Total Comments 9 | Start A New Comment

Post Info

Comment

Posted By: liel Posted On: Jun 1, 2008 Views: 361	neri the 3 questions in the spirit of justice shall be answered in order to cast the doubts of the many. otherwise,an ocean of suspicion will hound on that anomalous contract regarding the broadband deal between ZTE and the government.the answers of those questions are not privileged but incriminating to the present administration..
Posted By: Majeed Posted On: May 15, 2008 Views: 408	neri petition THE SENATE WAS JUST FISHING ON EVIDENCE. THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDES THAT THE SENATE INQUIRY MUST BE IN AID OF LEGISLATION. IN THE CASE OF NERI, THERE WAS NO CLEAR PROPOSED LEGISLATION. THEY WERE JUST TRYING TO ACCUSE THE PRESIDENT OF CORRUPTION. THOUGH THE SENATE HAS NOBLE INTENTION FOR KNOWING WHAT IS REALLY THE TRUTH BEHIND THE ZTE SCAM--STILL, THEY MUST FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES LAID DOWN IN SENATE VS ERMITA. THE END AND THE MEANS MUST BE BOTH LEGITIMATE.
Posted By: pepoy Posted On: Apr 15, 2008 Views: 489	there is politics within SC justice carpio and justice corona are the next contenders for the chief justice post considering that justice quisumbing and justice ynares-santiago would retire ahead of chief justice panganiban. whoever gets the post would remain as the chief for about 8 to 9 years as both of them are still in their early 60's (or late 50s, i suppose). the catch is, chief justice puno will retire before PGMA's term ends in June 2010 - which means that PGMA will appoint the next chief justice. will the neri voting affect the executive decision as to who will be the next chief justice? let's wait and see 2010.
Posted By: angelo Posted On: Apr 15, 2008 Views: 323	add by the way, of the 9 justices who voted in favor of neri, justice quisumbing is not a PGMA appointee.
Posted By: angelo Posted On: Apr 15, 2008 Views: 283	neri vs. senate case Of the 15 justice, only 2 are not PGMA appointees. CJ Puno is, strictly speaking, considered a PGMA appointee for the Chief Justice post as he "won it over" Justices Quisumbing and Ynares-Santiago. In effect, 13 Justices are PGMA appointees. To relate their opinions in a case to the "who appointed" them, is to say that all cases of the present government shall be decided its favor. A review of the cases since January 2001 would show that not all cases involving the present government are decided in its favor. It is interesting to note that except for Justice Ynares-Santiago, all the dissenting justices are also GMA-appointees. CJ Puno, as stated earlier, was appointed by GMA to become the "primus inter pares" of the SC. Justice Carpio is a founding partner of "The Firm", closely identified with the First Family before their fall-out. He was a member of the Cabinet as Chief Presidential Legal Counsel before his appointment by PGMA to the SC on 26 October 2001. Justice Austria-Martinez is a PGMA appointee who assumed her post at the SC on 12 April 2002. And so is Justice Carpio-Morales, who is also a PGMA-appointee who assumed her post on 03 September 2002. Justice Azcuna was also appointed by PGMA to the SC on 17 October 2002. It is thus advisable to read the whole text of the Decision, without any prejudices, rather than make conclusions based on "who appointed" the justices.
Posted By: sbb Posted On: Apr 1, 2008 Views: 250	no impiartiality i cannot agree how these justices voted. most of the justices were GMA appointees. some were even her political parties and serve in her administration. say for example justice corona who was once her chief of staff during her time as senator. her wife was one of the signatories of a manifesto supporting GMA's administration. justice nachura on the other hand serve in various capacity in her administration aside from him being a party mate. the recent justice appointee cannot even be impartial in his decision considering a former DOLE secretary who shared the same views with mr. neri, how can he be expected to render a just and impartial judgment. some justices did not even bother to explain the "WHY" favoring mr. neri. this abnormal for a supreme court member
Posted By: attybenji Posted On: Mar 30, 2008 Views: 266	neri's petition all justices who voted in favor of neri's petition are all pgma's appointed justices, so what else can we say...... do we expect otherwise?
Posted By: abb Posted On: Mar 26, 2008 Views: 292	concur yap..i totally agree to the comments of gaile..will these justices batter their horns to their master when in fact the latter place them in the throne of legal kingdom..its all about "utang na loob"..as what Chicoy Pura sings "hoodlums in robes"!!!
Posted By: gaile Posted On: Mar 25, 2008 Views: 269	silencing neri I entertain some doubts on the merits of the judgment because the ones who voted to grant the petition were mostly appointed by the president. Their votes were obvious reflections of how they came to be. how sad. so much for disillusionment.