Roy Tang

He's such a Dick.

I don't mind replacing De Lima (she is obviously biased and could have been doing a better job), but there were a lot of other better choices that weren't openly fawning on the government. Sana si Chiz na lang para soothing yung discussion lol

Tito Sal Panelo for AJ for total domination! # StrangerThings

Yup could have been someone else, but two things (a) will he/she get support/vote or won't make it even more controversial, (b) sino pa ibang senator malakas loob na saluhin ang issue na ginawa ni De5/LP. Dick has balls ü Yun talaga gusto ko ipost, but context is required ü

Fyi: it is the privilege of the writ not the writ itself that can be suspended. And only on two grounds as provided by the consti: actual invasion of actual rebellion when the public safety requires it. It's in the bill of rights (art 3) and in art 7.

Michael yung writ ba is considered a privilege not an inherent right? Or is it considered a privilege for Filipino citizens and nobody else? I just want to see if there is a disntinction.

Elridge , the writ is actually a remedy against unlawful deprivation of liberty. To avail of the privilege is a right afforded to all, citizen or not. There are no inherent rights. Just rights provided by the consti or the laws. Tama ba atty. Weng ?

Nde ako magaling sa legalese kaya I asked. I used the common meaning of privilege. Thanks for the clarification.

Yes, the writ of habeas corpus is a remedy promulgated by the SC. The SC promulgating rules? In this case, yes, because the SC is mandated to protect constitutional rights. And according to the bill of rights, no person may be deprived of liberty without due process of law. That is a right, a constitutional one at that, with a corresponding duty to forebear on the person who wants to detain you without due process. It is most definitely not a privilege. The writ of habeas corpus is the protection against arbitrary arrests, unlawful detention, and deprivation of liberty when there is no right to so deprive that liberty.

Sorry i had to inject legalese terms, nasa part na kasi ako ng review on political law. But when we discuss concepts thar has legal implications it is better to have an understanding of how the terms are used in a legal sense.

I defer to the wisdom of my lawyerly friends. Although "suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus" is kind of a mouthufl. As to the grounds provided by the constitution, let's hope the new chair of the committee of justice is cognizant of this

He is a UP law product. That is why i'm puzzled by his proposal to include drug pushing as a ground. The consti provisions have limited this power because of historical abuse (as explained by our prof). And yes, it is a mouthful! Hahaha I've been corrected myself.

Right sya pre. The consti guarantees that you cannot be arrested and detained if there is no due process. Usually that means that the officer must have an arrest warrant, or he caught you in the act, or has acceptable probable cause to believe you are connected to the crime. If he does not have any of that, he cannot arrest you, he cannot detain you. Assuming you are already arrested, a case against you must be filed within a certain amount of time, hours lang yan depending on the crime, or 3 days if you are suspected of committing a terrorist act. If no case is filed against you within that time period, your detention now becomes unlawful, and you can file for habeas corpus, to ask the judge to command your arresting or detaining officer to bring you to court and explain why you are being detained.

Thanks for better explining it… I'm training to give concise answers buti na lng di ito tinatanong…no way of answering this in a concise way.