Gusto ninyo ba ng bonggang party o kahit anong events pero ayaw ninyong gumastos ng BONGGA! ‘Yun ba ang hinahanap mo? Tipid kung tipid! MADHOUSE MANILA will stand by you! Contact us and add us on FB at TWITTER! Dahil sa MADHOUSE We Stand by you!

Like us on FACEBOOK
Follow us TWITTER

Pebrero 6, 2012- Nabunot ko mula sa Collection of Love Thoughts ng Papemelrotti.

Sweet Peril

Alas, how easily things go wrong!
A sigh too much, a kiss too long,
And there follows a mist and weeping rain,
And life is never the same again.

Alas, how hardly things go right!
Tis hard to watch in the summer night,
For the sigh will come, and the kiss will stay,
And the summer night is a winter day.

And yet how easily things to right,
If the sigh and a kiss of a summer’s night
Come deep from the soul in the stronger ray
That is born in the light of a winter’s day.

And things can never go badly wrong
If the heart be true and the love be strong.
For the mist, if it comes, or the weeping rain
Will be changed by the love into sunshine again.

                                         ---- George MacDonald

Ano ba ang pakialam ng ordinaryong Pilipino sa constitutional crisis? Tama nga si Ka Tunying sa Punto-por-Punto, “Constitutional crisis, nakakain ba ‘yun?” Marahil nakakatawa lang pakinggan pero kung hihimayin mahalaga ang nais iparating nito sa atin.

Ngayong araw lalabas ang desisyon ng Korte Suprema kung pipigilin ba nito o hindi ang ginagawang Impeachment Trial kay Renato Corona sa Senado. Kung pabor ang desisyon sa TRO, maugong ang balita ng  Constitutional Crisis. Actually sa pag-usad pa lang nga ng Impeachment sa Senado at nakarating na sa kalahating buwan, nag-umpisa na ang constitutional crisis o ‘yung CONFLICT sa mga sangay (Judiciary, Legislative, Executive) ng pamahalaan.

Ano naman kung may conflict? Kailan ba hindi nagkaroon ng conflict? Sa ideal setting siguro at kung maayos talagang naipapatupad ang mga batas sa bansa o yung sinasabing konstitusyon, nakakabahala nga ang constitustional crisis. Pero kung parang wala namang silbi ang batas sa bawat sangay ng pamahalaan, parang araw-araw may constitutional crisis.

Sa huli, mahalaga lang naman sa ordinaryong mamamayan na tulad ko na MANAIG ANG HUSTISYA. Syempre sino ba ang ayaw ng maayos na proseso. Kung constitutional crisis man ang sagot para lang matapos na ang paglilitis na ito, THEN SO BE IT! Aanhin mo ang ipokrito at mapagpanggap na kaayusan kung PAALPASIN naman nito ang hustisya sa kamay ng taong bayan?

PUNTA KITA (PUNTA TAYO)

Sa darating na Sabado Pebrero 11 sama-sama tayong makiisa sa Tinagba Festival ng Iriga City! Unang beses kong makakapunta sa pagdiriwang na ito ng mga Irigueno. Unang festival din sa Bikol na makikiisa ako sa pagdiriwang! Tara na! Makisaya sa Tinagba o pagdiriwang ng pasasamalat sa masaganang ani ng taon!

Ito pa ang ibang festival sa buwan ng PEBRERO!

BIKOLANO! URAGON!

SOURCE: Department of Tourism

Pabirik Festival
February 1-2
Paracale, Camarines Norte
Held in the town of Paracale, the festival is highlighted by “pabirik” street dancing, depicting the gold mining industry in the province.
Office of the Mayor
Paracale, Cam. Norte

1st Annual “Harana: Karantahan nin Pagranga” (A Music Festival)
February 14
San Jose, Camarines Sur
The festival feature local talents and young artists in its effortsa to promote cultural awareness, tourism development and youth empowerment in the District of partido. Highlighted by the Bicol Love Song Choral Competition. Other activities are lined up to drumbeat the affair.
Office of the Mayor
San Jose, Camarines Sur

Karanowan Fish-tival
February 15
Bato, Camarines Sur
Acelebration promoting the rich aquatic resources of Lake Bato. Derived from local dialect “ranow” meaning lake, participants are clad in fish-like costumes depicting the different indigenous fish of Bato Lake while gracefully dancing to creatively choreographed movements in their gaily colored unique outfits fashioned from indigenous materials.
Office of the Mayor
Bato, Camarines Sur

Himag-ulaw Festival
February 17
Placer, Masbate
A celebration of praise and thanksgiving for the bountiful harvest in farming or good catch in fishing expressed through various forms of activities like street dancing, beauty competition, games and contests, food fairs, among others.
Mayor Carlos Estonilo
Office of the Mayor
Placer, Masbate

Nababalitaan ko na na may bago pa lang libro si Bob Ong, pero hindi ko pa alam ang title. Nagulat ako ng makita ko ‘yun kanina sa Fully Booked. Bakit ako nagulat? Hindi ko kasi inaasahan na ganun ang cover ‘nun. Ibang-iba sa mga unang libro niya na cover pa lang gaganahan ka ng magbasa. Kaya masasabi ko sa puntong ‘yun hinusgahan ko ang libro sa pabalat nito o sa Ingles I judged the book with its cover.

Sabi ng kaibigan ko pagtuligsa daw ang libro sa tipikal pinoy mainstream films. ‘Yung mga scene sa pelikula na slapstick o yung mga trying hard to be romantic. Nagpakwento lang ako sa kaibigan ko dahil ang ending gusto ko mang bumili, hindi daw worth it ang laman. Kaya naman guilty talaga ako na I judged the book with its cover. GUILTY.

Kung ideal kang mag-isip, MALING-MALI para sa’yo ‘yung ginawa ko. Kasi di ko pa nga nabibigyan ng pagkakataon yung libro na patunayang may sense di na agad ako bumili. Pero kung praktikal kang mag-isip sasang-ayunan mo siguro ako lalo na kung hindi ka naman die hard fan ni Bob Ong. Hindi ko alam kung ano ang stat ng mga Pilipinong nagbabasa dahil lang sa maganda ang cover o hindi. Pero para sa akin, kung ano kasi ang cover, pinag-isipan at pinagbuhusan ng elemento ng sining (profound and great) hindi sa nagmamarunong ako, pero ang sa akin lang at gusto ko lang ipunto, kung ganun man ang nais na maging over-all feel ng libro na Lumayo ka nga sa akin, irerespeto ko ‘yun. PERO SANA LANG MAS NABIGYAN SANA NG MAS MAGANDA PANG PABALAT.

Kaya noong nakita ko ang Little Bee at Tipping Point na libro na pabalat pa lang, maeexcite ka ng basahin, SABI KO NA LANG, SANA GANITO RIN YUNG PABALAT NUNG LIBRO. Kung ako, mas gugustuhin ko pa ngang sinusuportahan ang mga PINOY NA MANUNULAT. KUNG PAPIPILIIN AKO MAS GUSTO KONG BUMILI NG MGA AKLAT NA GAWA NG KAPWA KO PILIPINO. Kasabay sana ng pagusporta kong ito ang tawag para sa mas marami pang pagpipiliang aklat. Aminin natin minsan mas mahal pa ang mga akdang Pilipino.

ANG SA AKIN LANG, mas tinatangkilik na nga ng karamihan sa mga Pinoy ang dayuhang mga akda, SANA PATUNAYAN NG MGA PILIPINONG MANUNULAT na ang bawat sintemo ng suporta sa inyong mga akda ay NARARAPAT AT SAPAT para sa mga mambabasa.

BUOD: Kasabay ng pisikal na pagkakahati ng katawan ni Amapola o pagiging ganap niyang manananggal naramdaman rin niya ang dalawang katauhan o personalidad sa kanyang katauhan. Sina Zaldy at Isaac na nagsisisihan at patuloy na nahahati sa kani-kanilang ideya kung bakit ganito ang kinahinatnan ni Amapola. As usual, ang love factor di makakalimutan, hindi alam ni Amapola kung matatanggap pa ba siya ni Homer ngayong isa na siyang ganap na manananggal.

Madalas, mas gusto nating isa lamang ang direksyon ng buhay natin, syempre nasa tama at laging maayos dapat. Ayaw natin mahati sa kung ano pa mang pagpipilian dahil kapag pareho nating gusto ang dalawang bagay mahirap pumili. Ngunit mayroon din namang madali ka lang amgdesisyon dahil mas nananaig ang isa laban sa isa. Sa ikalawang kabanatang ito ng nobela pansin na pansin kay Amapola ang CONFUSION! Confuse ang lola mo at takot na takot sa bagong yugto ng buhay niya. Idagdag mo pa ang paranoid mode pagdating kay Homer at paano niya ito ipagtatapat sa kanya. sa madaling sabi, HINDI MADALI ANG MAHATI, literal man o hindi. Ang mahalaga, kahit nahahati tayo lagi parang isapuso’t isaisip ang kapakanan ng nakararami! HUWAG MAGING MAKASARILI! Sa ikalawang kabanata parang puro lang sarili ni Ampola ang kanyang inisip, mababago kaya ito sa mga susunod na kabanata?

Kaya abangan natin kung paano haharapin ni Amapola ang ikatlong kabanata!

Sabi nila, gaano man karaming kabutihan ang gawin mo kapag nakagawa ka ng isang pagkakamali matatabunan lahat ng ‘yun.

Tama o mali? Para sa akin, DEPENDE sa taong humuhusga. Kung kasing kitid ng iskinita ang utak, malamang nga sa alamang TAMA ang kasabihang ‘yan. Mas madali nga naman tandaan ang ISANG beses pagkakamali kaysa sa ISANGDAANG beses ng paggawa ng kabutihan. Sa kitid ng utak, hindi na nagkasya ang isang daang pangyayari.  Hindi ako psychologist para ipaliwanag ang ganitong mentalidad pero base sa mga nababasa ko ganito raw ang ilan o baka nga mas marami sa atin. For good or bad judgement STILL, para sa akin ha, MALING MAGING MAKITID ANG PAG-IISIP.

Ano ba ang pinaghuhugutan ko ng entry na ‘to? Sa isyung pulitikal, kolum ni Randy David, “The Outsider” patungkol kay Presidential Adviser on Political Affairs, Ronald Llamas, ang kanyang pagbili ng pirated sa isang mall sa Quezon City. Naging bukas ang opinyon ni G. David na matalik niyang kaibigan si G. Llamas. Sa madaling sabi, madaling magbitaw ng judgement kasi may paghuhugutan ka ng basehan sa sasabihin mo. PERSONAL mong kakilala at may kaalaman ka sa katauhan niya. Natumbok ni G. David na napuna lamang ang mga naging kontrobersiya kay Llamas at hindi ang kabutihang nagawa niya para sa bayan bago pa man siya maging bahagi ng gabinete. Isa pang naging makapangyarihang pahayag ni G. David,

But the news must really be slow these days despite the ongoing impeachment trial at the Senate. For almost a week now, the media have found Llamas’ act of buying pirated DVDs at a neighborhood mall grievous enough to place it among their top stories. Thus projected, it is made to share the same gravity as the offenses for which Chief Justice Renato Corona is being tried, or the kidnapping charges that former National Bureau of Investigation Director Magtanggol Gatdula faces.

Mabigat ang ganitong pahayag dahil sumasalamin ito sa uri o kalidad ng pamamahayag na mayroon sa ating bansa. Sabi pa nga diba, kung ano raw ang ibinabalita ‘yun din ang salamin ng lipunan. Masalimoot na pag-iisaisa ng panig ang usaping ito.

ANG SA AKIN LANG: Sa isang malayang talakayan, mas mahalaga ang pagninilay-nilay ng bawat panig sa dapat nilang baguhin at ayusin sa mundong kanilang ginagalawan. Palagi mang masama ang napupuna ng bawat isa sa ating kapwa- PATUNAYAN NATING MALI ANG KANILANG PAGHUHUSGA SA PAMAMAGITAN NG WASTO AT MAKATARUNGANG PARAAN.

Una kong nabasa ang artikulong, “Conrad de Quiros most successful mole in history of espionage” di ko pa masyadong naintindihan kung ano ang pinagmumulan ng animoy hinanakit ni Sen. Joker Arroyo kay Condrado de Quiros. ‘Nung mabasa ko na ang sagot ni de Quiros kay Arroyo sa opinyon niyang pinamagatang “Joke” nagkaroon din ng kaunting linaw ang aking mga katanungan.

Marahil malalim ang pinag-uugatan ng dalawang panig. Gusto kong isiping sa sistema ng demokrasya ng bansa nagiging bukas lang ang dalawa (de Quiros at Arroyo) sa malayang paghayag ng kanilang saloobin. May gusto ring ipunto sa pag-uugali ng bawat isa bilang matagal na ring nabubuhay sa bansang ito. Ako mismo, ano man ang pinagdaanan nila sa kasaysayan ng bansa para makapagdesisyon ng kung anuman ang kanilang pinapanigan sa kani-kanilang opinyon. Sa kabila ng lahat ng palitan nila ng iba’t ibang akusasyon sa bawat isa, NALILITO AKO KUNG SINO ANG PAPANIGAN.

Sa totoo lang, PAREHO KO KASI SILANG GUSTO AT HINAHANGAAN. BIKOLANO SILA! ORAGON! Alam ko na may kahinaan at kalakasan ang bawat isa. Sana, SA KABILA NG LAHAT, “ng word war”, MAAYOS DIN ANG LAHAT! AN MGA BIKOLANO ORAGON PERO MALAMBINGON!

January 28, 2012
To the prosecution panel
The House of Representatives

Dear Sirs:

I am wondering why a press release from Congress says I am one of those to be subpoenaed to be asked in the impeachment trial of Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona.

According to the press release, I am being summoned to testify on Article 7, of which I have no personal knowledge.

I want to further inquire what specific data or fact you want from me.

Sincerely,
Raissa Robles

http://raissarobles.com

Inside Philippine politics and beyond

MULA SA: http://raissarobles.com/2012/01/28/my-letter-sent-to-the-prosecution-panel/

Below is a copy of the press release sent to me late yesterday as a member of the Foreign Correspondents Association of the Philippines:

WITNESSES TO BE PRESENTED

We intend to present the following witnesses:

1.     Raissa Robles, who will testify among others on the close personal relationship between Corona and GMA and other allegations contained in theVerified Complaint, and other pleadings filed by complainants, and other matters relevant to the instant case.

2.     Criselda Yabes, who will testify among others on the close personal relationship between Corona and GMA and other allegations contained in theVerified Complaint, and other pleadings filed by complainants, and other matters relevant to the instant case.

3.     Marites Vitug, who will testify among others on the close personal relationship between Corona and GMA, the research she has on the Supreme Court inner processes and other allegations contained in the Verified Complaint, and other pleadings filed by complainants, and other matters relevant to the instant case.

4.     Justice Secretary Leila de Lima - who will testify, among others: (1) That various criminal cases have been filed against GMA and FG; (2) That GMA intends to travel for other reasons aside from health (3) That service of the TRO to the Department of Justice was attempted to be made before 6 p.m. on 15 November 2011; (4) That petitioners attempted to leave the country on November 15, 2011; (5) On the allegations contained in the Verified Complaint, and other pleadings filed by complainants, and other matters relevant to the instant case.

5.     Principal Physician of former President Gloria Macapagal- Arroyo, Dr. Juliet Gopez-Cervantes, and her surgeon, Dr. Mario Ver – who will attest to GMA’s continuing recovery and her positive prognosis, especially after 6 to 8 months and that there is no medical emergency warranting an immediate flight.

6.     Supreme Court Process Server – who will testify, among others: (1) On the working hours of the Supreme Court; (2) that the Temporary Restraining Order was filed beyond working hours.

7.     Supreme Court Process Cashier – who will testify, among others: (1) On the working hours of the Supreme Court; (2) that the conditions set were submitted beyond working hours.

8.     Ina Reformina and a Mediaman/Journalist – who will testify, among others: (1) That the TRO allowing GMA to leave the country was issued before 6 p.m. on 15 November 2011; (2) That service of the TRO to the Department of Justice was attempted to be made before 6 p.m. on 15 November 2011; (3) That Compliance with TRO requirements, such as the posting of the bond, among others, was made after 6 p.m. on 15 November 2011; (4) Statements made by the Public Information Office of the Supreme Court;  (5) On the allegations contained in the Verified Complaint, and other pleadings filed by complainants, and other matters relevant to the instant case.

9.     Deputy Clerk of Court - who will testify, among others: (1) That respondent Corona consolidated the two (2) cases involving Arroyo and her husband Mike in order to ensure the hurried issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011; (2) That the hurried issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011 by respondent Corona was made in order to give the Arroyos an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice; (3) That such issuance is a tyrannical abuse of power, an act of favoritism and an inexcusably negligent act amounting to a betrayal of public trust; (4) On the allegations contained in the Verified Complaint, and other pleadings filed by complainants, and other matters relevant to the instant case.

10.  Enriqueta Vidal, Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court En Banc – who will testify, among others: (1) that Respondent Corona made handwritten corrections on the typewritten draft Resolution Justice Velasco with the instruction that the Chief Justice’s version is to be immediately promulgated; (2) Suppress the dissent of Justice Sereno; and (3)On the allegations contained in the Verified Complaint, and other pleadings filed by complainants, and other matters relevant to the instant case.

11.  Assigned Process Server or Sheriff – who will testify, among others: (1) That respondent Corona in order to immediately effect the TRO extended the office hours, asked him to do overtime and to immediately serve the Notices to the Department of Justice and the Office of the Solicitor General;

12.  Araceli C. Bayuga, SC Chief Judicial Officer - who will testify, among others: (1) that respondent Corona in order to immediately effect the TRO extended the office hours, asked them to facilitate the payment of the bond to ensure compliance; (2) the time and manner of payment (3) the time that they informed the Office of the Clerk of Court of the payment of the bond.

13.  “Juliet” of the Office of the Clerk of Court – that it was only at 8:55am of November 16, one day after GMA attempted  to leave, that they received information of the payment of the Bond.

14.  Jay Francis P. Baltazar, Notary Public of Magallanes, Makati City (Hostile Witness) -  will testify as to the time and manner that the Special Power of Attorney made in favor of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo was notarized.

15.  Assigned Cashier to Receive Payment - who will testify, among others: (1) That respondent Corona in order to immediately effect the TRO asked them to receive the payment of bond;  (2) The other circumstances surrounding the payment of the money.

16.  Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno – who will testify, among others: (1) That the hurried issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011 by respondent Corona in order to give the Arroyos an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice is a tyrannical abuse of power, an act of favoritism and an inexcusably negligent act amounting to a betrayal of public trust. This was made possible through respondent’s individual acts of: (i) Consolidating the two (2) cases involving Arroyo and her husband Mike; (ii) Facilitating and expediting, as administrative head of the Supreme Court, the issuance and implementation of the TRO issued in favor of Arroyo (i.e. allowing the extension of the office hours of the Supreme Court, among others); (iii) Distorting the Supreme Court decision on the effectivity of the TRO in view of a clear failure to comply with the conditions of the Supreme Court amounted to a betrayal of public trust; (iv) Suppressing the promulgation of the dissenting opinion of Justice Sereno which was submitted on 2 December 2011 but was promulgated only on 13 December 2011; and (v)  Providing the Supreme Court spokesman with misleading information; and (2) On the allegations contained in the Verified Complaint, and other pleadings filed by complainants, and other matters relevant to the instant case.

17.  Justice Jose Midas P Marquez (Hostile Witness) – who will testify, among others: (1) That the hurried issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011 by respondent Corona in order to give the Arroyos an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice is a tyrannical abuse of power, an act of favoritism and an inexcusably negligent act amounting to a betrayal of public trust. This was made possible through respondent’s individual acts of: (i) Consolidating the two (2) cases involving Arroyo and her husband Mike; (ii) Facilitating and expediting, as administrative head of the Supreme Court, the issuance and implementation of the TRO issued in favor of Arroyo (i.e. allowing the extension of the office hours of the Supreme Court, among others); (iii) Distorting the Supreme Court decision on the effectivity of the TRO in view of a clear failure to comply with the conditions of the Supreme Court amounted to a betrayal of public trust; (iv) Suppressing the promulgation of the dissenting opinion of Justice Sereno which was submitted on 2 December 2011 but was promulgated only on 13 December 2011; and (v)  Providing the Supreme Court spokesman with misleading information; and (2) On the allegations contained in the Verified Complaint, and other pleadings filed by complainants, and other matters relevant to the instant case.

18.  Justice  Presibetero J. Velasco, Jr. (Hostile Witness) – who will testify, among others: (1) That the hurried issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011 by respondent Corona in order to give the Arroyos an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice is a tyrannical abuse of power, an act of favoritism and an inexcusably negligent act amounting to a betrayal of public trust. This was made possible through respondent’s individual acts of: (i) Consolidating the two (2) cases involving Arroyo and her husband Mike; (ii) Facilitating and expediting, as administrative head of the Supreme Court, the issuance and implementation of the TRO issued in favor of Arroyo (i.e. allowing the extension of the office hours of the Supreme Court, among others); (iii) Distorting the Supreme Court decision on the effectivity of the TRO in view of a clear failure to comply with the conditions of the Supreme Court amounted to a betrayal of public trust; (iv) Suppressing the promulgation of the dissenting opinion of Justice Sereno which was submitted on 2 December 2011 but was promulgated only on 13 December 2011; and (v)  Providing the Supreme Court spokesman with misleading information; (2) that Respondent Corona made handwritten corrections on the typewritten draft Resolution Justice Velasco with the instruction that the Chief Justice’s version is to be immediately promulgated; and (3) On the allegations contained in the Verified Complaint, and other pleadings filed by complainants, and other matters relevant to the instant case. (2) On the allegations contained in the Verified Complaint, and other pleadings filed by complainants, and other matters relevant to the instant case.

We respectfully reserve their right to present additional witnesses as the exigencies of the proceedings may warrant.

VIII.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO BE PRESENTED

Description:  Order of consolidation of cases or Minutes of En Banc Session where such consolidation was allowed
Purpose: To show, among others, that:

(1)  respondent Corona consolidated the two (2) cases involving Arroyo and her husband Mike in order to ensure the hurried issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011;

(2)  the hurried issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011 by respondent Corona was made in order to give the Arroyos an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice; and

(3)  such issuance is a tyrannical abuse of power, an act of bias and prejudice and an inexcusably negligent act amounting to a betrayal of public trust.

Travel Tickets of Respondent Corona on November 2011
To show the whereabouts of Corona during November 2011 and to explain that he hurried back to the Supreme Court for the issuance of the TRO
Bureau of Immigration Entry and Exit of Respondent Corona
To show the whereabouts of Corona during November 2011 and to explain that he hurried back to the Supreme Court for the issuance of the TRO
Leave of Absence of Respondent Corona
To show the whereabouts of Corona during November 2011 and to explain that he hurried back to the Supreme Court for the issuance of the TRO

Description: Resolution dated 15 November 2011,  as published

Purpose: To show, among others, that:

(1)  respondent Corona rushed the issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011 in order to give the Arroyos an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice. This is a tyrannical abuse of power, an act of favoritism and an inexcusably negligent act amounting to a betrayal of public trust.

Description: Minutes of En Banc Sessions dated 18th, 22nd, 23rd, 24th, and 29th of November 2011

Special Power of Attorney dated 15 November 2011 submitted by the Arroyos in favor of Atty. Ferdinand Topacio appointing him “to produce summons or receive documentary evidence.”
Purpose:To show, among others, that:

(1)  Arroyo and her husband Mike failed to comply with the Resolution dated 15 November 2011; and

(2)  the issuance of the TRO was made prior to the submission of the SPA, a condition precedent to the issuance of the TRO.

Description:Receipt issued by the Supreme Court for the Two Million Pesos Cash Bond of the Arroyos

Purpose:To show, among others, that the issuance of the TRO was made prior to the completion of the conditions precedent to the issuance of the TRO.
Affidavit from Media who witnessed the following:

i.     Issuance of the TRO before 6 p.m.
ii.     Service of the TRO to the Department of Justice before 6 p.m.
iii.     Compliance with TRO requirements after 6 p.m.
Purpose: To show, among others, that:

(1)   the issuance of the TRO was made before 6 p.m.;

(2)   the service of the TRO to the Department of Justice was made before 6 p.m.;

(3)   compliance with the requirements for the issuance of the TRO was made after 6 p.m.;

(4)   respondent Corona facilitated and expedited, as administrative head of the Supreme Court, the issuance and implementation of the TRO issued in favor of Arroyo (i.e. allowing the extension of the office hours of the Supreme Court, among others); and

(5)   respondent Corona hurried the issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011 in order to give the Arroyos an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice.

Description:Video of Atty. Midas Marquez announcing on 18 November 2011 that TRO is in full force and effect and, as far as the SC is concerned, petitioners can travel out of the country immediately.
Purpose:To show, among others, that:

(1) respondent Corona provided the Supreme Court spokesman with misleading information;

(2)  respondent Corona distorted the Supreme Court decision on the effectivity of the TRO in view of a clear failure to comply with the conditions of the Supreme Court amounted to a betrayal of public trust; and

(3) respondent Corona hurried the issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011 in order to give the Arroyos an opportunity to escape prosecution.

Description: Typed-written draft of Justice Velasco referring to the first three sentences of the first paragraph of the clarificatory Resolution subject of the En Banc meeting on 18 November 2011. (This was also referred to in the Letter dated 24 November 2011 of Justice Carpio)
Purpose:To show, among others, that:

(1)  respondent Corona distorted the Supreme Court decision on the effectivity of the TRO in view of a clear failure to comply with the conditions of the Supreme Court; and

(2)  respondent Corona hurried the issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011 in order to give the Arroyos an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice.
Justice Carpio’s Modifications of Justice Velasco’s Typed-written draft

Description:Respondent Corona’s handwritten corrections on the typewritten draft Resolution of Justice Velasco with the instruction that the Chief Justice’s version is to be immediately promulgated.

Letter dated 24 November 2011 of Justice Carpio

Resolution dated 22 November 2011, as published on 29 November 2011

Video of Atty. Midas Marquez announcing on 29 November 2011 that the Supreme Court has always considered the TRO to have not been suspended, and that this ruling was clarified by a 9-4 vote.
Purpose: To show, among others, that:

(1)  respondent Corona provided the Supreme Court spokesman with misleading information;

(2)  respondent Corona distorted the Supreme Court decision on the effectivity of the TRO in view of a clear failure to comply with the conditions of the Supreme Court; and

(3)  respondent Corona hurried the issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011 in order to give the Arroyos an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice.
Memorandum dated 05 December 2011 of Clerk of Court Enriqueta E. Vidal for the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices
To show, among others, that:

(1) respondent Corona suppressed the promulgation of the dissenting opinion of Justice Sereno which was submitted on 2 December 2011 but was promulgated only on 13 December 2011; and

(2) respondent Corona hurried the issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011 in order to give the Arroyos an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice.

Description: Letter dated 06 December 2011 of Justice Sereno to respondent Corona formalizing her request to be apprised of the legal basis for the non-promulgation of her dissenting opinion, unduly depriving her of her constitutional right as an associate justice.

Dissenting Opinion of Justice Sereno in G.R. No. 199034 and 199046 as published on 13 December 2011.
Purpose:To show, among others, that:

(1)  respondent Corona hurried the issuance of the TRO against the DOJ on 15 November 2011 in order to give the Arroyos an opportunity to escape prosecution and to frustrate the ends of justice. This was made possible through respondent Corona’s individual acts of:

a. consolidating the two (2) cases involving Arroyo and her husband Mike;

b. facilitating and expediting, as administrative head of the Supreme Court, the issuance and implementation of the TRO issued in favor of Arroyo (i.e. allowing the extension of the office hours of the Supreme Court, among others);

c. distorting the Supreme Court decision on the effectivity of the TRO in view of a clear failure to comply with the conditions of the Supreme Court amounted to a betrayal of public trust;

d. suppressing the promulgation of the dissenting opinion of Justice Sereno which was submitted on 2 December 2011 but was promulgated only on 13 December 2011; and

e.  providing the Supreme Court spokesman with misleading information.