Monday, October 17, 2011

Someone claiming to be a lawyer sees no constitutional infirmity in HB4244 Section 28 Item E

No, I am not letting this one go. Not yet at least.

Some dipshit with a twitter account claims that once a bill passes into law, any constitutional infirmity it has will automatically no longer cease to exist.

That simply does not make sense in cases where some laws have in fact been questioned on the grounds of Constitutionality.  If what his absurd claims were in anyway true, there would be no need to file such cases in the Supreme Court.

The guy was clearly talking out of his ASS.

HB4244 Section 28 Prohibited Acts, Item E states:
(e) Any person who maliciously engages in disinformation about the intent or provisions of this Act.
Consider this in the light of Article III Section 4 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution:
No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.
Which, upon consideration, perhaps the author of HB4244 struck it out to avoid any complications in the event that it passes into law.
Author's Amendment 
5. Section 28 (e) on "Prohibited Acts" found on lines 24-25 on page 21 which reads: "Any person who maliciously engages in disinformation about the intent and provisions of this Act." should be deleted in its entirety in order to afford widest latitude to freedom of expression within the limits of existing penal statutes.
Of course he wouldn't say "because this may violate Article III Section 4 of the Philippine Constitution and look like as a douchebag.

No comments:

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...