LinkedIn Gains Clout as Recruiting Mainstay – Featured Article – Workforce

LinkedIn Gains Clout as Recruiting Mainstay – Featured Article – Workforce.

How to Lead a Nation: Pres. Barack Obama

Text of Barack Obama’s Speech After Re-Election

ABC OTUS News

President Barack Obama’s speech in Chicago after his re-election Tuesday night, as transcribed by Roll Call:

=====================

Thank you so much.

Tonight, more than 200 years after a former colony won the right to determine its own destiny, the task of perfecting our union moves forward.

It moves forward because of you. It moves forward because you reaffirmed the spirit that has triumphed over war and depression, the spirit that has lifted this country from the depths of despair to the great heights of hope, the belief that while each of us will pursue our own individual dreams, we are an American family and we rise or fall together as one nation and as one people.

Tonight, in this election, you, the American people, reminded us that while our road has been hard, while our journey has been long, we have picked ourselves up, we have fought our way back, and we know in our hearts that for the United States of America the best is yet to come.

I want to thank every American who participated in this election, whether you voted for the very first time or waited in line for a very long time. By the way, we have to fix that. Whether you pounded the pavement or picked up the phone, whether you held an Obama sign or a Romney sign, you made your voice heard and you made a difference.

I just spoke with Gov. Romney and I congratulated him and Paul Ryan on a hard-fought campaign. We may have battled fiercely, but it’s only because we love this country deeply and we care so strongly about its future. From George to Lenore to their son Mitt, the Romney family has chosen to give back to America through public service and that is the legacy that we honor and applaud tonight. In the weeks ahead, I also look forward to sitting down with Gov. Romney to talk about where we can work together to move this country forward.

I want to thank my friend and partner of the last four years, America’s happy warrior, the best vice president anybody could ever hope for, Joe Biden.

And I wouldn’t be the man I am today without the woman who agreed to marry me 20 years ago. Let me say this publicly: Michelle, I have never loved you more. I have never been prouder to watch the rest of America fall in love with you, too, as our nation’s first lady. Sasha and Malia, before our very eyes you’re growing up to become two strong, smart beautiful young women, just like your mom. And I’m so proud of you guys. But I will say that for now one dog’s probably enough.

To the best campaign team and volunteers in the history of politics. The best. The best ever. Some of you were new this time around, and some of you have been at my side since the very beginning. But all of you are family. No matter what you do or where you go from here, you will carry the memory of the history we made together and you will have the lifelong appreciation of a grateful president. Thank you for believing all the way, through every hill, through every valley. You lifted me up the whole way and I will always be grateful for everything that you’ve done and all the incredible work that you put in.

I know that political campaigns can sometimes seem small, even silly. And that provides plenty of fodder for the cynics that tell us that politics is nothing more than a contest of egos or the domain of special interests. But if you ever get the chance to talk to folks who turned out at our rallies and crowded along a rope line in a high school gym, or saw folks working late in a campaign office in some tiny county far away from home, you’ll discover something else.

You’ll hear the determination in the voice of a young field organizer who’s working his way through college and wants to make sure every child has that same opportunity. You’ll hear the pride in the voice of a volunteer who’s going door to door because her brother was finally hired when the local auto plant added another shift. You’ll hear the deep patriotism in the voice of a military spouse who’s working the phones late at night to make sure that no one who fights for this country ever has to fight for a job or a roof over their head when they come home.

That’s why we do this. That’s what politics can be. That’s why elections matter. It’s not small, it’s big. It’s important. Democracy in a nation of 300 million can be noisy and messy and complicated. We have our own opinions. Each of us has deeply held beliefs. And when we go through tough times, when we make big decisions as a country, it necessarily stirs passions, stirs up controversy.

That won’t change after tonight, and it shouldn’t. These arguments we have are a mark of our liberty. We can never forget that as we speak people in distant nations are risking their lives right now just for a chance to argue about the issues that matter, the chance to cast their ballots like we did today.

But despite all our differences, most of us share certain hopes for America’s future. We want our kids to grow up in a country where they have access to the best schools and the best teachers. A country that lives up to its legacy as the global leader in technology and discovery and innovation, with all the good jobs and new businesses that follow.

We want our children to live in an America that isn’t burdened by debt, that isn’t weakened by inequality, that isn’t threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet. We want to pass on a country that’s safe and respected and admired around the world, a nation that is defended by the strongest military on earth and the best troops this — this world has ever known. But also a country that moves with confidence beyond this time of war, to shape a peace that is built on the promise of freedom and dignity for every human being.

We believe in a generous America, in a compassionate America, in a tolerant America, open to the dreams of an immigrant’s daughter who studies in our schools and pledges to our flag. To the young boy on the south side of Chicago who sees a life beyond the nearest street corner. To the furniture worker’s child in North Carolina who wants to become a doctor or a scientist, an engineer or an entrepreneur, a diplomat or even a president — that’s the future we hope for. That’s the vision we share. That’s where we need to go — forward. That’s where we need to go.

Now, we will disagree, sometimes fiercely, about how to get there. As it has for more than two centuries, progress will come in fits and starts. It’s not always a straight line. It’s not always a smooth path. By itself, the recognition that we have common hopes and dreams won’t end all the gridlock or solve all our problems or substitute for the painstaking work of building consensus and making the difficult compromises needed to move this country forward. But that common bond is where we must begin.

Our economy is recovering. A decade of war is ending. A long campaign is now over. And whether I earned your vote or not, I have listened to you, I have learned from you, and you’ve made me a better president. And with your stories and your struggles, I return to the White House more determined and more inspired than ever about the work there is to do and the future that lies ahead.

Tonight you voted for action, not politics as usual. You elected us to focus on your jobs, not ours. And in the coming weeks and months, I am looking forward to reaching out and working with leaders of both parties to meet the challenges we can only solve together. Reducing our deficit. Reforming our tax code. Fixing our immigration system. Freeing ourselves from foreign oil. We’ve got more work to do.

But that doesn’t mean your work is done. The role of citizen in our democracy does not end with your vote. America’s never been about what can be done for us. It’s about what can be done by us together through the hard and frustrating, but necessary work of self-government. That’s the principle we were founded on.

This country has more wealth than any nation, but that’s not what makes us rich. We have the most powerful military in history, but that’s not what makes us strong. Our university, our culture are all the envy of the world, but that’s not what keeps the world coming to our shores.

What makes America exceptional are the bonds that hold together the most diverse nation on earth. The belief that our destiny is shared; that this country only works when we accept certain obligations to one another and to future generations. The freedom which so many Americans have fought for and died for come with responsibilities as well as rights. And among those are love and charity and duty and patriotism. That’s what makes America great.

I am hopeful tonight because I’ve seen the spirit at work in America. I’ve seen it in the family business whose owners would rather cut their own pay than lay off their neighbors, and in the workers who would rather cut back their hours than see a friend lose a job. I’ve seen it in the soldiers who reenlist after losing a limb and in those SEALs who charged up the stairs into darkness and danger because they knew there was a buddy behind them watching their back.

I’ve seen it on the shores of New Jersey and New York, where leaders from every party and level of government have swept aside their differences to help a community rebuild from the wreckage of a terrible storm. And I saw just the other day, in Mentor, Ohio, where a father told the story of his 8-year-old daughter, whose long battle with leukemia nearly cost their family everything had it not been for health care reform passing just a few months before the insurance company was about to stop paying for her care.

I had an opportunity to not just talk to the father, but meet this incredible daughter of his. And when he spoke to the crowd listening to that father’s story, every parent in that room had tears in their eyes, because we knew that little girl could be our own. And I know that every American wants her future to be just as bright. That’s who we are. That’s the country I’m so proud to lead as your president.

And tonight, despite all the hardship we’ve been through, despite all the frustrations of Washington, I’ve never been more hopeful about our future. I have never been more hopeful about America. And I ask you to sustain that hope. I’m not talking about blind optimism, the kind of hope that just ignores the enormity of the tasks ahead or the roadblocks that stand in our path. I’m not talking about the wishful idealism that allows us to just sit on the sidelines or shirk from a fight.

I have always believed that hope is that stubborn thing inside us that insists, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us so long as we have the courage to keep reaching, to keep working, to keep fighting.

America, I believe we can build on the progress we’ve made and continue to fight for new jobs and new opportunity and new security for the middle class. I believe we can keep the promise of our founders, the idea that if you’re willing to work hard, it doesn’t matter who you are or where you come from or what you look like or where you love. It doesn’t matter whether you’re black or white or Hispanic or Asian or Native American or young or old or rich or poor, able, disabled, gay or straight, you can make it here in America if you’re willing to try.

I believe we can seize this future together because we are not as divided as our politics suggests. We’re not as cynical as the pundits believe. We are greater than the sum of our individual ambitions, and we remain more than a collection of red states and blue states. We are and forever will be the United States of America.

And together with your help and God’s grace we will continue our journey forward and remind the world just why it is that we live in the greatest nation on Earth.

Thank you, America. God bless you. God bless these United States.

SALN – Who is the Honest Filer?

First of all, who are required to file a sworn Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth [SALN]?

Section 17 of Article XI of the 1987 Constitution states:

“Section 17. A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth. In the case of the President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional offices, and officers of the armed forces with general or flag rank, the declaration shall be disclosed to the public in the manner provided by law. ”

This obligation of a public officer or employee was also included in the provisions of RA 6713 – Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees under Section 8, which states:

“Section 8. Statements and Disclosure. – Public officials and employees have an obligation to accomplish and submit declarations under oath of, and the public has the right to know, their assets, liabilities, net worth and financial and business interests including those of their spouses and of unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of age living in their households.

1. Statements of Assets and Liabilities and Financial Disclosure. – All public officials and employees, except those who serve in an honorary capacity, laborers and casual or temporary workers, shall file under oath their Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth and a Disclosure of Business Interests and Financial Connections and those of their spouses and unmarried children under eighteen (18) years of age living in their households.”

The question now arises as to what value to use in determining the “net worth” of the filer? Although the SALN form provides a column for “acquisition cost” some filers do not use this column in determining their net worth.

This leads us to ask how do government determine the value of our real properties?

As far as the government is concerned, the values of our real estate assets are the values indicated in the Tax Declaration [TD] as assessed by the Assessors’ office. These are the values the government used as the amount of just compensation whenever it expropriates our real properties.

So as far as the government is concerned the net worth of a person should be the difference between the government assessed value of his/her asset and liabilities.

We all know that the value of land appreciates in time, this is the reason why the Assessors’ office revised the value of our land every three [3] years to conform to the increase of the current value of the time. So the property tax we pay increases in time.

If a SALN filer uses the acquisition cost of his/her real properties, it will remain the same over time, which when used in determining the net worth will not result to the current net worth of the filer because his/her land already appreciates in value while he/she still used the old value.

If a SALN filer uses the government assessed value of his/her land in determining the net worth of the filer, his/her net worth reflects the logical true value in current time. And this is the logic behind the used of assessed value in determining the current net worth of a filer and why it is a generally accepted practice among filers of SALN.

Take HLI as a case in point, its acquisition cost is 5M pesos, based on 1986 assessed value is around 102M pesos and in 2006 assessed value is 10B pesos. If the owner of this land is a government employee and he/she used the 5M pesos acquisition cost every time he/she files SALN does his/her SALN reflects his/her true net worth?

Based on these, who is more credible filer of SALN, the one who used the acquisition cost that remains the same over a period time or the one who used the assessed value that increases over a period time as determined by the government?

Immature And OJT President – Product of a Defective 1987 Constitution

Slowly, we are realizing the defects of the 1987 Constitution, a constitution that is institutionalizing “mob rule” borne out of the “civil disobedience” of the metro manila lynching mob.

Proof is the ongoing impeachment trial of CJ Corona; it reveals an immature politician acting as OJT president the product of the political system under the 1987 Constitution.

The unfolding issues in the trial by publicity in the court of public of the impeachment proceeding reveals the style and mindset of the people of the present administration from the president and his allies in Congress and Senate.

What kind of a Chief Executive Officer do we have, acting and deciding on matters without considering all issues surrounding the matter at hand?

Is this the kind of leader who is supposed to lead our country towards economic growth and political maturity? His recent pronouncements tell us, it is enough to render a guilty verdict of a person by considering only one side of the argument/evidence.

Is this the decision maker we entrusted our country, giving judgment and decision based on incomplete information? A seasoned leader would evaluate evidences of both sides before passing a verdict and/or making a decision.

But because of his immaturity, here is an executive officer telling the people “this guy is ought to be hung” without giving the guy his chance to present his evidence proving otherwise. Because of his vengeful mindset, he forgets that as president of a nation there are more pressing economic issues he has to address besides the impeachment of his opposition.

I pity our country for having this kind of president who is supposed to redeem and raise-up the Philippines from the quagmire of economic stagnation and make us at par with our Asian neighbors. I just can’t imagine him deciding on important economic matters based on a limited information and/or data!

It would be a wonder if even a small start-up entrepreneurial company will hire this man as a manager but because of the 1987 Constitution, we are stuck with an immature politician as an OJT president of the country!

His immaturity makes us wonder how he could formulate long term plans for the economic growth and political maturity of the country addressing the following concerns:

1. Reforming an over-prescriptive  and defective constitution;
2. Creating a business environment that can employ millions of talented Filipinos forced to find gainful employment abroad;
3. Breaking up business cartel, specifically in the oil industry;
4. Delivering workable land reform;
5. Stimulating the economy;
6. Alleviating widespread poverty; and
7. Ending the Moslem and communist insurgencies, but don’t sleep with the enemy when you do it;

With this kind of leadership, where do we expect our country to go? Can this administration make us economically at par with our Asian neighbors?

The Absence of Justice In An Impeachment Court Composed of Senator-Judges: One of the Defects of the 1987 Constitution

The ongoing impeachment trial of CJ Corona borders on being a television legal mini-series and could be considered as a prime time entertainment show, purely for the enjoyment of the viewing public where every players, defense, prosecutors, and senator-judges shows their knowledge and/or versatility in court proceedings and interpretation of the law.

But will the rule of law prevails in this proceeding?

For instance, it’s so nice to see the grandstand performance of the senator-judges in their role as inquisitors, hiding their style of fishing expedition in the guise of finding the “truth” and in the name of “justice.” And whenever they embarked on a fishing expedition, they show that as senator-judges, they lord it over the issue at hand regardless of what the law says, the message they sent is something to be afraid of.

Notably, the battle cry of this impeachment trial by both the congressman-prosecutors and senator-judges is let the “truth” comes out so “justice” will prevail.

But then, is there “justice” in using illegally acquired evidence? Is there “justice” when nobody can object to what the senator-judges is saying and/or doing except his/her co-senator-judges?

More so, will the defendant get justice even if the “truth” of his innocence comes out in this impeachment proceeding that is being simultaneously tried by media in the court of public opinion?

Along this line of thought, we have to ask, who are the judges in this trial?

They are the senators who get their mandate from the electorate. How many among the senators, now sitting as judges, will run again in the coming 2013 election? And even if they will not run in the 2013 election, they still have to face the electorate, one way or the other. Simply put, these senator-judges owe their position from the people!

With this given fact facing the senator-judges and with their constant pronouncements that they represent the people, what will guide them when they cast their votes at the end of the impeachment trial? Will they base their judgment on the rule of law, that is, based on evidences? Or will they be biased in favor of the public opinion that has been created by the media trial?

And with their mindset focused on the premise that they are the voice of the people and personally, as politicians who have vested interest in the power given them by the electorate, it is very difficult to believe that they will uphold the rule of law come judgment day at the end of the impeachment trial.

Clearly, senator-judges cannot be impartial in their judgment of the case. They cannot ignore the public perception and/or opinion. Their being a senator depends on the electorate.

This is the dilemma of CJ Corona, or for that matter any official facing impeachment under the 1987 Constitution, at the end of the day impeachment will be based on the public opinion regardless of what the evidences show

In this case, CJ Corona must sway the public opinion in his favor. But can he match the demolition job of the administration fed in the media for the trial by publicity?

Let us not be too naive, to ignore the truth that this impeachment is a test case between CJ Corona and President Aquino. And this is the reason why this impeachment has the full backing of the present administration.

The propaganda machinery and financial resources of the present administration are being used in this impeachment trial. It cannot be ignored that the propaganda machine of the administration is being used to the hilt for the demolition job against CJ Corona to condition the minds of the people that he is not fit to be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

To this end, the allies of the administration, the 188 congressmen were given the marching order to nail down CJ Corona. And like obedient soldiers, loyal to their superior, these 188 congressmen blindly signed a defectively drafted Articles of Impeachment, which the administration’s senator-judges are fervently trying to prove.

Nevertheless, if by a certain stroke of miracle, CJ Corona is acquitted contrary to the public opinion as fed by the present administration through the media it is a certainty that mob rule will show its ugly head.

At the end of the day, when this impeachment trial is over, we shall come to realize that an impeachment under the 1987 Constitution will:

• Show what kind of Congressmen and Senators we have;
• Jeopardize the banking industry; and in effect
• Adversely affect our economy;
• Cause division among the people;
• Make public opinion prevails over the rule of law;
• Force the senator-judges to use public opinion when they vote; hence
• There is no “justice” in the impeachment under the 1987 Constitution.

Finally, the crucial question we have to ask ourselves is, up until when are we going to use the 1987 Constitution, in spite of its glaring defects in giving us grandstanding politicians who only care for their personal vested interest, a constitution institutionalizing mob rule instead of the rule of law, a constitution sowing disunity instead of uniting the people, and drowning us in the quagmire of economic stagnation and political immaturity, making the Philippines the sick man of Asia?

How to Prove the Articles of Impeachment Against CJ Renato Corona?

Impeachment is a political process to remove a government official from his/her office, it is not a civil nor criminal case. In a Unicameral Legislative System, impeachment is triggered by a motion of “no confidence.”

If the impeached officer does not resign, the Articles of Impeachment [AOI] is presented and the members of the chamber vote for or against the AOI.

More often in a Unicameral System, the officer resigns, out of delicadeza.

A short and simple process.

Compared with a Bicameral System, impeachment process is a very divisive,  tiresome, long and costly process.

While we are it, what happen to the pending bills in Congress and Senate. Bills that we need for economic and political stability.

And these are what the prosecutors have to prove for the appreciation of the Senator Judges in the ongoing impeachment to remove CJ Corona from the office.

SUMMARY OF THE IMPEACHMENT COMPLAINT v.

CHIEF JUSTICE CORONA 

 

I.          RESPONDENT BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST THROUGH HIS TRACK RECORD MARKED BY PARTIALITY AND SUBSERVIENCE IN CASES INVOLVING THE ARROYO ADMINISTRATION FROM THE TIME OF HIS APPOINTMENT AS SUPREME COURT JUSTICE WHICH CONTINUED TO HIS DUBIOUS APPOINTMENT AS A MIDNIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE AND UP TO THE PRESENT.  

• Midnight Appointments in violation against Sec. 15, Article VII of Constitution
• Arturo de Castro v. Judicial and Bar Council and President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et. al., SC held that the prohibition does not apply to SC but only to executive department and other courts lower than SC.
• Indeed, Newsbreak report showed that “he has consistently sided with the (arroyo) administration in politically-significant cases”. Newsbreak further reported when it tracked the voting pattern of Supreme Court justices, “Corona lodged a high 78 percent in favor of Arroyo”
• A table shows that in 10 cases show respondent’s voting pattern in cases involving Arroyo government’s frontal assaults on constitutional rights prior to his appointment as Chief Justice.
• During his tenure as Chief Justice, Respondent also sided with Arroyo in the following 3 cases such as in (1) Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010, (2) Bai Omera D. Dianalan-Lucman v. Executive(revoking midnight appointments) and (3) Aquino vs. COMELEC (redefining districts of camsur)

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 UNDERSEC. 17, ART. XI OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION.

• Respondent failed to disclose to the public his statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth as required by the Constitution.
• Some of the properties of Respondent are not included in his declaration of his assets, liabilities, and net worth, in violation of the anti-graft and corrupt practices act.
• Respondent is suspected of having accumulated ill-gotten wealth, acquiring assets of high values and keeping bank accounts with huge deposits (among others, a 300-sq. meter apartment in the Fort in Taguig).

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. 

• Respondent previously served Arroyo as her chief of staff, spokesman when she was Vice-President, Presidential Chief-of-Staff, Presidential Spokesman, and Acting Executive Secretary.
  • Flip-flopping of the Corona Court on FASAP vs. PAL  on a mere letter from Philippine Airlines’ counsel Atty. Estelito Mendoza (and also in the flip-flopping case of League of Cities v. COMELEC)
• Respondent compromised his independence when his wife, Cristina Corona, accepted an appointment as on March 23, 2007 from President Arroyo to the Board of the John Hay Management Corporation (JHMC) in violation of Code of Judicial Conduct
  • serious complaints were filed against Mrs. Corona by her fellow Board members because of acts of misconduct and negligence. Instead, on acting on the complaint, the complainants were removed and Mrs. Corona promoted as OIC board chair
• Respondent has been reportedly using the judicial fund as his own personal expense account, charging to the Judiciary personal expenditures.
• Respondent Corona discussed with litigants (Lauro Vizconde and Dante Jimenez) regarding the Vizconde massacre case, which was then pending before the SC, and accused fellow Justice Carpio for loobying for acquittal, in violation of Code of Conduct and Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
• Respondent Corona irregularly dismissed the Inter-petal Recreational Corporation case under suspicious circumstances. 

IV.        RESPONDENT BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST AND/OR COMMITTED CULPABLE VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION WHEN IT BLATANTLY DISREGARDED THE PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS BY ISSUING A “STATUS QUO ANTE” ORDER AGAINST THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN THE CASE CONCERNING THE IMPEACHMENT OF THEN OMBUDSMAN MERCEDITAS NAVARRO-GUTIERREZ.

• Respondent railroaded the proceedings in the Guttierez case in order to have a Status Quo AnteOrder issued in her favor.
  • Newsbreak showed that most of the justices received the Petition after the deliberations, while three (3) justices (Velasco, Bersamin and Perez) who voted to issue the Status Quo Ante Order received the petition a day after the status quo ante order was granted.
• Its issuance violated the principle of separation of powers since the Supreme Court prevented the House from initiating impeachment proceedings.

V.         RESPONDENT COMMITTED CULPABLE VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION THROUGH WANTON ARBITRARINESS AND PARTIALITY IN CONSISTENTLY DISREGARDING THE PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA AND IN DECIDING IN FAVOR OF GERRY-MANDERING IN THE CASES INVOLVING THE 16 NEWLY-CREATED CITIES, AND THE PROMOTION OF DINAGAT ISLAND INTO A PROVINCE. 

• Respondent violated the principle of the immutability of final judgments (“flip-flopping”) known to have been instigated through personal letters or ex-partecommunications addressed to the Respondent:
  • League of Cities v. COMELEC case involving the creation of 16 new cities,
  • Navarro v. Ermita which involved the promotion of Dinagat Island from municipality to province,
  • FASAP v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., et al.

VI.        Respondent Betrayed the Public Trust By Arrogating Unto Himself, And To A Committee He Created, The Authority And Jurisdiction To Improperly Investigate An Alleged Erring Member Of The Supreme Court For The Purpose Of Exculpating Him. Such Authority And Jurisdiction Is Properly Reposed By The Constitution In the House of Representatives via Impeachment.  

• Vinuya vs. Executive Secretary,it was alleged that rampant plagiarism was committed by the ponente, Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo
• It appears that, with a clear intent of exonerating a member of the Supreme Court, Respondent, in violation of the Constitution, formed an Ethics Committee thereby arrogating unto himself, and to a Committee he created, the authority and jurisdiction to investigate an alleged member of the Supreme Court.

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.            

• The Supreme Court, under the Respondent, immediately acted upon the Petition and granted the TRO despite the fact that there are clear inconsistencies in former President Arroyo’s petition
• It appears from reports that the ponente to whom the petitions were raffled was an Associate Justice. Under the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court, a TRO can only be considered upon the recommendation of the ponente. In view of certain objections against the grant of the TRO, a holding of a hearing within the short period of five (5) days was recommended. Despite this recommendation, the Respondent engineered a majority of 8 votes (as against five dissenters) the immediate grant and issuance of the TRO in favour of former President Arroyo and her husband in blatant violation of their own internal rules.
• Despite the conditions laid by the SC for the issuance of the TRO, Respondent allowed the issuance of the TRO notwithstanding the fact there was non-compliance of an essential pre-condition
  • Due to the Arroyos’ abject failure to comply with Condition 2, the Supreme Court en banc in its November 18, 2011 deliberations, by a vote of7–6, found that there was no compliance with the second condition of the TRO. Consequently, for failure to comply with an essential condition for the TRO, the TRO is not effective. However, by a vote of 7-6, the Supreme Court decided there was no need to explicitly state the legal effect on the TRO of the noncompliance by petitioners with Condition Number 2 of the earlier Resolution.
  • However, the SC decided that the TRO was effective despite non-compliance with an essential condition of the TRO. It is notable that Respondent did not chastise Marquez for his outrightly false and public misrepresentation.
  • Worse, the Respondent did not correct the decision that was issued despite the fact that the decision did not reflect the agreement and decision made by the Supreme Court during their deliberations on November 18, 2011.

VIII.      RESPONDENT BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST AND/OR COMMITTED GRAFT AND CORRUPTION WHEN HE FAILED AND REFUSED TO ACCOUNT FOR THE JUDICIARY DEVELOPMENT FUND (JDF) AND SPECIAL ALLOWANCE FOR THE JUDICIARY (SAJ) COLLECTIONS.

• Respondent has reportedly failed and refused to report on the status of the JDF Funds and the SAJ collections.
• There is likewise the reported failure of Respondent to account for funds released and spent for unfilled positions in the judiciary and from authorized and funded but not created courts.
  • In particular, the annual audit report of the Supreme Court of the Philippines contained the observation that unremitted funds to the Bureau of Treasury amounted to P5.38 Billion
  • the Special allowance for Judiciary along with the General Fund, Judiciary Development Fund in the amount of P559.5 Million were misstated resulting from delayed and/or non-preparation of bank reconciliation statements and non-recording /uncorrected reconciling items.

Impeachment Proceeding: One of the Weaknesses of the 1987 Constitution.

Does Not Fit Our Needs

The ongoing Impeachment proceeding of CJ Corona shows the weaknesses of the 1987 Constitution, that even President Aquino III acknowledged in his speech at Camarines, in 22Feb11, where he said, “After 25 years, was there change? Unfortunately, nothing really changed — corruption is still rampant and the result, the needs of the people were left unattended…”

This Constitution was framed as a result of mob rule, when the mob of Metro Manila ruled it over the rest of the country in determining who our leader should be.

The same Constitution that creates the Executive, Judiciary and Legislative branches of our government  that interpret it in three different ways to serve their own vested interest and not for the welfare of the people and the country. Their views and interpretations result into constitutional crisis.

Divisive

From the beginning, we have seen, how it allows the enemy of the state to get money from the government to use in the pursuit of their political agenda of overthrowing the government. It’s the reason why the government of PCA was never at peace with the military. And her administration was besieged by several coup attempts.

The 1987 Constitution allows public opinion and mob rule to run the affairs of the country. We have seen it in the impeachment of former President Estrada. And it is very evident now in the present impeachment drama of the Chief Justice. So sad, that the will of the Metro Manila mob determines what kind and who our president should be.

The 1987 Constitution divide us instead of bringing us closer to each other. It introduces multi party system. How many political parties are there pulling us apart into different directions. It brings out political personalities working their way in pursuit of their own vested political agenda and not for the needs of the country. It allows a President of minority rule our country, whose personality prevails over ability. This makes us wallow in the quagmire of economic stagnation and political instability.

Case Scenario in a Unicameral Legislative Setting

Consider this, a strong two-party system will emerge, where each member is bound to work for what the party stands for and not for their own vested personal interest.  And the people will learn to choose a candidate based on what he stands for and not because of his popularity or because of his mother and/or father. When we finally choose candidates based on their vision and mission for the country with a spelled out program on how he/she will do it, it will set us in motion toward political maturity.

In a unicameral legislative chamber our leader is the best among the bests chosen by his peer.  A leader of the majority who could unite opposing groups in the chamber to move into a common direction in policy formulation and implementation towards economic growth.

Impeachment is confined within a single chamber where the articles of impeachment or motion of “no confidence” are voted upon. It is within the confine of the chamber where the fate of an impeached person is decided and not in the pages of newspapers that create a bandwagon effect feeding hatred to the public opinion.

Finally

We have been using this constitution for more than 25 years, instead of propelling us into economic growth and political stability it makes us the sick man of South East Asia.

We owe it to our children and grandchildren, to make their future economy and politics be at par or even above that of our Asian neighbors. A Greek proverb says: “A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit it!”

For our children and grandchildren to enjoy economic prosperity and political stability, let us make it happen now! Change our constitution to a more responsive one that fits our needs. Let us have a Unicameral Legislative System of governance.

PALAWAN – Hold On!

Sendong death toll now 1,080; number of missing unreliable

Back in the ‘70s, when it rains and there’s a foreboding storm in the horizon, my grandfather, a Subanon [taga ilog/river dweller], would always assures us by saying, “ayaw kabaka dili moagi kanang bagyoha dinhi sa atua kay mabungkag mana pag igo sa mga bundok” [“do not worry, the storm cannot pass here because it will be shattered by the mountains.”]

True enough, storms come and go in Mindanao without any wrecking disaster. Back then, mighty yakals, apitongs, narras, guijos, etc…towers in the mountains of Mindanao protecting its lowland areas.

And this is what the government should include in their long-term plans of preventing disaster, the protection of those mighty trees and reforestation of denuded mountains. It is just a matter of POLITICAL WILL to put a ban on any form of logging and irresponsible mining.

But the glint of money and personal greed prevails, and unabated logging and irresponsible mining continues making the oligarchs richer and corrupt politicians more powerful.

We have seen the havoc and deaths of unabated logging, and irresponsible mining at Ormoc, the disaster of neglecting our watershed through “Ondoy,” and now the deaths caused by “Sendong.”

Sadly, the usual finger pointing and “pa-pogi” points of our politicians and government leaders. When will our government learn to finally and firmly put a stop on unabated destruction of our mountains?

The deaths in Iligan and Cagayan de Oro is the result of GREED and CORRUPTION in the unabated logging of our mountains…..

GREED of those oligarchs who worship money above all….and
CORRUPTION of government officials who close their eyes to what the loggers do in exchange for “thick envelops”…

WOE to all of them…..!
May they suffer the same fate….!

I pray that Palawan will maintain its POLITICAL WILL in protecting those mighty trees of her mountains and NOT to succumb to lure of money. Palawan please hold on….!

Why the “Lefts” In Congress Signed the Impeachment Against CJ Corona

“Bayan, whose associates in many front organizations of the Left have been P-Noy’s most unrelenting critics, supported the Corona impeachment.”

“The Bayan congressmen signed the impeachment complaint. One Bayan congressman, a very able lawyer — Neri Colmenares, was nominated to be one of the prosecutors in the Senate impeachment trial. There is no way P-Noy or his allies in Congress could coerce Bayan congressmen to sign the impeachment complaint.”

This is how opinion makers work; to support their side, they want us to believe that the “left” in congress signed the impeachment against CJC in pursuit of justice.

Nevertheless, the knowledgeable read between the lines, the gullible swallows it “hook, line, and sinker.”

But really, what are the motives of the “left” in joining the bandwagon in impeaching CJC? I honestly believe these “Bayan” representatives did it NOT in pursuit of justice for our benefits. Rather it’s in line with their pursuit to overthrow our government.

However, the media, through its opinion makers, would like us to believe that the “left” is doing it for JUSTICE and for our economic growth and political stability.  Media is painting us a picture glorifying the “lefts” as one of the saviors in bringing out justice to our country.

I wonder where media, specifically these opinion makers, would be if ever the “left” takes over our country. A system of government where press freedom is a dream.

Communist doctrines show us that the “left” thrives when there is chaos and disunity. And this is what they are trying to do, foment unrest. Ride with the emotion of the people and instigate mob unrest. The sad part of it is that our system of government allows and helps the “left” to pursue their objective in overthrowing our government.

This is the weakness of the 1987 Constitution.

So sad, our system of government takes money from us [taxes] then gives it to the “left” [as CDF] who in turn uses the money to support their movements in overthrowing our government. This is what the 1987 Constitution brings to our country, allows the “left” to maintain their forces and organizations in overthrowing our government.

There is saying that “too many cooks spoil the broth.” And this is what’s happening in adopting Bicameral Legislative System of governance, added to this is the adoption of the “Party List System.”

This is one of the reasons why we could not achieve unity, economic growth and political stability everyone is going in different directions pursuing only their own vested interests. And in this kind of situation where, chaos, unrest and disunity prevail the country becomes a very fertile ground for communism.

And this is why the “lefts” in Congress join the bandwagon in the perceived fight for justice between the Executive and Judicial Branch of our government. To stoke the fire of havoc.

Let us view the emerging scenario objectively in different point of views to see that,  NOW IS THE TIME TO CHANGE…!

The Impeachment of CJ Renato Corona – How It Started

Clearly, the fight between Pnoy and CJ Corona, is not between the Executive and Judiciary, nor between Pnoy and GMA…the real bone of contention here is Hacienda Luisita!

March 2010:  First Blood 

GMA appointed Justice Renato Corona as Chief Justice to replace CJ Reynato Puno.

This was concurred by nine justices in the premise that the judiciary is not covered by Article VII, Section 15 of the 1987 Constitution, which prevents an outgoing president from making appointments to government posts two months before the elections.

Presidential candidate Aquino said he would not recognize the midnight appointment of CJ Corona.

This is the reason why he did not take his oath of office with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court as mandated by the 1986 constitution.

June 2010: “Watch Me” 

The Unyon ng mga Manggagawa sa Agrikultura [UMA] asked CJ Corona to recall the TRO issued by the SC in June 2006. The TRO stops the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council and Department of Agrarian Reform [DAR] from revoking the stock distribution option offered by the Cojuangco-Aquino family. The TRO also stops  DAR from distributing the 6,453-hectare sugar plantation to the farmers beneficiaries.

“We humbly submit to your Honorable Office our appeal asking the Supreme Court to act with dispatch and resolve the controversial agrarian case of Hacienda Luisita in favor of agrarian reform beneficiaries,” read the letter of the UMA.

CJ Corona orders the review of the Hacienda Luisita Labor Case.

July 2010: The Soup Thickens 

On July 30 2010 President Aquino created the Philippine Truth Commission [PTC] under Executive Order No. 1 (EO 1). The PTC is tasked to investigate corruption scandals in the administration of former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo is headed by retired Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr.

Lagman et. al. filed petition with the Supreme Court,  against EO 1, citing the PTC as a duplication of the quasi-judicial powers of the Office of the Ombudsman and the Department of Justice, hence the PTC is an “exercise in futility.”

With a 10-5 vote the Supreme Court declared the PTC is “illegal” and ruled with finality on July 26, 2011 the unconstitutionality of PTC. Majority of the justices held that EO 1 violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution because it singles out the investigation of the reported graft and corruption in the PGMA administration. [4 of the dissenting justices are GMA appointees]

Thus, SC declared “unconstitutional” and nullifies with finality the creation of the Philippine Truth Commission.

The SC ruling matched the opinions of Senators Miriam Defensor Santiago and Joker Arroyo that the PTC is a veiled attempt to circumvent the rules of the land to get back at PGMA.

November 2011: Goodbye Hacienda 

The Supreme Court, through its resolution G.R. No. 171101, has ordered Hacienda Luisita Inc. [HLI] to distribute the 5,000 hectares of Hacienda Luisita, to the farmer beneficiaries who have tilled the land for decades.

In addition, the Supreme Court directed HLI to pay farmers a total of P1.3 billion for the sale of three large parcels of land.

• P500 million it received from Luisita Realty Inc. for the sale of 200 hectares of land in 1996;
• P750 million for the sale of the Luisita Industrial Park; and
• P80,511,500 for the sale of the 80.51-hectare lot for the Subic-Clark-Tarlac Expressway road network.

November 15, 2011: The Last Nail In the Coffin

SC, in an 8-5 vote, issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on the watch list order (WLO) issued against GMA and her husband Jose Miguel T. Arroyo, and others who are facing investigation on the alleged poll fraud in the 2004 and 2007 elections in Mindanao.

December 2011: Impeach Corona

December 12, 2011, it took 2 hours for 188 congressmen/women to sign the impeachment complaint against CJ Corona.

According to SC Spokesman Marquez, what congress did was against Section 2, Rule II of the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings. The rule dictates that:

“Impeachment shall be initiated by the filing and subsequent referral to the Committee on Justice of: (a) a verified complaint for impeachment filed by any Member of the House of Representatives; or (b) a verified complaint filed by any citizen upon a resolution of endorsement by any Member thereof; or (c) a verified complaint or resolution of impeachment filed by at least one-third (1/3) of all Members of the House.”

The Articles of Impeachment

• Corona allegedly betrayed the public trust through his track record marked by partiality and subservience in cases involving the Arroyo administration from the time of his appointment as Supreme Court justice and until his dubious appointment as a “midnight” chief justice to the present.

• Corona allegedly 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, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution.

•  Corona allegedly committed culpable violations of the Constitution and betrayed the public trust by failing to meet and observe the stringent standards under Article 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.”

•  Corona supposedly betrayed the public trust and/or committed culpable violation of the constitution when it blatantly disregarded the principle of separation of powers by issuing a “status quo ante” order against the House of Representatives in the case concerning the impeachment of then- Ombudsman Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez.

•  Corona allegedly committed culpable violations of the Constitution through wanton arbitrariness and partiality in consistently disregarding the principle of res judicata and in deciding in favor of gerry-mandering in the cases involving the 16 newly-created cities, and the promotion of Dinagat Island into a province.

•  Corona supposedly betrayed the public trust by arrogating unto himself, and to a committee he created, the authority and jurisdiction to improperly investigate a justice of the Supreme Court for the purpose of exculpating him. Such authority and jurisdiction is properly reposed by the constitution in the House of Representatives via impeachment.

•  Corona supposedly betrayed the public trust through his partiality in granting a temporary restraining order 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.

•  Corona allegedly betrayed the public trust and/or committed graft and corruption when he failed and refused to account for the judiciary development fund (JDF) and special allowance for the judiciary (SAJ) collections.