy is referring to the 40+ properties publicized by the prosickution...

[CoDer]

^
they are talking of tax declarations (properties). therefore, teddy boy is referring to the 40+ properties publicized by the prosickution...

Oo nga pala no. Thanks for pointing that out.

[niky]

They can argue all day about the properties, because it's understood that valuation is difficult, but in the end, the misdeclaration of bank accounts will be difficult to explain away.

[CoDer]

They can argue all day about the properties, because it's understood that valuation is difficult, but in the end, the misdeclaration of bank accounts will be difficult to explain away.

That will be the day.

Enrille was obviously irritated by the constant banter of the sen judges yesterday. He doesn't care about the declaration as far as property valuation is concerned.

[Retz]

^

si cheap justice na ang makakasagot niyan. hopefully we will see him testify next week.

[shadow]

^
they are talking of tax declarations (properties). therefore, teddy boy is referring to the 40+ properties publicized by the prosickution...

nope! he was talking about the whole impeachment if you will be able read all his previous tweets, he think that all charges against Corona is fiction.

[niky]

nope! he was talking about the whole impeachment if you will be able read all his previous tweets, he think that all charges against Corona is fiction.

There's something in that thought.

The prosecution can't show that he consistently votes only for or only against certain people. That was the main selling point of the impeachment before...

They can't show that he has been bribed. They can show gifts, but it's very hard to prove that these were "gifts" (the discounted condo) or actual "bribes".

They can show discrepancy in his SALN, but the question is whether the discrepancy is big enough to justify impeachment. The defense's job is to try to minimize the discrepancy and then build a story that the discrepancy is an honest mistake. They're starting to whittle away at it, and while some of the answers raise questions, the issues of ill-gotten wealth are not within the articles of impeachment... so Corona can still luck out on this case.

And the defense is already building a case against ill-gotten wealth to discourage it coming up in future impeachments.

This is what you get when you're too damn impatient to build up a proper case before pursuing impeachment!

[Monseratto]

Heard on the radio that the defense panel intends to introduce the SALN of the senators as evidence. They want to show that nobody completely fill in the value of their real property including acquisition cost. Kasama ba yung acquisition cost sa articles of impeachment?

[_Qwerty_]

kaya lang naman ni establish yung SALN para malaman yung totoong price nung mga properties.. alam naman nang lahat na ang FMV eh talagang mababa.. simple lang naman ang tanong dyan.. magkano binili.. magkano total assets.. magkano total income.. pag mas malaki yung assests.. san galing yung pinambili.. kailangan pa din sagutin nang defense yan..

[Monseratto]

The senators are only obliged to answer these with a yea or a nay. It only mentioned his SALN, which obviously he did submit to the clerk of court. Walang "failed to fully and truthfully disclose all his properties including property values and acquisitions, and all bank accounts..." Walang voting for sub articles...They can always do this next year during midterm elections...

ARTICLE II

RESPONDENT COMMITTED CULPABLE VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND/OR BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST WHEN HE FAILED TO DISCLOSE TO THE PUBLIC HIS STATEMENT OF ASSETS, LIABILITIES, AND NET WORTH AS REQUIRED UNDER SEC. 17, ART. XI OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION.


ARTICLE III

RESPONDENT COMMITTED CULPABLE VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION AND BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST BY FAILING TO MEET AND OBSERVE THE STRINGENT STANDARDS UNDER ART. VIII, SECTION 7 (3) OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT PROVIDES THAT “[A] MEMBER OF THE JUDICIARY MUST BE A PERSON OF PROVEN COMPETENCE, INTEGRITY, PROBITY, AND INDEPENDENCE” IN ALLOWING THE SUPREME COURT TO ACT ON MERE LETTERS FILED BY A COUNSEL WHICH CAUSED THE ISSUANCE OF FLIP-FLOPPING DECISIONS IN FINAL AND EXECUTORY CASES; IN CREATING AN EXCESSIVE ENTANGLEMENT WITH MRS. ARROYO THROUGH HER APPOINTMENT OF HIS WIFE TO OFFICE; AND IN DISCUSSING WITH LITIGANTS REGARDING CASES PENDING BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT.

ARTICLE VII

RESPONDENT BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST THROUGH HIS PARTIALITY IN GRANTING A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (TRO) IN FAVOR OF FORMER PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO AND HER HUSBAND JOSE MIGUEL ARROYO IN ORDER TO GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO ESCAPE PROSECUTION AND TO FRUSTRATE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, AND IN DISTORTING THE SUPREME COURT DECISION ON THE EFFECTIVITY OF THE TRO IN VIEW OF A CLEAR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT’S OWN TRO.