Nauna siyang nasampahan ng impeachment complaint sa House of Representatives sa kasalanang plagiarism o pangungupya ng sinulat ng ibang tao na hindi nagpa-alam.
Ang report noong Biyernes, hindi na raw itutuloy. Natabunan na ng impeachment complaint kay Chief Justice Corona.
Kaya nag-post tuloy ng panawagan si Atty. Harry Roque sa Facebook: “House should not abandon Del Castillo impeachment. Can’t change the SC by just changing its head. Need to drastically change its composition!I Impeach more Justices and not just one!” (Hindi dapat i-abandona ng House ang Del Castillo impeachment.
Hindi maaring magkaroon ng pagbabago sa SC kung ang hepe lang ang palitan. Kailangan palitan ang malawakan na pagpalit ng bumubuo nito. I-impeach ang iba pang justices at hindi isa lang!”
Mga kliyente kasi ni Harry Roque ang complainant kay Del Castillo. Sila yung mga comfort women, mga babaeng inabuso ng mga sundalong Hapon noong panahon ng giyera.
Maala-ala na hiningi ng mga Lola na comfort women sa Supreme Court na obligahen ang pamahalaan (administrasyon pa ni Gloria Arroyo noon) na siyang humingi ng hustisya at kabayaran sa Japan sa paghihirap na dinanas nila noong giyera.
Idinismis ni Del Castillo ang kanilang hiling. Sa pagsulat ng desisyun, nangopya si Del Castillo sa iba’t-ibang desisyun ng mga huwes sa ibang bansa.
Ang plagiarism o pangunupya ay pagnanakaw din. Ninanakaw mo ang ideya at ang gawa ng ibang tao.
Betrayal of public trust ang ginawang basehan ng impeachment kay Del Castillo noong Dec. 7.
Noong Dec. 12, inimpeach si Chief Justice Renato Corona. May impormasyun daw kasi ang Malacañang na ide-deklara ng Supreme Court na ilegal ang DOJ-Comelec panel na nag-imbestiga ng 2007 eleksyun na siyang basehan ng kasong electoral sabotage laban kay Arroyo kaya minadali nila ang impeachment kay Corona.
Kapag mangyari yun, baka makalaya si Arroyo. (Nasaasan na ba kasi ang kasong plunder laban kay Arroyo?)
Warning sa mga justices ang ginagawa ngayon ng Malacanang. Huwag silang magkamali na bomoto para lumaya si Arroyo. Kung hindi, i-impeach naming kayo. Hawak ng Malacanang ang House of Representatives
Magiging abala ang mga kongresista na katulad ni Niel Tupas, Rodolfo Fariñas, Neri Colmenares na magbubu-o ng prosecution team. Hindi naman pwedeng pagsabayin ang dalawang impeachment trial.
Kaya sa ngayon, pwedeng kampante na ulit si Del Castillo. Hindi pa makukuha ng mga Lola na comfort women kahit bahagi ng hustisya na matagal na nilang hinahangad.
Atty Theodore Te on Facebook:
Obviously realizing that the cameras won’t be on this case anymore…but wait, I thought they insisted that Corona usurped their power to discipline Del Castillo by impeachment, now that they can impeach, they won’t?
I guess its not only Del Castillo who gets a free ride on this issue, Corona also does (I hope the House Committee realizes this but my bet is that it won’t). So, yeah, full circle-a Justice can plagiarize, the rest of the Court can affirm it (with the exception of 3) and be totally untouchable.
18 December 2011
If there is a law against plagiarism? is there also a law against government institutions or officials from accepting donations (whether in good faith or not)? i.e. renovations and/or construction of an structure/s?
Can somebody or anyone help me with this? thanks so much.
prans
If the Supreme Court wishes to shake off the perception of partisanship, I would recommend that it unload the case to the Court of Appeals, which has concurrent jurisdiction over the petition.
The Supreme Court can create a limited en banc division in the Court of Appeals, composed of the chairmen of the divisions in the Court of Appeals. There is precedent here, because the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of the US (California, Alaska, Hawaii, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Washington State – Seattle, not DC) has such a limited en banc procedure. The limited en banc is composed of 11 members, instead of the full 23 members.
The Supreme Court can create two limited en banc divisions, composed of the chairmen of the CA. There are 17 divisions, so there can be two limited en banc divisions of eight each, with the presiding justice joining both, as the tie-breaker. The divisions can be the first eight, and the last eight, or chairmen of even numbered divisions and chairmen of odd numbered divisions.
Tuwing may issue ng partisanship, puwedeng ibato sa CA en banc. For that matter, cases can be unloaded by the Supreme Court, at its discretion, to the CA en banc.
Sa atin lang gusto na lahat pumunta sa Supreme Court, at pinapatulan naman ng SC. Sa US, of the almost 10,000 petitions received by the Supreme Court in 2009, only 87 were heard.
Normally, a case becomes final at the CA. In fact, many become final at the District level because the CA itself refuses to review cases where it believes the district court did not err. Kung ganyan sa atin, madaling matatapos ang mga kaso.
Sa katunayan, maraming decision sa Supreme Court ay pag-uulit lamang ng sinabi sa CA. Sa CA naman, marami ring decision na pag-uulit lamang ng sinabi ng RTC.
The right to appeal is statutory, not a constitutional grant, sa puwedeng malimitahan.
Iyan sana ang dapat na naging legacy ni Puno, instead of that dumb pa-relevant na writ of amparo.
Sorry. I meant writ of kalisan.
Kalikasan. Nabulol na.
Overloaded ang Pinas SC, lahat ng kaso gusto SC ang humatol. Something wrong here nga, atty sax.