maraming sumoporta satin cibac lalo na dito sa valenzuela sana mag top.1 tayo para makakuwa ng 3rd nominne .god bless cibac

It was really an upsetting decision by the SC. The law was very clear that the President cannot appoint a new CJ two months before the elections, and yet it was CJ Puno himself who said that those appointments does not cover the judiciary... harrrrr

hi po.. KKB po ako dito sa San Narciso ZAmbales..
nalaman ko po sa tita ko po na pastora na may scholarship daw po kayo.,
ask ko lang po kung pano mag apply ng scholarship sa CIBAC..
graduate na po kasi ako ng 2year computer secretarial..
but i just want to continue it as BSOA or Bachelor of Science and Office Administration.,.
Additional 2years po ang dapat kong idagdag..
Please help me po, para makakuha po ako ng magandang trabaho..
Hindi ko po kasi maiapply sa office yung 2years na natapos ko po..
Mas priority nila ang BS graduates..
So please tulungan nyo po ako..
please po..
gusto ko po kasi mag enroll sana this june 2010 sa Bataan Peninsula State University..

hi po..
nalaman ko po sa pastora po namin, na may scholarship daw po ang CIBAC..
so dali-dali po akong nag search dito sa internet if that is true, at kung panu po mag apply..
uhmm...
panu po ba mag apply ng scholarship?
kasi want ko po magtuloy ng college this june..
please po..
thank you po..
may GOD bring back all the goodness that you have been made...
GOD BLESSED YOU CIBAC PARTY LIST!!!

An Obviously Erroneous Ruling by the SC
by: Charlemagne G. Lavina

It is very obvious that the Supreme Court erred when it held that appointment in the SC in EXEMPTION from Section 15, Article VII which reads:
"Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a President or Acting President shall not make appointments, except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety."

On the other hand, Section 4. (1), Article VIII of the constitution states: " The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices. It may sit en banc or in its discretion, in division of three, five, or seven Members. Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof."

According to the SC, "Had the framers intended to extend the prohibition contained in Section 15, Article VII to the appointment of members in the SC, they could have explicitly done so."

What if, taken a doze of its own medicine, someone contends, "Had the framers intended to EXEMPT the prohibition contained in Section 15, Article VII to the appointment of members in the SC, they could have explicitly done so." How can this be answered?There can be no satisfactory answer. It only means one thing, the interpretation is outside the principles of statutory construction.

Expressio unius et exclusio alterius. The express mention of one person, thing or consequence implies the exclusion of all others.

The latter part of the midnight appointment provision states ..."except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety".

It is clear that the ONLY exemption provided by the Constitution is that when continued vacancies will prejudice public service or endanger public safety.

Upon the other hand, there is NO hint or clear intention that the framers of the Constitution intended that Section 4(1) of Article VIII will operate as an exemption from the midnight appointments. Had the framers intended, they could have explicitly done so.