Chiz says Senate should follow SC TRO
MANILA, Philippines - If he had his way, Sen. Francis Escudero does not want the Senate to vote on whether or not to follow the Supreme Court's temporary restraining order (TRO) against its subpoena for Chief Justice Renato Corona's alleged dollar accounts.
Escudero believes the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, should just follow the order.
"Ni hindi na nga dapat pagbotohan. Dapat automatic 'yon kapag utos ng korte," he told reporters on Friday. "Hindi naman tayo namimili ng desisyong susundin."
He said not following the SC would result in a clash between it and the Senate, and ultimately, a constitutional crisis.
On Monday, February 13, senator-judges are expected to tackle the TRO in caucus.
Escudero said that while following the TRO, the Senate should submit its position to the SC and defend the subpoena.
"Bilang mamamayan, may mga batas tayong dapat na sinusunod, sang-ayon man tayo diyan o hindi," he said.
Escudero explained that neither the impeachment court nor the SC is higher than the other in this case. He said the SC is simply doing its job of interpreting the law.
But what the SC can't do, he added, is stop the impeachment trial.
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
Share your views
SC Judicial Review?
The reason why coronarroyo is not resigning because he still has aces under his sleeves. He expects the help of his gang members comprising a majority in the supreme court.
Should the senate surrender its sole power to the TRO issued by the supreme court, who will stop the supreme court in reversing its conviction verdict based on the alleged judicial review power of the supreme court?
presumed
let's not presumed that corona's dollar account only comes from his peso account, the ins and out of the money traceable.
who knows? maybe the dollars did not only come from the peso account, but also deposited by persons of interests who have bought favors from corona. or, it could be that the dollars were products of bank to bank transactions, maybe overseas transactions as well, done by grateful someones who have previously benefitted from corona's extra judicial activities.
open corona's dollar account, or there will always be a question mark hanging on corona's name. and someone will always be hitting corona for it.
TAMA KA CHIZ
For once tama ka Senator Chiz, hindi nyo na kailangan gumawa ng away with the supreme court first sa peso account pa lang alam nyo na na sobra sobra ang pera ni Corona, aside from the non-declaration of the amount in the SALN, hindi nya na siguro pwedeng ipaliwanag kung saan galing to. Second, alam naman na ng lahat ang laman ng dollar account so why bother and start a fight with the supreme court, pamamahay ni corona yun. I think you have enough info to gauge the honesty and integrity of Corona. Ang mabuti pa ungkatin nyo ang details ng peso account at doon makikita nyo ang movement "in and out" ng pera. ending and opening balance will not tell the whole story.
ChiZ WhiZ!!!
Pang palaman lang pala sa tinapay ang utak nitong si Escudero... Kumain ka ng masustansya para makapagisip isip ka ng mabuti bago ka magsalita... Siempre poprotektahan ng Supreme Court ung ungas nilang amo... Gago ka ba siempre dapat suwayin un ng Senado... May Constitutional Crisis man o wala eh gutom pa rin ang mga Pilipino kaya sa susunod na eleksyon dapat hindi ka na rin iboto ng mga gagong bumuboto syo!!!
ChiZ WhiZ!!!
Pang palaman lang pala sa tinapay ang utak nitong si Escudero... Kumain ka ng masustansya para makapagisip isip ka ng mabuti bago ka magsalita... Siempre poprotektahan ng Supreme Court ung ungas nilang amo... Gago ka ba siempre dapat suwayin un ng Senado... May Constitutional Crisis man o wala eh gutom pa rin ang mga Pilipino kaya sa susunod na eleksyon dapat hindi ka na rin iboto ng mga gagong bumuboto syo!!!
happy!
I'm so very happy chiz escudero is not where enrile is now in the impeachment court. or chiz will just let corona get away with anything and everything. something is not right with chiz. he does not go far enough, dig not far enough and if he expects to win, he got rocks for brain! maybe in chiz's time a while back, what's what politicians do; blab a lot, but now, politicians have to do more, must be seen to be doing more, not just blab. action speaks louder than words, and chiz lacks action.
Isa ka Pa Chiz. . .
You are not sensitive to people's clamor. I am thinking twice if you are really pro people and if you are deserving to be the next VP of the Philipines. . .
SC cannot intervene in impeachment - US Jurisprudence
It is settled jurisprudence in the US -- from where we borrow much of ours -- that the SC cannot and should not intervene or take part in impeachment.
In the landmark case involving Federal court Judge Walter Nixon (who was impeached and convicted by the US Senate in 1989, and who appealed his case to the US appelate court and SC), the US Supreme Court UNANIMOUSLY ruled:
1. Impeachment is a "nonjusticiable political question."
2. Only the Senate has the "sole" power to try and decide ALL cases of impeachment and the Courts, including the Supreme Court, cannot intervenr or take part in it.
3. Interfering in impeachment will jeopardize any subsequent criminal trial that an impeached official could face and violates the principle of checks and balances.
The decision (506 US 224)was written by no less than then US Chief Justice William Rehnquist. It said in part, referring to the SOLE power of the Senate to try and decide impeachment cases:
1. “We think that the word ‘sole’ is of considerable significance. Indeed, the word ‘sole’ appears only one other time in the Constitution—with respect to the House of Representatives' "sole Power of Impeachment." Art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 5 (emphasis added). The common sense meaning of the word ‘sole’ is that the Senate alone shall have authority to determine whether an individual should be acquitted or convicted. The dictionary definition bears this out. ‘Sole’ is defined as ‘having no companion,’ ‘solitary,’ ‘being the only one,’ and ‘functioning . . . independently and without assistance or interference.’ Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2168 (1971). If the courts may review the actions of the Senate in order to determine whether that body ‘tried’ an impeached official, it is difficult to see how the Senate would be "functioning . . . independently and without assistance or interference."
The wording of the section on impeachment in the Philippine and US constitutions are almost exactly the same.
2. “... the Framers [of the constitution] recognized that most likely there would be two sets of proceedings for individuals who commit impeachable offenses—the impeachment trial and a separate criminal trial. In fact, the Constitution explicitly provides for two separate proceedings. ... The Framers deliberately separated the two forums to avoid raising the specter of bias and to ensure independent judgments.”
3. ... judicial review would be inconsistent with the Framers' insistence that our system be one of checks and balances. In our constitutional system, impeachment was designed to be the only check on the Judicial Branch by the Legislature. On the topic of judicial accountability, Hamilton wrote: ‘The precautions for their responsibility are comprised in the article respecting impeachments. They are liable to be impeached for mal-conduct by the house of representatives, and tried by the senate, and if convicted, may be dismissed from office and disqualified for holding any other. This is the only provision on the point, which is consistent with the necessary independence of the judicial character, and is the only one which we find in our own constitution in respect to our own judges.’"
ET TU CHIZ??
Sayang ka Chiz, this trial could have been your finest hour and defining moment, are out of touch from the people you serve??
Almost a year ago, the Supreme Court led by Renato Corona affirmed the conviction and jail sentence of Rosalio Galeos for making ‘false’ and ‘incomplete’ declarations in his Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) for four successive years." Galeos’ case and that of his co-accused, former Naga, Cebu mayor Paulino Ong, are particularly important to the ongoing impeachment trial of Chief Justice Corona. It set a legal precedent in how the Supreme Court views SALNs and how the magistrates give weight to the truthfulness and completeness of SALN disclosures.
Perhaps it is about time the senator judges take a vote a put this into closure. . one senator judge could perhaps do an honest survey whether they have 2/3 or more votes and then vote on article 2 to end this trial once and for all. . . we dont need to see the dollar accounts. . let the ombudsman pursue him for criminal offenses.
akala kasi nila boyba drilon
akala kasi nila boyba drilon at mr. bean gunggungna ay sila na pinakamakapangyarihan... malaki lang kayo puro naman kayo hangin.LOL... hindi naman lahat ng senador abogado... kaya ba nila mag interpret ng lahat ng batas na ihahain sa kanila kung taman ba or mali? kaya nga may supreme court as final interpreter of the law eh...