angelic moo

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...

Arroyo's retreat from constitutional change by whatever means is not only an indication of her sensitivity to popular opinion. It is, more than anything else, the sign that she is the consummate politician. Having tested popular opinion on constitutional change through a constituent assembly, she is at the very least intelligent enough to know that the backlash against the House of Representatives could infect her already tenuous tenure as President. She has sacrificed her pawns at the same time preserved her place at helm of the nation. She packaged her retreat as an attempt to end political divisions but in truth is putting out fires that her allies set when they unilaterally scrapped the rule that constitutional amendments, like other laws, must be approved separately by both chambers of Congress. Arroyo survives yet again. What remains to be seen is whether she and allies will tempt fate again before her term ends in 2010 and tinker with the Constitution.

Speaker de Venecia's hasty retreat in pursuing constitutional change through a constituent assembly is proof that Filipinos have an appreciation of constitutionalism. The threat of another mass uprising against the Speaker's project apparently forced the administration to reconsider its actions. Persistent manifestations of "people power" in the recent past have led critics, mostly from the West, to claim that we have not yet matured politically. I have argued elsewhere that these uprisings are ways in which people enforce the principles that are enshrined in our Constitution. Massing forces to challenge the Speaker's actions in the House of Representatives shows that Filipinos in fact want to defend their Constitution. Contrary to the critics' stand, Filipinos will not settle every dispute through popular uprisings, but are in fact guided by a respect for the fundamental law of the land.

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...

So much is said about the possible appointment of Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago to the Supreme Court but the truth is that there is no law that prevents her appointment. President Arroyo would be well within her right to appoint her to the Court and to designate her as Chief Justice. This would be nothing new for the President. Arroyo broke the tradition of seniority by designating Artemio Panganiban as Chief Justice and in bypassing Justice Reynato Puno, who was named to the court three years earlier. No other President since Ferdinand Marcos has bypassed the most senior member of the Court when designating the Chief Justice. Marcos’ refusal to honor the tradition of seniority was regarded as a means of retaining control over the judiciary. He bypassed Claudio Teehankee, a Justice critical of the Marcos regime, twice to prevent or delay his rise to the post of chief justice.

Pro-initiative advocates presented a disturbing suggeston that was featured in the news recently ostensibly in support of the floundering case on initiative now pending with the Supreme Court (Lambino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 174153). The Manila Standard reported that Deans Danilo Fariñas of the University of Baguio and Hermogenes Decano of the University of Pangasinan claimed “there is no distinction between the terms amendment and revision of the 1987 Constitution because they are “understood to be one and the same” by the people, who are considered the sovereign authors of the fundamental law of the land.” The lawyers also said that even law practitioners have agreed to define the words “amend” and “revise” as pertaining to “changes.” Fariñas and Decano said they found the “technical distinctions unnecessary” because even the US Federal Constitution from which the Philippine Constitution extensively adopted its principles, makes no mention of the word revision as distinct from amend...

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 ...

Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo will move heaven and earth to become Prime Minister when the Philippine system of government is somehow altered into a parliamentary govenment. She needs the title. There are two things Mrs. Arroyo cannot shake from the judgment of history no matter how long she remains in power. The first is that she is the most unpopular president the Philippines has had in recent memory, faring worse than Ferdinand Marcos. The second is that she is the only Chief Executive in Philippine history who has never had a mandate to govern. The first issue does not bother her; not openly anyway. Her administration dishes out standard replies to every survey that consistently puts her at the bottom of the pupularity scale - this is not a popularity contest. Her administration will make the hard decisions that will revive the economy etcetera etcetera and so forth. The second, I suspect, eats at her very core. Arroyo became President after Estrada was forced to leave office. As vice-pr...

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 ...