Pimentel: Only Senator-Judges who didn’t take oath should not be counted | Storycon

Comments · 350

• CH

  @chesterray7 · 6 days ago

  How can they take oath if binanatan ng kaso? Nagtataka lang ako, kung accountability pinag uusapan natin, bakit lahat ng may kaso nasa minority? Does that mean malinis lahat ng nasa majority? Masyadong obvious.

  7

• SA

  @samgaldiano6581 · 9 days ago

  Ang dami dami nagiinterpret sa threshold hangang ngayon wala pang resulta, very moot and academic bakit hindi pa sila nakakaintindihan!!!

  7

• KA

  @Kai-z179 · 4 days ago

  Ito yung pinaka may sense na explanation..

  3

• EU

  @eulogiodelima9288 · 6 days ago

  I just hope for Sen. Koko to maintain his principles, not according to political leaning. Kasi kapag ang utak mo ay nakadikit sa political affiliation, masyadong self-interest ang objective mo, nagiging basura ka na. Pagbasura na yung pag-iisip, kahit mataas pa ang napag-aralan mo, ay tatalunin ka lang ng isang ordinaryong Pilipinong hindi nag-aral ng abogasya sa argumento.

  6

• NN

  @NnelgAcol · 8 days ago

  Tama si  former SP Koko

  5

• JE

  @Jefmenguin · 8 days ago

  Iba kasi sa Supreme Court. Palaging may kapalit ang judges kapag nag reach ng 70. Kasi nga, hindi naman kailangan 24 ang judges na makikinig sa hearing ng lower courts

  1

• JO

  @joeyEscobar1359 · 6 days ago

  Masaya Ang mga host..

• EM

  @EmptyMail-k6l · 8 days ago (edited)

  A reasonable interpretation of "all members" should include only those who attended the trial. This is so because when the framers drafted that provision, it must be assumed that they did so thinking that all members would be acting as judges and participating as such in the hearings. Attendance in the impeachment proceedings cannot be likened to a regular judicial proceedings where a judge who did not hear a case is allowed to pen a decision because in the latter, the SC has allowed it. In the case of impeachment, it is only the Senate that is competent to issue a rule whether or not to allow its non-participating members as well as define what qualifies as an act of participation. This authority is beyond question as the Constitution had given Senate the exclusive power to try and decide all impeachment cases.

  1

• DA

  @davidresus34 · 8 days ago

  Ano hindi nyo matangap ang paliwanag ni Sen Coco, ano ba ang mahirap intindihin doon.

  2

• FL

  @florendocastro24 · 9 days ago

  AMBIGUITY in the Letter and Intention of Laws/the Constitution will result in contentions and arguments. .There are 2 ways to define a law/constitution- - according to the ‘’Letter’’ and ‘’Intent’’. These 2 ways will divide all lawyers,legal experts ,and the people..With or without evidence.<br><br> SO WAG NG MAGBIGAY NG OPINYON. &quot;DI ITO PARAMIHAN NG AYON O TULIGSA? ‘’WAG NG PAGULUHIN PA&gt; sabihin na lang kung kayo&apos;y ayon sa &apos;&apos;LETTER&apos;&apos; or &apos;&apos;INTENT&apos;&apos;.<br>Walang Katapusang pagtatalo ito. Ang mahalaga ay ano ang ikabubuti ng Bayan ngayon at

• AL

  @Aliah-e2p · 9 days ago

  True Pimentel, bastat 2/3 by all means and that is 24...

  4

• IS

  @isaiahdavid835 · 8 days ago (edited)

  The word &quot;all&quot; was considered under the assumption that the constitutional framework refers exclusively to honourable senators, thereby excluding dishonourable members who have forfeited their titles by betraying the public trust. Regrettably, there is a total absence of ethics within this shameless legislative body. Despite being sworn in as impartial judges, certain senators exhibit blatant bias and partisanship, actively defending the accused. A Senate ethics committee should immediately suspend and remove them from their roles as senator-judges.<br>Even more egregious is the continued argument in allowing the participation of senators who have betrayed the public trust and are currently incarcerated under government charges for plundering hundreds of millions in taxpayer funds. How can an ethics committee deem them fit to participate? Only an institution completely devoid of conscience and common sense would permit this; no individual of sound moral standing would tolerate such dishonour.<br>If an ordinary citizen is caught stealing, we do not call them &quot;honourable&quot; or appoint them to the judiciary to pass judgment on others. To argue otherwise insults the intelligence of the Filipino people and degrades public morality. These senators must act with ethical integrity and a clear conscience, enforcing laws that serve the public interest. If they fail, history will judge this Senate as the most corrupt and morally bankrupt institution in Philippine history. Never vote for these kinds of people ever again! Ever! May God have mercy on your souls.

  4