Comments on: Branches of the Philippine Government: Separation of Powers http://jlp-law.com/blog/branches-of-the-philippine-government-separation-of-powers/ Philippine laws and legal system (JLP-Law blog) Sat, 19 May 2012 09:49:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: arias_louie http://jlp-law.com/blog/branches-of-the-philippine-government-separation-of-powers/comment-page-1/#comment-21984 arias_louie Mon, 13 Feb 2012 11:43:26 +0000 http://jlp-law.com/blog/branches-of-the-philippine-government-separation-of-powers/#comment-21984 Innulit ko.... Kapag natuloy yung pagbabago sa ating Constitution o Charter Change. Before ma-ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite ang ating magiging Constitution. Ibigay na dapat ang Interpretation nito. - Interpretation sa lahat ng mga nakasulat o probisyon sa ating Constitution. Dapat may Interpretation na ito. Isulat na dapat ng magiging Framers (Constitutional Convention [ConCon] or Constitutional Assembly [ConAss] Delegates) ang Interpretation sa lahat ng mga nakasulat o probisyon sa ating magiging Constitution. Hindi yung Supreme Court pa ang mag-interpret nito. Katulad ngayon.... Yung sa ating 1987 Constitution. Kailangan pa itong i-interpret ng ating Supreme Court. Sa panukala ko naman. Hindi na ito (mga nakasulat o probisyon sa ating Constitution) i-interpret ng ating Supreme Court. Kasi nga may Intepretation na ito. Para na hindi na maulit yung nangyari: "MAS BATAS" O "ABOVE" PA SA ATING CONSTITUTION ANG ATING SUPREME COURT... Ang magiging duty and function na lang ng ating Supreme Court ay sundin at i-apply ang ating magiging Constitution at Interpretation nito. - Interpretation na galing sa mga Framers ng ating magiging Constitution. ^_^ Innulit ko….

Kapag natuloy yung pagbabago sa ating Constitution o Charter Change.

Before ma-ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite ang ating magiging Constitution.

Ibigay na dapat ang Interpretation nito.

- Interpretation sa lahat ng mga nakasulat o probisyon sa ating Constitution.

Dapat may Interpretation na ito.

Isulat na dapat ng magiging Framers (Constitutional Convention [ConCon] or Constitutional Assembly [ConAss] Delegates) ang Interpretation sa lahat ng mga nakasulat o probisyon sa ating magiging Constitution.

Hindi yung Supreme Court pa ang mag-interpret nito.

Katulad ngayon….

Yung sa ating 1987 Constitution.

Kailangan pa itong i-interpret ng ating Supreme Court.

Sa panukala ko naman.

Hindi na ito (mga nakasulat o probisyon sa ating Constitution) i-interpret ng ating Supreme Court.

Kasi nga may Intepretation na ito.

Para na hindi na maulit yung nangyari:

“MAS BATAS” O “ABOVE” PA SA ATING CONSTITUTION ANG ATING SUPREME COURT…

Ang magiging duty and function na lang ng ating Supreme Court ay sundin at i-apply ang ating magiging Constitution at Interpretation nito.

– Interpretation na galing sa mga Framers ng ating magiging Constitution.

^_^

]]> By: arias_louie http://jlp-law.com/blog/branches-of-the-philippine-government-separation-of-powers/comment-page-1/#comment-21959 arias_louie Sun, 05 Feb 2012 19:07:12 +0000 http://jlp-law.com/blog/branches-of-the-philippine-government-separation-of-powers/#comment-21959 "The Judiciary may not have the power of the sword, may not have the power of the purse, but it has the power to interpret the Constitution" A very dangerous doctrine.... Sa pag-iinterpret kasi sa ating Constitution. Ang equivalent nito ay: a.) Lawmaking - Gumagawa ka ng Batas Sole duties and functions dapat ng Legislative Branch. Hindi ng Judicial Branch. b.) Amendments - binabago mo ang mga nakasulat o probisyon sa ating Constitution. Sole duties and functions dapat ng Constitutional Convention (Con Con or Constitutional Assembly (Con Ass) Delegates. Hindi ng Judicial Branch. Ganito tuloy yung nangyari.... 1.) Ni-legalized nito ang appointment ni then Associate Justice Renato Corona as Chief Justice ng ating Supreme Court. Kahit na ito ay labag sa ating 1987 Constitution ARTICLE VII Section 15 "Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a President or Acting President shall not make appointments, except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety." 2.) Sinang-ayunan o inaprobahan nito ang pagkakaroon ng panibagong Distrito ng Camarines Sur para lang maging Congressman ang anak ni Gloria Macapagal Arroyo na si Dato Arroyo. Kahit na hindi umabot ang Distrito nito sa at least 250,000 Population na nakasaad sa ating 1987 Constitution ARTICLE VI Section 5. (3) "Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact, and adjacent territory. Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least one representative." 3.) Ang hindi nito pagsunod sa nakasulat o probisyon sa ating 1987 Constitution ARTICLE XI Section 17 "A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth. In the case of the President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional offices, and officers of the armed forces with general or flag rank, the declaration shall be disclosed to the public in the manner provided by law." REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6713 Section 8 of RA 6713, also known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. Kaya panukala ko.... Kapag natuloy yung pagbabago sa ating Constitution o Charter Change. Bago ma-ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite ang ating magiging Constitution. Ibigay na dapat ang Interpretation nito. - Interpretation sa lahat ng mga nakasulat o probisyon sa ating Constitution. At ang mangyari sa ating Judiciary.... Taga- apply na lamang ito sa Interpretation ng mga nakasulat o probisyon sa ating Constitution. Hindi na ito mag-interpret. Kasi nga may Interpretation na. Kasi iba yung Interpretation ng ating Judiciary (Supreme Court) sa Interpretation ng mga Framers ng ating 1987 Constitution. At mas tama ang Interpretation ng ng mga Framers ng ating 1987 Constitution kaysa sa ating Judiciary (Supreme Court). Syempre sila yung nakaisip, sa kanila galing yung idea at yung mga nakasulat sa ating 1987 Constitution. Syempre sila (Framers) yung tama. At paara mawala na rin ang kalituhan sa kung ano talaga ang interpretation ng mga nakasulat o probisyon sa ating Constitution At hindi na rin maulit yung nangyayari na "NA NAG-A-ACT O UMAAKTO NA "MAS BATAS" O "ABOVE" PA SA ATING CONSTITUTION ANG ATING JUDICIARY (SUPREME COURT).... NA YUNG EN BANC RULING O DESISYON NITO AY MAS BATAS O ABOVE PA SA NAKASULAT O PROBISYON SA ATING CONSTITUTION". Gusto ko rin baguhin ang Theory ni Montesquieu - "Separation of state powers: executive; legislative; judicial" Di ba sa Theory ni Montesquieu Executive Who implement or execute the law. Legislative Who make, pass, and repeal the law. Judicial Who interprets and applies the law. Sa akin naman.... Executive Who implement or execute the law. Legislative Who make and pass the law. But before it became the law. It should be Interpreted. Also it can repeal the law Judicial Who applies the interpretation of the law. (Yun lang... Thanks for reading. To God alone be all the Glory sa naisip ko. Dahil binigyan Niya ako ng Wisdom at Idea. To Reform our Constitution. Especially sa pag-reform sa Separation of powers ng ating Government) ^_^ “The Judiciary may not have the power of the sword, may not have the power of the purse, but it has the power to interpret the Constitution”

A very dangerous doctrine….

Sa pag-iinterpret kasi sa ating Constitution. Ang equivalent nito ay:

a.) Lawmaking – Gumagawa ka ng Batas

Sole duties and functions dapat ng Legislative Branch. Hindi ng Judicial Branch.

b.) Amendments – binabago mo ang mga nakasulat o probisyon sa ating Constitution.

Sole duties and functions dapat ng Constitutional Convention (Con Con or Constitutional Assembly (Con Ass) Delegates. Hindi ng Judicial Branch.

Ganito tuloy yung nangyari….

1.) Ni-legalized nito ang appointment ni then Associate Justice Renato Corona as Chief Justice ng ating Supreme Court.

Kahit na ito ay labag sa ating 1987 Constitution ARTICLE VII Section 15

“Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a President or Acting President shall not make appointments, except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety.”

2.) Sinang-ayunan o inaprobahan nito ang pagkakaroon ng panibagong Distrito ng Camarines Sur para lang maging Congressman ang anak ni Gloria Macapagal Arroyo na si Dato Arroyo.

Kahit na hindi umabot ang Distrito nito sa at least 250,000 Population na nakasaad sa ating 1987 Constitution ARTICLE VI Section 5. (3)

“Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact, and adjacent territory. Each city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each province, shall have at least one representative.”

3.) Ang hindi nito pagsunod sa nakasulat o probisyon sa ating 1987 Constitution ARTICLE XI Section 17

“A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth. In the case of the President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional offices, and officers of the armed forces with general or flag rank, the declaration shall be disclosed to the public in the manner provided by law.”

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6713

Section 8 of RA 6713, also known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.

Kaya panukala ko….

Kapag natuloy yung pagbabago sa ating Constitution o Charter Change.

Bago ma-ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite ang ating magiging Constitution.

Ibigay na dapat ang Interpretation nito.

- Interpretation sa lahat ng mga nakasulat o probisyon sa ating Constitution.

At ang mangyari sa ating Judiciary….

Taga- apply na lamang ito sa Interpretation ng mga nakasulat o probisyon sa ating Constitution.

Hindi na ito mag-interpret. Kasi nga may Interpretation na.

Kasi iba yung Interpretation ng ating Judiciary (Supreme Court) sa Interpretation ng mga Framers ng ating 1987 Constitution.

At mas tama ang Interpretation ng ng mga Framers ng ating 1987 Constitution kaysa sa ating Judiciary (Supreme Court).

Syempre sila yung nakaisip, sa kanila galing yung idea at yung mga nakasulat sa ating 1987 Constitution.

Syempre sila (Framers) yung tama.

At paara mawala na rin ang kalituhan sa kung ano talaga ang interpretation ng mga nakasulat o probisyon sa ating Constitution

At hindi na rin maulit yung nangyayari na “NA NAG-A-ACT O UMAAKTO NA “MAS BATAS” O “ABOVE” PA SA ATING CONSTITUTION ANG ATING JUDICIARY (SUPREME COURT)….

NA YUNG EN BANC RULING O DESISYON NITO AY MAS BATAS O ABOVE PA SA NAKASULAT O PROBISYON SA ATING CONSTITUTION”.

Gusto ko rin baguhin ang Theory ni Montesquieu

- “Separation of state powers: executive; legislative; judicial”

Di ba sa Theory ni Montesquieu

Executive

Who implement or execute the law.

Legislative

Who make, pass, and repeal the law.

Judicial

Who interprets and applies the law.

Sa akin naman….

Executive

Who implement or execute the law.

Legislative

Who make and pass the law. But before it became the law. It should be Interpreted.

Also it can repeal the law

Judicial

Who applies the interpretation of the law.

(Yun lang… Thanks for reading. To God alone be all the Glory sa naisip ko. Dahil binigyan Niya ako ng Wisdom at Idea. To Reform our Constitution. Especially sa pag-reform sa Separation of powers ng ating Government)

^_^

]]>