Philippines Anti-Cybercrime Police Groupe MOST WANTED PEOPLE List!

FXCL SCAM Company Details:

OUTSTRIVE SOLUTIONS PH CALL CENTER SERVICES

He said that, if necessary, the committee may conduct an open competition for the selection of the most appropriate design or plan to be adopted. First of all, it escapes this Court why petitioner Citibank took care to have the Deeds of Assignment of the PNs notarized, yet left the Declaration of Pledge unnotarized. This Court would think that petitioner Citibank would take greater cautionary measures with the preparation and execution of the Declaration of Pledge because it involved respondent’s “all present and future fiduciary placements” with a Citibank branch in another country, specifically, in Geneva, Switzerland. While there is no express legal requirement that the Declaration of Pledge had to be notarized to be effective, even so, it could not enjoy the same prima facie presumption of due execution that is extended to notarized documents, and petitioner Citibank must discharge the burden of proving due execution and authenticity of the Declaration of Pledge. The rule on the evidentiary weight that must be accorded a notarized document is clear and unambiguous.

The signature sheets do not explain this discrimination against the Senators. The 6.3 million people who signed the signature sheets could not have known that their signatures would be used to discriminate against the Senators. They could not have known that their signatures would be used to limit, after 30 June 2010, the interim Parliament’s choice of Prime Minister only to members of the existing House of Representatives. Lambino stated that this provision is a “surplusage” and the Court and the people should simply ignore it. Far from being a surplusage, this provision invalidates the Lambino Group’s initiative. Thus, the members of the interim Parliament will decide the expiration of their own term of office. This allows incumbent members of the House of Representatives to hold office beyond their current three-year term of office, and possibly even beyond the five-year term of office of regular members of the Parliament. Lambino and his group to the 6.3 million people who signed the signature sheets. Lambino and his group deceived the 6.3 million signatories, and even the entire nation. Section 5 does not state that the elections for the regular Parliament will be held simultaneously with the 2007 local elections.

REPRESENTATIVES, REPRESENTED BY SPEAKER JOSE G. DE VENECIA, THE SENATE,

What lies in here is an issue of a genuine constitutional material which only this Court can properly and competently address and adjudicate in accordance with the clear-cut allocation of powers under our system of government. Face-to-face thus with a matter or problem that squarely falls under the Court’s jurisdiction, no other course of action can be had but for it to pass upon that problem head on. In sum, the issue of whether the petitioners have complied with the constitutional requirement that the petition for initiative be signed by at least twelve per cent (12%) of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per cent (3%) of the registered voters therein, involves contentious facts. Its resolution will require presentation of evidence and their calibration by the COMELEC according to its rules. During the oral argument on this case, the COMELEC, through Director Alioden Dalaig of its Law Department, admitted that it has not examined the documents submitted by the petitioners in support of the petition for initiative, as well as the documents filed by the oppositors to buttress their claim that the required number of signatures has not been met. The exchanges during the oral argument likewise clearly show the need for further clarification and presentation of evidence to prove certain material facts. The oppositors-intervenors then point out that by their proposals, petitioners will “change the very system of government from presidential to parliamentary, and the form of the legislature from bicameral to unicameral,” among others.

There is indeed a plethora of cases in which this Court exercised the power of judicial review over congressional action. Thus, in Santiago v. Guingona, Jr.,this Court ruled that it is well within the power and jurisdiction of the Court to inquire whether the Senate or its officials committed a violation of the Constitution or grave abuse of discretion in the exercise of their functions and prerogatives. In Tanada v. Angara,in seeking to nullify an act of the Philippine Senate on the ground that it contravened the Constitution, it held that the petition raises a justiciable controversy and that when an action of the legislative branch is seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it becomes not only the right but in fact the duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute. In Bondoc v. Pineda,this Court declared null and void a resolution of the House of Representatives withdrawing the nomination, and rescinding the election, of a congressman as a member of the House Electoral Tribunal for being violative of Section 17, Article VI of the Constitution. In Coseteng v. Mitra,it held that the resolution of whether the House representation in the Commission on Appointments was based on proportional representation of the political parties as provided in Section 18, Article VI of the Constitution is subject to judicial review. In Daza v. Singson,it held that the act of the House of Representatives in removing the petitioner from the Commission on Appointments is subject to judicial review. In Tanada v. Cuenco,it held that although under the Constitution, the legislative power is vested exclusively in Congress, this does not detract from the power of the courts to pass upon the constitutionality of acts of Congress. In Angara v. Electoral Commission,it ruled that confirmation by the National Assembly of the election of any member, irrespective of whether his election is contested, is not essential before such member-elect may discharge the duties and enjoy the privileges of a member of the National Assembly. Reynato S. Puno, I view the matter before us in this petition as one mainly involving a complex political question.

SPEAKER RAUL M. GONZALES, PETITIONERS, WORLD WAR II VETERANS LEGIONARIES OF

Neither shall he be appointed to any office which may have been created or the emoluments thereof increased during the term for which he was elected. In case of vacancy in the House of Representatives, a special election may be called to fill such vacancy in the manner prescribed by law, but the Member of the House of Representatives thus elected shall serve only for the unexpired term. It, therefore, in that form, cannot pass muster the very limits contained in providing for the power under the Constitution. Section 19 on the power of Congress to provide for other cases to fall within the jurisdiction of the Commission on Human Rights. Section 20 on the power of Congress to establish central monetary authority. In other words, Section 2 is another alternative mode of proposing amendments to the Constitution which would further require the process of submitting it in a plebiscite, in which case it is not self-executing. Directly by the people themselves thru initiative as provided for in Article __ Section __ of the Constitution.

The Court Administrator posits that since in the first class of cases, the Sandiganbayan acts more as a trial court, then for that classification of cases, the three month reglementary period applies. For the second class of cases, the Sandiganbayan has the twelve-month reglementary period for collegiate courts. We cannot even consider or affirm said RTC decision as a memorandum decision because it failed to comply with the measures of validity laid down in Francisco v. Permskul. A decision or resolution, especially one resolving an appeal, should directly meet the issues for resolution; otherwise, the appeal would be pointless (See ABD Overseas Manpower Corporation v. NLRC, 286 SCRA 454, 464 ). Tested against these standards, we find that the RTC decision at bar miserably failed to meet them and, therefore, fell short of the constitutional injunction. The RTC decision is brief indeed, but it is starkly hallow, otiosely written, vacuous in its content and trite in its form.

PETITIONER-IN-INTERVENTION, VS. HON. SPEAKER JOSE G. DE VENECIA, JR. AND

This Court must avoid revisiting a ruling involving the constitutionality of a statute if the case before the Court can be resolved on some other grounds. Such avoidance is a logical consequence of the well-settled doctrine that courts will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute if the case can be resolved on some other grounds. Realizing the absurdity of the need for such an amendment, petitioner Atty. Lambino readily conceded during the oral arguments that the requirement of a future amendment is a “surplusage.” In short, Atty. Lambino wants to reinstate the rule of statutory construction so that the later provision automatically prevails in case of irreconcilable inconsistency. The rationale of the Adams decision applies with greater force to the present petition.

• In their joint Answer7 and Answer to Amended Complaint,8 filed on 12 September 1985 and 6 November 1985, respectively, petitioners admitted that respondent had deposits and money market placements with them, including dollar accounts in the Citibank branch in Geneva, Switzerland (Citibank-Geneva).
• The Delfin petition insufficient as it did not contain the required number of signatures of registered voters.
• Marlon S. Cascuejo, Annex “D,” Memorandum of Oppositor-Intervenor Pimentel, et al.
• Petitioners Lambino, et al. thus go about proposing changes the nature and extent of which they do not as yet know exactly what.

In the Petition at bar, respondent dealt with Mr. Tan directly, there was no third party involved who could have perpetrated any fraud or forgery in her loan transactions. Although respondent attempted to raise suspicion as to the authenticity of her signatures on certain documents, these were nothing more than naked allegations with no corroborating evidence; worse, even her own allegations were replete with inconsistencies. She could not even establish in what manner or under what circumstances the fraud or forgery was committed, or how Mr. Tan could have been directly responsible for the same. Lastly, the exchange of letters between petitioner Citibank and respondent, as well as the letters sent by other people working for respondent, had consistently recognized that respondent owed petitioner Citibank money. According to petitioner Citibank, the PNs in the second set, except for PN No. 34534, were mere renewals of the unpaid PNs in the first set, which was why the PNs stated that they were for the purpose of liquidating existing obligations. PN No. 34534, however, which was part of the first set, was still valid and subsisting and so it was included in the second set without need for its renewal, and it still being the original PN for that particular loan, its stated purpose was for personal investment.104 Respondent essentially admitted executing the second set of PNs, but they were only meant to cover simulated loans. Mr. Tan supposedly convinced her that her pending loan application with DBP would have a greater chance of being approved if they made it appear that respondent urgently needed the money because petitioner Citibank was already demanding payment for her simulated loans.

The Filipino nation and its democratic institutions have no doubt been put to test once again by this impeachment case against Chief Justice Hilario Davide. Accordingly, this Court has resorted to no other than the Constitution in search for a solution to what many feared would ripen to a crisis in government. But though it is indeed immensely a blessing for this Court to have found answers in our bedrock of legal principles, it is equally important that it went through this crucible of a democratic process, if only to discover that it can resolve differences without the use of force and aggression upon each other. stole my deposit The framers of the Constitution also understood initiation in its ordinary meaning. Amicus curiae Constitutional Commissioner Regalado is of the same view as is Father Bernas, who was also a member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, that the word “initiate” as used in Article XI, Section 3 means to file, both adding, however, that the filing must be accompanied by an action to set the complaint moving. This amendment proposed by Commissioner Maambong was clarified and accepted by the Committee on the Accountability of Public Officers. The issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.

As the phraseology now runs, which may be corrected by the Committee on Style, it appears that the initiation starts on the floor. If we only have time, I could cite examples in the case of the impeachment proceedings of President Richard Nixon wherein the Committee on the Judiciary submitted the recommendation, the resolution, and the Articles of Impeachment to the body, and it was the body who approved the resolution.It is not the body which initiates it. It only approves or disapproves the resolution.So, on that score, probably the Committee on Style could help in rearranging these words because we have to be very technical about this. I have been bringing with me The Rules of the House of Representatives of the U.S. I have submitted my proposal, but the Committee has already decided. MR. MAAMBONG. Mr. Presiding Officer, I am not moving for a reconsideration of the approval of the amendment submitted by Commissioner Regalado, but I will just make of record my thinking that we do not really initiate the filing of the Articles of Impeachment on the floor.The procedure, as I have pointed out earlier, was that the initiation starts with the filing of the complaint. And what is actually done on the floor is that the committee resolution containing the Articles of Impeachment is the one approved by the body. As correctly stated by the Solicitor General, the possibility of the occurrence of a constitutional crisis is not a reason for this Court to refrain from upholding the Constitution in all impeachment cases. Justices cannot abandon their constitutional duties just because their action may start, if not precipitate, a crisis.

In support of respondent’s assertion that she had already paid whatever loans she may have had with petitioner Citibank, she presented as evidence Provisional Receipts No. 19471, dated 11 August 1978, and No. 12723, dated 10 November 1978, both of petitioner Citibank and signed by Mr. Tan, for the amounts of ₱500,744.00 and ₱500,000.00, respectively. While these provisional receipts did state that Mr. Tan, on behalf of petitioner Citibank, received respondent’s checks as payment for her loans, they failed to specifically identify which loans were actually paid. Petitioner Citibank was able to present evidence that respondent had executed several PNs in the years 1978 and 1979 to cover the loans she secured from the said bank. Petitioner Citibank did admit that respondent was able to pay for some of these PNs, and what it identified as the first and second sets of PNs were only those which remained unpaid. It thus became incumbent upon respondent to prove that the checks received by Mr. Tan were actually applied to the PNs in either the first or second set; a fact that, unfortunately, cannot be determined from the provisional receipts submitted by respondent since they only generally stated that the checks received by Mr. Tan were payment for respondent’s loans. This Court finds applicable herein the presumptions that private transactions have been fair and regular,83 and that the ordinary course of business has been followed.84 There is no question that the loan transaction between petitioner Citibank and the respondent is a private transaction. In addition, the banks involved in the foregoing transactions are also presumed to have followed the ordinary course of business in the acceptance of the crossed MCs for deposit in respondent’s accounts, submitting them for clearing, and their eventual payment and cancellation. Respondent disputed petitioners’ narration of the circumstances surrounding her loans with petitioner Citibank and the alleged authority she gave for the off-set or compensation of her money market placements and deposit accounts with petitioners against her loan obligation.

The same requirement is mutatis mutandis or appropriately modified and applied to the different sections. So if it is, for instance, a petition on initiative or referendum for a barangay, there is a 10 percent or a certain number required of the voters of the barangay. If it is for a district, there is also a certain number required of all towns of the district that must seek the petition. If it is for a province then again a certain percentage of the provincial electors is required. Various groups and individuals sought intervention, filing pleadings supporting or opposing the Lambino Group’s petition. The supporting intervenors uniformly hold the view that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in relying on Santiago. On the other hand, the opposing intervenors hold the contrary view and maintain that Santiago is a binding precedent. College of Law is of the same opinion, citing transcendental importance and the well- entrenched rule exception that, when the real party in interest is unable to vindicate his rights by seeking the same remedies, as in the case of the Chief Justice who, for ethical reasons, cannot himself invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, the courts will grant petitioners standing. Faithful adherence to the requirements of Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution is indisputably a paramount component of due process and fair play. It is likewise demanded by the due process clause of the Constitution.

THE CONSOLIDATED BANK AND TRUST CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND L.C. DIAZ AND COMPANY, CPA’S, RESPONDENTS.

Quite the contrary, it prudently followed this Court’s jurisprudence in Santiago and PIRMA. Even assuming arguendo that Comelec erred in ruling on a very difficult and unsettled question of law, this Court still cannot attribute grave abuse of discretion to the poll body with respect to that action. The “six million signatures are genuine and verifiable”; and they “really belong to qualified warm bodies comprising at least 12% of the registered voters nationwide, of which every legislative district is represented by at least 3% of the registered voters therein.” The proposed change — the lifting of term limits of elective officials — “constitute a mere amendment and not a revision of the Constitution.” The first principle enthroned by blood in our Constitution is the sovereignty of the people.

Please follow and like us: