THE HEADLINE OF ONE NATIONAL DAILY NEWSPAPER YESTERDAY WAS THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT NOT TO SUMMON THE MEDICAL DOCTORS OF CGMA AS PETITIONED BY THE DOJ IN ITS DELIBERATIONS REGARDING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF DOJ CIRCULAR 41. THE DOJ WANTED THE DOCTORS TO DECLARE THE REAL HEALTH CONDITION OF THE FORMER PRESIDENT.
THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT MAY INDICATE THAT THE HEALTH CONDITION OF FORMER PGMA IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE CONSTITUITONALITY OF DOJ 41 OR NOT. IF THE SUPREME COURT DECLARES DOJ CIRCULAR 41 AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, THEREFORE THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL IS INVIOLABLE AND THE GOVERNMENT IS HELPLESS IN PROTECTING THE COMMON GOOD BY COERCING ACCUSED PERSONS TO FACE CHARGES THAT ARE FILED AGAINST THAT PERSON INCLUDING HEINOUS CRIMES SUCH AS PLUNDER AND ELECTORAL SABOTAGE BY PREVENTING THEM FROM GOING ABROAD.
HEALTH CONDITIONS ESPECIALLY IF IT IS LIFE THREATENING TO AN ACCUSED OR RESPONDENT IS A SERIOUS AND VALID REASON FOR ALLOWING ONE TO GO ABROAD DESPITE THE EXISTENCE OF DOJ CIRCULAR 41 BUT HOW COME THE SUPREME COURT IS NOT INTERESTED IN LEARNING THE REAL HEALTH CONDITION OF FORMER PGMA FROM THE MOUTH OF HER MEDICAL DOCTORS THEMSELVES INSTEAD OF THE HEALTH BULLETINS OF THE FORMER PRESIDENT FROM HER VERY ARTICULATE LAWYERS?
ONE MAY INTERPRET THE ABOVE RECENT DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT EITHER WAY THAT IS TO DECLARE THE DOJ CIRCULAR 41 CONSTITUTIONAL BY THE FACT THAT THEY DID NOT BOTHER TO SUMMON AND HEAR THE MEDICAL DOCTORS REGARDING THE TRUE HEALTH CONDITION OF CGMA AS IT IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE AT HAND. OR DECLARE IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL
BUT WHAT IF THE SUPREME COURT WILL DECLARE THE DOJ CIRCULAR 41 AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL? IS THERE AN INDICATION THAT THIS MAY HAPPEN? RANDY DAVID IN ONE OF HIS MORE RECENT COLUMNS CITED ARTICLE XIII TITLED SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION, OUR COUNTRY'S FUNDAMENTAL LAW. THE ACCUSED OR RESPONDENT FORMER PGMA HAS HER HUMAN RIGHTS BUT ON THE OTHER HAND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES HAVE ALSO OUR HUMAN RIGHTS WHICH IF UPHELD AND RESPECTED IS WHAT SOCIAL JUSTICE IS ALL ABOUT.
IN THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER ISSUED BY THE SUPREME COURT VIRTUALLY ALLOWING FORMER PGMA TO GO ABROAD IN UPHOLDING HER HUMAN RIGHTS DESPITE THE DOJ ORDER TO KEEP HER FROM LEAVING ABROAD CONTAINS CONDITIONS SO THAT SHE CAN ANSWER THE SUMMONS THAT MAY BE ISSUED BY THE COURT IN RELATION TO THE CHARGES SHE IS FACING. IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT SHE WILL COME BACK FROM ABROAD TO FACE THE CHARGES AGAINST HER TO GIVE WEIGHT TO THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE FILIPINO PEOPLE SEE THOSE WHO VIOLATED THE LAW ANSWERABLE AND ACCOUNTABLE, A TWO MILLION PESOS CASH BOND WAS REQUIRED FOR HER TO PUT UP WHICH WILL BE FORFEITED BY THE COURT IF SHE DOES NOT COME BACK!!!! IN RELATION TO THIS MAY I INVITE YOU TO MY PREVIOUS POST REGARDING THIS ISSUE.http://reyquijada.blogspot.com/2011/11/if-one-is-charged-with-following-either.htm
THE TITLE OF THIS POST IS: WAS THE TWO MILLION PESOS CASH BOND REQUIRED FOR CGMA TO PUT UP PRACTICAL AND REALISTIC? DURING THE INCUMBENCY OF FORMER PGMA IN ONE OF HER TRIPS TO THE UNITED STATES, THEIR ENTOURAGE SPENT ONE MILLION PESOS FOR ONE MEAL ALONE! OBVIOUSLY THE TWO MILLION PESOS CASH BOND IS EQUIVALENT TO ONLY TWO MEALS!!!!! IF THE DETERMINATION OF THE TWO MILLION PESOS CASH BOND FOR CGMA IS AN INDICATION OF THE RESPECT AND REGARDS OF THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE FILIPINO PEOPLE AND THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE NEED TO ONCE AND FOR ALL START THE DEATHBLOW OF THE CULTURE OF IMPUNITY IN PHILIPPINE SOCIETY WHICH PROVIDES CONSTANT FUEL TO GRAFT AND CORRUPTION AND SOCIAL INJUSTICE IN OUR COUNTY FOR DECADES WHICH HAVE VICTIMIZED THE MAJORITY OF OUR PEOPLE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
WE SHOULD NOT BE SURPRISED IF THE SUPREME COURT OR AT LEAST THE MAJORITY OF THE JUSTICES WILL DECLARE THE DOJ 41 AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!!
SHOULD IT HAPPEN, WE SHOULD NOT STOP IN OUR QUEST FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE. THE OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL AND MORAL OPTIONS SHOULD BE EXPLORED FOR THE BENEFIT OF OUR COUNTRY AND FOR THE COMMON GOOD!!
LET NOT BE THE SACRIFICES OF THE LATE HERO ANDRES BONIFACIO AND ALL OUR OTHER HEROES AND HEROINES BE IN VAIN!!
THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT MAY INDICATE THAT THE HEALTH CONDITION OF FORMER PGMA IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE CONSTITUITONALITY OF DOJ 41 OR NOT. IF THE SUPREME COURT DECLARES DOJ CIRCULAR 41 AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, THEREFORE THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL IS INVIOLABLE AND THE GOVERNMENT IS HELPLESS IN PROTECTING THE COMMON GOOD BY COERCING ACCUSED PERSONS TO FACE CHARGES THAT ARE FILED AGAINST THAT PERSON INCLUDING HEINOUS CRIMES SUCH AS PLUNDER AND ELECTORAL SABOTAGE BY PREVENTING THEM FROM GOING ABROAD.
HEALTH CONDITIONS ESPECIALLY IF IT IS LIFE THREATENING TO AN ACCUSED OR RESPONDENT IS A SERIOUS AND VALID REASON FOR ALLOWING ONE TO GO ABROAD DESPITE THE EXISTENCE OF DOJ CIRCULAR 41 BUT HOW COME THE SUPREME COURT IS NOT INTERESTED IN LEARNING THE REAL HEALTH CONDITION OF FORMER PGMA FROM THE MOUTH OF HER MEDICAL DOCTORS THEMSELVES INSTEAD OF THE HEALTH BULLETINS OF THE FORMER PRESIDENT FROM HER VERY ARTICULATE LAWYERS?
ONE MAY INTERPRET THE ABOVE RECENT DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT EITHER WAY THAT IS TO DECLARE THE DOJ CIRCULAR 41 CONSTITUTIONAL BY THE FACT THAT THEY DID NOT BOTHER TO SUMMON AND HEAR THE MEDICAL DOCTORS REGARDING THE TRUE HEALTH CONDITION OF CGMA AS IT IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE AT HAND. OR DECLARE IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL
BUT WHAT IF THE SUPREME COURT WILL DECLARE THE DOJ CIRCULAR 41 AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL? IS THERE AN INDICATION THAT THIS MAY HAPPEN? RANDY DAVID IN ONE OF HIS MORE RECENT COLUMNS CITED ARTICLE XIII TITLED SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION, OUR COUNTRY'S FUNDAMENTAL LAW. THE ACCUSED OR RESPONDENT FORMER PGMA HAS HER HUMAN RIGHTS BUT ON THE OTHER HAND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES HAVE ALSO OUR HUMAN RIGHTS WHICH IF UPHELD AND RESPECTED IS WHAT SOCIAL JUSTICE IS ALL ABOUT.
IN THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER ISSUED BY THE SUPREME COURT VIRTUALLY ALLOWING FORMER PGMA TO GO ABROAD IN UPHOLDING HER HUMAN RIGHTS DESPITE THE DOJ ORDER TO KEEP HER FROM LEAVING ABROAD CONTAINS CONDITIONS SO THAT SHE CAN ANSWER THE SUMMONS THAT MAY BE ISSUED BY THE COURT IN RELATION TO THE CHARGES SHE IS FACING. IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT SHE WILL COME BACK FROM ABROAD TO FACE THE CHARGES AGAINST HER TO GIVE WEIGHT TO THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE FILIPINO PEOPLE SEE THOSE WHO VIOLATED THE LAW ANSWERABLE AND ACCOUNTABLE, A TWO MILLION PESOS CASH BOND WAS REQUIRED FOR HER TO PUT UP WHICH WILL BE FORFEITED BY THE COURT IF SHE DOES NOT COME BACK!!!! IN RELATION TO THIS MAY I INVITE YOU TO MY PREVIOUS POST REGARDING THIS ISSUE.http://reyquijada.blogspot.com/2011/11/if-one-is-charged-with-following-either.htm
THE TITLE OF THIS POST IS: WAS THE TWO MILLION PESOS CASH BOND REQUIRED FOR CGMA TO PUT UP PRACTICAL AND REALISTIC? DURING THE INCUMBENCY OF FORMER PGMA IN ONE OF HER TRIPS TO THE UNITED STATES, THEIR ENTOURAGE SPENT ONE MILLION PESOS FOR ONE MEAL ALONE! OBVIOUSLY THE TWO MILLION PESOS CASH BOND IS EQUIVALENT TO ONLY TWO MEALS!!!!! IF THE DETERMINATION OF THE TWO MILLION PESOS CASH BOND FOR CGMA IS AN INDICATION OF THE RESPECT AND REGARDS OF THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE FILIPINO PEOPLE AND THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE NEED TO ONCE AND FOR ALL START THE DEATHBLOW OF THE CULTURE OF IMPUNITY IN PHILIPPINE SOCIETY WHICH PROVIDES CONSTANT FUEL TO GRAFT AND CORRUPTION AND SOCIAL INJUSTICE IN OUR COUNTY FOR DECADES WHICH HAVE VICTIMIZED THE MAJORITY OF OUR PEOPLE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
WE SHOULD NOT BE SURPRISED IF THE SUPREME COURT OR AT LEAST THE MAJORITY OF THE JUSTICES WILL DECLARE THE DOJ 41 AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!!
SHOULD IT HAPPEN, WE SHOULD NOT STOP IN OUR QUEST FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE. THE OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL AND MORAL OPTIONS SHOULD BE EXPLORED FOR THE BENEFIT OF OUR COUNTRY AND FOR THE COMMON GOOD!!
LET NOT BE THE SACRIFICES OF THE LATE HERO ANDRES BONIFACIO AND ALL OUR OTHER HEROES AND HEROINES BE IN VAIN!!
0 Responses:
Post a Comment