Who are you to say that one person voted unwisely just because he voted differently than you? Is it not premature to judge the wisdom of a vote when the elected are yet to perform?
We are supposed to be supporting whosoever shall sit in office and participate in the development of our nation even if these officers-elect were not those whom we voted for. But instead, some of us opted to divide ourselves into factions of supporters and bashers, forgetting that we ought to be united. Some even resort to unnecessary sexist, and perhaps even almost racist criticisms of those who won, insulting not only the elect but the electorate as well. What's worse is we hide this misdemeanor in the guise of liberty... of freedom of speech... of right.
I am not saying we have to silence ourselves in all instances, good or bad. What I am saying is that we cannot retreat from our obligations as citizens just because we do not like our new officials... and should we speak, this we must do for a noble purpose and not for the sake of it.
I admit, most of those whom I've voted for in the recent elections have lost. But even so, I refuse to say that those who voted differently than I were stupid, idiotic, --- or unwise. After all, it is wrong for me to regard my brain (or any other brain in that matter) as the standard of wisdom and intelligence. Otherwise, they should have just let me vote in behalf of everybody else.
The problem is that most, if not all, of us pledge our allegiance to a certain candidate instead of pledging our allegiance to the community we belong. Our non-participation due to the loss of those we voted for against the victory of the other contributes to the failure of our very own progress. We shouldn't regard our officials as superheroes who will come to save us from all evil while we play the nonchalant citizens of Gotham or the avid readers of the Daily Bugle. We too must not only take an active role but one which is also significant... necessary... meaningful.
We have to realize that once there are winners, there ought to be no more opponents. No more parties. Just a community who have spoken. A community which requires respect.
We pride ourselves for our democracy, but democracy without respect is chaos.
We can either help each other towards peace, order and development as an undivided whole... OR--- bring this community into ruins by writing the names of our officials in our imaginary death notes as though they are criminals while we lie in our own graves awaiting resurrection but doing nothing. Our call.
2013
G.R. No. 175457; July 6, 2011
RUPERTO A. AMBIL, JR vs. SANDIGANBAYAN and PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
G.R. No. 175482
ALEXANDRINO R. APELADO, SR vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Facts:
Eastern Samar Governor Ruperto Ambil and Provincial
warden Alexandrino Apelado were found guilty before the Sandiganbayan for
violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 otherwise known as the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act after Governor Ambil, conspiring with Apelado,
ordered the release of then criminally-charged and detained mayor Francisco
Adalim and had the latter transferred from the provincial jail to the the
governor’s residence.
Issues:
1.)Whether or not the Sandiganbayan had jurisdiction over a
suit where one of the 2 accused has a Salary Grade classified to be cognizable
before the lower courts.
2.)Whether or not the transfer of the detainee, who was a
mayor, by the governor was a violation in contemplation of Sec3(e) of RA 3019
in relation to sec2(b) of the same act.
Held:
SEE: RULING FOR AMBIL VS. SANDIGANBAYAN HERE
Follow our community for more updates : FACEBOOK PAGE and WORDPRESS
Follow our community for more updates : FACEBOOK PAGE and WORDPRESS
Case Digest: Ambil vs Sandiganbayan; Apelado vs. People
Posted on
Thursday, March 7, 2013
G.R.
No. 175991; August 31, 2011
JOSE
R. CATACUTAN vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Facts:
Petitioner
Jose Catacutan was held guilty before the Sandiganbayan for the violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019(Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act) for his refusal to
implement the promotion and appointments of Georgito Posesano and
Magdalena A. Divinagracia as Vocational Supervisors III despite the directive
of CHED and the Civil Service commission. Catacutan questioned the judgment,
contending that he was denied due process when he was not allowed to present
the CA judgment, dismissing the adiminstrative case against him.
Issue:
Whether or not the judgment, finding petitioner guilty of
violating RA 3019, was well founded despite the refusal of the trial court to
admit the dismissal of the administrative case as evidence.
G.R. No. 172602 April 13,
2007
HENRY T. GO vs.THE FIFTH DIVISION, SANDIGANBAYAN and THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR,
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
Vicente C. Rivera, then DOTC Secretary, and
petitioner Henry Go, Chairman and President of PIATCO, were charged with
violation of Section 3(g) of RA
3019, also known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Go, in relation
to the voided 1997 Concession Agreement and the Amended and Restated Concession
Agreement (ARCA) entered into by the government with Philippine International
Air Terminals Co., Inc (PIATCO).
Petitioner Go contended that it was error to
charge him with the violation given that he was not a public officer, a
necessary element of the offense under Sec 3(g) of RA 3019. He further assert
that conspiracy by a private party with a public officer is chargeable only
with the offense under Sec3(e).
Issue:
Whether or not Petitioner Go, a private person,
may be charged with violation of Sec 3(g) of RA 3019.
Ruling: SEE: GO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN RULING
Follow our community for more updates : FACEBOOK PAGE and WORDPRESS
Follow our community for more updates : FACEBOOK PAGE and WORDPRESS
CASE CONCERNING UNITED
STATES DIPLOMATIC AND
CONSULAR STAFF IN TEHRAN
Judgment of 24 May 1980
CONSULAR STAFF IN TEHRAN
Judgment of 24 May 1980
Facts:
In November 4, 1974, student militants of the group Muslim Student Followers of the Imam's Line barged into the US Embassy in Tehran and held US diplomats and consulars hostage for 444 days. The cause of the Iranian students’ action against the US was believed to be the latter’s grant of medical asylum to Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi and its refusal to turn the Shah over for trial.
The US sought recourse before the international court, asking that the hostages be freed and that reparations be given to the US by the Iranian government for the latter’s failure to carry its international legal obligations. US averred that Iran was responsible due to its initial inaction to the crisis and its subsequent statement of support to the seizure.
Issue:
Whether or not Iran was liable to the United States for the seizure of the US embassy and the hostage-taking of the US nationals by the Iranian militants.
International Case Digest: US vs. Iran
Posted on
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Comelec vs Español : 149164-73 : December 10, 2003 (417 SCRA 554)
Facts: Bautista filed before the LAw Department of the Comelec a complaint against certain individuals for vote buying. By virtue of a resolution, an information was filed against respondents with the RTC. Meanwhile, criminal complaints were filed against Bautista's witnesses for vote selling.
the Law Department of the COMELEC later on recommended that the resolutionof the Office of the Cavite Provincial Prosecutor be nullified because the accused are exempt and that the prosecution of election offenses were under the sole cotrol of the COMELEC.
Issue: Whether or not the review of the Provincial Prosecutor's resolution by COMELEC and the subsequent request for its nullification was proper.
Held: SEE: COMELEC vs. ESPANOL RULING
Follow our community for more updates : FACEBOOK PAGE and WORDPRESS