angelic moo

The Supreme Court's decision in Lambino v. Commission on Elections is consistent with my prediction I posted last October. In that decision, a bare majority of the Court held that the Commission on Elections did not abuse its discretion when it voted to dismiss Sigaw ng Bayan's petition for initiative. The Court denied a motion for reconsideration on November 21, 2006 with the same vote but added that: Ten justices however reiterated their earlier opinions that RA 6735 is sufficient and adequate as an enabling law to amend the Constitution through a people’s initiative. Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban and Justices Consuelo Ynares-Santiago and Adolfo S. Azcuna joined their dissenting colleagues – Senior Associate Justice Reynato S. Puno, and Justices Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Renato C. Corona, Dante O. Tinga, Minita V. Chico-Nazario, Cancio C. Garcia, and Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. – in opining that RA 6735 suffices as an enabling law to implement the constitutional provisio...

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 ...

Malaya 's editorial on October 9, 2006 in part reads: During the hearing conducted by the Supreme Court, the justices did not fall for the line that the tribunal is limited to settling the issues of law. They pointedly grilled Sigaw and Ulap counsels on the authenticity of the signatures. Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban said in open court that if it could be shown that the signatures were fake and their gathering was attended [by] irregularity, then there would be no need to revisit Santiago vs Comelec . The Sigaw and Ulap petition would be dismissed outright. I am uncomfortable with the fact that the Supreme Court is assuming what is technically the function of the Commission on Elections. The verification of the signatures that accompany a petition for initiative is not a judicial function. But the Court evidently directed the parties to show if the collection of signatures was conducted properly and if it meets the requirements of the law. The Supreme Court's decision and ...