Philippines Anti-Cybercrime Police Groupe MOST WANTED PEOPLE List!
#1 Mick Jerold Dela CruzPresent Address: 1989 C. Pavia St. Tondo, Manila If you have any information about that person please call to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines: Contact Numbers: Complaint Action Center / Hotline: |
#2 Gremelyn NemucoPresent Address; One Rockwell, Makati City
If you have any information about that person please call to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines: Contact Numbers: Complaint Action Center / Hotline: |
#3 Vinna VargasAddress: Imus, Cavite
If you have any information about that person please call to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines: Contact Numbers: Complaint Action Center / Hotline: |
#4 Ivan Dela CruzPresent Address: Imus, Cavite
If you have any information about that person please call to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines: Contact Numbers: Complaint Action Center / Hotline: |
#5 Elton DanaoPermanent Address: 2026 Leveriza, Fourth Pasay, Manila
If you have any information about that person please call to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines: Contact Numbers: Complaint Action Center / Hotline: |
#6 Virgelito DadaPresent Address: Grass Residences, Quezon City
If you have any information about that person please call to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines: Contact Numbers: Complaint Action Center / Hotline: |
#7 John Christopher SalazarPermanent address: Rivergreen City Residences, Sta. Ana, Manila
If you have any information about that person please call to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines: Contact Numbers: Complaint Action Center / Hotline: |
#8 Xanty Octavo
If you have any information about that person please call to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines: Contact Numbers: Complaint Action Center / Hotline:
|
#9 Daniel BocoAddress: Imus, Cavite
If you have any information about that person please call to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines: Contact Numbers: Complaint Action Center / Hotline:
|
#10 James Gonzalo TulabotPermanent Address: Blk. 4 Lot 30, Daisy St. Lancaster Residences, Alapaan II-A, Imus, Cavite
If you have any information about that person please call to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines: Contact Numbers: Complaint Action Center / Hotline: |
#11 Lea Jeanee Belleza
If you have any information about that person please call to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines: Contact Numbers: Complaint Action Center / Hotline: |
#12 Juan Sonny Belleza
If you have any information about that person please call to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines: Contact Numbers: Complaint Action Center / Hotline: |
OUTSTRIVE SOLUTIONS PH CALL CENTER SERVICES
The Constitution, which embodies the people’s sovereign will, is the bible of this Court. To allow this constitutionally infirm initiative, propelled by deceptively gathered signatures, to alter basic principles in the Constitution is to allow a desecration of the Constitution. To allow such alteration and desecration is to lose this Court’s raison d’etre. Where the intent and language of the Constitution clearly withhold from the people the power to propose revisions to the Constitution, the people cannot propose revisions even as they are empowered to propose amendments. These three specific amendments are not stated or even indicated in the Lambino Group’s signature sheets. The people who signed the signature sheets had no idea that they were proposing these amendments. The people could not have inferred or divined these proposed changes merely from a reading or rereading of the contents of the signature sheets.
In furthering their arguments on the proposition that impeachment proceedings are outside the scope of judicial review, respondents Speaker De Venecia, et. Judicial power includes the dutyof the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, andto determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government. Furthermore, should the people themselves wish to change a substantial portion or even the whole of the Constitution, what or who is to stop them? Article XVII, Section 2 of the Constitution which, by the way it is worded, refers only to their right to initiative on amendments of the Constitution? The delegates to the Constitutional Convention who, according to their deliberations, purposely limited Article XVII, Section 2 of the Constitution to amendments? Bearing in mind my earlier declaration stole my money that the will of the sovereign people is supreme, there is nothing or no one that can preclude them from initiating changes to the Constitution if they choose to do so. To reiterate, the Constitution is supposed to be the expression and embodiment of the people’s will, and should the people’s will clamor for a revision of the Constitution, it is their will which should prevail. It is the inherent right of the people as sovereign to change the Constitution, regardless of the extent thereof. During the hearing on the petitions, the argument was raised that provisions of the Constitution amended through initiative would not have the benefit of a reference source from the record of a deliberative body such as Congress or a constitutional convention. It was submitted that this consideration influenced the Constitutional Commission as it drafted Section 2, Article XVII, which expressly provided that only amendments, and not revisions, may be the subject of initiative petitions.
Can mistress be held liable under RA 9262?
Section 2, on the other hand, textually commits to the people the right to propose only amendments by direct action. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein. Consequently, the shift from presidential to parliamentary form of government cannot be regarded as anything but a drastic change. It will require a total overhaul of our governmental structure and involve a re-orientation in the cardinal doctrines that govern our constitutional set-up. Joaquin Bernas, S.J., a switch from the presidential system to a parliamentary system would be a revision because of its over-all impact on the entire constitutional structure. It cannot, by any standard, be deemed as a mere constitutional amendment. Our present governmental system is built on the separation of powers among the three branches of government. The legislature is generally limited to the enactment of laws, the executive to the enforcement of laws and the judiciary to the application of laws.
It should be remembered that the COMELEC had dismissed the initiative petitions outright, and had yet to undertake the determination of sufficiency as required by law. This argument clearly proceeds from a premise that accords supreme value to the record of deliberations of a constitutional convention or commission in the interpretation of the charter. Yet if the absence of a record of deliberations stands as so serious a flaw as to invalidate or constrict processes which change a constitution or its provisions, then the entire initiative process authorized by the Constitution should be scarlet-marked as well. The foregoing enumeration negates the claim that “the big bulk of the 1987 Constitution will not be affected.” Petitioners’ proposition, while purportedly seeking to amend only Articles VI and VII of the Constitution and providing transitory provisions, will, in fact, affect, alter, replace or repeal other numerous articles and sections thereof. More than the quantitative effects, however, the revisory character of petitioners’ proposition is apparent from the qualitative effects it will have on the fundamental law. The Supreme Court of California enjoined the submission of the proposed measure to the electors for ratification because it was not an “amendment” but a “revision” which could only be proposed by a convention.
REPRESENTATIVES, REPRESENTED BY SPEAKER JOSE G. DE VENECIA, THE SENATE,
He pointed out that the government should clearly distinguish between Communist sabotage and the simple exercise by citizens of such democratic rights as criticism, strikes, and others. PRESIDENT Magsaysay this evening told Defense Undersecretary Jose M. Crisol to warn all government agencies to respect the democratic rights of the people in the effort to thwart any Communist attempt to sabotage the rural development program. The CCP also submitted a petition to the President requesting that the controversial interpretation of the 17 per cent exchange tax be referred to the Department of Justice for decision. The President sent the petition to Justice Secretary Pedro Tuason for study and recommendation.
- Al.’s claims, it is the studied opinion of this Court that the issue of the constitutionality of the said Resolution and resulting legislative inquiry is too far removed from the issue of the validity of the second impeachment complaint.
- Such a course would be revolutionary, and the Constitution of the state would become a mere matter of form.
- Article XVII on amendments and revisions is called a “constitution of sovereignty” because it defines the constitutional meaning of “sovereignty of the people.” It is through these provisions that the sovereign people have allowed the expression of their sovereign will and have canalized their powers which would otherwise be plenary.
- In the instant case, the Constitution sets in black and white the requirements for the exercise of the people’s initiative to amend the Constitution.
- It is not that I believe this kind of direct action by the people for amending a constitution will be needed frequently in the future, but it is good to know that the ultimate reserves of sovereign power still rest upon the people and that in the exercise of that power, they can propose amendments or revision to the Constitution.
- Petitioners Isagani Cruz and Cesar Europa brought a suit for prohibition and mandamus as citizens and taxpayers, assailing the constitutionality of certain provisions of Republic Act No. 8371, otherwise known as the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 , and its Implementing Rules and Regulations.
Members of a Burmese trade mission now in Manila to confer with local officials on the promotion of closer trade relations between this country and theirs also called to pay their respects. Rodriguez, the missioners were U Thet Su, chairman of the economic planning commission of Burma, and U Ko Ko Gyi, general manager of the state agricultural marketing board at Rangoon. The President ordered the census to prevent repetition of what happened in Capiz, where four pre-fabs were discovered to be rotting after they had been neglected after delivery. Col. Antonio Chanco, chief of the corps of engineers of the Armed Forces who was with the President on the visit to Marikina, expressed concern that the same thing may be happening in other places. The President issued the order after motoring to Marikina, Rizal, to inspect the construction of a two-room school building out of “lupa bricks” or “soil-blocks,” a new cheap material which may mean large savings in construction costs. The President issued these directives when 300 non-striking workers of Hacienda Luisita in Tarlac belonging to the Hacienda Luisita Labor Union saw him to complain that some men were going around at night among the non-striking laborers fomenting intrigues and unrest.
THROUGH SPEAKER JOSE G. DE VENECIA, AND THE SENATE OF THE RESPONDENTS.IN
Prior to the 1973 Constitution, without consistency and seemingly without any rhyme or reason, this Court vacillated on its stance of taking cognizance of cases which involved political questions. Ratification by the people of a Constitution is a political question, it being a question decided by the people in their sovereign capacity. The necessity of setting forth the text of the proposed constitutional changes in the petition for initiative to be signed by the people cannot be seriously disputed. It is not enough that they merely possess a general idea of the proposed changes, as the Constitution speaks of a “direct” proposal by the people. It must be stressed that no less than the present Constitution itself empowers the people to “directly” propose amendments through their own “initiative.” The subject of the instant petition is by way of exercising that initiative in order to change our form of government from presidential to parliamentary. Much has been written about the fulsome powers of the people in a democracy. But the most basic concerns the idea that sovereignty resides in the people and that all government authority emanates from them. Clearly, by the power of popular initiative, the people have the sovereign right to change the present Constitution.
Basically, revision suggests fundamental change, while amendment is a correction of detail. It cannot be denied that in Santiago, a majority of the members of this Court or eight Justices (as against five Justices) concurred in declaring R.A. When the motion for reconsideration was denied via an equally-divided Court or a 6-6 vote, it does not mean that the Decision was overturned. It only shows that the opposite view fails to muster enough votes to modify or reverse the majority ruling. In Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership vs. Velasco, this Court ruled that the denial of a motion or reconsideration signifies that the ground relied upon have been found, upon due deliberation, to be without merit, as not being of sufficient weight to warrant a modification of the judgment or final order.