Kaban ni D_BystandeR: MAY PINALABI ANG ASUNTO SA HUKMANAN???

I find the MR (Motion for recon) justified and reasonable as it tries to differentiate the common belief that the Council's resolution authorizes Mayor Mike to sell Lot No. 8 or a portion of the SRP when in fact it runs counter to the city ordinance which prohibits the sale of the lot is not to be misunderstood as the implementing tool of the original city ordinance. The ordinance should either be amended or that another ordinance be crafted to expressly support their desire to sell it. But I doubt if the judge handling the case will listen to the arguments presented in the MR considering that this judge is known to have been very fond of handling favorable decision to the city every time there is a case filed against the city government of Mayor Mike. And I will not be surprised why this judge always gives a favorable decision to the city because viewing how Mayor Mike has strongly batted for a higher monthly stipend to the judges in the city before and it only follows that some of the judges made it a point to reciprocate to the "kindness" of Mayor Mike to them. That is why when DOJ Secretary Leila De Lima earlier touched on the case of abolishing the monthly allowances given by LGUs to the judges before, I was thinking that if that was only carried out, perhaps the public perception to expect an honest-to-goodness decision from the judges for every case that they handle pertaining to the LGU concerned could be possible because there is no other compelling reason for them to be subservient in their decision to please that LGU to tinge their decision with their personal feeling to reciprocate for the token of "kindness" that they received.

Footnote: This comment came out in connection with a news item in The FREEMAN, entitled, "Reconsider ruling on SRP lot sale, lawyer asks court." It came out on November 28, 2015.