While the forest is burning, the monkeys are playing in the banana trees. And don't anyone disturb them. For it is I, not the fire, who will consume them.

familiar situation when dictator Marcos' Martial Law was legalized!

newsonline:

[Poll]

You can also express your views and opinions by replying to this post.

Do you agree with the Supreme Court that Romulo Neri shouldn't answer the following questions on the national broadband network deal?

This things focus to my mind and rising a question how your questions come to this end?...."Supreme Court  that Romulo Neri SHOULDN'T ANSWER"

where else the SC decisions done by voting on each members of the board...as I remember..but sadly the result is 9 is to 6, should you give me or rather elaborate to me further regarding SHOULDN'T ANSWER? because maybe it will led to me for misconception of the statement?.

My concept to your question frankly was..you are telling that the SC don't want Neri to answer the questions on NBN deal..without further ado or without due process did by the Supreme Court.

Because your question derive from the statement like this "The Supreme Court did not allow Neri to answer the following questions on the National broadband network deal." BUT what can you say about this Voting of SC Board which the result is 9-6, it is not a due process to be transparent in SC? or the Total SC Board automatically or immediately decide that they don't allow Neri to answer such questions?.

OR how about  to try this kind of question:

Do you agree with the 9 MEMBERS of the Supreme Court that Romulo Neri shouldn't answer the following questions on the national broadband network deal?

Again would you mind to elaborate to me further this things?

============== 

My apology: Akoy isang hampas lupa lamang na makitid ang utak.

---

==============

Aking paumanhin Akoy isang hampas lupa lamang na makitid ang utak.

GOOD LUCK PHILIPPINES....MABUHAY ANG PILIPINO!!! "To vote is not an obligation, It is a Rights, and so it's my Rights not to Vote" MARCOS PA RIN!!

cachifox

cachifox:

newsonline:

[Poll]

You can also express your views and opinions by replying to this post.

Do you agree with the Supreme Court that Romulo Neri shouldn't answer the following questions on the national broadband network deal?

This things focus to my mind and rising a question how your questions come to this end?...."Supreme Court  that Romulo Neri SHOULDN'T ANSWER"

where else the SC decisions done by voting on each members of the board...as I remember..but sadly the result is 9 is to 6, should you give me or rather elaborate to me further regarding SHOULDN'T ANSWER? because maybe it will led to me for misconception of the statement?.

My concept to your question frankly was..you are telling that the SC don't want Neri to answer the questions on NBN deal..without further ado or without due process did by the Supreme Court.

Because your question derive from the statement like this "The Supreme Court did not allow Neri to answer the following questions on the National broadband network deal." BUT what can you say about this Voting of SC Board which the result is 9-6, it is not a due process to be transparent in SC? or the Total SC Board automatically or immediately decide that they don't allow Neri to answer such questions?.

OR how about  to try this kind of question:

Do you agree with the 9 MEMBERS of the Supreme Court that Romulo Neri shouldn't answer the following questions on the national broadband network deal?

Again would you mind to elaborate to me further this things?

============== 

My apology: Akoy isang hampas lupa lamang na makitid ang utak.

para mas madali, do you agree on the sc ruling na neri can use his executive privileges (3 questions) in the zte deal investigation by the senate? he will not be charge with contempt....same goes to other witnesses...

---

Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.

prince:

cachifox:

newsonline:

[Poll]

You can also express your views and opinions by replying to this post.

Do you agree with the Supreme Court that Romulo Neri shouldn't answer the following questions on the national broadband network deal?

This things focus to my mind and rising a question how your questions come to this end?...."Supreme Court  that Romulo Neri SHOULDN'T ANSWER"

where else the SC decisions done by voting on each members of the board...as I remember..but sadly the result is 9 is to 6, should you give me or rather elaborate to me further regarding SHOULDN'T ANSWER? because maybe it will led to me for misconception of the statement?.

My concept to your question frankly was..you are telling that the SC don't want Neri to answer the questions on NBN deal..without further ado or without due process did by the Supreme Court.

Because your question derive from the statement like this "The Supreme Court did not allow Neri to answer the following questions on the National broadband network deal." BUT what can you say about this Voting of SC Board which the result is 9-6, it is not a due process to be transparent in SC? or the Total SC Board automatically or immediately decide that they don't allow Neri to answer such questions?.

OR how about  to try this kind of question:

Do you agree with the 9 MEMBERS of the Supreme Court that Romulo Neri shouldn't answer the following questions on the national broadband network deal?

Again would you mind to elaborate to me further this things?

============== 

My apology: Akoy isang hampas lupa lamang na makitid ang utak.

para mas madali, do you agree on the sc ruling na neri can use his executive privileges (3 questions) in the zte deal investigation by the senate? he will not be charge with contempt....same goes to other witnesses...

If the court have a legal bases in accordance to the law..which is credible..and if the the Law speaks to itself...why not..Yes, and beside if Neri told the president is EVIL..which means he is against the president..WHY he did not speak it out (3 questions) ? and why he will use such privileges?

In that way no need to use executive previlage...just go to senate and speak...that the president is Evil..the president is Blah..Blahh..Blahh..and the president told me this ( answer of 3 questions)

Prince can you tell me more Why?

---

==============

Aking paumanhin Akoy isang hampas lupa lamang na makitid ang utak.

GOOD LUCK PHILIPPINES....MABUHAY ANG PILIPINO!!! "To vote is not an obligation, It is a Rights, and so it's my Rights not to Vote" MARCOS PA RIN!!

cachifox

cachifox:

newsonline:

[Poll]

You can also express your views and opinions by replying to this post.

Do you agree with the Supreme Court thatRomulo Neri shouldn't answer the following questions on the nationalbroadband network deal?

This things focus to my mind and rising a question how your questions come to this end?...."Supreme Court  that Romulo Neri SHOULDN'T ANSWER"

where else the SC decisions done by voting on each members of the board...as I remember..but sadly the result is 9 is to 6, should you give me or rather elaborate to me further regarding SHOULDN'T ANSWER? because maybe it will led to me for misconception of the statement?.

My concept to your question frankly was..you are telling that the SC don't want Neri to answer the questions on NBN deal..without further ado or without due process did by the Supreme Court.

Because your question derive from the statement like this "The Supreme Court did not allow Neri to answer the following questions on the National broadband network deal." BUT what can you say about this Voting of SC Board which the result is 9-6, it is not a due process to be transparent in SC? or the Total SC Board automatically or immediately decide that they don't allow Neri to answer such questions?.

OR how about  to try this kind of question:

Do you agree with the 9 MEMBERS of the Supreme Court thatRomulo Neri shouldn't answer the following questions on the nationalbroadband network deal?

Again would you mind to elaborate to me further this things?

============== 

My apology: Akoy isang hampas lupa lamang na makitid ang utak.

 

HAMPAS LUPA NA MAKITID ANG UTAK?   THAT IS VERY FUNNY! 

PLS. ELABORATE HAMPAS LUPA... 

Sad to say that the 9 SC justices were injected with a dose of evil serum from GMA making them evils in robes.

Sad to say that the 9 SC justices were injected with a dose of evil serum from GMA making them evils in robes.

Hello po. If I remember right, question no. 3 had already been answered right during a Senate hearing, when Neri recounted that he did inform gma about the 200m offered to him by abalos-- yet she still signed the contract. So, asking whether she gave the go ahead to Neri to approve d deal in spite of alleged bribery is quite a redundancy, isn't it? 

Why questions 1 and 2? What's with asking whether she 'followed up' the nbn deal and 'dictated' neri to prioritize the proj? Ano pa po ba naman ang saysay ke finollow-up o nagdikta nga ba, kung alam naman na nga nating lahat na pinirmahan niya ang kontratang yan? Putting her signature is putting her approval. And her approval is what really makes her role significant in the contract, and in the anomaly. Could there be any other weightier significance which might be gained from any answer to the two questions? 

[Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo had taken the Presidency upon herself, despite blatant electoral fraud. Now, as the Chief Executive, it is part of her responsibility to ensure that the contracts she enters into for the country are honestly for the country and free of anomaly--at least free of the kind of theft of this magnitude. Being a principal signatory, she deserves praises for contracts which are truly beneficial to us. In the same spirit, she should also be held accountable for contracts which are gravely anomalous. She can not just be allowed to sign an anomalous contract, enjoy its 'benefits,' suddenly cancel it when found out, then let go scot-free. She even went further and shamelessly insulted our wounded nation by criticizing our persistence in investigating the contract. What for, she said, when she had already cancelled the NBN-ZTE deal anyway. Hindi naman po maaaring dahil lamang sa kinansela niya na ang kontrata ay nalibre na siya sa pananagutan. Kaya lamang naman niya ito kinansela ay dahil nabuking na. Kung di pa nabuking, di niya ito kinansela, at tuluy-tuloy sana ang maliligayang araw ng mga nakapangumisyon na at makakapangumisyon pa ng bilyones, na babayaran nating mga Pilipino. Kunsumisyon. Pilipinas, di naman na po siguro kailangang makapag-graduate pa ng college para lamang makita natin ang panlilinlang.]

 Now, back to the 3 questions. The answers to these questions do not provide fresh material to the investigation.  Hence, the time, money, senatorial and judicial intelligence put into these during the Supreme Court deliberations appear to have all just gone to waste.

 [May I request the ABS-CBN person reading this, to please update me on the source of the 3 questions. Sino po ang gumawa ng tatlong tanong na yan? Ang Senado, Supreme Court, o iba pa?Daming salamat po.]

Now, enough of the 3 questions. The fault in ever presenting them to the SC at all is just a minor thing. The big question that really matters in the latest development on the nbnzte deal is the question on the scope of executive privilege, and the SC judgment. Nothing in the 3 questions-- and possible answers to them-- could possibly pose any threat to our national security and diplomatic relations with China. If at all,  the threat is to the personal security of the guilty Filipino players and signatories to the contract, and their political relations. The SC decision is very sad. Dati, ang executive branch lang ang nanlilinlang sa atin. Ngayon, pati judicial branch na rin. For as long as it is the president who appoints the SC justices, the equal and independent power of the judicial branch remains a myth.

Ang tahasang pagbusal ni gma sa bibig ng mga witnesses mula sa executive dept. ay patunay ng kanyang guilt. Dahil kung wala naman siyang ginagawang anomalya at hangad ang  tunay na kapakanan ng bansa, disinsana'y malaya niyang winewelcome at sinusuportahan ang mga imbestigasyon mula noong panahon ng Hello Garci, South at North Rail Contracts, Fertilizer Scam, iba pa, at ngayon nga'y NBN-ZTE. Ang lahat ng ito'y binusalan, kung kaya't walang natuldukan. Ang parating ipinangangalandakan, wala raw sapat na ebidensya. Dalhin sa korte, at hayaang ang korte suprema ang maghusga.  E paano magkakaebidensya, e hindi naman gagawa ng kontrata ang mga magnanakaw na sila'y magnanakaw, at kung magkano ang nanakawin, at parte ng bawat isa. Ang ebidensya ay nasa bibig  ng mga taong  binusalan. Kaya nanghahamon sa korte, dahil alam nilang wala silang iniwang written evidence, at papanig rin lang sa kanila ang mga SC justices na mahina ang paninindigan sa matuwid. Siguro naman, di na kailangan pagkataas-taas pa ng pinag-aralan para lamang makita ang PAMBANSANG PANLILINLANG na nangyayari. Siguro naman, kahit na nasasabing ordinaryong pinoy lamang, ay may angkin namang sapat na katalinuhan para  makita ang mga pamamaraan, pananalita, at pagngiti sa harap ng camera, na ginagamit upang mapagtakpan ang mga engrandeng pagnanakaw, pandaraya at panlilinlang. Pa'no na po ngayon, Pilipinas?

 

 

 

Hello po. If I remember right, question no. 3 had already been answered right during a Senate hearing, when Neri recounted that he did inform gma about the 200m offered to him by abalos-- yet she still signed the contract. So, asking whether she gave the go ahead to Neri to approve d deal in spite of alleged bribery is quite a redundancy, isn't it? 

Why questions 1 and 2? What's with asking whether she 'followed up' the nbn deal and 'dictated' neri to prioritize the proj? Ano pa po ba naman ang saysay ke finollow-up o nagdikta nga ba, kung alam naman na nga nating lahat na pinirmahan niya ang kontratang yan? Putting her signature is putting her approval. And her approval is what really makes her role significant in the contract, and in the anomaly. Could there be any other weightier significance which might be gained from any answer to the two questions? 

[Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo had taken the Presidency upon herself, despite blatant electoral fraud. Now, as the Chief Executive, it is part of her responsibility to ensure that the contracts she enters into for the country are honestly for the country and free of anomaly--at least free of the kind of theft of this magnitude. Being a principal signatory, she deserves praises for contracts which are truly beneficial to us. In the same spirit, she should also be held accountable for contracts which are gravely anomalous. She can not just be allowed to sign an anomalous contract, enjoy its 'benefits,' suddenly cancel it when found out, then let go scot-free. She even went further and shamelessly insulted our wounded nation by criticizing our persistence in investigating the contract. What for, she said, when she had already cancelled the NBN-ZTE deal anyway. Hindi naman po maaaring dahil lamang sa kinansela niya na ang kontrata ay nalibre na siya sa pananagutan. Kaya lamang naman niya ito kinansela ay dahil nabuking na. Kung di pa nabuking, di niya ito kinansela, at tuluy-tuloy sana ang maliligayang araw ng mga nakapangumisyon na at makakapangumisyon pa ng bilyones, na babayaran nating mga Pilipino. Kunsumisyon. Pilipinas, di naman na po siguro kailangang makapag-graduate pa ng college para lamang makita natin ang panlilinlang.]

 Now, back to the 3 questions. The answers to these questions do not provide fresh material to the investigation.  Hence, the time, money, senatorial and judicial intelligence put into these during the Supreme Court deliberations appear to have all just gone to waste.

 [May I request the ABS-CBN person reading this, to please update me on the source of the 3 questions. Sino po ang gumawa ng tatlong tanong na yan? Ang Senado, Supreme Court, o iba pa?Daming salamat po.]

Now, enough of the 3 questions. The fault in ever presenting them to the SC at all is just a minor thing. The big question that really matters in the latest development on the nbnzte deal is the question on the scope of executive privilege, and the SC judgment. Nothing in the 3 questions-- and possible answers to them-- could possibly pose any threat to our national security and diplomatic relations with China. If at all,  the threat is to the personal security of the guilty Filipino players and signatories to the contract, and their political relations. The SC decision is very sad. Dati, ang executive branch lang ang nanlilinlang sa atin. Ngayon, pati judicial branch na rin. For as long as it is the president who appoints the SC justices, the equal and independent power of the judicial branch remains a myth.

Ang tahasang pagbusal ni gma sa bibig ng mga witnesses mula sa executive dept. ay patunay ng kanyang guilt. Dahil kung wala naman siyang ginagawang anomalya at hangad ang  tunay na kapakanan ng bansa, disinsana'y malaya niyang winewelcome at sinusuportahan ang mga imbestigasyon mula noong panahon ng Hello Garci, South at North Rail Contracts, Fertilizer Scam, iba pa, at ngayon nga'y NBN-ZTE. Ang lahat ng ito'y binusalan, kung kaya't walang natuldukan. Ang parating ipinangangalandakan, wala raw sapat na ebidensya. Dalhin sa korte, at hayaang ang korte suprema ang maghusga.  E paano magkakaebidensya, e hindi naman gagawa ng kontrata ang mga magnanakaw na sila'y magnanakaw, at kung magkano ang nanakawin, at parte ng bawat isa. Ang ebidensya ay nasa bibig  ng mga taong  binusalan. Kaya nanghahamon sa korte, dahil alam nilang wala silang iniwang written evidence, at papanig rin lang sa kanila ang mga SC justices na mahina ang paninindigan sa matuwid. Siguro naman, di na kailangan pagkataas-taas pa ng pinag-aralan para lamang makita ang PAMBANSANG PANLILINLANG na nangyayari. Siguro naman, kahit na nasasabing ordinaryong pinoy lamang, ay may angkin namang sapat na katalinuhan para  makita ang mga pamamaraan, pananalita, at pagngiti sa harap ng camera, na ginagamit upang mapagtakpan ang mga engrandeng pagnanakaw, pandaraya at panlilinlang. Pa'no na po ngayon, Pilipinas?

 

 

 

cachifox:

prince:

cachifox:

newsonline:

[Poll]

You can also express your views and opinions by replying to this post.

Do you agree with the Supreme Court that Romulo Neri shouldn't answer the following questions on the national broadband network deal?

This things focus to my mind and rising a question how your questions come to this end?...."Supreme Court  that Romulo Neri SHOULDN'T ANSWER"

where else the SC decisions done by voting on each members of the board...as I remember..but sadly the result is 9 is to 6, should you give me or rather elaborate to me further regarding SHOULDN'T ANSWER? because maybe it will led to me for misconception of the statement?.

My concept to your question frankly was..you are telling that the SC don't want Neri to answer the questions on NBN deal..without further ado or without due process did by the Supreme Court.

Because your question derive from the statement like this "The Supreme Court did not allow Neri to answer the following questions on the National broadband network deal." BUT what can you say about this Voting of SC Board which the result is 9-6, it is not a due process to be transparent in SC? or the Total SC Board automatically or immediately decide that they don't allow Neri to answer such questions?.

OR how about  to try this kind of question:

Do you agree with the 9 MEMBERS of the Supreme Court that Romulo Neri shouldn't answer the following questions on the national broadband network deal?

Again would you mind to elaborate to me further this things?

============== 

My apology: Akoy isang hampas lupa lamang na makitid ang utak.

para mas madali, do you agree on the sc ruling na neri can use his executive privileges (3 questions) in the zte deal investigation by the senate? he will not be charge with contempt....same goes to other witnesses...

If the court have a legal bases in accordance to the law..which is credible..and if the the Law speaks to itself...why not..Yes, and beside if Neri told the president is EVIL..which means he is against the president..WHY he did not speak it out (3 questions) ? and why he will use such privileges?

In that way no need to use executive previlage...just go to senate and speak...that the president is Evil..the president is Blah..Blahh..Blahh..and the president told me this ( answer of 3 questions)

Prince can you tell me more Why?

there is no problem about the law, since it is already there, the issue is how the sc interpreted the executive privileges...it is suppose to protect national security and it is not intended to protect against investigations from anomalies...i think the sc ruled that exec privi is unconstitutional before...so why allow neri to use it now?

are there any explanation by the sc about their ruling?

---

Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.

prince:

cachifox:

prince:

cachifox:

newsonline:

[Poll]

You can also express your views and opinions by replying to this post.

Do you agree with the Supreme Court that Romulo Neri shouldn't answer the following questions on the national broadband network deal?

This things focus to my mind and rising a question how your questions come to this end?...."Supreme Court  that Romulo Neri SHOULDN'T ANSWER"

where else the SC decisions done by voting on each members of the board...as I remember..but sadly the result is 9 is to 6, should you give me or rather elaborate to me further regarding SHOULDN'T ANSWER? because maybe it will led to me for misconception of the statement?.

My concept to your question frankly was..you are telling that the SC don't want Neri to answer the questions on NBN deal..without further ado or without due process did by the Supreme Court.

Because your question derive from the statement like this "The Supreme Court did not allow Neri to answer the following questions on the National broadband network deal." BUT what can you say about this Voting of SC Board which the result is 9-6, it is not a due process to be transparent in SC? or the Total SC Board automatically or immediately decide that they don't allow Neri to answer such questions?.

OR how about  to try this kind of question:

Do you agree with the 9 MEMBERS of the Supreme Court that Romulo Neri shouldn't answer the following questions on the national broadband network deal?

Again would you mind to elaborate to me further this things?

============== 

My apology: Akoy isang hampas lupa lamang na makitid ang utak.

para mas madali, do you agree on the sc ruling na neri can use his executive privileges (3 questions) in the zte deal investigation by the senate? he will not be charge with contempt....same goes to other witnesses...

If the court have a legal bases in accordance to the law..which is credible..and if the the Law speaks to itself...why not..Yes, and beside if Neri told the president is EVIL..which means he is against the president..WHY he did not speak it out (3 questions) ? and why he will use such privileges?

In that way no need to use executive previlage...just go to senate and speak...that the president is Evil..the president is Blah..Blahh..Blahh..and the president told me this ( answer of 3 questions)

Prince can you tell me more Why?

there is no problem about the law, since it is already there, the issue is how the sc interpreted the executive privileges...it is suppose to protect national security and it is not intended to protect against investigations from anomalies...i think the sc ruled that exec privi is unconstitutional before...so why allow neri to use it now?

are there any explanation by the sc about their ruling?

None except the president told us so...but the judges will not tell everybody about it because they're going to use the executive priviledges too. 

EXECUTIVE PRIVILAGE  is a prerogative that can be used by the president and any member of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF A DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT, it is mainly use, by other government,to protect the interest of the country,and others are for security purpose,but it is morally wrong to hide behind that privilage,just to evade all inquiries about corruption by the whole EXECUTIVE BRANCH-and it is equally incompetent,if not cullpable,when the SUPREME COURT declared their imcomprehensible decision- WE ARE  WITNESSING THE TOTAL FLEECING OF OUR COUNTRY,hawak na po nang gobyerno ang lahat nang punto na makahinto sa kanila,ipag-sa diyos na lang natin ito,dahil ang tunay na presidente ay si MIKE "tabachoy"ARROYO at ang manga *** niyang anak,-WE COULD ONLY PRAY, AND ASK GOD FOR HELP.....well for... now

---

TOMMY PRAXEDES
2020 Terry avenue #515
Seattle WA. 98121

EXECUTIVE PRIVILAGE  is a prerogative that can be used by the president and any member of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF A DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT, it is mainly use, by other government,to protect the interest of the country,and others are for security purpose,but it is morally wrong to hide behind that privilage,just to evade all inquiries about corruption by the whole EXECUTIVE BRANCH-and it is equally incompetent,if not cullpable,when the SUPREME COURT declared their imcomprehensible decision- WE ARE  WITNESSING THE TOTAL FLEECING OF OUR COUNTRY,hawak na po nang gobyerno ang lahat nang punto na makahinto sa kanila,ipag-sa diyos na lang natin ito,dahil ang tunay na presidente ay si MIKE "tabachoy"ARROYO at ang manga *** niyang anak,-WE COULD ONLY PRAY, AND ASK GOD FOR HELP.....well for... now

---

TOMMY PRAXEDES
2020 Terry avenue #515
Seattle WA. 98121

EXECUTIVE PRIVILAGE  is a prerogative that can be used by the president and any member of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF A DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT, it is mainly use, by other government,to protect the interest of the country,and others are for security purpose,but it is morally wrong to hide behind that privilage,just to evade all inquiries about corruption by the whole EXECUTIVE BRANCH-and it is equally incompetent,if not cullpable,when the SUPREME COURT declared their imcomprehensible decision- WE ARE  WITNESSING THE TOTAL FLEECING OF OUR COUNTRY,hawak na po nang gobyerno ang lahat nang punto na makahinto sa kanila,ipag-sa diyos na lang natin ito,dahil ang tunay na presidente ay si MIKE "tabachoy"ARROYO at ang manga *** niyang anak,-WE COULD ONLY PRAY, AND ASK GOD FOR HELP.....well for... now

---

TOMMY PRAXEDES
2020 Terry avenue #515
Seattle WA. 98121

EXECUTIVE PRIVILAGE  is a prerogative that can be used by the president and any member of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH OF A DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT, it is mainly use, by other government,to protect the interest of the country,and others are for security purpose,but it is morally wrong to hide behind that privilage,just to evade all inquiries about corruption by the whole EXECUTIVE BRANCH-and it is equally incompetent,if not cullpable,when the SUPREME COURT declared their imcomprehensible decision- WE ARE  WITNESSING THE TOTAL FLEECING OF OUR COUNTRY,hawak na po nang gobyerno ang lahat nang punto na makahinto sa kanila,ipag-sa diyos na lang natin ito,dahil ang tunay na presidente ay si MIKE "tabachoy"ARROYO at ang manga *** niyang anak,-WE COULD ONLY PRAY, AND ASK GOD FOR HELP.....well for... now

---

TOMMY PRAXEDES
2020 Terry avenue #515
Seattle WA. 98121

Ronnie1976:

prince:

cachifox:

prince:

cachifox:

newsonline:

[Poll]

You can also express your views and opinions by replying to this post.

Do you agree with the Supreme Court that Romulo Neri shouldn't answer the following questions on the national broadband network deal?

This things focus to my mind and rising a question how your questions come to this end?...."Supreme Court  that Romulo Neri SHOULDN'T ANSWER"

where else the SC decisions done by voting on each members of the board...as I remember..but sadly the result is 9 is to 6, should you give me or rather elaborate to me further regarding SHOULDN'T ANSWER? because maybe it will led to me for misconception of the statement?.

My concept to your question frankly was..you are telling that the SC don't want Neri to answer the questions on NBN deal..without further ado or without due process did by the Supreme Court.

Because your question derive from the statement like this "The Supreme Court did not allow Neri to answer the following questions on the National broadband network deal." BUT what can you say about this Voting of SC Board which the result is 9-6, it is not a due process to be transparent in SC? or the Total SC Board automatically or immediately decide that they don't allow Neri to answer such questions?.

OR how about  to try this kind of question:

Do you agree with the 9 MEMBERS of the Supreme Court that Romulo Neri shouldn't answer the following questions on the national broadband network deal?

Again would you mind to elaborate to me further this things?

============== 

My apology: Akoy isang hampas lupa lamang na makitid ang utak.

para mas madali, do you agree on the sc ruling na neri can use his executive privileges (3 questions) in the zte deal investigation by the senate? he will not be charge with contempt....same goes to other witnesses...

If the court have a legal bases in accordance to the law..which is credible..and if the the Law speaks to itself...why not..Yes, and beside if Neri told the president is EVIL..which means he is against the president..WHY he did not speak it out (3 questions) ? and why he will use such privileges?

In that way no need to use executive previlage...just go to senate and speak...that the president is Evil..the president is Blah..Blahh..Blahh..and the president told me this ( answer of 3 questions)

Prince can you tell me more Why?

there is no problem about the law, since it is already there, the issue is how the sc interpreted the executive privileges...it is suppose to protect national security and it is not intended to protect against investigations from anomalies...i think the sc ruled that exec privi is unconstitutional before...so why allow neri to use it now?

are there any explanation by the sc about their ruling?

None except the president told us so...but the judges will not tell everybody about it because they're going to use the executive priviledges too. 

SOMETHING IS FISHY HERE. IT SEEMS THAT THESE SC PEOPLE ARE NOT FOR THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE OR OF THE PEOPLE.  EXECUTIVE PREVILEGES IN OUR CONSTITUTION ARE THE TOOLS TO TELL THE TRUTH NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.  WHO ARE THE PEOPLE CORRUPTING OUR COFFERS.  NO MORE NO LESS BLAH BLAH BLah. PUNISH THE CULPRIT. IF WE ARE CIVILIZED PEOPLE THEREFORE  "NOBODY IS ABOVE THE LAW."  

Ronnie1976:

prince:

cachifox:

prince:

cachifox:

newsonline:

[Poll]

You can also express your views and opinions by replying to this post.

Do you agree with the Supreme Court that Romulo Neri shouldn't answer the following questions on the national broadband network deal?

This things focus to my mind and rising a question how your questions come to this end?...."Supreme Court  that Romulo Neri SHOULDN'T ANSWER"

where else the SC decisions done by voting on each members of the board...as I remember..but sadly the result is 9 is to 6, should you g