Votre expert en manutention

dans les Ardennes

03 24 27 31 99 / 06 06 80 59 66

 

                                                                  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



« Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the certification by the Commission on Elections of the sufficiency of the petition. » « I respectfully submit that taken together and interpreted properly and liberally, the Constitution (particularly Art. XVII, Sec. 2), R.A. 6735 and Comelec Resolution 2300 provide more than sufficient authority to implement, effectuate and realize our people’s power to amend the Constitution. Initiative, like referendum and recall, is a treasured feature of the Filipino constitutional system. It was born out of our world-admired and often-imitated People Power, but its misuse and abuse must be resolutely rejected. Indeed, the constitutional bodies that drafted the 1935, the 1972 and the 1987 Constitutions had to spend many months of purposeful discussions, democratic debates and rounds of voting before they could agree on the wordings covering the philosophy, the underlying principles, and the structure of government of our Republic. This Court should always be in lockstep with the people in the exercise of their sovereignty. Let them who will diminish or destroy the sovereign right of the people to decide be warned. Let not their sovereignty be diminished by those who belittle their brains to comprehend changes in the Constitution as if the people themselves are not the source and author of our Constitution. Let not their sovereignty be destroyed by the masters of manipulation who misrepresent themselves as the spokesmen of the people. « It is a Constitution we are expounding » solemnly intoned the great Chief Justice John Marshall of the United States in the 1819 case of M’cCulloch v. Maryland.

The COMELEC filed its own Comment stating that its resolution denying the petition for initiative is not tainted with grave abuse of discretion as it merely adhered to the ruling of this Court in Santiago v. COMELEC which declared that R.A. 6735 does not adequately implement the constitutional provision on initiative to amend the Constitution. It invoked the criminals permanent injunction issued by the Court against the COMELEC from taking cognizance of petitions for initiative on amendments to the Constitution until a valid enabling law shall have been passed by Congress. It asserted that the permanent injunction covers not only the Delfin Petition, but also all other petitions involving constitutional initiatives.

LAW, UNIVERSITY OF CEBU, YOUNG LAWYERS ASSOCAITION OF CEBU, INC. ,

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 of the constitution, while amendment generally affects only the specific provision being amended. However, the signature sheets do not explain the reason for this rush in amending or revising again so soon the Constitution. The signature sheets do not also explain what specific amendments or revisions the initiative proponents want the interim Parliament to make, and why there is a need for such further amendments or revisions. The people are again left in the dark to fathom the nature and effect of the proposed changes. Certainly, such an initiative is not « directly proposed by the people » because the people do not even know the nature and effect of the proposed changes. Thus, the present initiative appears merely a preliminary step for further amendments or revisions to be undertaken by the interim Parliament as a constituent assembly. The people who signed the signature sheets could not have known that their signatures would be used to propose an amendment mandating the interim Parliament to propose further amendments or revisions to the Constitution. Indeed, it is basic in American jurisprudence that the proposed amendment must be incorporated with, or attached to, the initiative petition signed by the people.

Similarly, a change reducing Filipino ownership of mass media companies from 100 percent to 60 percent is an amendment and not a revision. Also, a change requiring a college degree as an additional qualification for election to the Presidency is an amendment and not a revision. In short, the Lambino Group’s initiative is void and unconstitutional because it dismally fails to comply with the requirement of Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution that the initiative must be « directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition. » Apparently, the Lambino Group inserted the proposed Section 4 to compel the interim Parliament to amend or revise again the Constitution within 45 days from ratification of the proposed changes, or before the May 2007 elections. In the absence of the proposed Section 4, the interim Parliament has the discretion whether to amend or revise again the Constitution.

VS. THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, REPRESENTED BY HON. SPEAKER JOSE C. DE

Thus, even if RA 6735 is valid, the Lambino Group’s initiative will still fail. The Lambino Group in effect argues that if Congress or a constitutional convention had drafted the same proposed changes that the Lambino Group wrote in the present initiative, the changes would constitute a revision of the Constitution. Thus, the Lambino Group concedes that the proposed changes in the present initiative constitute a revision if Congress or a constitutional convention had drafted the changes. However, since the Lambino Group as private individuals drafted the proposed changes, the changes are merely amendments to the Constitution. The Lambino Group trivializes the serious matter of changing the fundamental law of the land. This Court did not violate the best evidence rule when it considered and weighed in evidence the photocopies and microfilm copies of the PNs, MCs, and letters submitted by the petitioners to establish the existence of respondent’s loans. The terms or contents of these documents were never the point of contention in the Petition at bar. It was respondent’s position that the PNs in the first set (with the exception of PN No. 34534) never existed, while the PNs in the second set (again, excluding PN No. 34534) were merely executed to cover simulated loan transactions. As for the MCs representing the proceeds of the loans, the respondent either denied receipt of certain MCs or admitted receipt of the other MCs but for another purpose. Respondent further admitted the letters she wrote personally or through her representatives to Mr. Tan of petitioner Citibank acknowledging the loans, except that she claimed that these letters were just meant to keep up the ruse of the simulated loans.
DIDAGEN DILANGALEN, ABRAHAM MITRA, JOSEPH SANTIAGO, DARLENE
It should not be the Supreme Court that stifles the people, and lets their cries for change go unheard, especially when the Constitution itself grants them that power. Even though it is conceded that the first three requisites are present herein, the last has not been complied with. Undoubtedly, the Santiago case and the present Petition involve different parties, subject matter, and causes of action, and the former should not bar the latter. 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.

IMPEACHMENT AGAINST CHIEF JUSTICE HILARIO G. DAVIDE, JR. AND THE HOUSE OF

The proponents are not disinterested parties who can impartially explain the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed amendments to the people. The proponents present favorably their proposal to the people and do not present the arguments against their proposal. The proponents, or their supporters, often pay those who gather the signatures. The rulings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals conflict on the application of the law. Diaz based on the provisions of the rules on savings account, a recognition of the contractual relationship between Solidbank and L.C. On the other hand, the Court of Appeals applied the law on quasi-delict to determine who between the two parties was ultimately negligent. The law on quasi-delict or culpa aquiliana is generally applicable when there is no pre-existing contractual relationship between the parties. Before us is a petition for review of the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 27 October 1998 and its Resolution dated 11 May 1999. The assailed decision reversed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 8, absolving petitioner Consolidated Bank and Trust Corporation, now known as Solidbank Corporation (« Solidbank »), of any liability. The questioned resolution of the appellate court denied the motion for reconsideration of Solidbank but modified the decision by deleting the award of exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, expenses of litigation and cost of suit.

  • That WE hereby quit and waive our ownership of the above-mentioned parcels of land in favor of the said ANTONIO V. OSMEÑA and hereby quit and waive all causes of action regarding said parcels of land in favor of ANTONIO V. OSMEÑA and assigns from this date as originally arranged and agreed.
  • If there is any principle in the Constitution that cannot be diluted and is non-negotiable, it is this sovereign right of the people to decide.
  • The irreconcilable inconsistency envisioned in the proposed Section 2 of the Transitory Provisions is not between a provision in Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and a provision in the proposed changes.
  • Feliciano, who comes from Teringsing, Cordon, Isabela, received as his prize one Pony Tractor Massey Harris, valued at P5,282, and donated by the National Merchandising Corporation.
  • Supreme Court has refused to follow the stare decisis rule and reversed its decisions in 192 cases.

Incantations of « people’s voice, » « people’s sovereign will, » or « let the people decide » cannot override the specific modes of changing the Constitution as prescribed in the Constitution itself. Otherwise, the Constitution the people’s fundamental covenant that provides enduring stability to our society becomes easily susceptible to manipulative changes by political groups gathering signatures through false promises. Then, the Constitution ceases to be the bedrock of the nation’s stability. The Constitution, as the fundamental law of the land, deserves the utmost respect and obedience of all the citizens of this nation. No one can trivialize the Constitution by cavalierly amending or revising it in blatant violation of the clearly specified modes of amendment and revision laid down in the Constitution itself. Even then, the present initiative violates Section 5 of RA 6735 which requires that the « petition for an initiative on the 1987 Constitution must have at least twelve per centum (12%) of the total number of registered voters as signatories. » Section 5 of RA 6735 requires that the people must sign the « petition x x x as signatories. » Nevertheless, even assuming that RA 6735 is valid to implement the constitutional provision on initiatives to amend the Constitution, this will not change the result here because the present petition violates Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution. To be a valid initiative, the present initiative must first comply with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution even before complying with RA 6735.

He charged this group with destroying the good name of the Chinese community. Representatives of the Manila Chinese Textiles Wholesalers Association and the Manila International Foodstuff Importers Association came to Malacañang this afternoon with prepared statements promising their help and listing the prices of their goods to guide their retailers. The listed current prices were compared with December 1955 figures to show that there were no exorbitant increases. Individual callers were Speaker Protempore Daniel Z. Romualdez; Sen. Decoroso Resales; Reps. Wenceslao Lagumbay of Laguna, Godofredo Ramos and Carmen Dinglasan-Consing of Capiz, Reynaldo P. Honrado of Surigao, Guillermo Sanchez of Agusan, Augusto Francisco and Angel Castaño of Manila, Francisco Pajao and Alberto Aguja of Leyte, and Jose Roy of Tarlac; Govs. Alejandro Almendras of Davao, Juan F. Triviño of Camarines Sur, Antonio Raquiza of Ilocos Norte, Marcos Malupa of Batanes, and Rafael Lazatin of Pampanga; and James Jacobson, vice-president of the Chase National Bank. Gov. Francisco Infantado of Mindoro Oriental accompanied a delegation of mayors from his province which presented him with a resolution reiterating their confidence in his leadership and urging him to run for reelection in 1957. THE President today suspended Florentino Montemayor, acting superintendent of the equipment depot of the Bureau of Public Highways in the North Harbor, pending investigation of charges filed against him which included persecution of subordinates, padding of payrolls, and negligence in the performance of his duties. The Chief Executive telephoned Public Works Secretary Florencio Moreno and ordered the immediate suspension of Montemayor. Earlier, the President authorized the release of P100,000 to start the projected government goatery farms in Tawitawi. He instructed Gov. Leon Fernandez of Sulu, who called at Malacañang with a delegation this morning, to help out in the project which envisions the establishment of a tannery, a creamery, and a meat cannery in the island.
scam