angelic moo

Lawyers should be surprised that Supreme Court spokesperson Midas Marquez recently issued a statement regarding President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's slew of executive appointments. Marquez stated that Mrs. Arroyo cannot use the Supreme Court's decision in De Castro v. Judicial and Bar Council to justify her midnight appointments. He explained that De Castro only recognized the President's power to fill an impending vacancy in the Supreme Court, but that there is still a constitutional ban against appointments to the executive branch. This is unusual because Marquez's statements appears to be an interpretation of the Constitution, not by the Supreme Court, but by himself. This is not the function of a spokesperson. I doubt very much that Marquez would have made the statement without the consent of the Supreme Court. Spokespersons clear their statements with their superiors; especially on controversial matters. So why did Marquez issue the statement? I think that this s

Supreme Court Midas Marquez issued a statement saying that the President cannot use the recent Court decision ( De Castro v. JBC ) to justify her recent appointments . He explained that De Castro is not yet final and only exempts appointments to the Supreme Court from the ban on midnight appointments (which started on March 10 and ends on June 30). Marquez issued the statement following reports that the President appointed two Justices of the Court of Appeals, an ambassador, and board members to cultural bodies where no vacancy existed. That these new appointments are so blatantly unconstitutional can mean that the President has absolutely no respect for the Constitution and constitutional restraints. Or it can be another display of presidential craftiness. It is entirely possible that these appointments are part of a script designed to stave off criticisms about her control over the judiciary. These appointments will no doubt be challenged before the courts. They will be struck down

Commission on Elections Chair Jose Melo recently gave comments that contradict a Supreme Court ruling in 2001 ( Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Go! Go! Philippines, G.R. No. 147589, June 26, 2001 ). He opined that the President's son Juan Miguel Arroyo could be a valid nominee of Ang Galing Pinoy, a party-list group that allegedly represents security guards. He added that limiting nominees to members of the marginalized groups is not wise. Tricycles drivers cannot be represented by one who did not finish high school; "they should have somebody to speak for them," he said. This is not the tenor of the Supreme Court decision in Ang Bagong Bayani . In the 2001 Supreme Court decision, a majority of the Supreme Court, including then Justice Melo , provided guidelines for the COMELEC in screening party-list nominees. Among others, the Court said that: ...not only the the candidate party or organization must represent marginalized and underrepresented