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

More significantly, there is no identity of causes of action in the two cases. Santiago involved amendments to Sections 4 and 7 of Article VI, Section 4 of Article VII and Section 8 of Article X of the Constitution while the present petition seeks to amend Sections 1to 7 of Article VI and Sections 1 to 4 of the 1987 Constitution. Clearly, therefore, the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion when it ruled that the present petition for initiative was barred by Santiago and, on that ground, dismissed the petition. The “political question doctrine” was first enunciated by the US Supreme Court in Luther v. Borden. In the proposed parliamentary system, there is an obvious lack of formal institutional checks on the legislative and executive powers of the state, since both the Prime Minister and the members of his cabinet are drawn from parliament. There are no effective limits to what the Prime Minister and parliament can do, except the will of the parliamentary majority. This goes against the central principle of our present constitutional scheme that distributes the powers of government and provides for counteraction among the three branches. Although both the presidential and parliamentary systems are theoretically consistent with constitutional democracy, the underlying tenets and resulting governmental framework are nonetheless radically different. Otherwise stated, our experience of what constitutes amendment or revision under the past constitutions is not determinative of what the two terms mean now, as related to the exercise of the right to propose either amendments or revision.

The law mandates upon the election registrar to personally verify the signatures. This is a solemn and important duty imposed on the election registrar which he cannot delegate to any other person, even to barangay officials. Hence, a verification of signatures made by persons other than the election registrars has no legal effect. I am not impervious to the commentary of Dean Vicente G. Sinco that the revision of a constitution, in its strict sense, refers to a consideration of the entire constitution and the procedure for effecting such change; while amendment refers only to particular provisions to be added to or to be altered in a constitution. However, after deliberations and interpellations, the members of the Commission agreed to remove the provision on the system of initiative from Section 1 and, instead, put it under a separate provision, Section 2. It was explained that the removal of the provision on initiative from the other “traditional modes” of changing the Constitution was precisely to limit the former to amendments to the Constitution. It was emphasized that the system of initiative should not extend to revision. If, as now claimed by the minorty, there was no doctrine enunciated by the Court in Santiago, the Court should have resolved to set aside its original resolution dismissing the petition and to grant the motion for reconsideration and the petition. The Court positively and unequivocally declared that the COMELEC merely followed the ruling of the Court in Santiago in dismissing the petition before it.

MANDAUE LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, [MANLAW], REPRESENTED BY FELIPE VELASQUEZ,

Moreover, the petition was filed after the third time that these three respondents were issued ad interim appointments. The purpose of this provision was to prevent multiplicity of suits by requiring the person asserting a right against the defendant to include with him, either as co-plaintiffs or as co-defendants, all persons standing in the same position, so that the whole matter in dispute may be determined once and for all in one litigation. Sovereignty residing in the people is the highest form of sovereignty and thus deserves the highest respect even from the courts. It is not something that can be overruled, set aside, ignored or stomped over by whatever amount of technicalities, blurred or vague provisions of the law. The COMELEC had indeed committed grave abuse of discretion when it summarily dismissed Lambino and Aumentado’s petition for initiative entirely on the basis of the Santiago case which, allegedly, permanently enjoined it from entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition for initiative to amend the Constitution in the absence of a sufficient law. By allowing the sovereign people to directly propose and enact constitutional amendments, the initiative process should be acknowledged as the purest implement of democratic rule under law. This right granted to over sixty million Filipinos cannot be denied by the votes of less than eight magistrates for reasons that bear no cogitation on the Constitution. A vote to grant the petitions is not a vote to amend the 1987 Constitution. It is merely a vote to allow the people to directly exercise that option. In fact, the position of Justice Puno which I share would not even guarantee that the Lambino and Sigaw ng Bayan initiative petitions would be submitted to the people in a referendum.

Note, however, that the legal interest has been increased from six percent to twelve percent per annum by virtue of Central Bank Circulars No. 416, dated 29 July 1974, and No. 905, dated 10 December 1982. If the perfection of an appeal by one party would not bar the right of the other party to appeal from the same decision, then an unperfected appeal, as in the case at bar, would have far less effect. With the award of exemplary damages, then respondent shall also be entitled to an award of attorney’s fees.148 Additionally, attorney’s fees may be awarded criminals when a party is compelled to litigate or to incur expenses to protect his interest by reason of an unjustified act of the other party.149 In this case, an award of ₱200,000.00 attorney’s fees shall be satisfactory. A I was embarrassed because being a businesswoman I would like to inform the Honorable Court that I was awarded as the most outstanding businesswoman of the year in 1976 but when this money was not given back to me I was not able to comply with the commitments that I have promised to these associations that I am engaged into , sir.

THE PHILIPPINES, INC., PETITIONER-IN-INTERVENTION, VS. THE HOUSE OF

Apparently, the parties to the case, namely, the respondent, on one hand, and the petitioners, on the other, made separate attempts to bring the aforementioned Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated 26 March 2002, before this Court for review. WHEREFORE, Sections 16 and 17 of Rule V of the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings which were approved by the House of Representatives on November 28, 2001 are unconstitutional. Consequently, the second impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. which was filed by Representatives Gilberto C. Teodoro, Jr. and Felix William B. Fuentebella with the Office of the Secretary General of the House of Representatives on October 23, 2003 is barred under paragraph 5, section 3 of Article XI of the Constitution. If there is anything constant about this country, it is that there is always a phenomenon that takes the center stage of our individual and collective consciousness as a people with our characteristic flair for human drama, conflict or tragedy.

Furthermore, there is a need for such deliberative bodies for revisions because their proceedings and debates are duly and officially recorded, so that future cases of interpretations can be properly aided by resort to the record of their proceedings. This next point to address, there being a sufficient law, is whether the petition for initiative herein involved complies with the requirements of that law as well as those stated in Article XVII of the Constitution. Seen in this light, the provisions of Republic Act No. 6735 relating to the procedure for proposing amendments to the Constitution, can and should be upheld, despite shortcomings perhaps in legislative headings and standards. The rules, therefore, governing the exercise of legislative powers do not apply, or do not apply strictly, to the actions taken under Article XVII. According to the dissenting opinion, the sufficiency of the petition for initiative and its compliance with the requirements of RA 6735 on initiative and its implementing rules is a question that should be resolved by the COMELEC at the first instance. Evidently, the framers of the Constitution believed that a revision thereof should, in like manner, be a product of the same extensive and intensive study and debates. Consequently, while providing for a system of initiative where the people would directly propose amendments to the Constitution, they entrusted the formidable task of its revision to a deliberative body, the Congress or Constituent Assembly. Further, the framers of the Constitution deliberately omitted the term “revision” in Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution because it was their intention to reserve the power to propose a revision of the Constitution to Congress or the constitutional convention.

WHO SIGNED AND FILED THE IMPEACHMENT COMPLAINT AGAINST SUPREME COURT CHIEF

The President then introduced Ambassador Brionval to the Philippine officials headed by Vice-President and concurrently Foreign Affairs Secretary Carlos P. Garcia, Cabinet members, and foreign affairs officials. Letter carriers from Pasay City asked the President’s assistance in their petition for increase of their salaries. Headed by Jose P. Roman, the post office employees said that some of them had been in the service for 19 years without benefit of salary increases. A delegation of school children from the Moises Salvador Elementary School in Sampaloc, Manila, presented the President with a 50-peso bill as their contribution to the Liberty Wells fund drive. Twelve-year old Felicitas Fulgencio, a sixth grade pupil, who handed the bill, informed the President that the amount had been accumulated from coins dropped daily by the children in a wishing well, a project they had agreed to set up to assist in the fund campaign. The pupils were accompanied to Malacañang by Mrs. Caridad C. Salonga, assistant principal. January 19.—AT a breakfast conference this morning with members of his Tax Advisory Board, the President received an 18-page report and recommendations on proposed tax legislation for consideration of the Third Congress at the forthcoming third regular session. At the conference were Finance Secretary Jaime Hernandez, chairman; Budget Commissioner Dominador Aytona, CB Governor Miguel Cuaderno, Revenue Collector Silverio Blaquera, Deputy Revenue Collector Jose Arañas, and Artemio Lobrin, members. Kintanar was also directed to study the preparation of legislation governing the collection of taxes on these formerly Japanese-owned lots upon the signing of the deed of sale.