For the PNP Meycauayan:
We write on behalf of University of the Philippines Diliman Journalism student PSALTY CALUZA who is on school assignment as part of the requirements of the journalism internship course Journ 198 of U.P. : Please release him from his arbitrary detention arising from his illegal arrest and turn him over to AlterMidya with whom he was assigned as part of his UP internship, in the next 3 hours, otherwise we will be compelled to file the necessary actions against the PNP. (this letter has been sent to the PNP with my digital signature and tweeted to the PNP). Please give this matter your preferential attention.
– Atty. /Prof. Marichu C. Lambino
(photo above is Psalty’s file photo submitted to my course Law on Mass Media academic year 2017 as part of the orientation requirements of the course)
Justice Tessie said no one can comment on this case!
… this is echoed by Marcos loyalists …
and by supporters of a Marcos- dictatorship- comeback
(kulang ang kulungan there are not enough jails for commenters)
ang hindi ko lang maintindihan: The five justices keep commenting on this case and on the respondent whenever they’re on a platform, but forbid everyone else from doing the same thing
BAWAL DAW MAG-KOMENTO! PAPARUSAHAN!
(video produced by the Inquirer, used here non-commercially for academic purposes)
tap the “play arrow” for an OPM, cover of No One (Alicia Keys) by Johnoy Danao
Watch The Big Story at 8:00 pm tonight, live interview by TV5 news anchor Roby Alampay on TV5- Bloomberg TV Philippines 24/7 news channel exclusive on Cignal TV Channel 250 (HD) Cable Cablelink, Channel 23 (SD) on the meaning, and the immediate and long-term implications/ repercussions of the quo warranto ouster of CJ Sereno.
perhaps, having litigated dozens of special civil actions in the Supreme Court (quo warranto is a special civil action), i might be able to help thresh out the following:
1.The decision of the Supreme Court 8 justices is UNFINISHED:
It has ancillary orders in its dispositive portion that are outside the scope of the quo warranto itself, and involves all the branches of government, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, and the public — implementation of which are, problematic at best. (watch the live interview), such as the following (the bag of ancillary orders) : 2.The Supreme Court 8 justices could have stated that every petition for quo warranto should be decided on a “case-to-case” basis — but it said here that quo warranto could be used against any ineligible public official, at any time, if the ground relied upon allegedly occurred before the appointment or during the appointment, on the nebulous ground of “integrity” for acts committed prior to or incident to their appointment, as follows:
According to the Supreme Court 8 Justices:
“Quo warranto as a remedy to oust an ineligible public official may be availed of, provided that the requisites for the commencement thereof are present, when the subject act or omission was committed prior to or at the time of appointment or election relating to an official’s qualifications to hold office as to render such appointment or election invalid.”
Here, under “Guidelines for the Bench,…” etc.:
It should be noted however that for nominees to the judiciary, facts on “integrity” are heard at the JBC level. Even the Supreme Court 8 justices, in the case that they cited, showed that the “integrity” criterion is determined at the JBC level.
At the very least, these are questions of fact, not of mere argumentation, which require testimonies from custodians of documents and administrative officers before which the SALNs are filed, and which, if alleged as “culpable violations of the Constitution”, should be threshed out in an evidentiary hearing like the impeachment trial.
(Removing the prescriptive period of quo warranto would cover acts committed before your appointment which would cover everything you said or uttered or had done since you were born …)
2.The legal and theoretical framework of the decision of the Supreme Court 8 (particularly on pages 132-153(which it had to utilize to sustain the quo warranto) is: The Chief Justice was a de facto Chief Justice who sat only with “color of title” – i.e., was never legal but only appeared to be legal (de facto — like a guerilla movement, it was never part of government).
This kind of theory shakes the very foundation of the Supreme Court itself from 2012, then at every en banc session and decision, and from the moment it was convened last Monday, and to this day.
The legal and theoretical framework of the decision can be found in pages 134-153 … (see sample embedded page below)