- 1 day ago
What really transpired in the Senate, and where does the institution go from here?
Join us on Beyond the Headlines as we sit down with Retired RTC Judge Meinrado Paredes to unpack the recent events that shook the Senate, examine their constitutional and political implications, and discuss what these developments mean for the Filipino people.
Catch expert analysis and insights on one of the country's most talked-about political issues.
Join us on Beyond the Headlines as we sit down with Retired RTC Judge Meinrado Paredes to unpack the recent events that shook the Senate, examine their constitutional and political implications, and discuss what these developments mean for the Filipino people.
Catch expert analysis and insights on one of the country's most talked-about political issues.
Category
đź—ž
NewsTranscript
01:21Judge Paredes, good afternoon. Welcome to Beyond the Headlines.
01:27Thank you very much for your listeners.
01:57Jose Avellino versus Twain Cook.
02:02Mm-hmm.
05:49Number one,
05:50the file of
05:52certiorari,
05:53yung ano nangyeliswan mo,
05:56wakam mo mo
05:57authority to change.
06:00So, certiorari,
06:01another possibility,
06:04in a grave abuse of
06:05discretion,
06:07amounting to lack or excessive
06:09jurisdiction
06:09to any branch of the government,
06:14na balik pa sa toan,
06:15Abelino,
06:16ang hinawa ng Supreme Court
06:18kay political question.
06:19So, di na tumu-apply
06:21Abelino karun
06:22kay Article 8,
06:26extraordinary power
06:27of the Supreme Court.
06:30So,
06:31they diluted na ang principle
06:33sa political question,
06:36doctrine.
06:37Jawas pa,
06:38mori so din sa Supreme Court
06:39because this is a question of law.
06:43Maumungan na yung jurisdiction
06:44sa Supreme Court.
06:45A question of law.
06:48So, may interpendyo na.
06:50So,
06:51katong mga,
06:52because,
06:53thank you for clarifying
06:54that judge,
06:55so,
06:56ang katong Abelino
06:57versus Cuenco
06:58cannot be considered,
07:00and I'm just clarifying this,
07:02as a Supreme Court ruling.
07:05Oo,
07:06at para na ako,
07:07different climate
07:08bago ito.
07:09Different,
07:10the facts are not
07:12the same, no?
07:15Lahit nung nga facts
07:16ito,
07:16lahat sa ding
07:16atong itabu ka nun.
07:18So,
07:19atong tanahon,
07:20ang kalainan judge,
07:22no?
07:22Because,
07:23if we look at it,
07:24pareho tang,
07:25we're looking at
07:2622 senators,
07:28no?
07:281949 and then
07:302026.
07:31Ang kalahian lang,
07:33because,
07:33in 1949,
07:35one senator
07:36was on travel,
07:38the other one
07:39was hospitalized.
07:40In the 2022 setting,
07:43ang katong duha ka senator
07:44nga unavailable,
07:45one is detained,
07:47and the other one
07:48is hiding.
07:48Why can the
07:50interpretation of
07:51these two
07:52different man?
07:55Para na ako,
07:56di him,
07:57kahit katong
07:57abilino,
07:59na ayos sa
08:00broad,
08:00na isang na sakit.
08:01So,
08:02di siya na makakasically
08:03present
08:04sa
08:05hearing.
08:07So,
08:07kanyang ato
08:08karoon,
08:09no?
08:10Di isa na
08:11makagawa
08:12si
08:13Jingo Estada,
08:14yan,
08:14nawa na ako
08:15si
08:16Bato.
08:17Ano yung
08:18genitor,
08:18Bato.
08:19Poro na yung sitasyon na.
08:21Poro na na.
08:23So,
08:24what you're saying,
08:26judge,
08:26is these two
08:27are different
08:28situations,
08:30and
08:301949,
08:31Abilino
08:32versus
08:32Cuenco,
08:34pronouncement
08:34by the Supreme
08:35Court,
08:35is not necessarily
08:37the precedence
08:38of this
08:39situation
08:40now.
08:41Yes.
08:43Definitely.
08:44Okay.
08:45So,
08:45if that's...
08:45Dahil ang climate
08:46karoon.
08:47Okay.
08:47So,
08:48if that's
08:48the case,
08:49judge,
08:51is
08:51senator,
08:52because he is
08:52still
08:53asserting
08:54his role
08:54as the
08:55senate
08:55president.
08:56So,
08:57if that's
08:57the case,
08:58we are
08:59saying
09:00na si
09:00senator
09:00Alan
09:01Peter
09:01is still
09:03the
09:03senate
09:03president.
09:07president.
09:07Ang iyan
09:07katarungan
09:08mo ni,
09:09Hindi bolsan.
09:10Na,
09:11waman mo
09:11makailik,
09:12waman tayo
09:13makailik
09:13kung senate
09:14president.
09:15And I'm
09:16still the
09:17senate
09:17president.
09:18Hindi makasim si
09:20Kuan as
09:20acting
09:22senate
09:22president.
09:23I can tell
09:23yan.
09:27So,
09:27how will
09:28the
09:28dynamics
09:29play
09:29karoon,
09:30judge,
09:30from the
09:31way you
09:31see it
09:31on the
09:33constitutionality
09:33of the
09:34process?
09:35Karong
09:35Monday ba?
09:36Because
09:36mag-convene
09:37man ang
09:38Blue Ribbon
09:38Committee
09:39under the
09:40new
09:41leader,
09:41and that
09:42is
09:42Senator
09:42Tulfo.
09:44So,
09:45there's...
09:47Kuan,
09:48dili pa
09:48impeachment
09:49ko?
09:50Dili pa?
09:50Dili pa.
09:51Kuan pa ni,
09:52katupan ni
09:52Blue Ribbon
09:53Committee
09:53hearing.
09:54Nag-schedule
09:55man si
09:57the
09:58Kayatano
09:59block,
10:00they had
10:00their Blue
10:00Ribbon
10:01Committee,
10:02what's
10:02name siya?
10:03Lisod na siya
10:04tawagog
10:04hearing.
10:04So,
10:05inquiry
10:05yesterday,
10:07niya karong
10:07Monday said,
10:08g-schedule
10:09po sa
10:10Gatchalian
10:11block,
10:12ang ila
10:12ang Blue
10:13Ribbon
10:13Committee
10:14under this
10:15time,
10:15Senator
10:16Tulfo.
10:17So,
10:17how will
10:17that play
10:18kung
10:18assert
10:19ang
10:20Kayatano
10:20block
10:21that they
10:21are the
10:22legitimate
10:24leadership?
10:27Kung
10:28kong
10:28kong
10:28kong
10:28kong
10:28kong
10:29kong
10:29kong
10:30kong
10:30kong
10:31kong
10:31kong
10:31kong
10:32kong
10:32kong
10:33kong
10:34kong
10:35kong
10:37mga
10:37member
10:37sa
10:38committee?
10:41So,
10:42given
10:42sa
10:43kaning
10:43imong
10:44stand,
10:44Judge,
10:45the
10:45Blue
10:45Ribbon
10:46Committee
10:46inquiry
10:47yesterday
10:47was the
10:48legal
10:49one
10:49and
10:50not
10:50the
10:50one
10:51this
10:51coming
10:51Monday?
10:54Warag
10:55na yun,
10:56Anna,
10:56pero
10:57tabag
10:58ay
10:58counter
10:58argument
10:59doon.
11:00Doon
11:01na yung
11:01quorum.
11:02Doon
11:02na yung
11:02quorum.
11:03So,
11:04kong
11:04doon
11:04na yung
11:04quorum,
11:05they
11:06kind
11:06of
11:06business.
11:07Kaya,
11:08lagey
11:08mo
11:08na
11:10i-backate
11:11ang
11:11tarangkuhan
11:11ng
11:13position
11:13sa
11:14committee
11:14na
11:15may
11:16assume
11:17si
11:17Guans,
11:17ni
11:18Gatsalian,
11:19as
11:21acting
11:23deputy,
11:24deputy
11:26kanyang
11:27Senate
11:27President
11:28or acting
11:29Senate
11:30President.
11:31Pwede
11:32kaya po
11:32maka-assert
11:33sila na.
11:34Pwede
11:35kaya po,
11:35political
11:38impasse.
11:40So,
11:40how can
11:41this
11:41impasse
11:43be
11:43settled,
11:44judge?
11:45Kay
11:45muraglisud
11:45mangkayo
11:46sa
11:46ngatanan,
11:47at least
11:47from
11:47a
11:49ordinary
11:50citizen
11:50like me
11:51to look
11:51at
11:52two
11:52parallel
11:53Senate
11:54leadership
11:55assert
11:56their
11:57legitimacy.
12:02majority
12:03ma
12:04assert
12:04ang
12:05minority
12:06ma
12:06assert
12:06gubot
12:07kayo.
12:09Inigabot
12:10ala sa
12:10mga
12:10kuhan
12:11witnesses
12:11pasepin
12:13sa
12:13paduong.
12:14Marisa
12:15paduong
12:15sa
12:15kanyang
12:18tulpo.
12:19I'm
12:20sorry.
12:21Kang
12:21tulpo
12:22or
12:22kanyang
12:23kayetano.
12:24Kayetano.
12:25Now,
12:26the other
12:27question,
12:27which is
12:28this is
12:29more of
12:29an
12:30advance
12:31mag-isip.
12:32So,
12:33some people
12:33are even
12:33asking now
12:34if the
12:35impeachment
12:36trial
12:36will start
12:37in July 6,
12:38which was
12:39the schedule,
12:40and then
12:40the two
12:41will call
12:42for a
12:42trial,
12:43ahadapit
12:44mo ito
12:44nga.
12:46Kayetano
12:46na mag
12:47puro
12:48man ni
12:48July 6,
12:49no?
12:50Kanapot,
12:50that's
12:51another
12:51question.
12:52I
12:52can
12:52appear
12:53ang
12:53kuhan.
12:55representative
12:55sa
12:56house,
12:56no?
12:57O nga,
12:59o gina,
13:00I
13:00believe
13:01ato
13:01kailan
13:02siya
13:02mo
13:02dati
13:03sa
13:03kuhan,
13:04sa
13:04kang
13:05gatsalian.
13:06Pero
13:06hindi
13:07sila
13:07mo
13:07recognize
13:07sa
13:08itang
13:08kuhan,
13:09sa
13:09ng
13:10ilang
13:10kayetano,
13:10ato
13:11siya
13:11sa
13:11kang
13:12gatsalian.
13:13So,
13:14can
13:14recognize
13:17me as
13:18official
13:18of the
13:18president
13:19ang
13:19grupo
13:19ng
13:19gatsalian.
13:21O,
13:22di
13:22recognize
13:23sa
13:23presidente,
13:23recognize
13:24sa
13:24pang
13:25super
13:25representatives.
13:28So,
13:29ito
13:29ginapunta
13:29sila.
13:30Pag
13:31ilogin
13:31na sila
13:31na.
13:33So,
13:35that's a big
13:36question.
13:38Yeah,
13:38actually,
13:38montan akong
13:39next
13:39question.
13:40So,
13:41can you,
13:42judge,
13:43can you also
13:44say na
13:44from a
13:46bystander,
13:46from an
13:47everyday
13:47sebwano
13:48watching
13:48this situation
13:50unfold,
13:51given
13:52that
13:52the
13:53gatsalian
13:53leadership
13:54was
13:55already
13:55given
13:56the
13:57support
13:57by
13:58the
13:58president,
13:59the
13:59executive
14:00branch,
14:01and then
14:01the
14:01lower
14:02house,
14:02obviously,
14:03are also
14:04in support
14:05of this
14:06leadership.
14:07Can we
14:07categorically
14:08say that
14:09in terms
14:09of
14:10senate
14:10functionality,
14:11because I
14:12think that's
14:12also a
14:13consideration man
14:13in
14:14legitimacy,
14:15the
14:15senate
14:16functionality
14:16is now,
14:18the
14:18momentum
14:18is heading
14:19towards
14:20the
14:20Gatsalian
14:21block,
14:21and no
14:22longer
14:23in the
14:23Cayetano
14:24block.
14:25Yes,
14:26because
14:26as I said,
14:27there was a
14:28quorum,
14:29they can do
14:30business,
14:31get some
14:31business,
14:32and then
14:33they
14:35nagitangtang
14:36ang mga
14:36kwan,
14:37mga
14:38different
14:38committees.
14:40But
14:40the
14:40is
14:40why
14:41nagitangtang
14:43ang kwan?
14:45A
14:45question
14:45to
14:45senate
14:46president,
14:48pro-temporary,
14:51because
14:51they
14:52can do
14:53but
14:53but
14:53but
14:53they
14:54can do
14:54the
14:55Gatsalian
14:56in the
14:58kwan?
14:58So,
14:58in
14:58anong
14:59ibu,
14:59bakit
15:00ang
15:00officer
15:00kwan,
15:02senate
15:02president,
15:03on
15:03he
15:04assume
15:05kwan,
15:06Gatsalian,
15:08next
15:09to the
15:10senate
15:10president,
15:11is the
15:13vice
15:14president,
15:15who
15:16is
15:17Gatsalian?
15:20Now,
15:21let's
15:22move
15:22towards
15:23the
15:24co-equal
15:26treatment
15:28of all
15:29three
15:29branches.
15:30So,
15:31that means
15:31executive,
15:32legislative,
15:34or judiciary,
15:35they are
15:35all
15:36co-equal
15:37branches.
15:38But
15:39with
15:39the
15:39president
15:40issuing
15:41a statement
15:42that
15:43he
15:43supports
15:44the
15:45legitimacy
15:45of the
15:46Gatsalian
15:47block,
15:47what does
15:48this
15:49say
15:49also,
15:50judge,
15:51in your
15:51view,
15:52about the
15:52independence
15:53of the
15:55legislative
15:55branch?
15:56So,
16:03what does
16:04that
16:04say
16:05also
16:05on the
16:05independence
16:06of these
16:07two
16:08equal
16:08branches?
16:14So,
16:29if, for
16:30example,
16:31mag
16:31special
16:31session
16:32but
16:32this
16:33time,
16:34obviously,
16:34if he
16:34does
16:35that
16:35because
16:35he
16:35already
16:35made
16:36a
16:36pronouncement,
16:37he
16:37will
16:37have
16:37a
16:38special
16:38session
16:39with
16:39the
16:39Gatsalian
16:40block.
16:41What's
16:41the
16:42implication
16:42if he
16:43does
16:43that
16:44to the
16:44Cayetano
16:45block?
16:52Actually,
16:52it looks like,
16:53no?
16:56This is a
16:58question of
16:59law.
17:00Only the
17:01Supreme Court
17:02can
17:02resolve.
17:04So,
17:05you're
17:05saying,
17:06actually,
17:06judge,
17:07that
17:08either
17:09the
17:09Gatsalian
17:10block
17:10or the
17:11Cayetano
17:11block
17:12should
17:12elevate
17:13this
17:13to the
17:14Supreme
17:14Court
17:14for the
17:15Supreme
17:15Court
17:15to have
17:16the
17:18Supreme
17:19Court,
17:20even if
17:20it's a
17:20co-equal
17:21branch,
17:21to also
17:22issue
17:23its
17:23ruling,
17:24no?
17:26Mm-hmm.
17:27As I
17:28said,
17:29what
17:29is
17:29the
17:30Constitution
17:30is
17:30Constitution.
17:33It's
17:34not a
17:34political
17:35question.
17:36It's
17:37not a
17:37political
17:38question
17:38in
17:39the
17:40Abilino.
17:41So,
17:42the
17:42Supreme
17:43Court
17:43is
17:44an
17:45extraordinary
17:45power.
17:47If
17:47there
17:47is
17:48grave
17:48abuse
17:48of
17:49expression,
17:50amounting
17:51to
17:51law
17:51for
17:51jurisdiction
17:53to
17:53any
17:54branch
17:55or
17:55instrumentality
17:56of the
17:56government,
17:57it's
17:58going to
17:58support
17:58the
17:59Supreme
17:59Court.
18:00I
18:01repeat,
18:02expanded
18:03jurisdiction
18:04of the
18:05Supreme
18:05Court.
18:06Article
18:078,
18:08the
18:09Constitution.
18:10So,
18:11given the
18:12expanded
18:12scope
18:13of
18:14jurisdiction
18:15of the
18:16Supreme
18:17Court,
18:17you're
18:18saying,
18:18actually,
18:18judge,
18:19that in
18:20this
18:20particular
18:21impasse,
18:22the
18:22Supreme
18:23Court
18:23can
18:23intervene?
18:25Yes.
18:26If there
18:27is a
18:27petition,
18:29Okay.
18:29So,
18:30a petition
18:30needs to
18:31be filed
18:31by either
18:32of the
18:33two
18:33blocks,
18:33no?
18:34Either.
18:35it may
18:37be
18:37co-warranted
18:37by what
18:38authority
18:38are you
18:39holding
18:39the
18:40position
18:41of
18:41Senate
18:41President
18:42or
18:43censorary
18:44with
18:45injunction
18:45and
18:46TRO.
18:48Although,
18:49actually,
18:49although,
18:50input
18:51lang din ako,
18:52judge,
18:52because
18:52yesterday,
18:53I saw a
18:54very
18:54interesting
18:55perspective
18:55by
18:56attorney
18:59Paulo
19:00Panelo,
19:00no?
19:01When he
19:02actually said
19:03na,
19:03potentially,
19:04the
19:04reasons
19:05also
19:05that
19:06not
19:07one
19:07of
19:08the
19:08block
19:08are
19:09still
19:09petitioning
19:10the
19:10Supreme
19:10Court
19:11because
19:12he
19:12said
19:12that
19:12whoever
19:14files
19:15the
19:15petition
19:15would
19:16actually
19:16look
19:17like
19:17the
19:18illegitimate
19:18one.
19:21So,
19:22that's
19:22also one
19:23of the
19:23reasons
19:23why
19:24nobody
19:24is
19:25moving.
19:25If
19:26they
19:26reclamo
19:27ko
19:27nila,
19:27meaning,
19:28they
19:28are
19:28the
19:28petitioned,
19:29I
19:30am
19:30the
19:30petitioned.
19:31And
19:31nobody
19:31wants
19:32to
19:32acknowledge
19:32that
19:32also.
19:33So,
19:34given
19:34the
19:34impasse,
19:35yes,
19:36Judge?
19:37Not
19:37necessarily.
19:38Ah,
19:38okay,
19:39sige.
19:39Not
19:40necessarily.
19:41So,
19:43the
19:43drama
19:44niya
19:46at
19:46this
19:47time.
19:47Because
19:48while
19:49the
19:50momentum
19:50in terms
19:51of
19:51acknowledgement
19:52is on
19:53the
19:53Gatsalian
19:54block,
19:55can you
19:55say,
19:57Judge,
19:57we are
19:58heading
19:59towards a
20:00constitutional
20:01crisis?
20:03Yes.
20:03Congress,
20:04right?
20:05Isang
20:05mo
20:05mag-move
20:06sa
20:06Congress?
20:08Isang
20:08mo
20:08mag-legislate
20:11na
20:12tunga
20:12man sila?
20:13Correct.
20:14Oh.
20:16And
20:17then,
20:17what
20:18actually
20:18qualifies
20:19a
20:19constitutional
20:20crisis
20:21in the
20:21overall
20:22judge?
20:26What
20:27constitutes
20:28man
20:28na
20:28makaingunt
20:29na
20:29this
20:30is
20:30a
20:31constitutional
20:31crisis
20:32na?
20:32Number
20:34one,
20:34interpretation
20:35sa
20:36Constitution.
20:39There
20:39must be
20:41a
20:42Senate
20:42President.
20:44Kunya,
20:46mag-away
20:46ang
20:46legislators.
20:49Una
20:50nga,
20:51mag-constitutional
20:52crisis
20:52kita siya.
20:54Kinala
20:55mo na
20:56i-resolve.
20:57It
20:58is a
20:58matter
20:58of
20:59interpreting
20:59the
21:00Constitution.
21:02And
21:02for
21:02this
21:03to
21:03be
21:03resolved,
21:04somebody
21:04will
21:04have
21:05to
21:05file
21:05a
21:05petition
21:06to
21:06the
21:06Supreme
21:07Court
21:07and
21:07then
21:07the
21:07Supreme
21:08Court
21:08will
21:08have
21:08to
21:09intervene
21:09to
21:10resolve
21:10this
21:11impasse.
21:12Is that
21:12what we're
21:12saying?
21:13Yes.
21:13Correct.
21:14Now,
21:15let's move
21:16also
21:16about
21:18part of
21:19the
21:20democratic
21:20process.
21:21If we
21:21can see
21:22also,
21:22once a
21:23Supreme
21:24Court
21:24would
21:24issue
21:25a
21:25ruling,
21:26the
21:26example
21:26that I
21:27can
21:27make
21:28was
21:28when
21:28the
21:29Supreme
21:29Court
21:30made
21:30a
21:30ruling
21:31with
21:31respect
21:32to
21:32the
21:32Vice
21:33President's
21:33impeachment
21:34last
21:34year,
21:35napunto
21:35yung
21:35mga
21:35former
21:36justices
21:37na
21:37murag
21:38ni
21:38contradict
21:39to
21:40the
21:41Supreme
21:43Court
21:43ruling.
21:44And
21:44there
21:44are
21:44also
21:45quote
21:45unquote
21:45constitutional
21:46experts
21:47and
21:48deans
21:49who
21:49would
21:49also
21:49contradict.
21:51How
21:51complicated
21:52is the
21:52situation
21:53now?
21:54Granting
21:55the
21:55Supreme
21:55Court
21:56will
21:56say,
21:57we
21:57acknowledge
21:58the
21:58Cayetano
21:59Black.
22:02We
22:02acknowledge
22:04the
22:05Catalan
22:06Group.
22:06Correct.
22:08Very
22:10empowered
22:11with the
22:11democratic
22:12process
22:12to have
22:13their
22:13own
22:13stay.
22:14That
22:15has
22:15to
22:15be
22:15resolved
22:16by
22:16the
22:16Supreme
22:16Court.
22:17And
22:18then
22:18split
22:18the
22:20decision.
22:21Split.
22:24Okay.
22:26So
22:26Karunpud,
22:27as a
22:29bystander
22:29said,
22:30when I
22:30look at
22:31legal
22:32luminaries
22:33and then
22:33they end
22:34up
22:34contradicting
22:35each
22:35other,
22:36So
22:37do you
22:38think
22:39this is
22:39an
22:41issue
22:41also
22:41about
22:42political
22:44biases
22:44or are
22:45these
22:45people
22:46convinced
22:46espod
22:47are
22:49arguing
22:50by virtue
22:51of their
22:52interpretation
22:52of the
22:53Constitution?
22:55Natural.
22:56Legal
22:57luminaries
22:58are
22:59arguing
23:00non-group
23:00correct.
23:02Correct.
23:07So
23:08the way
23:08things are
23:09going,
23:09Judge,
23:10it's really
23:10just the
23:11Supreme
23:11Court
23:11who can
23:13resolve this
23:14impasse
23:15then?
23:16Yes,
23:17because
23:17this is
23:18a
23:18question
23:18of
23:19law.
23:20As a
23:20question
23:20of
23:21law,
23:21the Supreme
23:21Court,
23:23besides
23:24what are
23:25involved
23:25in Congress,
23:27there is
23:29a
23:29petition
23:29file.
23:32And
23:32then,
23:32to close
23:33this
23:34interview,
23:34Judge,
23:34and we're
23:35really
23:35grateful
23:36for your
23:36time,
23:36what do
23:37you think
23:38should
23:38be
23:39should
23:39everyday
23:40Filipinos,
23:41everyday
23:41Cebuanos
23:42like me,
23:43who is
23:43not an
23:44expert
23:44in
23:45legality
23:46or
23:46constitutionality,
23:48what should
23:48be the
23:49right
23:49attitude
23:49that we
23:50should
23:50have
23:51given
23:51the
23:52arguments
23:53and the
23:53debates
23:54of
23:54legal
23:55luminaries
23:55that are
23:56going on
23:57this time?
23:59Be
24:00objective.
24:01But
24:02it's not
24:02the
24:02political
24:06groups.
24:07It's not
24:08the
24:08legal
24:08thing.
24:09So
24:10it's not
24:10just
24:10to
24:11the
24:11Supreme
24:12Court
24:13outside
24:14that
24:17becomes
24:17part
24:18of
24:18the
24:18law
24:18of
24:18the
24:18land.
24:21Sige,
24:22thank you
24:22very much
24:23Judge
24:23for your
24:24time and
24:25your
24:25expertise.
24:27so that
24:28was retired
24:30RTC
24:31judge
24:32Paredes
24:33on the
24:33phone.
24:34And so
24:35I think
24:36we will
24:36know that
24:37I think
24:37we have to
24:38continue to
24:39monitor and
24:39be engaged
24:40in this
24:41debate,
24:42ongoing
24:42debate.
24:43Come
24:44Monday,
24:44there's going
24:45to be a
24:45Blue Ribbon
24:46hearing,
24:47but this
24:48time from
24:48the
24:49new
24:49majority
24:50block.
24:51I'll put
24:51quotes for
24:52now,
24:52majority
24:53block,
24:54and it's
24:54headed by
24:55Senator
24:55Tulfo.
24:56And the
24:57bigger
24:57question,
24:58as we
24:58covered
24:58also in
24:59the
25:00conversation
25:00with
25:01Judge
25:01Paredes,
25:02is because
25:03July 6
25:04is also
25:04coming,
25:05and how
25:06will that
25:06also be
25:07resolved,
25:08considering
25:09that at
25:09this
25:10point,
25:10there
25:11appears
25:11to be
25:12two
25:12leadership
25:13blocks
25:14that are
25:14asserting
25:15themselves
25:16to be
25:17the
25:18legitimate
25:18one.
25:19And
25:19per Judge
25:19Paredes
25:20earlier,
25:21per his
25:21view,
25:22the
25:23constitutionality
25:24of one
25:25of these
25:25blocks will
25:26have to
25:27be resolved
25:27by a
25:29Supreme
25:29Court
25:29ruling,
25:30but first
25:31a petition
25:31needs to
25:32be filed.
25:33So in
25:33a democracy,
25:35disagreements
25:36are inevitable.
25:37Every
25:38constitution
25:39will encounter
25:40situations
25:40its framers
25:41could not
25:42have fully
25:43anticipated.
25:44But if
25:45we remain
25:46committed
25:46to the
25:47rule of
25:47law,
25:48then the
25:49constitution
25:49is doing
25:50exactly
25:51what it
25:51was
25:51designed
25:52to do.
25:54Political
25:55battles
25:55come and
25:56go,
25:56but our
25:57commitment
25:57to the
25:58constitution
25:58must
25:59remain.
26:00This is
26:01Beyond the
26:01Headlines.
26:02I'm
26:02DJ Moises.
26:03Have a
26:03good
26:03afternoon.
26:04afternoon.
Comments