This statement of the Chief Justice means a lot to us ordinary Filipinos! It is an unfortunate satement but it is the reality!
It is a sincere and an authoritative statement coming from the mouth of the Supreme Court Chief Justice himself. It is a confirmation that the rights of the politicians past and present are more valuable than that of the Filipino people..Obviously, he is referring to CGMA and PNoy and all oher public seravants during the incumbency of former PGMA and the public servants today during the administration of PNoy.
The issue being heard and deliberated by the Supreme Court is the constitutuinality of DOJ circular 41 issued during the Presidency of CGMA. During the time of former PGMA 6,000 individuals were not allowed to leave the country by virtue of that said curcular and now CGMA herself is the one being prevented to leave the country by virtue of the saame circular. The camp of CGMA wants to protect her rights while the DOJ says that it jsut wants justice to be served even if the political enemies of PNoy accuses him that he is doing it out of vengeance.
The above statement of Chief Justice Renato Corona shows that he considers the issue as political when he mentioned political enemies of the present officials. Then, nowhere in the said statement where he mentioned the rights of the Filipino people in relatiom to DOJ circular 41 as if only the rights of the contending political camps of GMA and NOYNOY really matter!
HOW ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF THE COMMON FILIPINOS AS A PEOPLE? Comparing it to a house, why only the rights of the household helpers meaning of the public servants are highlighted in the deliberation of the Supreme Court? Is it not that the rights of the family who owns the house of primary importance over and above that of the servants which in a Republic the family owner is the sovereign Filipino people?
Considering that only a few people can afford to file a case in the Supreme Court because of the cost involved starting with the filing fee, the Supreme Court being one of the institutions owned by the entire Filipino people, is it not supposed to consider always the interest of the common good while upholding the individual rights of every Filipino in its deliberations?
CONCRETELY: Even presuming that the right to travel abroad of CGMA for whatever reason is inviolable, why did the Supreme Court impose a cash bond of only 2 million pesos as one of the conditions of the TRO they issued? It is a very small amount for the accused! At one time, a friend of former PGMA paid a million pesos for one meal alone in their trip to the U.S remember? Considering the gravity of the accusations being filed against CGMA , why did the Supreme Court not require her to present as a guarranty like all the wealth that she and her family has which will be forfeited in favor of the government in case she does not come back?
Every right of the Filipino should be respected but the common good should also be upheld within the bounds of what is moral!
It is a sincere and an authoritative statement coming from the mouth of the Supreme Court Chief Justice himself. It is a confirmation that the rights of the politicians past and present are more valuable than that of the Filipino people..Obviously, he is referring to CGMA and PNoy and all oher public seravants during the incumbency of former PGMA and the public servants today during the administration of PNoy.
The issue being heard and deliberated by the Supreme Court is the constitutuinality of DOJ circular 41 issued during the Presidency of CGMA. During the time of former PGMA 6,000 individuals were not allowed to leave the country by virtue of that said curcular and now CGMA herself is the one being prevented to leave the country by virtue of the saame circular. The camp of CGMA wants to protect her rights while the DOJ says that it jsut wants justice to be served even if the political enemies of PNoy accuses him that he is doing it out of vengeance.
The above statement of Chief Justice Renato Corona shows that he considers the issue as political when he mentioned political enemies of the present officials. Then, nowhere in the said statement where he mentioned the rights of the Filipino people in relatiom to DOJ circular 41 as if only the rights of the contending political camps of GMA and NOYNOY really matter!
HOW ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF THE COMMON FILIPINOS AS A PEOPLE? Comparing it to a house, why only the rights of the household helpers meaning of the public servants are highlighted in the deliberation of the Supreme Court? Is it not that the rights of the family who owns the house of primary importance over and above that of the servants which in a Republic the family owner is the sovereign Filipino people?
Considering that only a few people can afford to file a case in the Supreme Court because of the cost involved starting with the filing fee, the Supreme Court being one of the institutions owned by the entire Filipino people, is it not supposed to consider always the interest of the common good while upholding the individual rights of every Filipino in its deliberations?
CONCRETELY: Even presuming that the right to travel abroad of CGMA for whatever reason is inviolable, why did the Supreme Court impose a cash bond of only 2 million pesos as one of the conditions of the TRO they issued? It is a very small amount for the accused! At one time, a friend of former PGMA paid a million pesos for one meal alone in their trip to the U.S remember? Considering the gravity of the accusations being filed against CGMA , why did the Supreme Court not require her to present as a guarranty like all the wealth that she and her family has which will be forfeited in favor of the government in case she does not come back?
Every right of the Filipino should be respected but the common good should also be upheld within the bounds of what is moral!
2 Responses:
Great!
Great!
Post a Comment