Res Nullius87

Saw a quote on IG that read: "Someday, all the love you've given to the wrong people will find its way back to you in someone who has waited their whole life for your kind of love" 🥹❤️

Ramon Magsaysay yung uniform. 😂😂😂

@Kuruturamusu @sirallanburgos "You're having delusions of grandeur" - Glinda to Elphaba Also, fill out the form.

@sirallanburgos Hahaha hilig sa kwenyong barbero netong putang inang to hahahaa

"Nothing beats a jet ski holiday. Right now from Manila to the West Philippine Sea. Get unlimited water bombing from Chinese vessels and free trip to The Hague by the ICC. Promo applies to DDS only. Pinklawans and BBMs are prohibited" - Pass to 20 people for good luck! 😂🤣

I’m always available and always there for people who don’t reciprocate what I give. For most, I’m the friend na kinakausap lang kapag may kailangan.

The new symbol of protest against the senate and the supreme court

@ChefGeloGuison Kahit nga academic community, may mga patakaran at alituntunin na sinusunod.

@ChefGeloGuison At kahit naman na nakalagay ang UP Charter ang mga kunsepto ng "democratic governance" & "public service character," hindi ibig-sabihin nun na anybody can do what he/she pleases sa loob, free from any form of regulation.

Hinahayaan na nga kayo mag jogging at magbike sa UP kahit di naman kayo estudyante, alumni, faculty or staff tapos 2 araw lang ng UPCAT sinabayan niyo po yung mga test takers. 🙄 Wala ba kayong pwedeng pagjoggingan na iba? Di kayo magjogging o magbike sa mga uni ninyo...

@ChefGeloGuison @QueenAniger23 Ano ba naman yung 2 days na hindi sila magbike at jogging sa UP dahil may UPCAT. Di naman nila ikakamatay yan.

@LeanderI21646 @QueenAniger23 malamang sa malamang

@QueenAniger23 @ChefGeloGuison Or di lang sila marunong sumunod.

@ChefGeloGuison blame the UP admin akla, kung nagmemo sila na bawal magjogging at biking diyan during UPCAT d ka na sana aatungal.

WORD: Passing the UPCAT and graduating with Latin honors are not signs of intelligence if we define it along the lines of critical analysis. Serving the marginalized and underrepresented, now that takes extraordinary intelligence as one's education is put to excellent use.

If every adverse ruling becomes an invitation to disobey, the law ceases to be a constraint on power and becomes its casualty. The Constitution does not require agreement. It demands adherence.

Such actions disturb the equilibrium of powers and imperil the integrity of our democratic institutions, especially when appropriate legal remedies remain available within the framework of our constitutional system.

"Dissent is not foreign to a democracy; it is essential to its survival. But to incite public repudiation of its authority, or even just to call for its outright defiance, erodes the very foundations of the legal order. "

UPDATE: List of signatories updated as of 5:00PM, 1 August 2025.

Individual members of the UP College of Law Faculty issued "Restoring Accountability," a statement on developments in the Impeachment of VP Sara Z. Duterte. Link: uplaw.ph/restoringaccou…

Technology and advances in Medicine have often obscured the essence of Nursing. Compassion and clinical competence remain the pillars of care.

READ!!! READ!!! READ!!! 🚨🚨 THE ULTIMATE CALL FROM FORMER CHIEF JUSTICE REYNATO PUNO OFFICIAL STATEMENT PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION (PhilConsa) On the Supreme Court Ruling in G.R. No. 278353 “Sara Z. Duterte vs. House of Representatives, et al.” July 30, 2025 The Philippine Constitution Association (PhilConsa) expresses its serious concern over the Supreme Court’s ruling in G.R. No. 278353, which nullified the impeachment proceedings initiated by the House of Representatives against Vice President Sara Z. Duterte. With due respect to the Honorable Court, we believe this decision overreaches constitutional boundaries, disrupts the separation of powers, and weakens Congress’ exclusive authority to hold impeachable officers accountable. ⸻ The Facts Cannot Be Ignored Between December 2024 and February 2025, four impeachment complaints were filed against Vice President Duterte. The first three complaints, though officially docketed, were never pursued. They were neither found sufficient in form and substance nor referred for committee hearings. On February 5, 2025, a fourth complaint—this time endorsed by 215 members of the House, more than the required one-third—was transmitted as Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, in full accordance with the Constitution. Yet on July 25, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that the fourth complaint was barred under the one-year rule in Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution, on the theory that the filing of earlier complaints—even if not acted upon—already “initiated” the impeachment process. ⸻ This Interpretation Is Constitutionally Flawed PhilConsa respectfully but firmly disagrees with this interpretation. The one-year bar rule was designed to prevent harassment through repeated impeachment proceedings—not to protect impeachable officers from ever facing trial by allowing them to take cover behind mere filings. As the Court itself held in Francisco v. House of Representatives, impeachment is only deemed initiated after the complaint is found sufficient in form and substance and referred to the Committee on Justice. The earlier complaints never reached that stage. To treat them as having “initiated” proceedings defies both logic and constitutional intent. This ruling invites dangerous abuse. It opens the door for impeachable officials—or their allies—to deliberately file weak or premature complaints to “consume” the one-year window and block any real effort at accountability. This is not a safeguard against harassment—it is a blueprint for evasion. ⸻ Judicial Restraint vs. Judicial Activism This case called for judicial restraint, not judicial activism. The Constitution gave the House of Representatives the sole power to initiate impeachment and the Senate the sole power to try and decide it. These are textual, exclusive powers, and the Judiciary’s role in such matters should be limited to clear, grave abuses that nullify constitutional norms. Instead, the Court stepped into the heart of a political process already underway—substituting its own judgment for that of a constitutional majority of the House. It interpreted the one-year bar so broadly that it now disables the very mechanism of impeachment in all but the rarest cases. This ruling, though perhaps well-intentioned, is a clear instance of judicial activism. It turns the Judiciary from a neutral guardian of the Constitution into an arbiter of congressional timing and internal processes—matters the Constitution never assigned to the courts. Judicial activism, if unchecked, becomes judicial supremacy. And that supremacy can, over time, paralyze the political departments that the people themselves empowered. ⸻see comment for cont. 👇🏻

Hindi lang trabaho ng mga law student mag-aral ng batas. Trabaho rin ninyo na ayusin ang mga hindi makatarungan na batas at patakaran.