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. (-:
No comments:
Post a Comment