No more questions, your Honor.

Still, you haven’t explained GMA’s publicly-admitted talking to Garcillano during the 2004 election period. Was it a violation of the law or not?

what’s wrong with a chief executive “testing the law to its limits”? why should she pre-judge, or second-guess the courts? the point is she is not violating the law. testing and violating are two different things. if she cannot second-guess the highest court, you cannot either, even if you were the greatest constitutional jurist in the world.

no, i’m not saying “everything in life must end in court”. what i am saying is that every unresolved controversy between two parties would, and should, end in court. would you rather have it end on a smoking barrel of a gun, with the “losing party” lying in a pool of blood dead as death?

as to sanction, i believe it is limited to invalidating the action in question. however a subsequent violation of the court’s ruling (in a subsequent case involving the same issue) would probably constitute an impeachable offense.

Shaman, There is, in other country that is. When the law prohibiting marriage between same sex was Declared or ruled Unconstitutional as violation of the Equality Rights, by the Lower Courts and not contested by the Crown, which denied benefits accorded marriage between man and woman at the exclusion of all other, The Government passed the law to recognize same sex marriage and Pay Benefits to same sex couples (like widow pensions) retro-active to l985 when the Charter took effect in recognition that the law violated its own Charter..that is the consequence for violating the Charter, whichever party does the violation

Is it the job of a President to test the law to its limits? Last I looked, it’s his/her job to execute the spirit of the law. When you push the law to its limits, chances are you’ll overstep the line. And that’s what Gloria has been doing to serve not the people’s interests but her own selfish ones. Gloria has violated established rules of law. For one, she violated the electoral laws by calling a Comelec commissioner during the election period, a fact that she admitted on national television. Then she took several actions that were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Isn’t something declared unconstitutional a violation of the Constitution? But, of course, you just choose to sweep these things under the rug and claim you’re strictly for the rule of law.

You seem to say that everything in life must end up in court. Bencard, we don’t eat legalities for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Many of the things in the ordinary course of daily life are decided and accepted without going to court. I’m sure you take actions in your personal life based on subjective judgment, not because the court has ordered them.

In more decent and truly democratic societies, public opinion is enough to drive political leaders out of office. Real leaders, that is.

Both can not practice public accounting which is only reserves for CAs, but usually enough to hold the top position in any business or governmental agencies.

For CA one needs a university degre

There you are I am talking about the Philippines and you’re talking about Canada.
Canada’s accounting is patterned after UK which debits and credits are interchanged.

i told you before, and i’m telling you again. pgma’s actions according to her interpretation of the constitution are valid and lawful until declared to the contrary by the sc in a proper case brought before it. it appears to me that many a time, she has tested the law to its limits, but i think she has never intentionally violated an ESTABLISHED rule of law. if you still don’t get it, i suggest you consult with your attorney and if he/she is interested, debate the matter with me.

ramrod, a government is not a business, profit-driven corporation. the president of our country cannot be lawfully replaced at a drop of a hat. there is a process, albeit a long one. leadership is relative and subjective. this is why we differ in our appreciation of pgma’s. a few posts ago, i have commented on the different paradigms of the business of government, on the one hand, and that of a private enterprise, on the other. you’re welcome to review it.

I will understand your inability to grasp the concept of LEADERSHIP, it appears to me that you work alone. If you have ever experienced small unit leadership (leading 6 people) or company size, or battalion size, to corporate size…then you will begin to understand. But then again, you serve a function in this world, in this blog in particular, the moderation “cap.” Without people like you, all of us will deteriorate into narrowminded members of a hate group. Its because of you that we are sharpened, well practiced, and better prepared to face dissenting arguments in other venues.
Continue you good service…