After previously denying Maria Ressa's bid to travel outside the country, the Court of Appeals Eighth Division hearing the appeal to her cyber libel conviction allowed her to travel to the US for a program at Harvard and visit her parents in Florida. How did the court rule?
CA said Ressa was able to prove the necessity and urgency of her travel. The invitation letter from Harvard shows the program requires her physical presence for 30 days. CA also considered humanitarian grounds to allow her to visit her parents whom she had not seen for 2 yrs.
In December last year, the same court had blocked Ressa's bid to visit her ailing mother who was due for an operation, saying she failed to prove the necessity and urgency of her travel.
CA now says denial of previous motions are inconsequential. news.abs-cbn.com/news/12/24/20/…
CA also found Ressa successfully proved she is not a flight risk, citing her itinerary, her strong economic ties to PH as Rapper CEO and her undisputed compliance with court-imposed conditions in her previous travels. She told ANC she intends to finish her appeal.
In a motion for reconsideration, the Office of the Solicitor General tried to block Ressa's travel saying Ressa was merely invited by Harvard and regarding her visit to her parents, she could use "available online and technological applications."
But the CA Eighth Division stood by its earlier ruling, saying the OSG failed to present new compelling reasons.
FULL STORY:
Rappler CEO Maria Ressa left for the United States on Sunday, her news agency said, after the Court of Appeals allowed her to attend a program at Harvard University and visit her parents there.
Impt to note that while both Sen. Jinggoy Estrada and Janet Lim Napoles were acquitted of plunder over PDAF scam, they were also convicted of lesser crimes.
Estrada - 12 yrs, 8 mos - 16 yrs, 5 mos, 10 days
Napoles - 44 yrs, 8 mos - 62 yrs, 10 mos, 20 days
Estrada:
1 count of direct bribery (8 yrs - 9 yrs, 4 mos)
2 counts indirect bribery (2 yrs, 4 mos - 3 yrs, 6 months, 20 days EACH count)
fined P3M
suspended from public office
perpetual special disqualification from voting
Napoles:
5 counts of corruption of public officials (8 yrs - 10 yrs, 8 mos EACH count)
2 counts of corruption of public officials (2 yrs, 4 mos - 4 yrs, 9 mos, 10 days EACH count)
fined P29.625M
ordered to indemnify PH govt P262M with interest
Totoo bang na-EDSA-pwera ang taumbayan dahil sa 1987 Constitution?
Hindi nga ba patas ang Saligang Batas?
Let’s examine the claims in the ad calling for Charter change.
CLAIM: Sa 1987 Constitution, natigil ang asenso natin. (Visuals: Global investors not allowed)
CLAIM: Malusog na ekonomiya daw para sa lahat! Pero pangako nahinto. Monopolya ang naghari. Land ownership ng foreign investors, Edsa-pwera.
FACT: The 1987 Constitution does not prohibit entry of global investors into PH. What it regulates is foreign investment in areas deemed critical such as public utilities; exploration, devt and use of natural resources; and certain investments as determined by Congress. (Art XII)
JUST IN: The Supreme Court has changed the interpretation on the rule on Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth:
Before any public official/employee could be liable for errors, omissions or non-filing of SALNs, they must be given the chance to correct them.
The Supreme Court made the "clarification" on the SALN rule in setting aside the dismissal for dishonesty of a tax specialist from the Dept of Finance who was accused of concealing millions worth of real properties, motor vehicles, business interests and loans.
Jessie Javier Carlos, whose gross annual salary at the DOF only ranged from P126k to P210k between 2000 and 2011, allegedly secured 2 house and lots worth P4.1M, farm lots worth P4M, vehicles, loans and credit card debts--all beyond his govt earnings, not in his SALNs.
Bakit dalawang beses nang pinagpapaliwanag ng Korte Suprema si Public Attorney's Office (PAO) chief Persida Acosta kung bakit hindi siya dapat i-disiplina ng Korte?
Ano'ng meron? Simplehan natin.
Naglabas ang Korte Suprema ng Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability na gabay sa tamang asal ng mga abogado.
Kabilang sa mga probisyon nito ay kung paano maiiwasan ng isang abogado ang magkasalungat na interes (conflict of interest).
Ombudsman said police were conducting legitimate anti-illegal drug operation which, unfortunately, resulted in deaths. It added, cops were in fulfillment of a duty, a justifying circumstance where there is no criminal liability.
In contrast, the QC court, in dismissing the direct assault case vs Morillo back in March, said the police operatives could not be presumed to be in the performance of their duties due to irregularities in their operations when they failed to coordinate with agencies, barangay.