Fxclearing.com SCAM! – April 2013 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Criminal Law and Procedure – FXCL STOLE MONEY!

 

                                                                  Philippines Anti-Cybercrime Police Groupe MOST WANTED PEOPLE List!

 

 

 

#1 Mick Jerold Dela Cruz

Present Address: 1989 C. Pavia St. Tondo, Manila

If you have any information about that person please call

to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines:

Contact Numbers:

Complaint Action Center / Hotline:
Tel. +63 (8) 723-0401 local 7491
Smart/Viber: +63 961 829 8083

#2 Gremelyn Nemuco

Present Address; One Rockwell, Makati City

If you have any information about that person please call

to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines:

Contact Numbers:

Complaint Action Center / Hotline:
Tel. +63 (8) 723-0401 local 7491
Smart/Viber: +63 961 829 8083

#3 Vinna Vargas

Address: Imus, Cavite 

If you have any information about that person please call

to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines:

Contact Numbers:

Complaint Action Center / Hotline:
Tel. +63 (8) 723-0401 local 7491
Smart/Viber: +63 961 829 8083

#4 Ivan Dela Cruz

Present Address: Imus, Cavite

If you have any information about that person please call

to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines:

Contact Numbers:

Complaint Action Center / Hotline:
Tel. +63 (8) 723-0401 local 7491
Smart/Viber: +63 961 829 8083

#5 Elton Danao

Permanent Address: 2026 Leveriza, Fourth Pasay, Manila 
Present Address: Naic, Cavite

If you have any information about that person please call

to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines:

Contact Numbers:

Complaint Action Center / Hotline:
Tel. +63 (8) 723-0401 local 7491
Smart/Viber: +63 961 829 8083

#6 Virgelito Dada

Present Address: Grass Residences, Quezon City 

If you have any information about that person please call

to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines:

Contact Numbers:

Complaint Action Center / Hotline:
Tel. +63 (8) 723-0401 local 7491
Smart/Viber: +63 961 829 8083

#7 John Christopher Salazar

Permanent address: Rivergreen City Residences, Sta. Ana, Manila

If you have any information about that person please call

to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines:

Contact Numbers:

Complaint Action Center / Hotline:
Tel. +63 (8) 723-0401 local 7491
Smart/Viber: +63 961 829 8083

#8 Xanty Octavo 

If you have any information about that person please call

to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines:

Contact Numbers:

Complaint Action Center / Hotline:
Tel. +63 (8) 723-0401 local 7491
Smart/Viber: +63 961 829 8083

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

#9 Daniel Boco

Address: Imus, Cavite

 

If you have any information about that person please call

to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines:

Contact Numbers:

Complaint Action Center / Hotline:
Tel. +63 (8) 723-0401 local 7491
Smart/Viber: +63 961 829 8083

 

 

#10 James Gonzalo Tulabot

Permanent Address: Blk. 4 Lot 30, Daisy St. Lancaster Residences, Alapaan II-A, Imus, Cavite 
Present Address: Pasay City

If you have any information about that person please call

to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines:

Contact Numbers:

Complaint Action Center / Hotline:
Tel. +63 (8) 723-0401 local 7491
Smart/Viber: +63 961 829 8083

#11 Lea Jeanee Belleza

If you have any information about that person please call

to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines:

Contact Numbers:

Complaint Action Center / Hotline:
Tel. +63 (8) 723-0401 local 7491
Smart/Viber: +63 961 829 8083

#12 Juan Sonny Belleza

If you have any information about that person please call

to Anti-Cybercrime Department Police of Philippines:

Contact Numbers:

Complaint Action Center / Hotline:
Tel. +63 (8) 723-0401 local 7491
Smart/Viber: +63 961 829 8083

       

 

FXCL SCAM Company Details:

OUTSTRIVE SOLUTIONS PH CALL CENTER SERVICES

OUTSTRIVE SOLUTIONS PH CALL CENTER SERVICES



The foregoing traditional exposition of the difference between amendment and revision has indeed guided us throughout our constitutional history. However, the distinction between the two terms is not, to my mind, as significant in the context of our past constitutions, as it should be now under the 1987 Constitution. Under our past constitutions, it was Congress alone, acting either as a constituent assembly or by calling out a constitutional convention, that exercised authority to either amend or revise the Constitution through the procedures therein described. Although the distinction between the two terms was theoretically recognized under both the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, the need to highlight the difference was not as material because it was only Congress that could effect constitutional changes by choosing between the two modalities. This petition must then be granted and the COMELEC should be permanently enjoined from entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition or initiative on amendments on the Constitution until a sufficient law shall have been validly enacted to provide for the implementation of the system . By allowing the sovereign people to directly propose and enact constitutional amendments, the initiative process should be acknowledged as the purest implement of democratic rule under law. This right granted to over sixty million Filipinos cannot be denied by the votes of less than eight magistrates for reasons that bear no cogitation on the Constitution. This argument clearly proceeds from a premise that accords supreme value to the record of deliberations of a constitutional convention or commission in the interpretation of the charter. Yet if the absence of a record of deliberations stands as so serious a flaw as to invalidate or constrict processes which change a constitution or its provisions, then the entire initiative process authorized by the Constitution should be scarlet-marked as well. It has been argued that the subject petitions for initiative are barred under Republic Act No. 6735 as they allegedly embrace more than one subject.
scam scam
There is also revision if the change alters the substantial entirety of the constitution, as when the change affects substantial provisions of the constitution. On the other hand, amendment broadly refers to a change that adds, reduces, or deletes without altering the basic principle involved. Revision generally affects several provisions criminals of the constitution, while amendment generally affects only the specific provision being amended. In any event, the Lambino Group’s signature sheets do not contain the full text of the proposed changes, either on the face of the signature sheets, or as attachment with an indication in the signature sheet of such attachment.

laws shield business from corporate tax

All the major tire companies have ongoing research on how best to join steel and rubber. E ach company keeps its particular curing temperature, tread design and cocktail of rubber compounds a closely held trade secret. Tires can be made up of as many as 200 different materials, from rubbers to plastics to steel, amalgamated into more than 30 components. Others, like the steel belts for reinforcement, or the butyl rubber interliners to keep air from leaking are on the inside. Most tires have high-tensile steel wires, called beads that keep tires seated against the metal wheels. A typical rollover accident occurs when an E xplorer is driven at a fairly high speed and suddenly a tire disintegrates. Before the driver has any chance to react, the vehicle rolls over. “The rollover typically occurs while the vehicle follows a straight line and is not going through a curve. “There’s no bulge, there’s no bubble, there’s nothing that the person can see until they’re driving down the road at high speed and the tread starts peeling off” .

In this thorny matter of the people’s initiative, I concur with the erudite and highly persuasive opinion of Justice Reynato S. Puno upholding the people’s initiative and raise some points of my own. It has been suggested to the end of leading the Court to stifle the initiative petitions that the Court may at this juncture pronounce the initiative petitions as insufficient. The derivation of the factual predicates leading to the suggestion is uncertain, considering that the trier of facts, the COMELEC in this instance, has yet to undertake the necessary determination. Still, the premise has been floated that petitioners have made sufficient admissions before this Court that purportedly established the petitions are insufficient. Santiago established a tenet that the Supreme Court may affirm a law as constitutional, yet declare its provisions as inadequate to accomplish the legislative purpose, then barred the enforcement of the law. That ruling is erroneous, illogical, and should not be perpetuated.

FIRESTONE TIRE V. CA 353 SCRA 601

This is a factual question which, unfortunately, cannot be judicially answered anymore, because the Supreme Court majority ruled that the law that implements it, RA 6735, is inadequate or insufficient insofar as initiatives to the Constitutions are concerned. With such ruling, the majority effectively abrogated a constitutional right of our people. That is why in my Separate Opinion in Santiago, I exclaimed that such precipitate action “is equivalent to burning the whole house to exterminate the rats, and to killing the patient to relieve him of pain.” I firmly maintain that to defeat PIRMA’s effort, there is no need to “burn” the constitutional right to initiative. If PIRMA’s exercise is not “legitimate,” it can be exposed as such in the ways I have discussed—short of abrogating the right itself. On the other hand, if PIRMA’s position is proven to be legitimate—if it hurdles the four issues I outlined earlier—by all means, we should allow and encourage it.

Consequently, the shift from presidential to parliamentary form of government cannot be regarded as anything but a drastic change. It will require a total overhaul of our governmental structure and involve a re-orientation in the cardinal doctrines that govern our constitutional set-up. Joaquin Bernas, S.J., a switch from the presidential system to a parliamentary system would be a revision because of its over-all impact on the entire constitutional structure.20 It cannot, by any standard, be deemed as a mere constitutional amendment. The preceding proposal indicates that, under the proposed system, the executive and legislature shall be one and the same, such that parliament will be the paramount governing institution. What this implies is that there will be no separation between the law-making and enforcement powers of the state, that are traditionally delineated between the executive and legislature in a presidential form of government.

Top locals brace for tough fight

Oppositors-intervenors submit that not only the names of the signatories should be verified, but also their signatures to ensure the identities of the persons affixing their signatures on the signature sheets. MR. SUAREZ. We agree to the difficulty in implementing this particular provision, but we are providing a channel for the expression of the sovereign will of the people through this initiative system. Corollarily, a constitution is not to be interpreted on narrow or technical principles, but liberally and on broad general lines, to accomplish the object of its establishment and carry out the great principles of government—not to defeat them.69 One of these great principles is the sovereignty of the people. MR. AZCUNA. It was not our intention to allow a revision of the Constitution by initiative but merely by amendments.

  • The fact that the Delfin Petition proposes a misuse of initiative does not justify a ban against its proper use.
  • The holding of barangay plebiscites and referendum is also provided in Sections 100 and 101 of the same Code.
  • Federal records show that through the end of ‘last’ year, there were only three tire-related deaths in 1996 and 1997 involving Ford E xplorers equipped at the factory with G oodyear tires, compared with 26 such deaths involving E xplorers from those two model years equipped with Firestone tiresxix.
  • Prior to the questioned Santiago ruling of 19 March 1997, the right of the people to exercise the sovereign power of initiative and recall has been invariably upheld.
  • G oodyear has used such reinforcement in response to tread failures as recently as 1996, see Section 8.

An administrative case for alleged inexcusable ignorance of the law and illegal sale of firearms had been filed against Jimenez. The case had been investigated by a special investigator of the Department of Justice before whom the respondent was given full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence in his defense. In a letter to the secretary of agriculture, acting Executive Secretary Mariano Yenko, Jr., writing by authority of the President, said that the President had directed that the existing presidential ban promulgated in 1947 against the issuance of revocable permits in Baguio townsite be revoked. THE President this day allowed the Bureau of Lands to resume issuing revocable or provisional permits for a temporary occupation and use of Baguio townsite lots, subject to some conditions. Col. Salvador T. Villa and Lt. Col. Cipriano de Leon of the MRR, who endorsed the recommendation of Commissioner Manahan during a conference at Malacañang this morning, informed the President that the extension had been requested by shipping companies, brokers, and importers to give them time to adjust themselves. Col. Villa advanced the proposal that the MPS contract to operate the service be terminated in June, 1960 during a “slack”, in cargo arrival. He said that turnover of arrastre service could not be effected abruptly in the months of December or January without serious economic disruption. For the second consecutive day, the President received this morning Lieut. Gen. Jesus Vargas, Armed Forces chief of staff, who denied reports appearing in the morning papers that an LTB bus had been ambushed at Lumban, Laguna, yesterday.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.