HIS TESTIMONY / SOLONS RALLY BEHIND SPEAKER
[PHOTO - SPEAKER SONNY
BELMONTE WITH PNoy AQUINO]
MANILA,
MARCH 14, 2012 (TRIBUNE) By
Charlie V. Manalo - Navotas Rep. Toby Tiangco remains in fighting form yesterday
and even dared Speaker Feliciano Belmonte to appear before the impeachment court
to dispute his testimony last Monday wherein he alleged President Aquino had a
direct hand in the initiation of the impeachment by the House against Supreme
Court (SC) Chief Justice Renato Corona through his minions in the House of
Representatives.
Appearing live over a morning show at GMA 7, Tiangco reiterated his claim
which he first aired in a privilege speech last December, that Belmonte, during
an all-majority caucus last December 12, the day Corona was impeached, barred
members of the House from raising any question on the impeachment complaint they
were set to file against the Chief Justice, which was to be presented to them
through a power point presentation.
"The Speaker said, after the presentation, 'those who wanted to sign go
ahead, those who don't, it is up to you."
When Congressman (Rodolfo) Biazon asked for a copy of the complaint, the
Speaker answered, 'it is still being done,'" said Tiangco.
Tiangco further said that he volunteered to testify before the Senate to
dispel any accusation he is hiding under the cloak of parliamentary immunity to
escape legal liabilities.
At that juncture, Arnold Clavio, the show's host, asked Belmonte what his
reaction to Tiangco's testimony made under oath.
"Speaker, what is your reaction, Congressman Tiangco made his testimony under
oath?" Clavio asked the Speaker.
"If you're trying to intimidate me, I'm willing to also speak under oath,"
Belmonte replied.
To which Tiangco retorted, "Speaker, if you want to speak under oath, why not
testify voluntarily, not here on TV," he said.
However, Belmonte refused to engage Tiangco in a heated debate and simply
told the host, "Let's go on, Arnold."
During the same show, Tiangco lashed back at House Majority Leader,
Mandaluyong Rep. Neptali "Boyet" Gonzales II who had claimed his threat of
expelling the Navotas solon for revealing before the impeachment court what
transpired in their December 12, 2011 caucus, was simply a friendly reminder.
"This is the first time I heard that a threat to have you expelled from an
organization is a friendly reminder," said Tiangco. "They intend to boot you out
and they are saying that's a friendly reminder."
The Navotas solon said that if he ever caused pain or hurt someone with his
testimony, it was not his fault as his only aim was to bare the truth.
Meanwhile, in a press briefing, Zambales Rep. Ma. Milagros Magsaysay backed
Tiangco, describing him as a hero for braving even the threat of expulsion just
to reveal the truth behind the Corona impeachment.
"For me, he's a hero in the sense that he's not afraid to speak the truth.
And for the people, that is what matters most. And for that, I salute him," said
Magsaysay. "And if my colleagues want to protect the House and the institution,
then they better assert themselves that the House is a co-equal branch of
government and should not be subservient to the Executive branch," she added.
The Zambales solon also validated Tiangco's claim they were not given the
chance to read the articles of impeachment against the Chief Justice.
"I affirm 100 percent that everything Toby said is true. Even if we, members
of the minority, were not present during the caucus, we were also prevented from
raising questions at the plenary. We were only shown a copy of the articles of
impeachment but we were not given a copy thus we were not able to read it,"
Magsaysay recalled.
"When someone asked Secretary General Marilyn Yap how long it took for the
congressmen to read ans sign the document, she answered initially 30 minutes,
then changed her answer to 45 minutes before settling with one hour. Just
imagine how 188 congressmen were able to read, sign and understand that
(articles of impeachment) in just an hour," Magsaysay said.
So, you could clearly see the treachery this administration had fed unto its
allies in the House of Representatives," Magsaysay averred.
House majority leader Mandaluyong Rep. Neptali Gonzales said the move of
Corona's lawyers to cite him in contempt for allegedly pressuring Tiangco from
testifying is baseless.
Gonzales said that he never tried to prevent Tiangco from testifying even as
he recalled that what he said was a reminder to Tiangco on the possibility that
he could say something that would besmirched the name of the House of
Representative as an institution.
"I said we will not prevent him from testifying but I merely issued a gentle
reminder I hope for his sake on what he might say and not on his testimony which
is a different story," Gonzales said.
"I hope, I said, he will not say something that will be considered as causing
dishonor or mislead the reputation of the House members either singly or
collectively or the House as an institution," Gonzales added.
Gonzales said that as the majority leader he is tasked to make sure that
lawmakers observe the rules of the House.
He said that the statement about sanctions came out in an interview when
reporters asked him about possible sanctions meted to erring lawmakers.
He said that what he said, was not a threat as Tiangco perceived it to be,
but merely a statement about the possible sanctions which are provided for under
the House Rules and under the Constitution.
"It is just stating what is provided for by our rules and what is provided
for by the Constitution. Siya (Tinagco)na lang yung nag-view dun as a threat but
I have no control over his emotions," Gonzales said.
The majority leader said that the testimony of Tiangco and the reports about
other lawmakers being subpoenaed by the Senate Impeachment Court is part of
Corona's plot to divert public attention from the real issues hounding the chief
justice.
"I think all of these are designed to distract us. To distract us all," he
said.
A Palace official also defended Aquino saying that he has nothing to do with
the issue of withholding the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) of
Congressmen despite Tiangco's claim on how members of the House of
Representatives were threatened to be denied of their pork barrel allocations if
they do not support the impeachment complaint.
Deputy Presidential spokesperson Abigail Valte maintained Aquino was not
responsible for the withholding of the PDAF which was stated in Tiangco's
testimony on Monday, wherein he related a text message from Budget Secretary
Florencio Abad after Tiangco blamed Abad for the withholding of his pork barrel
and indirectly named President Aquino as being responsible for the withholding
of the PDAF. Gerry Baldo, Danessa O. Rivera
Tiangco bares Palace links in House impeach express
By Benjamin B. Pulta and Angie M. Rosales 03/13/2012 THE TRIBUNE
The first witness of Chief Justice Renato Corona in the impeachment
trial painted yesterday a vivid picture of how members of the House of
Representatives were threatened with their pork barrel being withheld by
Malacanang if they questioned the railroading of the impeachment complaint
against Corona.
Navotas Rep. Tobias Tiangco took the witness stand for the defense despite
vigorous objections from the prosecution panel on his testimony over what
happened in last
December's focus which approved the impeachment complaint.
Under direct examination by defense counsel Dennis Manalo, Tiangco said
Speaker Feliciano Belmonte told congressmen that the impeachment was
'non-debatable'.
House prosecutor Rodolfo Farinas objected against Tiangco's testimony
claiming that the proceedings of the house in caucus is secret and should not be
divulged. Farinas was overruled by Senate President Juan Ponce-Enrile.
At one point Tiangco related that a text message from Budget Secretary
Florencio Abad after Tiangco blamed Abad for the withholding of his Priority
Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) or pork barrel that indirectly named
President Aquino as being responsible for the withholding of the PDAF.
According to Tiangco the Abad's text message read: "On my own I can't
withhold PDAF. Talk to PNoy through the Speaker for help along this line."
Tiangco added two lawmakers, former senator Rodolfo Biazon and Rufus
Rodriguez had questioned the hurried proceedings in the House despite an
outright order that lawmakers are not allowed to ask questions about the
impeachment complaint.
Tiangco testified that there were around 120 to 130 congressmen present while
he attended the caucus which he said he originally thought was called for the
passing of the house version of the Reproductive Health Bill.
The defense witness explaining his rejection of the impeachment complaint
said he "did not sign impeachment complaint because I haven't read it, felt it
was an attempt to control/scare the Supreme Court." and added he was not
convinced there was probable cause to impeach Corona since the presentation by
Rep. Niel Tupas did not include any documents , at the time.
Tiangco rreiterated that Belmonte said no questions will be entertained on
Corona impeachment and said Tupas merely presented bullet points on articles of
impeachment during the caucus.
Recalling the opposition to the railroaded proceedings, Tiangco recalled Rep.
Biazon voiced his complaint on why there was a meeting called without an agenda
to which Tiangco claimed Belmonte replied that the 'it was still being
prepared'.
Even before the Corona impeachment Tiangco claims his share of the Priority
Development and Assistance Fund (PDAF) was delayed after he voted against the
huried impeachment proceedings against former Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez .
Despite confirmation from the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) that
three of the four infrastructure projects was already approved, delays plagued
the release of his special allotment release order (SARO) after he voted against
the Gutierrez impeachment and said palace proxies made it clear that lawmakers
who refused to toe the line will face consequences."I don't want to catch the
ire of the most powerful man in the Philippines." Tiangco quipped.
Corona's lawyers, before proceeding with their presentation, attempted anew
to dismiss the Articles of Impeachment due to its defects and lack of probable
cause but was thumbed down by the court.
The Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, announced at the resumption of
the trial proceedings its ruling not to entertain the defense panel's motion to
dismiss the so-called "abandoned" Articles 1,4,5,6 and 8 or the five charges
"waived" by the prosecution.
Both the prosecution and the defense panel, however, have been barred from
introducing evidence or information dwelling or surrounding these "dropped"
charges since senator-judges will not be rendering any verdict or cast vote on
the said articles.
But despite the negative rulings, the defense panel still managed to present
Navotas Rep. Tobias Tiango as their first witness to supposedly establish the
fact that the filing of the impeachment complaint against Corona was
politically-motivated.
Tiangco was among those sought to be subpoenaed by the defense counsels along
with several other members and key officers of the House of Representatives but
was denied by the Senate impeachment court.
Tiango was able to take the witness stand only after more than two hours of
debates, singlehandedly engaged in by lead defense counsel, former Justice
Serafin Cuevas with senator-judges, on the nullification of the Articles of
Impeachment filed by 188 congressmen , adding that there was no determination of
probable cause before the impeachment tribunal proceeded with the trial.
Cuevas contended that there was neither notice or preliminary hearing
afforded to the chief magistrate on the complaint that he claimed suffers from a
serious flaw as there was no probable cause to charge Corona.
The former justice also told the impeachment tribunal that should they
proceed with the trial and render a verdict on a flawed complaint, there may be
a case for grave abuse of discretion that can be elected before the high court.
"Left with no alternative, where do we do your honors?" he asked, pointing
out that the SC can be asked to invoke its judicial power of review if the
Senate impeachment court will quash its motion citing the lack of probable cause
of the impeachment complaint.
Cuevas, however, was reminded by presiding officer, Senate President Juan
Ponce Enrile, that it's already too late in the day to raise the issues he
raised, including that matter of lack of verification of the so-called charge
sheet at this point since they have already proceeded with the trial.
Enrile, likewise emphasized to the defense panel that they will not allow the
SC to override the judgment of the impeachment court.
"With outmost regret and due respect to the SC, we will deny any interference
of the SC in this impeachment court," Enrile said, before calling a suspension
of the proceedings to consult with his colleagues the matters raised by Cuevas.
When they resumed the proceedings, another round of heated debates ensued, as
Corona's lead counsel refused to back down, citing a precedent case where the SC
took cognizance of an impeachment-related case in the past that since the
complaint lacks a proper verification, "it should be treated as an unsigned
pleading which produces no legal effect and should therefore be dismissed."
"The Jan. 18 ruling of this court categorically validated the verification.
It ruled, 'it, appearing that the filing of the verified impeachment complaint
was made in accordance with paragraph 4, section 3, Article 11 of the
Constitution, there is no more need for a preliminary hearing to receive
evidence on this matter'," said Sen. Franklin Drilon.
"If there was no need to present evidence on the matter of the preliminary
hearing, there is no need to present evidence for affirmative defenses. So it is
not true that it was only the motion for preliminary hearing that was denied. It
is the validity of the verification itself that was ruled upon and the purpose
obviously of a hearing on the affirmative defenses is to have the case dismissed
because of lack of proper verification which has already been ruled upon by this
court on Jan. 18, 2012," Drilon added.
"If that that commentary your honor was made by the members of the
prosecution arm, we would have no objection your honor. We are worried your
honor that this maybe interpreted as an argument by a prosecutor," Cuevas
commented.
For a while, there was tension between the two especially when Drilon raised
his voice on the former SC justice, noting on record that he took offense of the
statement made by the defense counsel.
Enrile then directed Majority Leader Vicente Sotto III to read the resolution
cited by Drilon, which made mention of the similar issue in the impeachment
complaint of former Pres. Joseph Estrada on the matter of verification, saying
that "verification like in most cases required by the rules of procedure is a
formal and not a jurisdictional requirement to secure an assurance that matters
which are alleged are done in good faith or are true and correct and not of mere
speculation" and that there appears to be no cogent reason to depart from this
ruling in 2000.
"May I ask, just what is the objective of the defense in filing this motion?
What is your goal because as I see it, supposing the Senate grants your request
and it turns out that the allegations about the defects are true, would you say
that the Senate has to dismiss the complaint?" asked Sen. Joker Arroyo.
"To us your honor, it will appear that there is no valid complaint because
the complaint was not in accordance with what the Constitution requires which is
the right of an impeached public official to due process and the requirement of
due process states notice and hearing," responded Cuevas.
"Ergo, what you mean is if you successfully prove your allegations, the
Senate must perforce, dismiss the complaint?" Arroyo inquired.
"I do not think there is nothing illegal in that," the chief defense counsel
retorted, adding that they have predicaed their action on a previous SC
decision, where the issue of violation of due process on an impeached official
can be brought before the SC.
Arroyo pointed out that the matter cited by Cuevas in which SC managed to
issue a decision, did not even managed to be transmitted by the House of
Representatives to the Senate, meaning the upper chamber has not acquired
jurisdiction unlike in the case of Corona.
"Precisely that was the basis of the ruling in that case, that if it is not
honored by the House of Representatives, then you can bring it up before the
impeachment court which is the Senate. That's not my pronouncement. That is the
pronouncment of the court. It remains valid unless modified, reversed or revoked
by the Honorable SC," said Cuevas.
Arroyo said the defense counsel should have sought legal remedy before the SC
when the case was transmitted by the lower house and availed of this tact during
the holiday season last year, long before actual trial proceedings started.
"There is no possible time. It was a blitzkrieg action. If you have gone over
our complaint, we have delineated very particularly and specifically why we were
not able to act one way or the other. It's like being hit by thunder, ur honor.
Wala na," Cuevas lamented.
Enrile then made a ruling, thumbing down the motion of defense panel.
"Under the Constitution, the sole power to try and decide all impeachment
cases belong to this court. Only this court has the jurisdiction, the SC has no
jurisdiction to try and decide impeachment cases. That's one.
"Once the Articles of impchmtn reaches this house, the command of the
Constitution is the trial shall forthwith proceed. Due process is not only the
sole function of the House of Representatives. Due process is a function of this
House that tries and decides all impeachment cases.
"The facts in this case are that, an articles of impeachment was referred to
the Senate by the House, 188 members of the House filed that Articles of
Impeachment to this House and the named complainant in that impeachment case are
Reps. Niel C. Tupas Jr., Joseph Emilio A. Abaya, Lorenzo R. Tanada III, Reynaldo
V. Umali and Arlene J. Bag-ao.
"When the Senate sitting as an Impeachment Court received the Articles of
Impeachment, it issued the proper processes, to notify and inform the respondent
of the existence of this Articles of Impeachment against him and requested or
ordered the respondent to file his answer within 10 days which the respondent
chief justice did and a reply was equally filed by the prosecution with respect
to the answer filed by the respondent chief justice so that at least this court
has followed the principle of due process that is demanded in a case like this,"
said Enrile.
"And so therefore, having made the ruling that this court assumed
jurisdiction under the full faith and credit given to the processes of the House
of Representatives and knowing that it has jurisdiction, we proceeded with the
trial and so therefore, as much as we want to accommodate the desire of the
defense, this presiding officer, with the permission of the impeachment court,
regrets to deny the desire of the defense," he added.
On the matter of the motion of the defense panel to formally dismiss Articles
1,4,5,6 and 8 of the Articles of Impeachment, Enrile announced that they have
decided during their caucus prior to the trial proceedings "not to act, not to
entertain" on the said pleading "with the clear understanding however that no
evidence from both prosecution and defense panels will be received by the
Impeachment Court on these issues.
"And furthermore, the members of the impeachment court will not render any
vote on Articles 1,4,5,6 and 8 and that no verdict of the impeachment court will
be rendered on Articles 1,4,5,6 and 8. So ordered," Enrile declared.
A party-list lawmaker who signed the articles of impeachment against Corona
branded House Majority Leader, Mandaluyong Rep. Neptali Gonzales III as "pikon"
or a sore loser for threatening Tiangco with expulsion should he demean his
colleagues in the House with his testimony before the Senate impeachment court.
In a statement, Kabataan Rep. Raymond Palatino said that instead of
threatening to expel Tiangco, the House leadership should expel lawmakers
notorious for absenteeism. Charlie V. Manalo
FROM THENPHILSTAR
Lawmakers rally behind Speaker over Toby testimony
By Paolo Romero (The Philippine Star) Updated March 14, 2012 12:00
AMComments (8)
MANILA, Philippines - Pro-administration lawmakers rallied yesterday
behind Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. and maintained the constitutionality of
the impeachment of Chief Justice Renato Corona at the House of Representatives.
In a statement, Ang Kasangga Rep. Ted Haresco described as "absolutely false"
Navotas Rep. Tobias Tiangco's allegations that Malacañang used the Priority
Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) or pork barrel to pressure them to sign the
impeachment complaint.
"We lawmakers stake our personal honor and (are) morally compelled to follow
our leader, Speaker Feliciano Belmonte, when we joined the majority – that's the
way of honorable men," he said.
Haresco said the House members represent the various socio-economic classes
of their various districts, "and more so with the party-list lawmakers."
"So to state that lawmakers are afraid to lose their PDAF is to impugn and
second guess a colleague's intent."
Tiangco should not backhandedly ascribe to House members a materialistic
focus on PDAF, Haresco said.
Quezon City Rep. Winston Castelo disputed Tiangco's statement that Belmonte
warned House members that no questions will be entertained during the caucus of
pro-administration lawmakers in December.
"You're free to sign or not to sign and we'll remain friends," he quoted
Belmonte as saying.
House Majority Leader Neptali Gonzales II said the genuine desire to bring
about much-needed judicial reforms motivated Corona's impeachment, not the PDAF.
"Congressman Tiangco must be referring to himself when he said Corona's
impeachment was motivated by PDAF," he said.
Gonzales said Tiangco's assertion was an "insult" to the 188 lawmakers who
signed the impeachment complaint against Corona.
"The 188 congressmen who signed the impeachment complaint were only motivated
by the desire to hold a high official accountable for his manifest partiality to
his patron and for amassing undeclared and unexplained wealth," he said.
"Any congressman who ascribes sinister motives to this pristine motive is
probably one who is uncomfortable with reforms being pursued by the present
administration."
Movement 188, the lawmakers who signed the impeachment complaint, also backed
Belmonte's leadership and asserted that all of them had signed the impeachment
complaint "freely and resolutely."
"We live in a democracy, so we respect Toby's own belief that he saw no
probable cause for Corona's impeachment – even if his view seems to be a
solitary one as against the conviction of an overwhelming majority of his peers
in the House, who had signed the impeachment complaint, that Mr. Corona had
committed acts of betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the
Constitution that warrant his immediate eviction from the Supreme Court," the
group said.
It's up to Tiangco's peers - Belmonte
It's up to Rep. Tiangco's peers in the House of Representatives to punish him
for alleged misconduct, Speaker Belmonte said yesterday
"Let's hear what the other members of the House have to say. I am just one
member," he said in a radio interview.
Testifying for Chief Justice Corona Monday, the Navotas lawmaker said the
release of his pork barrel fund allocation for 2011 was delayed because he
refused to support the impeachment of then Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez.
A Department of Budget and Management report shows that Tiangco received his
full P70-million allocation in several releases between July 27 and Nov. 9.
Belmonte said not all House members get their fund releases at the same time.
"We have 285 members," he said. "Not all can get their releases at the same
time, and not all get their allocations on time. So he's just giving importance
to himself."
In a television interview, Majority Leader Gonzales said Tiangco should
expect disciplinary proceedings to be initiated against him.
"This is not a threat, this is fair warning," he said.
Gonzales said Tiangco's testimony before the impeachment court on Monday has
angered many House members.
"They expressed anger over what he claimed was a 'modus operandi' in the
House," he said.
"He made it appear there is a scheme to maneuver things. That is an insult to
the entire House and to its members."
In his testimony, Tiangco referred to a "pattern to control or scare the
judiciary," citing the impeachment complaints filed against Corona and Associate
Justice Mariano del Castillo, and the reported planned impeachment of two more
justices.
Tiangco said he would accept whatever punishment his peers would impose on
him.
"I was just telling the truth," he said.
Cavite Rep. Jesus Crispin Remulla said he believes Tiangco is in trouble with
his peers in the House.
He was not sure if Tiangco has committed misconduct "but he is now walking a
thin gray line," he added.
However, he does not believe the House would suspend or expel the first-term
Navotas lawmaker, Remulla said.
Tiangco's testimony pointless – Palace
Malacañang sees the testimony of Tiangco as pointless and irrelevant, since
he himself admitted receiving his PDAF without signing the impeachment
complaints against Corona and Gutierrez.
Deputy presidential spokesperson Abigail Valte said they cannot dictate on
the public what impression to get from the testimony of Tiangco.
"We can assure you that there was no pressure exerted on him because he said
it himself, " she said.
"He did not sign the impeachment complaint, but he was able to get the
release of his PDAF in tranches as emphasized by (Ilocos Norte) Congressman
(Rodolfo) Fariñas.
"I did catch also an interview of Congressman Remulla, and he did say also
that his (PDAF) was also released. And they are congressmen who did not sign the
impeachment complaint, referring to the complaint that was filed against the
former Ombudsman Mercy Gutierrez."
Budget and Management Secretary Florencio Abad said the P70-million PDAF of
Tiangco had been released as of Nov. 9, 2011.
"Representative Tiangco miserably fails in his attempt to establish that we
have a policy of withholding the PDAF releases of solons who voted against the
two impeachment complaints," he said.
"On the contrary, the PDAF of legislators who voted against these impeachment
complaints were released in 2011."
The 2011 PDAF of other lawmakers who did not endorse the impeachment
complaints against Gutierrez and Corona had also been released, Abad said.
Abad said Tiangco's testimony is irrelevant to the impeachment trial as it
doesn't establish a policy or pattern.
"Rather, it is merely a ploy of the defense to buy time and delay the
impeachment proceedings, as it is unable to put together a credible defense for
Corona," he said.
Abad said the PDAF releases are reflected on the Department of Budget and
Management (DBM) website http://www.dbm.gov.ph/pdaf.php.
The DBM earlier rolled out its Electronic Transparency and Accountability
Initiative for Lump-Sum Funds (E-TAILS) System, which automatically uploads
information on PDAF releases online, he added.
The Special Allotment Release Orders charged against the PDAF allocation of
Tiangco dated July 27, Aug. 1, Oct. 27 and Nov. 9 came well ahead of the day
when the House transmitted the impeachment complaint against Corona to the
Senate on Dec. 12, 2011.
Valte said Malacañang would not want to meddle in the internal dynamics of
the House as Gonzales said Tiangco would face an ethics complaint after
testifying.
"Let the senator-judges themselves speak of the proceedings (Monday)," she
said.
"I believe some of them have already commented on the first day of the
defense presentation. In the first place, Congressman Tiangco admitted that he
did not sign the complaint and that the purported reason or the purported
allegation that he was threatened – or the supposed consequence – was already
disavowed by his own testimony. So let's just leave it at that."
The lawmakers who voted against the impeachment complaints include
Representatives Edcel Lagman of Albay, Rodolfo Antonino of Nueva Ecija, Marc
Douglas Cagas IV of Davao del Sur, Arthur Yap of Bohol, Sergio Apostol of Leyte,
Hermilando Mandanas of Batangas, Danilo Suarez of Quezon, Victor Francisco
Ortega of La Union, and Ma. Amelita Villarosa of Occidental Mindoro. – With Jess Diaz, Aurea Calica
Chief News Editor: Sol
Jose Vanzi
© Copyright, 2012 by PHILIPPINE HEADLINE
NEWS ONLINE
All rights reserved
PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS
ONLINE [PHNO] WEBSITE
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/phnotweet
This is the PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE (PHNO) Mailing List.
To stop receiving our news items, please send a blank e-mail addressed to: phno-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Please visit our homepage at: http://www.newsflash.org/
(c) Copyright 2009. All rights reserved.
-------------------------------------------------------------Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phno/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phno/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
phno-digest@yahoogroups.com
phno-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
phno-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
