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

The problem in applying the foregoing standards is that the American concept of judicial review is radically different from our current concept, for Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution provides our courts with far less discretion in determining whether they should pass upon a constitutional issue. Related to the issue of ripeness is the question of whether the instant petitions are premature. Amicus curiae former Senate President Jovito R. Salonga opines that there may be no urgent need for this Court to render a decision at this time, it being the final arbiter on questions of constitutionality anyway. He thus recommends that all remedies in the House and Senate should first be exhausted. When suing as a citizen, the interest of the petitioner assailing the constitutionality of a statute must be direct and personal. He must be able to show, not only that the law or any government act is invalid, but also that he sustained or is in imminent danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of its enforcement, and not merely that he suffers thereby in some indefinite way. It must appear that the person complaining has been or is about to be denied some right or privilege to which he is lawfully entitled or that he is about to be subjected to some burdens or penalties by reason of the statute or act complained of.In fine, when the proceeding involves the assertion of a public right,the mere fact that he is a citizen satisfies the requirement of personal interest.

Orosa further said that 100 more units were actually under construction and that advertisements have already been issued for bids to construct the remaining 779 dwellings blueprinted for the project. Crisol is chairman of an inter-departmental committee charged with the task of following up all government projects to insure their proper and efficient implementation. As such, the President directed him to watch out for any signs of Communist sabotage. Undersecretary Crisol will be the “eyes and ears” of the President in insuring the success of the Administration’s rural development program. His check-up activities will take him frog-leaping from one part of the country to another, performing his follow-through tasks unannounced. He will be assisted during his inspection tours probably by the undersecretary of the department directly concerned with the project or by the head official in charge.

in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned

If for example the implementing law also provides that certain provisions of the Constitution may not be amended through initiative, that prohibition should not be sustained. Congress is tasked with the implementation, and not the restriction of the right stole my money to initiative. Rep. Act No. 6735 is a law relative to the conduct of a plebiscite. The primary task of the COMELEC under Rep. Act No. 6735 is to enforce and administer the said law, functions that are essentially executive and administrative in nature.

There is thus no need for the more than six million signatories to execute separate documents to authorize petitioners to file the petition for initiative in their behalf. Whether the proposed changes constitute an amendment or revision of the Constitution. Whether the proposed changes embrace more than one subject matter. Darby Santiago and Reginald Pamugas; Attys. Pete Quirino-Quadra, Jose Anselmo I. Cadiz, Byron D. Bocar, Ma. Tanya Karina A. Lat, Antonio L. Salvador, and Randall C. Tabayoyong. Under the proposed Section 4, Article XVIII, Transitory Provisions of the Constitution, the interim Parliament, within 45 days from ratification of the proposed changes, “shall convene to propose amendments to, or revisions of, this Constitution.” Each district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact and adjacent territory, and each province must have at least one member.

THE CONSOLIDATED BANK AND TRUST CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND L.C. DIAZ AND COMPANY, CPA’S, RESPONDENTS.

This evenly divided vote resulted in the affirmance of the validity of the statute but did not constitute a binding precedent on the Court. COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it denied due course to the Lambino and Aumentado petition. Whether the Petition for Initiative filed before the COMELEC complied with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution and R.A. 6735 involves contentious issues of fact which should first be resolved by the COMELEC. But we know what happened during the 20 years under the Marcos administration. So, if the National Assembly, in a manner of speaking, is operating under the thumb of the Prime Minister or the President as the case may be, and the required number of votes could not be obtained, we would have to provide for a safety valve in order that the people could ventilate in a very peaceful way their desire for amendment to the Constitution.

In Massachusetts v. Mellon, the challenge of the federal Maternity Act was not entertained although made by the Commonwealth on behalf of all its citizens. It is aptly noted in the first of the questioned Resolutions that the framers of the Constitution could not have been unaware of the possibility of an election contest that would involve all Senators–elect, six of whom would inevitably have to sit in judgment thereon. Indeed, such possibility might surface again in the wake of the 1992 elections when once more, but for the last time, all 24 seats in the Senate will be at stake. Yet the Constitution provides no scheme or mode for settling such unusual situations or for the substitution of Senators designated to the Tribunal whose disqualification may be sought. Litigants in such situations must simply place their trust and hopes of vindication in the fairness and sense of justice of the Members of the Tribunal.

Prior to the withdrawal of P300,000, the impostor deposited with Teller No. 6 the P90,000 PBC check, which later bounced. The impostor apparently deposited a large amount of money to deflect suspicion from the withdrawal of a much bigger amount of money. The appellate court thus erred when it imposed on Solidbank the duty to call up L.C. Diaz to confirm the withdrawal when no law requires this from banks and when the teller had no reason to be suspicious of the transaction. Likewise, Solidbank’s tellers must exercise a high degree of diligence in insuring that they return the passbook only to the depositor or his authorized representative. The tellers know, or should know, that the rules on savings account provide that any person in possession of the passbook is presumptively its owner. If the tellers give the passbook to the wrong person, they would be clothing that person presumptive ownership of the passbook, facilitating unauthorized withdrawals by that person. For failing to return the passbook to Calapre, the authorized representative of L.C. Diaz, Solidbank and Teller No. 6 presumptively failed to observe such high degree of diligence in safeguarding the passbook, and in insuring its return to the party authorized to receive the same.

This section merely requires that the elections for the regular Parliament shall be held simultaneously with the local elections without specifying the year. The Lambino Group never alleged in the 25 August 2006 petition or the 30 August 2006 amended petition with the COMELEC that they circulated printed copies of the draft petition together with the signature sheets. Likewise, the Lambino Group did not allege in their present petition before this Court that they circulated printed copies of the draft petition together with the signature sheets. The signature sheets do not also contain any indication that the draft petition is attached to, or circulated with, the signature sheets. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying due course to the Lambino Group’s petition. WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner Solidbank Corporation shall pay private respondent L.C. Diaz and Company, CPA’s only 60% of the actual damages awarded by the Court of Appeals. The remaining 40% of the actual damages shall be borne by private respondent L.C.

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines, but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution, trial, and punishment according to law. A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by any Member of the House of Representatives or by any citizen upon a resolution of endorsement by any Member thereof, which shall be included in the Order of Business within ten session days, and referred to the proper Committee within three session days thereafter. The Committee, after hearing, and by a majority vote of all its Members, shall submit its report to the House within sixty session days from such referral, together with the corresponding resolution. The resolution shall be calendared for consideration by the House within ten session days from receipt thereof. Thus the Court has struck down as void, decisions of lower courts and even of the Court of Appeals whose careless disregard of the constitutional behest exposed their sometimes cavalier attitude not only to their magisterial responsibilities but likewise to their avowed fealty to the Constitution. Is the legitimacy of the assumption to the Presidency of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo a political question and, therefore, not subject to judicial review? Coming now to the instant case, it is readily apparent that there is no exercise by Congress of its taxing or spending power. No. 43, the amount of P3 million is “appropriated” for its operational expenses “to be sourced from the funds of the Office of the President.” x x x.

The President today issued Proclamation No. 242, declaring the period from February 22 to 28, inclusive, of every year as traffic safety week and March 1 of every year as safe driving day. The President’s instructions to Mondeñedo to make available P3 million for the cotton growing project was a follow-through of the conference held last Sunday when the project to plant cotton from 10,000 to 15,000 hectares of land in Lagao, Cotabato, was launched. The President said that aside from the principal cotton growing center in Mindanao, the ACCFA should also plant cotton in Pangasinan and in the Ilocos region. To enable Filipinos to obtain an increasing participation in the national trade, Yap requested that quota reductions be applied on them in smaller percentage. The President referred the petition to the Central Bank for comment and recommendation. Santiago Yap, association president who acted as spokesman, informed the President that import quota reductions were being made on Filipino and alien merchants in equal proportions, resulting in many instances in the imminent extinction of small Filipino traders. The President wanted to see the first class “sleeperette” coach which had recently arrived from Japan.

AND AS REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GROUP OF MORE THAN 80 HOUSE REPRESENTATIVES

MAN-4150 was not limited to only 6 parcels of land partially awarded in favor of petitioners as co-owned by them, but also include all the 108 parcels of land mentioned as Golf Course in said Order. Take note that the Court specifically referred to “dispositions” in the March 19, 1997 Decision. To reiterate, the dispositions in the Santiago case decision refer specifically to the December 18, 1996 TRO being made permanent against the COMELEC but do not pertain to a permanent injunction against any other petition for initiative on amendment. Thus, what was confirmed or even affirmed in the Minute Resolution in the PIRMA case pertains solely to the December 18, 1996 TRO which became permanent, the declaration of the inadequacy of RA 6735, and the annulment of certain parts of Resolution No. 2300 but certainly not the alleged perpetual injunction against the initiative petition. Thus, the resolution in the PIRMA case cannot be considered res judicata to the Lambino petition. In sum, the COMELEC still retains its jurisdiction to take cognizance of any petition on initiative under RA 6735 and it can rule on the petition and its action can only be passed upon by the Court when the same is elevated through a petition for certiorari. COMELEC cannot be barred from acting on said petitions since jurisdiction is conferred by law and said law has not been declared unconstitutional and hence still valid though considered inadequate in the Santiago case. In the Santiago case, the Court discussed whether the second paragraph of that section had been fulfilled. It determined that Congress had not provided for the implementation of the exercise of the people’s initiative, when it held that Republic Act No. 6735, or “The Initiative and Referendum Act,” was “inadequate to cover the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution, and to have failed to provide sufficient standard for subordinate legislation.” In view of the foregoing, I am of the position that the Resolution of the COMELEC dated 31 August 2006 denying due course to the Petition for Initiative filed by Lambino and Aumentado be reversed and set aside for having been issued in grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction, and that the Petition be remanded to the COMELEC for further proceedings.

As pointed out by amicus curiae former dean Pacifico Agabin of the UP College of Law, this Court has in fact in a number of cases taken jurisdiction over questions which are not truly political following the effectivity of the present Constitution. When this provision was originally drafted, it sought to define what is judicial power. But the Gentleman will notice it says, “judicial power includes” and the reason being that the definition that we might make may not cover all possible areas. X x xThe defense of the political question was rejected because the issue was clearly justiciable. Intervenor Soriano, in praying for the dismissal of the petitions, contends that petitioners do not have standing since only the Chief Justice has sustained and will sustain direct personal injury. Amicus curiae former Justice Minister and Solicitor General Estelito Mendoza similarly contends. Constitution and the Philippine Constitution with respect to the power of the House of Representatives over impeachment proceedings.

The proposed constitutional changes, albeit substantial, are mere amendments and can be undertaken through people’s initiative. There is a need for an implementing law that will give meaning and substance to the process of initiative and referendum which are considered valuable adjuncts to representative democracy. It is needless to state that this bill when enacted into law will probably open the door to strong competition of the people, like pressure groups, vested interests, farmers’ group, labor groups, urban dwellers, the urban poor and the like, with Congress in the field of legislation. As envisioned in the bill, the initiative comes from the people, from registered voters of the country, by presenting a proposition so that the people can then submit a petition, which is a piece of paper that contains the proposition. The proposition in the example I have been citing is whether there should be direct elections during the barangay elections. So the petition must be filed in the appropriate agency and the proposition must be clear stated. It can be tedious but that is how an effort to have direct democracy operates. The third mode of initiative, Mr. Speaker, refers to a petition proposing to enact regional, provincial, city, municipal or barangay laws or ordinances. It comes from the people and it must be submitted directly to the electorate.

• De Vera of Tayug, Pangasinan, as acting member of the Land Tenure Administration.
• Noticing a swarm of flies hovering over the carabao’s back, the President approached and lifted a rope tightly wound around the animal’s neck.
• A revision requires harmonizing not only several provisions, but also the altered principles with those that remain unaltered.
• Litigants in such situations must simply place their trust and hopes of vindication in the fairness and sense of justice of the Members of the Tribunal.

The Supreme Court, citing Tañada v. Tuvera, 136 SCRA 27 , Legaspi v. Civil Service Commission, 150 SCRA 530 and Albano v. Reyes, 175 SCRA 264 ruled that petitioner had standing. The Court, however, went on to elaborate that in any event, the question on the standing of petitioner Chavez was rendered moot by the intervention of the Jopsons who are among the legitimate claimants to the Marcos wealth. Neither may respondent House of Representatives’ rely on Nixon v. USas basis for arguing that this Court may not decide on the constitutionality of Sections 16 and 17 of the House Impeachment Rules. Federal Constitution simply provides that “the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment.” It adds nothing more. It gives no clue whatsoever as to how this “sole power” is to be exercised. Thus, the US Supreme Court concluded that there was a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of a constitutional power to the House of Representatives. This reasoning does not hold with regard to impeachment power of the Philippine House of Representatives since our Constitution, as earlier enumerated, furnishes several provisions articulating how that “exclusive power” is to be exercised. These rules clearly contravene Section 3 of Article XI since the rules give the term “initiate” a meaning different meaning from filing and referral.