COMMON SENSE RE CJ WAIVER:
1) It is an admission that there is an existing law re bank secrecy; a waiver is needed and disclosure without consent is illegal. otherwise why will they ask if they believe that the ombudsman's act is perfectly legal?
2) If CJ will sign the waiver, they won't be accountable for violating the law since CJ signed the waiver himself.
3)it is a desperate attempt to re-enter the ill-gotten wealth accusation already rejected by the important court but being "camouflaged" as non disclosure or non-inclusion of assets in CJ's SALN.
1) It is an admission that there is an existing law re bank secrecy; a waiver is needed and disclosure without consent is illegal. otherwise why will they ask if they believe that the ombudsman's act is perfectly legal?
2) If CJ will sign the waiver, they won't be accountable for violating the law since CJ signed the waiver himself.
3)it is a desperate attempt to re-enter the ill-gotten wealth accusation already rejected by the important court but being "camouflaged" as non disclosure or non-inclusion of assets in CJ's SALN.
No comments:
Post a Comment