angelic moo

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