Latest news with #Constitutional
GMA Network
11 hours ago
- Politics
- GMA Network
House says SC can still reverse ruling on VP Sara impeach raps
"[O]n the part of the House, we believe that our actions on the impeachment are right and in accordance with our laws and the Constitution,' House spokesperson Princess Abante said on Tuesday, July 29, 2025. The House of Representatives believes the Supreme Court can still reverse its decision on the articles of impeachment filed against Vice President Sara Duterte, provided that it considers the official records of the House of Representatives involving the initiation of the impeachment case. 'The House will file a motion for reconsideration. It is up for the Senate to decide on how they will act on the impeachment complaint now, but on the part of the House, we believe that our actions on the impeachment are right and in accordance with our laws and the Constitution,' House spokesperson Princess Abante told reporters. 'The filing of MR is one of the legal actions we could take. Kung suntok sa buwan po iyan, iyan po ay kasama pa rin po sa pwede namin gawin. Kung maitatama naman po yung mga erroneous data where the Supreme Court decision were based upon, puwede pa rin naman po na mabago ang desisyon,' she added. (If it is shooting for the moon, well, that is still one of the remedies we could avail of. If we are able to correct the erroneous data where the Supreme Court based its decision, it can still change its mind.) The Supreme Court voided the impeachment case against the Vice President, saying it violated the one-year bar rule which only allows one impeachment complaint filed against an impeachable official per year. The Supreme Court, contrary to its two previous rulings, also said that House initiated more than one complaint because it 'initiated' another impeachment complaint by archiving the first three impeachment raps on February 5, an action that the House did after transmitting the consolidated impeachment complaint endorsed by over 215 House members to the Senate, also on February 5. The 215 signatories were more than the Constitutional requirement of one-third of the House members endorsing the impeachment complaint, a situation that allows the House to transmit the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate for the immediate holding of an impeachment trial, bypassing House justice panel deliberations. Prior to its decision on the Vice President's case, previous Supreme Court decisions in the Francisco v. House and Gutierrez v. House state that the initiation of the impeachment complaint starts with its referral to the House Committee on Justice. The first three impeachment complaints against the Vice President that were archived on February 5 were not referred by the House Secretary General to the House Justice panel. Further, the High Court said the House maxing out the 10 session days before acting on and archiving the first three impeachment complaints is also a grave abuse of discretion. The House, however, has argued that the consolidated impeachment case was Constitutionally-compliant because it met the Constitutional threshold of over one-third of House members endorsing it before being transmitted to the Senate. In addition, the House has also argued that the archiving of the first three impeachment complaints is not considered an initiation of an impeachment complaint as provided in the High Court decisions on the Francisco v. House and Gutierrez v. House cases. The Articles of Impeachment against the Vice President accuse her of: conspiracy to assassinate President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., First Lady Liza Marcos, and Speaker Martin Romualdez; malversation of P612.5 million in confidential funds with questionable liquidation documents; bribery and corruption in the DepEd during Duterte's tenure by handing out cash to former DepEd Undersecretary Gloria Jumamil-Mercado (Procurement Head), Bids and Awards Committee Member Resty Osias, DepEd Chief Accountant Rhunna Catalan and Special Disbursing Officer Edward Fajarda; unexplained wealth and failure to disclose assets in the Vice President's Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth where her wealth increased by four times from 2007 from 2017; involvement in extrajudicial killings in Davao City; destabilization, insurrection, and public disorder efforts, which include: boycotting the State of the Nation Address (SONA) while declaring herself "designated survivor," leading rallies calling for Marcos' resignation, obstructing congressional investigations by ordering subordinates not to comply with subpoenas, threatening bodily harm against the First Couple and Romualdez, among others; and the totality of the Vice President's conduct as the second highest official of the land. — BM, GMA Integrated News
Time Magazine
13 hours ago
- Politics
- Time Magazine
Exclusive: Inside the Planning for Trump's Next Supreme Court Nominee
White House officials and a close circle of conservative lawyers are preparing for President Donald Trump to be able to hit the ground running if a Supreme Court vacancy opens up during the remaining three and a half years of his second term, according to sources inside and outside the White House. The discussions are in early stages and focus on finding a nominee in the mold of Samuel Alito, 75, and Clarence Thomas, 77, the two oldest justices, both of whom are considered stalwart conservative jurists who have taken narrow interpretations of the Constitutional text while backing an expansive view of Presidential power. Shortlists of judges are circulating among Trump allies as they debate who can be best trusted to stick with the Court's conservative wing during an appointment that could last decades. 'We are looking for people in the mold of Alito, Clarence Thomas and the late Scalia,' said a White House official familiar with the process, referring to Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in 2016. The official said it was 'premature' to say the White House was getting ready for a vacancy. Republicans currently control the Senate, which must confirm any nominee to the court. The party also controlled the Senate throughout Trump's first term, allowing Trump to appoint three Justices—Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett— who were all well-regarded in conservative legal circles. Advisors close to Trump want to set the stage for the smoothest possible confirmation process and avoid the high drama of Kavanaugh's hearings in 2018 that focused on allegations of sexual assault. Conservative lawyers around Trump are also feeling burned by a handful of recent decisions in which Barrett joined liberal members of the court and want to ensure the next nominee is someone who won't veer from the conservative bloc. 'There's a lot of anger at Amy Coney Barrett coming from the MAGA movement,' says Benjamin Wittes, editor in chief of Lawfare and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. 'I think you can imagine a very different type of nominee than we've had from Trump in the past.' Trump will make the final decision on who to put forward for Senate confirmation, says a White House official. Key players in his administration who would be involved in vetting candidates would be Attorney General Pam Bondi, Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, White House Counsel David Warrington and Steve Kenny, the deputy White House counsel for nominations. Mike Davis, a conservative lawyer and bare-knuckle Trump defender, is also expected to be an influential voice in the process. 'Justice Thomas and Justice Alito are irreplaceable and I hope they do not retire anytime soon,' Davis tells TIME. Just in case, Davis says he has given the Trump White House a short list of 'bold and fearless' nominees for the Supreme Court, and should there be a vacancy, he plans to 'play an outside supporting role' to the White House efforts. Davis, who is founder of the Article III project, a conservative judicial advocacy group, would not confirm which names are on his list. 'I have provided my recommended list to the President and his team and I am not going to discuss that list with anyone other than them,' says Davis. He stressed that 'the President and the President alone will decide his judicial nominees.' Two people familiar with the White House vetting process said that the current front runners for a potential Supreme Court vacancy are Andrew Oldham, a 5th circuit judge in Texas, and Neomi Rao, who sits on the influential District of Columbia Circuit Court. Oldham was previously general counsel for Texas Governor Greg Abbott and clerked for Justice Alito. Rao, whose parents are from India, would be the first Asian-American justice on the Supreme Court, and only the seventh woman. Rao clerked for Justice Thomas earlier in her career. Davis has also previously floated the name of Aileen Cannon, the judge on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida who ruled favorably for Trump when he was being investigated for keeping classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago Club. Other conservative judges considered potential contenders for Trump to name are James Ho, another judge on Texas's 5th circuit, and two judges in Ohio's 6th circuit—Raymond M. Kethledge and Amul R. Thapar. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington-based think tank that's best known for spearheading Project 2025, is also expected to work to influence Trump's decision. John Malcolm, vice president of Heritage's Institute for Constitutional Government, can list off the top of his head more than 10 current circuit court judges he thinks would make strong justices on the nation's highest court. Malcolm also believes Senator Mike Lee of Utah, a former assistant U.S. attorney who clerked for Alito, would be an 'excellent choice.' While Lee isn't a sitting judge, he 'isn't afraid to speak his mind,' says Malcolm, who adds that Lee has a track record of legislation and books that show he's a textualist and originalist. Trump entered his second term having already helped cement a conservative majority for a generation through the installation of three nominees. In recent months, that court has upheld Trump's consolidation of power as President and bolstered his larger project to tilt the country's public policy to the right. In June, the Court limited the ability of judges to block Trump's policies nationwide and paved the way for the Administration to move forward with deporting immigrants to locations other than their home countries without additional due process requirements imposed by a district court judge During Trump's first term, he relied heavily on recommendations from the powerful conservative legal group The Federalist Society for his judicial nominations. That process produced a group of academically-minded conservative thinkers on the court that overturned the nationwide abortion protections in Roe v. Wade. Trump will likely be looking for a different standard this time around, says Wittes, the editor of Lawfare, an online publication that closely follows the Supreme Court. 'I assume the competition here would be to have shown greatest loyalty to Trump,' Wittes says. 'I think one would worry that this person would be guided by loyalty rather than guided by something like principle.'
GMA Network
14 hours ago
- Politics
- GMA Network
Marcoleta to lead Blue Ribbon Committee; Kiko gets agri, Bam on basic ed
First-termer Sen. Rodante Marcoleta has been elected the chairman of the Senate committee on accountability of public officers and investigations, commonly known as the Blue Ribbon committee. This came after Senate Majority Leader Joel Villanueva, during Tuesday's plenary session, moved to proceed with the organization of various standing committees of the Senate through the election of their respective chairpersons. The Senate blue ribbon committee is tasked to investigate all matters relating to malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance in office by officers and employees of the government, its branches, agencies, subdivisions and instrumentalities; implementation of the provision of the Constitution on nepotism; and investigation of any matter of public interest on its own initiative or brought to its attention by any member of the Senate. The panel was last chaired by Senator Pia Cayetano, replacing former Senator Francis Tolentino. Aside from Marcoleta, Villanueva moved to elect Senator Francis 'Kiko' Pangilinan to lead the Senate committee on agriculture, food, and agrarian reform; while Senator Bam Aquino was elected to head the Senate committee on basic education. Senate President Francis 'Chiz' Escudero approved the motions after no senator objected. The first batch of committee chairpersons to be elected in the 20th Congress included the following: Accounts: Alan Peter Cayetano Constitutional Amendments and Revision of Codes: Robin Padilla Cooperatives: Imee Marcos Cultural Communities and Muslim Affairs: Robin Padilla Energy: Pia Cayetano Environment, Natural Resources and Climate Change: Camille Villar Finance: Sherwin Gatchalian Foreign Relations: Imee Marcos Games and Amusement: Erwin Tulfo Health and Demography: Bong Go Higher, technical and vocational education: Alan Peter Cayetano Labor, Employment & Human Resource Development: Imee Marcos Justice and Human Rights: Alan Peter Cayetano Local Government: JV Ejercito Migrant Workers: Raffy Tulfo National Defense and Security, Peace, Unification and Reconciliation: Jinggoy Estrada Public Information and Mass Media: Robin Padilla Public Order and Dangerous Drugs: Ronald dela Rosa Public Services: Raffy Tulfo Public Works: Mark Villar Social Justice, Welfare and Rural Development: Erwin Tulfo Sports: Bong Go Sustainable Development Goals, Innovation and Futures Thinking: Pia Cayetano Tourism: JV Ejercito Trade, Commerce and Entrepreneurship: Rodante Marcoleta Science and Technology: Alan Peter Cayetano Ways and Means: Pia Cayetano Youth: Bong Go –NB, GMA Integrated News
New Indian Express
21 hours ago
- Politics
- New Indian Express
Plans to hold V-P poll in last week of monsoon session
NEW DELHI: After appointing the Returning Officer (RO) and Assistant Returning Officers (AROs), the Election Commission is now planning to issue the notification announcing the schedule for Vice-Presidential poll in next couple of days, sources said, while hinting that the voting for the same could take place on the last day of the ongoing Monsoon Session of Parliament. The sources said that as per the Constitutional provisions it requires 17 days of gap between dates the notification and the day on which the voting will take place, 14 days are required for candidates to file nominations, one day for scrutiny and two days for withdrawal of candidature. They said that since the ongoing session is scheduled to end on August 21, 'we still have 24 days to complete the entire process, as the result is announced on the day voting takes place'. The ruling NDA is yet to announce its candidate for the post and the united opposition INDIA block has hinted that it will possibly go for a common candidate. As part of its preparations for conducting the VP elections, the poll panel has already appointed the RO and AROs, as stated by the Commission in an earlier statement.
Indian Express
a day ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Cessed buildings revamp: HC forms panel to examine 935 notices issued by MHADA
In a move that may further delay the redevelopment of several dilapidated dangerous cessed buildings in Mumbai, the Bombay High Court on Monday appointed a two-member committee headed by former HC judge to examine 935 notices issued by MHADA executive engineers. The bench constituted a panel of Justice (Retired) Devadhar and Vilas D Dongre, retired Principal District Judge to examine the issue in regard to the notices and the subsequent actions to withdraw such notices, and the role of the different officials and/or motives if any, in issuance of these notices. The notices were issued to acquire cessed buildings to carry out redevelopment, if the owner or tenants do not do it. The cessed buildings are those structures the occupants of which pay cess tax or repair fund. The said buildings date back to pre-independence era and are largely present in south and central Mumbai. The MBRRB under MHADA conducts structural repairs of such old cessed buildings. The court recorded MHADA's statement that 889 notices shall be kept in abeyance and no further action shall be taken under them, unless the parties have consented in the redevelopment and the redevelopment has progressed. However, the committee will examine all 935 notices and submit its report preferably within six months. The HC said that the notices not withdrawn by MHADA will be stayed. The court passed an order on pleas challenging the notices issued by the executive engineers of Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board (MBRRB), which is a unit of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA). The court stayed impugned notices. The HC said it was not sufficient to merely pass stay order and observed, 'We are of the clear opinion that it would be imperative as also our duty as the Constitutional Court, to order an inquiry into such issues of highhandedness and abuse of powers by the concerned officials, to be undertaken by an independent committee appointed by the court.' A division bench of Justices Girish S Kulkarni and Arif S Doctor noted that the issue raised in the petitions was of ' colossal misuse' of the powers by the officials concerned of the Board, in issuing notices under Section 79-A of the MHADA Act. The provision under MHADA Act provides for compulsory redevelopment for cessed buildings that are declared dangerous. After the notices are issued, property owners or tenants get stipulated time to initiate the redevelopment within six months along with irrevocable agreement of minimum 51 percent of tenants or occupants. If the owners or tenants fail to undertake redevelopment, the cooperative housing society formed by the residents can make a proposal within the next six months. In case of failure of any action within these 12 months, MHADA can take over the properties and undertake redevelopment Senior advocates NV Walawalkar and MM Vashi for the petitioners argued that the impugned notices 'breached the Constitutional and the legal rights of the stakeholders including owners and tenants of the buildings' and executive engineers of the MHADA/Board did not have any authority under Section 79 (1) of the Act to issue notices.
