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...

I am a little puzzled over the concern over the coming vacancies in the Supreme Court. In 2009, the Supreme Court will have seven vacancies and constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin Bernas and civil society groups are calling for increased citizens’ participation in and closer scrutiny of the choice of nominees to the Court. I have reservations about these efforts and what they seek to achieve. President Macapagal-Arroyo has already appointed 14 different Justices after she became President in 2001, 12 of whom are still sitting on the Court (two have already retired). Of those who are retiring next year, two of them—Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Leonardo Quisumbing—were appointed by other Presidents. This means that in 2009, Arroyo would have increased the number of her appointees from 12 to 14. Chief Justice Renyato Puno, who was appointed by President Ramos will be the only one Justice not appointed by President Arroyo. President Arroyo already appointed 80% of the membership of the Court. After...

In my last post I discussed the secret records of the Judicial and Bar Council. Chief Justice Reynato Puno had a very terse and disappointing response to the issue: According to Newsbreak, he said, “I don’t mind telling the public how I vote. But it has to be a consensus [of the JBC].” This is a very peculiar response, especially from the Chief Justice. The clamor for making the records to the public implicates more than the preferences of the members of the JBC; it implicates transparency and accountability of government officials. Instead of addressing the merits of the concerns, the Chief Justice—the Chair of the JBC—shrugs his shoulders and says the JBC refuses to make its records public so there is nothing he can do about it. It would be a very dark day in public service if all our officials are as dismissive about transparency and accountability.

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...

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 ...

The Judicial and Bar Council has declared the position of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court open for nomination with the impending retirementof Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban on December 7, 2006. The practice of selecting the Chief Justice should be the subject of serious study (I am not aware of any) especially in light of our recent experience. The selection of the Chief Justice should be a critical task but the selection process in the Philippines, according to critics, is far from perfect. The designation of Artemio Panganiban as Chief Justice raised two issues: the system engenders cronyism and the system is exclusionary in that it limits potential appointees to sitting members of the Court. The last time President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo selected a Chief Justice, her decision generated controversy. Arroyo ignored the most senior member of the Court, Reynato Puno in favor of Artemio Panganiban. Puno was named to the Court three years earlier. No President since Ferdinand ...