Strict interpretation of what is written or being lax (BENDALOS) by amicus curiae

It is more fun criticizing

Such is the first principle being debated in the Sarah impeachment:    debate on the denominator, for the all the senators:   24 or those just in attendance.     One magistrate, Azcuna, says its 24 since he was the orginal author, I agree.   The other three are of an announcer or common man mentality:   it depends, or maybe it does not matter. -  WHAT IS POPULAR OR WHAT IS .... (whom you had dinner with ....) matters.

Strictly to the letter,or to the spirit?

The religious are split between the fundamentalists and those who live according to the spirit of the scriptures or what is written.  Thus among Franciscans there is a schism.   Among the Muslimes, there are fundamentalists -  strict interpretation of the law and the liberals.

In my college education, I was taught and I kept in mind that there are certain subjects that are fundamental and immutable:   math and science for intance.   1+1 =2 cant be changed.  

In literature, when somebody says his interpretation of the poems is in between the lines, the Prof says curtly "Where is it?  I coud not see any"  And the prof became a National Artist.

In drama, a meztizo professor surnamed Romualdez (he reports in MB SLC) says answers to his exams are the very same he mentions in pop sheet, attempted to reduce drama critique into something that is constant.

So whom do we agree, or spend money with (P60 m  a day expense on impeachment?)     Azcuna or the 3 others/   I go for Azcuna...

What if the Senators decide to amend the constitution and use another denominator?   One legal mind said it could be unconstitutional.  Do you agree.   ?

Another important issue:   the question by Sen. Robinhood Padilla -  since impeachment court is a superior court, can any other courts touch or investigate its members while in session (or arrest its subject as with RTC)?   Can other courts pressure its members (as what is happening)   This is worth seriously looked into  

What? The CJ had sterling scholastic records?

Reflections

Whoever said that the Honorable CJ was an honor student in his school days may be testing the limits of truth.  So many alumni are howling in protest.  The sympathy to the CJ may have the sympathy of the alumni of the school where he graduated from.  But misrepresenting the scholastic achievement of the CJ may have removed many sympathizers for his cause.

That simply means that one of the Articles of Impeachment on integrity and probity has its merits.  But then again, the prosecution cant present evidences any more.

Haste Makes Waste

Reflections

It is very possible that CJ may escape prosecution.  The gravest of all the article of impeachment, that of underdeclaration of SALN may be clearly explained by the defense after all.  And the Basa testimony?  That may just be a ploy to explain the millions in the bank account.  The unexplained money/wealth may be explained after all by a landgrabbing case.  It may be illegal, but then again it is another story.  It is not in the articles of impeachment.

For the prosecution, haste makes waste.  After all, many of the party members somehow signed the impeachment complaint in haste.   Evidences were not strong or available.  The man of laws got the upper hand.  After all that is the game he knows.

No Plan B for Prosecutors

Reflections







There seems to be no plan B for the Prosecution vs CJ Corona;  Ms Monsod notes in her PDI column.  The idea was just like for Gutierrez;  the CJ would be pressured  into resigning.  Thus the contemplated witnesses who refused to testify, the unverifiable allegations cant be pursued;  the witnesses would not come forward;  and the cases could not be buttressed.

And in effect, it was an admission of a sloppy work.  The amateurs were not prepared and must suffer the tirades of the Lady Senator and admonition of the Senate President.

The Impachment Proceedings Should be Circumspect

Filosofo Tasio Lives

I hope that the Congress and Senate, being collegial body should now be circumspect in studying the impeachment vs the CJ of SC.  If you read the manifesto of members of the judiciary, you and I must agree that CJ should not be tried for the decisions made were collegial in nature.  CJ, RC can not be singled out.  That is why the followers of CJ are viewing that the current impeachment proceedings are levelled against a co equal branch of the government.

I hope justice and sanity prevail.