angelic moo

Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez may have inadvertently revealed some secrets of th e Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), the constitutionally created body that short lists nominees for appointment to the judiciary. The Secretary of Justice sits as an Ex Officio Member of the JBC. In a special issue of Newsbreak (Marites Dañguilan Vitug, Stacking the Court), Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez explained his vote on filling a vacancy in the Supreme Court. He said: “I voted for Reyes because he is senior and has the shortest time left in the judiciary,” Gonzalez said in a telephone interview in August. “I prefer short-term appointments. I don’t like people who plead for their appointment but when they get appointed, they turn against you. You never know what positions they take after they are appointed…. I’ve felt bitter about Supreme Court decisions lately.” This brief quote provides a revealing look into the manner in which the JBC has been operating—at least from the Secretary's point of v

The Bush Administration has acted ignobly towards the prisoners of the war on terror; it created a regime where suspected terrorists are detained without any expectation of a fair trial. They are geographically separated from the US to prevent them from invoking constitutional protections of due process. They are called “enemy combatants” to prevent them from invoking the Geneva conventions for any form of protection. The Bush Administration has created a world where the prisoners are prevented from any law in protesting their innocence. It will prosecute and judge the detainees before military commissions without the participation of regular courts. This policy set off severe criticisms from every corner of the world which the United States has smugly ignored. More appalling was Congress’ willingness to abet the acts of the White House. When the Supreme Court ruled that US courts had jurisdiction to decide whether detainees were legally detained in Guantanamo, Congress passed the Deta

For the second time now, Newsbreak has written an article blaming the President for the creation of new local government units. Last August, Newsbreak wrote that Arroyo's administration "is guilty of making it more difficult for [cities] to make ends meet." According to Newsbreak, "Malacañang is perceived to be encouraging the practice" of creating more local governments and that "[t]he President has not discouraged her allies in the legislature from creating new local entities." Newsbreak added that "local government leagues have lobbied for an end to it—to no avail." In an earlier post I ridiculed this assessment by pointing out that the creation of new cities became a trend long before Arroyo assumed power. The rush to "cityhood" was triggered by a badly written provision in the local government code that provides cities with a larger share of the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA). This share allowed Local Government Units to mee

Speaker Jose de Venecia's call for a "moral revolution" is incredible. His name is one I never imagined could be written next to the word "moral." JdV conspired with Arroyo's allies to keep her in power despite every indication that she rigged the 2004 presidential elections. He stood on the floor of the House of Representatives and urged his colleagues to stave off any attempt to impeach the President because she is still the best person to lead the country. De Venecia attempted to deceive the Supreme Court by claiming that there was a clamor for constitutional change despite all evidence to the contrary. He would rewrite an entire Constitution to fit his personal agenda. He is the poster child for the "trapo" -- the traditional politicians who have mismanaged the country since western-style government was introduced in the Philippines. These are officials who use public office for personal gain. This change in the Speaker's personality is an

The Inquirer's editorial Serving the President on September 3 summarized the worst aspects of Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez' stint in the Arroyo cabinet. It enumerated Gonzalez' offensive and outrageous statements that were designed to protect the President, whether she was right or wrong. The Inquirer was generous in its assessment: it left other acts of the Secretary which include Marcos-style surveillance of the media and his defense of the President's campaign to abolish the system of checks and balances in government. Illness has kept Raul Gonzalez out of the loop but his determination not to relinquish his post (at 76) should send chills up the country's collective spine. His record of politicizing his position parallels US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' own troubled record. Gonzales is Gonzalez's counterpart in the US. He is the head of the US Department of Justice. TIME magazine explains his disgraceful exit as a result of his penchant for

I do not mean to suggest that the Philippine Supreme Court has abandoned the environment. Sometimes the solutions to our problems need not be remedies that straddle generations or excite international attention. There is still one alternative that the Supreme Court has preserved: local governments. Local governments in the Philippines are not all allies of the environment. Too many local officials equate economic development with large-scale resource extraction activities such as mining and logging. But when cases reach the Supreme Court, the Court has been remarkably supportive of local governments and community efforts to protect the environment. Two decisions of the Court come to mind. The first is Tano v Socrates (G.R. No. 110249, August 21, 1997). In that case the Supreme Court upheld the power of the local governments to enact laws to protect the environment pursuant to the general welfare clause of the Local Government Code of 1991. The Court pointed out that the Code seeks “to

I think part of Oposa's enduring appeal was the idea that the Philippine Supreme Court signaled it's willingness to step into the political thicket for the sake of the environment. After nearly 15 years since it was promulgated, that potential role has now been clarified by the Supreme Court. The Court will not usurp the functions of Congress in environmental matters and will not so casually order a co-equal branch of government to perform acts that pertain to its sphere. Henares v. LTFRB (G.R. No. 158290, October 23, 2006) in my view, is the opposite of Oposa . The Supreme Court has informed advocates of the environment to take their campaign to the political branches of government to ask Congress to enact the measures that they think are needed. The Court, evidently, will return to its more reactive posture, even in the field of environmental law.

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition in Henares v. Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (G.R. No. 158290, October 23, 2006) saying that mandamus is available only to compel performance of an act specifically enjoined by law as a duty. Here, according to the Court, there is no law that mandates the respondents LTFRB and the DOTC to order owners of motor vehicles to use CNG. Further, the Court added that mandamus “will not generally lie from one branch of government to a coordinate branch, for the obvious reason that neither is inferior to the other।” The Court explained that “The need for future changes in both legislation and its implementation cannot be preempted by orders from this Court, especially when what is prayed for is procedurally infirm. Besides, comity with and courtesy to a coequal branch dictate that we give sufficient time and leeway for the coequal branches to address by themselves the environmental problems raised in this petition.” As dire as th

In two pervious works I went against conventional analyses of Oposa v. Factoran , a decision of the Philippine Supreme Court that supposedly recognized standing to sue in behalf of future generations to protect the environment. The first piece posited that Oposa is essentially misunderstood in that everything the Court said about standing to sue is merely obiter dictum , and not binding on any court. In fact, the Court merely remanded the case to the trial court saying that the petitioners in that case had a cause of action and that the trial court should not have dismissed the case in the first place. The lawyers did not pursue the case, however. The second piece showed that the rest of the Supreme Court’s decisions affecting the environment are in fact hostile to the environment revealing that the Court’s reputation for environmental activism is undeserved. Oposa raised a question that lingered for years: Is it possible to invoke the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction directly, based sole

A recent Newsbreak report, GMA Creating Too Many LGUs , by Miriam Grace Go (August 22, 2007), unfairly blames President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo for the increase in the number of local government units in the Philippines. This increase, particularly in the case of cities has been going on ever since the Local Government Code of 1991 took effect. It is encouraged by two features of the Code: (a) the formula for the distribution of the internal revenue allotment that favors cities, and (b) the relative ease in making cities. Politicians determined to increase the financial resources of their governments have been campaigning to upgrade into cities ever since they discovered these weaknesses in the Code. In 1986, there were 73 provinces, 60 cities, and 1,530 municipalities in the country. Just before the Estrada administration collapsed, there were already 110 cities. On March 5, 2001, less than two months into office, President Arroyo signed 14 bills on the conversion of municipalities i

Secretary Raul Gonzalez' take on the present controversy regarding Gregory Ong's appointment to the Supreme Court is patently absurd. Ong , presently a Justice of the Sandiganbayan , may in fact be a Chinese citizen and, therefore, not qualified to sit in either the Sandiganbayan or the Supreme Court. Newsbreak reported that Gonzalez favored Ong's appointment: "You have to consider also the repercussions. What about all the cases that Justice Ong had decided already? Supposing you are a convict of Justice Ong you will certainly demand that there's a new trial and how many cases are those?" Gonzalez said. He said that for practical reasons, it would be better to accept Ong's contention that he is a natural born Filipino citizen considering the impact on the cases that he had ruled on and the possibility that those he had convicted could seek a new trial. But Gonzalez indicated that it is best to resolve the matter because "there will always be s

In the consolidated cases of BA-RA 7941 v. Comelec , GR No. 177271 and Rosales v. Comelec , GR No. 177314, the Supreme Court (see Jay B. Rempillo, SC Orders Comelec to Disclose Party-list Nominees’ Names , Court News Flash May 2007, May 3, 2007 ) resolved the issue regarding the release of the names of part-list nominees. In a 15-page unanimous decision, the Court En Banc said that the prohibition imposed on the COMELEC under section 7 of RA 7941 (Party-list System Act) is limited in scope and duration as it extends only to the certified list which the same provision requires to be posted in the polling places on election day. It further said that to stretch the coverage of the prohibition to the absolute is to read into the law something that is not intended. The Court followed Fr. Bernas' arguments (see previous blog) regarding constitutinal right to information. It held tat “In all, we agree with the petitioners that respondent Comelec has a constitutional duty to disclose an

Should the names of party-list nominees be revealed by the Commission on Elections? Party-list groups, worried that some of these parties are administration fronts, have called on the COMELEC to reveal the names of the nominees. Chairman Benjamin Abalos has refused to reveal these names on the ground that there is no law that compels the Commission to do so. He can even cite section 7 of Republic Act No. 7941 to support his position. That section states that “The names of the party-list nominees shall not be shown on the certified list.” If Chairman Abalos revealed the names of the nominees will he not be charged with violating a clear directive from Congress? In his latest column , Fr. Joaquin Bernas argues that the COMELEC can be compelled to reveal the names of the nominees of part-list groups vying for seats in Congress. He suggests that there is no logic to Section 7 of the Party-List Act: “Of what use is knowing what groups may participate in the party-list elections if the voter

A recent Manila Times Report raises questions regarding the propriety of comments made by Ombudsman Merceditas Navarro-Gutierrez. According to the report (Jomar Canlas, Ombudsman Mercy asks GMA and JBC to please Choose better CA justice nominees, Manila Times, March 27, 2007) the Ombudsman appealed to the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) and President Arroyo to recommend and appoint better persons—in integrity, competence and character—to prevent the appointment in the Court of Appeals of people like the “Dirty Dozen.” According to Gutierrez, these are justices who are known for selling temporary restraining orders and for other corrupt practices. The same article, however, states that no formal complaint has been lodged against some of the “Dirty Dozen.” Gutierrez also asked the JBC to nominate and Malacañang to appoint only persons who are “Judicial Excellence Awardees” and reject those whose only strength is their “connections” and “padrinos” (backers). She fears that some of these

Speaker Jose de Venecia's attempts to vilify the Supreme Court after it's decision in Lambino was a desperate attempt to pressure the Court to reverse itself. The Speaker has been claiming, without any proof, that there is a clamor for constitutional change in the Philippines. In previous posts, I showed how he presented the Supreme Court as stumbling block to economic progress because it refused to allow the amendment of the Constitution through a “people’s initiative.” Contrary to de Venecia’s claims, there is no evidence that the Court's reputation has suffered because of Lambino . If anything, recent surveys show that the Court's reputation is improving. Recently, the Supreme Court announced that the Makati Business Club recognized the court ( Katrina M. Martinez, MBC Survey: SC is 3rd Best-Performing Gov’t Agency, March 16, 2007 ) as the third-best performing of 37 government offices, institutions, and basic services surveyed in 2006. This is no small feat for the

I wrote elswehere that the Supreme Court's decision in Javellana in 1973 destroyed its reputation and signaled the Court's subservience to the executive branch of government. More than three decades later, the Arroyo administration elevated the their own attempt to revise the Constitution before the Supreme Court. The Court was given an opportunity to reprise its role in 1973 and approve a shift to a parliamentary form of government despite the apparent defects in manner the Constitution is amended. When the Court deliberated on Lambino , I suggested that a ruling in favor of the initiative would have been politically safe route; it will shield the Court from heat. I predicted that ruling against initiative would open the Court to vilification by the other branches of government. Indeed, the Speaker of the House aattacked the Supreme Court and went so far as to initiate impeachment proceedings against the Justices who voted against the initiative claiming the Supreme Court d