Del Rosario: We worked through weekend to prepare summary on VP Duterte businesses in 3 days | ANC

Comments · 20

• HA

  @hazeldiocampo1448 · 8 days ago

  Defense team it's not about dividends , income or losses.. the issue is delikadeza as VP violation cya for joining such businesses.Yan ang issue nothing more nothing less

  3

• FE

  @FedupNaako · 8 days ago

  Walang alam kundi ang kumpanya at si VP Sara ay nag attend ng mga meeting, pero sa sinumite ng mga kumpanya ay si VP Sara ay board member at involve sa compensation! Umattend man o hindi sa meetings ay walang silbi sa ebidensya!

  2

• LE

  @lettermaniac1 · 8 days ago

  For this important matter with regards to lowering the threshold, I believed first, that Senator Loren Legarda will comeback to participate in the voting. Now, if she comesback, the present Senators will be counted as 21, because the other 3 Senators are not present and not participating due to that 2 &nbsp;are detained and the other 1 is in hiding (I&apos;m sure you know who I&apos;m referring to). Now, let&apos;s do the math, if there are 21 Senators available the equation would be 2/3 of 21 = 14. <br>While on the other hand, former Associate Justice Azcuna pointed by saying that all 24 Senators were duly elected and represent the portion of the electorate and should be all included in the trial voting, so that means, 2/3 of 24 = 16. It means that in order for the VP to be impeached, the Senate needs to achieve 16 votes out of 24 in favor to convict, but if it less than 16, the VP is acquitted (in each case of the (4 Articles of Impeachment) ok, its either. <br><br>Now, let&apos;s go on another equation assuming that there are 20 Senators present and Loren Legarda does not comeback and the other 2 senators are detained and 1 is in hiding, then the available Senators, again will be 20. Let&apos;s do the math again, 2/3 of 20 = 13, which is for me a majority vote. Remember folks, a lower vote on the treshold is acquitting the VP. <br><br>However, If this equations that we see assuming that this scenarios will happen, my question for former &nbsp;AJ Azcuna is, does this disenfranchisement of those senators are constitutional or not? On the basis of the &quot;part of the electorate&quot; which you mentioned, yes, I agree with you, but, remember this, the other 3 Chief Justices who gave their interpretation strongly suggest that those absent and not participating on the impeachment trial cannot vote. So, folks, that means either of the total numbers of treshold whether its 20 or 21 present Senators can fall to those equal of the two thirds treshold we&apos;ve equated. &nbsp;<br><br>I am hoping that the Senate chamber which i can see will take the vote next week will rather choose to select the latter part of the 3 Chief Justices interpretation are the best one to consider. &nbsp;<br><br>TAKE NOTE: <br>Remember folks, these 4 former Justices or &quot;friends of the court&quot; ( or in Latin: amici curiae) that were invited in the name of Associate Justice Azcuna, Chief Justice Davide, Chief Justice Puno, and Chief Justice Panganiban who gave their own interpretations are inline with their thinking and stick on their own interpretation that those absent or suspended cannot vote due to unavoidable circumstances, which to me is more acceptable, <br>compared to AJ Azcuna who remained to keep the 2/3 of 24 which is 16 as the supermajority in consideration that the 24 Senators regardless of any circumstances, &nbsp;still remains as Senators because they are nationally elected. Lastly, AJ Azcuna and Chiz Escudero have the same view.<br><br><a href="https://www.youtube.com/shorts/UQUd6qDlzRk">https://youtube.com/shorts/UQUd6qDlzRk?is=o0P6FceT36ZImlPLms:https://youtube.com/watch?v=n7gj7Ogx-AY&amp;is=L1ye-gm-MWMpZAY4ms:https://youtube.com/live/F0txL-gZIEc?is=HBPKrk-ns0DC4kvK</a>

• BR

  @brucedahilig3754 · 8 days ago (edited)

  Malaki kasi offer sa defense kahit they know it&apos;s bad money. Kaya like they say &quot;MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVILS&quot;. this just show what money can do protect the rich kono and the corrupt na magnanakaw na officials. &nbsp;and jail the poor. Kawawang pinas.

  1

• RE

  @reynaldoroy1067 · 8 days ago

  Itong defense team mahilig sa technicality hahaha

  3

• FE

  @FedupNaako · 8 days ago

  Kung nalulugi ang kumpanya, apektado ang VP dahil shareholder sya!

  2

• MI

  @mimimiray11 · 8 days ago

  Ang dming pera nyo gingastos jan everyday s walang kwentang impeachment lhat ng mga politiko my mga negosyo paano cla nbubuhay pinamukha nyo lng din sming mga taong byan n corrupt kyo dun kyo nkuha ng pera kung bawal pla ang my business ang politiko

• FE

  @FedupNaako · 8 days ago

  Kung ano lang ang sinumite Atty. Justine. Atty. ng prosecution, siglahan mo naman pagsasalita o pagoobject mo!

• MI

  @mimimiray11 · 8 days ago

  Khit anong gwin nyo da best ang defense khit kmi mga ofw n minsan nlng manuod clear mlinaw ang knilang explanation s bawat cross examination mxado ng bugok ang sistema ng pinas kawawa n ang mga pmilya nmin n mhirap ngppkpgod kmi dto s abroad pero mga floodcontrol sming byan di mlutas

  1

• SU

  @susantibigar2640 · 8 days ago

  NagpapSikat😊

• SI

  @Simplyme1108 · 8 days ago

  Pakkkktayyyy palpak n nman ang prosecution 🎉🎉🎉 atrassss na 🤣🤣🤣

  1

• DA

  @DAVIDSAJONIA · 8 days ago

  Malinaw itong cross examination ng Defense. Informative. Yung presentation ng Prosecution napakagulo parang bangag!!!.

  2