Finally, President – elect Noy was proclaimed last Wednesday, June 9, a month after the first automated election. Not bad. At last we have decided to embrace the new future despite the fears that the opposition instilled in us. Although, I think it made us all wary and extra cautious of the election. It made us all watchful of things. The success of the 2010 presidential elections was made possible because everybody contributed to it - the COMELEC, SMARTMATIC, teachers, volunteers and the Filipino electorate. Congratulations to all of us!
Now it is time to get to business. I did not vote for Noy. I just wanted to make it clear. I have doubts as to his ability to govern because he has achieved nothing in the past that would make me think that he now deserves the presidency. There was nothing in his track record that is stellar or extra ordinary. He is practically just the namesake of the famous senator and he just happens to be the son of the most, well-loved president of this country. But Noy has no distinct qualities or achievements that he can call his own that would identify him or set him apart from that of his parents. He is lucky for he had parents who championed for freedom, democracy and transparency. Relying solely on his performance would not have brought him to the presidency.
During the press con, right after his proclamation, Noy answered all sorts of questions; some were merely reiterations of the others. Quite honestly I was kind of impressed how dignified and how president-like his answers were. He was assertive and he appeared to be in full control. However, just like the way I thought, he again chose another controversial issue. This time, his eyes turned to the Armed Forces of the Philippines. When asked if he would retain General Bangit, his answer was a categorical No. Don’t get me wrong. He is within his power not to reappoint Gen. Bangit but to give due respect to an institution he should have retained the General. He is about to retire, anyways. I could imagine how the AFP felt that time. I’m not sure if President Aquino gained the trust and admiration of the AFP because of what he did. One thing is for sure though – one influential high ranking military officer didn’t like what he did. Count him out if in the future you will need his support. He is a soldier, yes, but he too is a person, a human being, very capable of feeling embarrassed and humiliated. General Bangit is a “casualty” in the battle called politics. It’s a pity that the AFP is dragged into politics again. Too bad for the general, the Filipino people elected someone like Noy – a hardliner.
When he ran for the office of the President, he was very unequivocal when he said he will not recognize the Chief Justice who will be appointed by the sitting president. Because of that he lost my vote. It is my view that it was too divisive an opinion and quite disrespectful to a co equal and independent branch of government - the judiciary. The sitting president though, as stubborn as she is, appointed the current CJ. And Noy, as hard liner as he is, declared that he’d rather be sworn in by a Barangay Captain than by a CJ that he doesn’t believe in. That was before. Now, Noy is saying it will be by the lone dissenter in the Supreme Court. Why can’t he just give it up for the sake of unity? Well, it’s his choice after all he is the most powerful person in this country. But the question is, will he survive?
Saturday, June 12, 2010
Monday, April 19, 2010
The Appointment of the Next Philippine Supreme Court Chief Justice (Part II)
On April 4, I promised to give my personal take on the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the power of President GMA to appoint the next CJ. The court ruled that she can. If you’re thinking that I am going to discuss the merits of the case and answer the question, Can she really, under the present Constitution and taking into consideration as well the opinion of the Narvasa - led Supreme Court in 1998, appoint the next Philippine Chief Justice? Sorry to disappoint you but I am not going to do that instead I’m taking a different route. Don’t get me wrong. I am not avoiding the issue on the contrary I am bringing forth what I believe was missed in this legal intellectual intercourse.
Here’s the point. The Supreme Court in myriads of cases ruled that it has no authority to pass upon issues through advisory opinions or to resolve hypothetical or feigned problems (Bernas, The Constitution, citing Muskrat vs. United States, 219 U.S. 346, 362 (1911) or friendly suits collusively arranged between parties without real adverse interests. Courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions to satisfy scholarly interest, however intellectually challenging (PACU vs. Secretary of Education, supra on footnote no. 6). Before the Court can exercise its judicial power, an actual controversy between litigants must first exist. The operative word here is “actual controversy”. No actual controversy means no consideration of the issue.
At this point, it is but proper to first define what actual controversy is. There is actual case or controversy when there is a conflict of legal rights or an assertion of opposite legal claims, which can be resolved on the basis of existing law and jurisprudence. It involves a “definite” and “concrete” dispute touching on the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests. That’s why the Supreme Court in the case of Abbas vs COMELEC refused to rule on a merely perceived “potential” conflict between the provisions of the Muslim Code and those of the national law.
Now on the issue, is there really an actual controversy that would enable the Supreme Court to render a decision either for or against the petitioners in the case at bar. The current CJ is yet to retire. As of this writing, he still has a month to exercise the full power of the office. It doesn’t make sense why we have to treat him as if he is no longer there. The president is yet to exercise such power but only when there is such a vacancy. There is no actual vacancy; the president hasn’t appointed anyone thus no actual controversy. What is there to talk about? The discussion as to whether or not the president has the power to appoint indeed is a very intellectually challenging academic subject matter however as the Court said, it’s not enough so that it will take cognizance of a case.
All things considered, it is the understanding of this writer that the issue is not yet ripe for judicial adjudication there being no actual controversy which is a necessary requisite before the court can exercise its judicial power. My opinion is, the Supreme Court should not have given the petition due course.
(Note: However, since the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of all justiciable questions, we all have to abide by it. Individual opinions, no matter how intelligent they may be as one might claim, are entirely irrelevant. I agree with CJ Puno. We still have to respect the wisdom of our Court’s decision after all it’s the SUPREME Court.)
Here’s the point. The Supreme Court in myriads of cases ruled that it has no authority to pass upon issues through advisory opinions or to resolve hypothetical or feigned problems (Bernas, The Constitution, citing Muskrat vs. United States, 219 U.S. 346, 362 (1911) or friendly suits collusively arranged between parties without real adverse interests. Courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions to satisfy scholarly interest, however intellectually challenging (PACU vs. Secretary of Education, supra on footnote no. 6). Before the Court can exercise its judicial power, an actual controversy between litigants must first exist. The operative word here is “actual controversy”. No actual controversy means no consideration of the issue.
At this point, it is but proper to first define what actual controversy is. There is actual case or controversy when there is a conflict of legal rights or an assertion of opposite legal claims, which can be resolved on the basis of existing law and jurisprudence. It involves a “definite” and “concrete” dispute touching on the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests. That’s why the Supreme Court in the case of Abbas vs COMELEC refused to rule on a merely perceived “potential” conflict between the provisions of the Muslim Code and those of the national law.
Now on the issue, is there really an actual controversy that would enable the Supreme Court to render a decision either for or against the petitioners in the case at bar. The current CJ is yet to retire. As of this writing, he still has a month to exercise the full power of the office. It doesn’t make sense why we have to treat him as if he is no longer there. The president is yet to exercise such power but only when there is such a vacancy. There is no actual vacancy; the president hasn’t appointed anyone thus no actual controversy. What is there to talk about? The discussion as to whether or not the president has the power to appoint indeed is a very intellectually challenging academic subject matter however as the Court said, it’s not enough so that it will take cognizance of a case.
All things considered, it is the understanding of this writer that the issue is not yet ripe for judicial adjudication there being no actual controversy which is a necessary requisite before the court can exercise its judicial power. My opinion is, the Supreme Court should not have given the petition due course.
(Note: However, since the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of all justiciable questions, we all have to abide by it. Individual opinions, no matter how intelligent they may be as one might claim, are entirely irrelevant. I agree with CJ Puno. We still have to respect the wisdom of our Court’s decision after all it’s the SUPREME Court.)
Friday, April 9, 2010
The Liberal Party and their Campaign Strategy: It's now or Never
(This is in response to a friend's forwarded message vilifying Villar. Don't get me wrong. I am not defending Villar here but the truth so back off)
At the onset, I must admit I am not one of Villar's biggest fans however I believe in fair play and due process. This is a desperate attempt of the Liberal Party to continuously spread patently untrue and unsubstantiated allegations against a person who never started mudslinging in the first place. The Liberal Party's strategy is disturbing. While they claimed that they're the new brand of politics, their actions speak otherwise. I just can't believe that they'll stop at nothing just to ensure a "no Villar presidency". They should have used a more truthful and honest campaign. Not like this. They're desperate and they scare the hell out of me. Kaya sila nakakarma. Noynoy is now being accused of having undergone a psychiatric evaluation which is a big lie though personally I believe may tupak talaga sxa but it doesn’t really matter bec. it’s not the issue here so I won’t force it. Yan ang nangyayari pag magsimula ng mag spread ng lies. What goes around comes around?! This is precisely the reason why I am not voting for either Noynoy and Villar.
Lies. The no election scenario came from the Liberal Party. The C-5 , from them as well. Both, if only true are basically damning nevertheless even if they're false their effect to how the people now perceive an otherwise innocent man or woman is far reaching. Look now, Villar’s rating is spiraling down. This is what "creative" imagination can do – make r unmake a person.
A no election scenario is impossible. Why? Takot lang ni GMA sa civil war. She knew that people don't like her (well, excluding me of course). If she will do this stupid stunt may kalalagyan sxa (this time, I will join the move for her ouster). She knew that. She's a very intelligent person. COMELEC has already spent millions for this election. She will never take the risk of walking out of Malacañang by force prior to the actual end of her term.
The C-5 project as it turned out wasn't really Villar's doing but that of the Verlarde's. Now that they knew that it was Velarde who requested for the "rerouting" after all, did they dare conduct an investigation against the religious leader? Nah! Why? El Shaddai is a powerful religious block. The Liberal Party started the investigation and as usual convincingly made the people believe that it was Villar purportedly so he'll benefit from the rerouting but as it turned out it's not actually true (another lie). Did the Liberal Party, as represented by their ever assuming presidential candidate, continue with their investigation? One thing worse about it is they knew from the very beginning that it wasn't only Villar's property that will stand to benefit from all this brouhaha but Velarde's as well but did they invite him to shed light on the issues? They never dared. They don't have the balls to do it. May 10 is within reach. They can't risk earning the ire of the leader. So, are they really fighting for the truth or just fighting for their political survival?
They should have focused on their platform of government, on the issues that beset this country for generations. It's the real deal.
At the onset, I must admit I am not one of Villar's biggest fans however I believe in fair play and due process. This is a desperate attempt of the Liberal Party to continuously spread patently untrue and unsubstantiated allegations against a person who never started mudslinging in the first place. The Liberal Party's strategy is disturbing. While they claimed that they're the new brand of politics, their actions speak otherwise. I just can't believe that they'll stop at nothing just to ensure a "no Villar presidency". They should have used a more truthful and honest campaign. Not like this. They're desperate and they scare the hell out of me. Kaya sila nakakarma. Noynoy is now being accused of having undergone a psychiatric evaluation which is a big lie though personally I believe may tupak talaga sxa but it doesn’t really matter bec. it’s not the issue here so I won’t force it. Yan ang nangyayari pag magsimula ng mag spread ng lies. What goes around comes around?! This is precisely the reason why I am not voting for either Noynoy and Villar.
Lies. The no election scenario came from the Liberal Party. The C-5 , from them as well. Both, if only true are basically damning nevertheless even if they're false their effect to how the people now perceive an otherwise innocent man or woman is far reaching. Look now, Villar’s rating is spiraling down. This is what "creative" imagination can do – make r unmake a person.
A no election scenario is impossible. Why? Takot lang ni GMA sa civil war. She knew that people don't like her (well, excluding me of course). If she will do this stupid stunt may kalalagyan sxa (this time, I will join the move for her ouster). She knew that. She's a very intelligent person. COMELEC has already spent millions for this election. She will never take the risk of walking out of Malacañang by force prior to the actual end of her term.
The C-5 project as it turned out wasn't really Villar's doing but that of the Verlarde's. Now that they knew that it was Velarde who requested for the "rerouting" after all, did they dare conduct an investigation against the religious leader? Nah! Why? El Shaddai is a powerful religious block. The Liberal Party started the investigation and as usual convincingly made the people believe that it was Villar purportedly so he'll benefit from the rerouting but as it turned out it's not actually true (another lie). Did the Liberal Party, as represented by their ever assuming presidential candidate, continue with their investigation? One thing worse about it is they knew from the very beginning that it wasn't only Villar's property that will stand to benefit from all this brouhaha but Velarde's as well but did they invite him to shed light on the issues? They never dared. They don't have the balls to do it. May 10 is within reach. They can't risk earning the ire of the leader. So, are they really fighting for the truth or just fighting for their political survival?
They should have focused on their platform of government, on the issues that beset this country for generations. It's the real deal.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
The Opposition
Sunday, April 4, 2010
One thing I don’t like about the so called “opposition” is they bank on the negative ratings of the president. They’re like parasites that feed on its hosts, in this case knowingly with only one intent – personal gain at the expense of parking the real issues. They don’t really care about the issues. They can’t talk about it because their ineptitude and inability to comprehend is too glaring a fact. They don’t really have a comprehensive understanding as to the “meat” of all these neither do they have a concrete, specific steps to resolve the issues that beset this country for generations. It’s a pity, nevertheless, it’s a fact but I am not bound neither compelled to vote for them. The likes of Noy, Erap and Villar can be taken out of the picture without spending a second of your time. I will not even waste a line of this writing as to why.
Fact - The president is perceived as corrupt. Fact - The president isn’t the most lovable person in this country; however, could you imagine where we would have been when most of the countries all over the world dipped in the quagmire of recession and economic crisis had it not because of her policies? On a personal note, I never lost my job and so as my friends who are hardworking and independent. These are the people who don’t point their fingers at the government for the personal mistakes that they’ve made or worse impute it to the petite lady in Malacañang. Give her a break. There are “personal” decisions that are entirely independent and have no connection to government functions, at least have the balls to admit that you made a “personal mistake” – personal accountability, people.
The vulnerability of the voting public, perhaps due to the latter’s dissatisfaction towards the president, is now being used by some politicians as a “campaign slogan” to advance their political ends. This is unfair. It’s not the issue. The issue is, what can you offer? By merely claiming that you’re in the “opposition” and that you oppose the current administration is barren. There is nothing there, honestly. One has to offer a concrete specific alternative to this administration, not just empty claims. It’s tiring.
One thing I don’t like about the so called “opposition” is they bank on the negative ratings of the president. They’re like parasites that feed on its hosts, in this case knowingly with only one intent – personal gain at the expense of parking the real issues. They don’t really care about the issues. They can’t talk about it because their ineptitude and inability to comprehend is too glaring a fact. They don’t really have a comprehensive understanding as to the “meat” of all these neither do they have a concrete, specific steps to resolve the issues that beset this country for generations. It’s a pity, nevertheless, it’s a fact but I am not bound neither compelled to vote for them. The likes of Noy, Erap and Villar can be taken out of the picture without spending a second of your time. I will not even waste a line of this writing as to why.
Fact - The president is perceived as corrupt. Fact - The president isn’t the most lovable person in this country; however, could you imagine where we would have been when most of the countries all over the world dipped in the quagmire of recession and economic crisis had it not because of her policies? On a personal note, I never lost my job and so as my friends who are hardworking and independent. These are the people who don’t point their fingers at the government for the personal mistakes that they’ve made or worse impute it to the petite lady in Malacañang. Give her a break. There are “personal” decisions that are entirely independent and have no connection to government functions, at least have the balls to admit that you made a “personal mistake” – personal accountability, people.
The vulnerability of the voting public, perhaps due to the latter’s dissatisfaction towards the president, is now being used by some politicians as a “campaign slogan” to advance their political ends. This is unfair. It’s not the issue. The issue is, what can you offer? By merely claiming that you’re in the “opposition” and that you oppose the current administration is barren. There is nothing there, honestly. One has to offer a concrete specific alternative to this administration, not just empty claims. It’s tiring.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
The Appointment of the New Chief Justice: A Constitutional Dilemma
On March 17, The Supreme Court ruled that Pres. GMA can appoint the next Chief Justice. This has been received by the legal profession with disdain and disappointment. Majority of the lawyer organizations oppose an impending possibility of President Arroyo appointing the next Chief Justice. To them, this is in direct contravention of the constitution. To some, especially those who are envious of the fact that should this happen, the petite lady will be the very first president who has appointed all the 15 Justices of the Highest Court of the land. Well, who will not be? In the world of Philippine politics where greed, deceit, corruption and self interest are the most prized values of all, everything can be a source of envy, don’t you agree? Indeed, this is quite a feat. This could be a product of a mind which surely is a cut above the rest. While the president may not have the legal acumen of Marcos, but she surely has the brains of a fox which always worked to her advantage at least for now. Nobody can deny that. For that alone, I have so much respect for the president.
Even before the Philippine Association and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and I believe Akbayan and other concerned groups brought the matter before the Supreme Court, the first two groups and the other law-inclined organizations have already marched along Recto with all the students they have recruited from law schools all over Metro Manila showing their opposition to the “possibility” of GMA choosing the next Chief Justice. I joined them in spirit. I perfectly understand where they’re coming from and I am quite disappointed that one particular student I spoke with, who joined the rally, couldn’t even cite one legal basis why the president cannot and should not appoint the next CJ. Despite that, I gave him the benefit of the doubt.
Can the President really, under the present Constitution, appoint the next Chief Justice? The question looks easy but the legal underpinnings are quite complex and mind boggling. I have an officemate who can readily present his views on this matter supported by jurisprudence that the President simply cannot. I repeat CANNOT. He is currently taking up Constitutional Law, no wonder. I have a different view though. I believe she CAN on what basis? Well, honestly at that time, my documentary support wasn’t available in front of me rather they’re found in the recesses of my memory relying so much on my seven years of teaching Philippine Constitution and my background in Constitutional law that I took way back 2000 (I know that was long time ago nevertheless I still trust my memory).
My mental framework is, conclusion first, evidence later. It always works for me well at least for issues that require me to access my “stock” knowledge. (-: When I say something either for or against, it always is based on some facts, facts that may be a little hazy as I have been detached from the academic world for quite awhile working in a call center and all. Forgive me if I have to address the needs of my stomach and that of my family more than anything else. (-:
Going back to the question, can she really appoint the next Chief Justice? The following citations should help us arrive at a more knowledgeable, educated, and guided conclusion:
1.) Section 15, Article VII. (On the Executive Branch)
“Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his, term, a President or Acting President shall not make appointments, except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety.”
2.) Section 4 (1), Article VIII (On the Judiciary)
“The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices. ** **. Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof.”
In the above two conflicting constitutional provisions, note the discrepancy of the number of days. The prohibition mentions two months immediately before the next presidential elections within which the President cannot make any appointments, while the latter provision speaks of ninety days within which to appoint the next Chief Justice and or Associate Justice as the case may be. The question now is, which between the two provisions, should be followed? This is where the trouble begins.
The Supreme Court has already given its opinion on this matter. In A.M. No. 98-5-01-SC November 9, 1998, In Re Appointments of Hon. Mateo A. Valenzuela and Hon. Placido B. Vallarta as Judges of the Regional Trial Court of Branch 62, Bago City and of Branch 24, Cabananatuan City, respectively. The Supreme Court, thru then Chief Justice Narvasa, opined that the prohibition prevails and that the President CANNOT appoint within the two-month period immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term. This includes appointment to the Judiciary. The Court reasoned that it is for the purpose of preventing “buying votes or influencing the election”. Fair enough. This is quire reasonable as well.
However, this matter that was discussed by the Supreme Court in 1998 involved lower court judges, while the issue before them now is the appointment of the Chief Justice -the leader, the master of the Highest Court, who will sit as, a in a way, Chair of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal should there be contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the president or vice president. That’s how important the position of the Chief Justice is and just to give you a little background. Stressing the importance of the position, the vacancy in the said office was never left vacant for more than twenty four hours. Let’s take a look at history:
When Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee retired on April 18, 1988, Associate Justice Pedro Yap was appointed on the same day.
When Yap retired on July 1, 1988, then Associate Justice Marcelo Fernan was appointed the same day.
When Fernan effectively resigned on Dec. 7, 1991, Senior Justice Andres Narvasa was appointed the following day.
When Narvasa retired on Nov. 29, 1998, Senior Justice Hilario Davide Jr. was sworn into office the following morning.
When Davide retired on Dec. 19, 2005, Senior Justice Artemio Panganiban was appointed to succeed the following day.
Lastly, when Panganiban retired on Dec. 6, 2006, incumbent Chief Justice Reynato Puno took his oath on midnight of Dec. 7, 2006.*
from The Philippine Star, March 18, 2010
Chief Justice Puno will retire on May 17, well within the ninety days within which the president is constitutionally required to fill in such vacancy. The opposition doesn’t like that. Before you choose your side, read again the provision and events narrated above, then decide for yourself. Can she, under the present Constitution, appoint the next Chief Justice?
P.S
You need not be a lawyer on this issue even the Justices of the Supreme Court are heavily divided on this one. So don’t worry. You’re not the only one who is confused. (-:
And by the way, If you will ask me what’s my take on this issue, I will tell you next time. (-:
Even before the Philippine Association and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and I believe Akbayan and other concerned groups brought the matter before the Supreme Court, the first two groups and the other law-inclined organizations have already marched along Recto with all the students they have recruited from law schools all over Metro Manila showing their opposition to the “possibility” of GMA choosing the next Chief Justice. I joined them in spirit. I perfectly understand where they’re coming from and I am quite disappointed that one particular student I spoke with, who joined the rally, couldn’t even cite one legal basis why the president cannot and should not appoint the next CJ. Despite that, I gave him the benefit of the doubt.
Can the President really, under the present Constitution, appoint the next Chief Justice? The question looks easy but the legal underpinnings are quite complex and mind boggling. I have an officemate who can readily present his views on this matter supported by jurisprudence that the President simply cannot. I repeat CANNOT. He is currently taking up Constitutional Law, no wonder. I have a different view though. I believe she CAN on what basis? Well, honestly at that time, my documentary support wasn’t available in front of me rather they’re found in the recesses of my memory relying so much on my seven years of teaching Philippine Constitution and my background in Constitutional law that I took way back 2000 (I know that was long time ago nevertheless I still trust my memory).
My mental framework is, conclusion first, evidence later. It always works for me well at least for issues that require me to access my “stock” knowledge. (-: When I say something either for or against, it always is based on some facts, facts that may be a little hazy as I have been detached from the academic world for quite awhile working in a call center and all. Forgive me if I have to address the needs of my stomach and that of my family more than anything else. (-:
Going back to the question, can she really appoint the next Chief Justice? The following citations should help us arrive at a more knowledgeable, educated, and guided conclusion:
1.) Section 15, Article VII. (On the Executive Branch)
“Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his, term, a President or Acting President shall not make appointments, except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety.”
2.) Section 4 (1), Article VIII (On the Judiciary)
“The Supreme Court shall be composed of a Chief Justice and fourteen Associate Justices. ** **. Any vacancy shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof.”
In the above two conflicting constitutional provisions, note the discrepancy of the number of days. The prohibition mentions two months immediately before the next presidential elections within which the President cannot make any appointments, while the latter provision speaks of ninety days within which to appoint the next Chief Justice and or Associate Justice as the case may be. The question now is, which between the two provisions, should be followed? This is where the trouble begins.
The Supreme Court has already given its opinion on this matter. In A.M. No. 98-5-01-SC November 9, 1998, In Re Appointments of Hon. Mateo A. Valenzuela and Hon. Placido B. Vallarta as Judges of the Regional Trial Court of Branch 62, Bago City and of Branch 24, Cabananatuan City, respectively. The Supreme Court, thru then Chief Justice Narvasa, opined that the prohibition prevails and that the President CANNOT appoint within the two-month period immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term. This includes appointment to the Judiciary. The Court reasoned that it is for the purpose of preventing “buying votes or influencing the election”. Fair enough. This is quire reasonable as well.
However, this matter that was discussed by the Supreme Court in 1998 involved lower court judges, while the issue before them now is the appointment of the Chief Justice -the leader, the master of the Highest Court, who will sit as, a in a way, Chair of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal should there be contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the president or vice president. That’s how important the position of the Chief Justice is and just to give you a little background. Stressing the importance of the position, the vacancy in the said office was never left vacant for more than twenty four hours. Let’s take a look at history:
When Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee retired on April 18, 1988, Associate Justice Pedro Yap was appointed on the same day.
When Yap retired on July 1, 1988, then Associate Justice Marcelo Fernan was appointed the same day.
When Fernan effectively resigned on Dec. 7, 1991, Senior Justice Andres Narvasa was appointed the following day.
When Narvasa retired on Nov. 29, 1998, Senior Justice Hilario Davide Jr. was sworn into office the following morning.
When Davide retired on Dec. 19, 2005, Senior Justice Artemio Panganiban was appointed to succeed the following day.
Lastly, when Panganiban retired on Dec. 6, 2006, incumbent Chief Justice Reynato Puno took his oath on midnight of Dec. 7, 2006.*
from The Philippine Star, March 18, 2010
Chief Justice Puno will retire on May 17, well within the ninety days within which the president is constitutionally required to fill in such vacancy. The opposition doesn’t like that. Before you choose your side, read again the provision and events narrated above, then decide for yourself. Can she, under the present Constitution, appoint the next Chief Justice?
P.S
You need not be a lawyer on this issue even the Justices of the Supreme Court are heavily divided on this one. So don’t worry. You’re not the only one who is confused. (-:
And by the way, If you will ask me what’s my take on this issue, I will tell you next time. (-:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)