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. (-:
Thursday, December 24, 2009
The Legal Ramification of the Recent Supreme Court Decision in the Case of Penera vs COMELEC
There is no denying that even before the contenders filed their certificate of candidacy (COC) they have long campaigned through radio, print and TV ads. These were all done in the guise of “infomercials”. But just the same they all refer to the same banana. Supposedly the purpose of infomercials is to inform or create awareness among the listeners and viewers about issues that directly concern them. But the current version of infomercials is tainted with dark hidden agenda. People can’t pretend to be naïve with all these. The proliferation of “infomercials” during the election season is alarming for it shifted the balance of fair and honest elections to waste. It deprives those who are better yet not gifted with hefty bank accounts for they cannot afford to launch a long and super early campaign. This is not only unfair but also deceptive and Machiavellian. This is an explicit showing of support for oligarchy. We already know that our elections are all about money. And that it’s only a game exclusively for those who haves but then again we do not need to be reminded of it on a daily basis.
Applying how little Juan understands it, if one plans to run for public office and starts to appear on TV and other media few months before the election, you can’t help but wonder why start with the ads now? Why didn’t they do it two years ago? Why suddenly when election is fast approaching we start seeing their faces like permanent screensavers on our PCs? You can’t help but notice this patently unfair fact. These people are so desperate that they will stop at nothing just so they’ll get what they wanted. Take Villar, for example, who already spent hundreds of millions even before formally announcing his plans of running for the highest office of the land. This man scares the hell out of me. He epitomizes not the rags to riches success-story but the old corrupt, callous and oligarchic ascent to power.
Admittedly, while we think of all these as really “premature campaigning”, the law has, as always, assumed a more technical meaning. The same goes to what really makes a person an official candidate. Of course, there cannot be premature campaigning without a candidate and a campaign period specifically prescribed by law. I was in quandary like probably most of you as to what the law and the recent jurisprudence have to say regarding this matter. It is for this reason that I started scouting for some legal provisions and resources and what I am about to share with you is a rather interesting case.
As a starting point I would like us all to take a peek at the laws directly related to this matter and these are:
1.) SECTION 80. Election campaign or partisan political activity outside campaign period. — It shall be unlawful for any person, whether or not a voter or candidate, or for any party, or association of persons, to engage in an election campaign or partisan political activity except during the campaign period: Provided, That political parties may hold political conventions or meetings to nominate their official candidates within thirty days before the commencement of the campaign period and forty-five days for Presidential and Vice-Presidential election.
2.) SECTION. 68. Disqualifications. - Any candidate who, in an action or protest in which he is a party is declared by final decision of a competent court guilty of, or found by the Commission of having xxx (e) violated any of Sections 80, 83, 85, 86 and 261, paragraphs d, e, k, v, and cc, subparagraph 6, shall be disqualified from continuing as a candidate, or if he has been elected, from holding the office. Any person who is a permanent resident of or an immigrant to a foreign country shall not be qualified to run for any elective office under this Code, unless said person has waived his status as permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country in accordance with the residence requirement provided for in the election laws.
3.) SECTION 15 of Republic Act No. 8436, as amended by Republic Act No. 9369. Official Ballot.
xxxx For this purpose, the Commission shall set the deadline for the filing of certificate of candidacy/petition of registration/manifestation to participate in the election. Any person who files his certificate of candidacy within this period shall only be considered as a candidate at the start of the campaign period for which he filed his certificate of candidacy: Provided, That, unlawful acts or omissions applicable to a candidate shall effect only upon the start of the aforesaid campaign period:..
4.) SECTION 79. Definitions. - As used in this Code:
x x x x
(b) The term “election campaign” or “partisan political activity” refers to an act designed to promote the election or defeat of a particular candidate or candidates to a public office which shall include:
(1) Forming organizations, associations, clubs, committees or other groups of persons for the purpose of soliciting votes and/or undertaking any campaign for or against a candidate;
(2) Holding political caucuses, conferences, meetings, rallies, parades, or other similar assemblies, for the purpose of soliciting votes and/or undertaking any campaign or propaganda for or against a candidate;
(3) Making speeches, announcements or commentaries, or holding interviews for or against the election of any candidate for public office;
(4) Publishing or distributing campaign literature or materials designed to support or oppose the election of any candidate; or
(5) Directly or indirectly soliciting votes, pledges or support for or against a candidate.
And now the landmark decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Penera vs COMELEC which I’m sure will not fail to titillate the minds of those interested about dynamics of Philippine elections. Here, you will see how the Supreme Court flip flopped in its interpretation of the law. You will see how the majority suddenly disappeared and what was the dissenting opinion suddenly, after less than two months, became the better view.
PENERA vs COMELEC
The COMELEC’S Decision
The facts below were taken directly from the decision of the Supreme Court.
This case stemmed from the filing of a motion for disqualification against the petitioner Rosalinda A. Penera (Penera) as a candidate for the position of mayor of the Municipality of Sta. Monica, Surigao del Norte (Sta. Monica) in the 2007 Synchronized National and Local Elections. Penera and private respondent Edgar T. Andanar (Andanar) were mayoralty candidates in Sta. Monica during the 14 May 2007 elections.
Penera and private respondent Edgar T. Andanar (Andanar) were mayoralty candidates in Sta. Monica during the 14 May 2007 elections. The latter accused Penera and her political party of unlawfully engaging in election campaigning and partisan political activity prior to the commencement of the campaign period.
Chronological presentation of facts:
29 March 2007 – a day before the start of the authorized campaign period on 30 March 2007 – Penera and her partymates went around the different barangays in Sta. Monica, announcing their candidacies and requesting the people to vote for them on the day of the elections.
2 April 2007 - Andanar filed before the Office of the Regional Election Director (ORED), Caraga Region (Region XIII), a Petition for Disqualification against Penera.
19 April 2007 – Penera filed her answer arguing, citing the case of Barroso v. Ampig wherein the Court supposedly ruled that a motorcade held by candidates during the filing of their COCs was not a form of political campaigning.
14 May 2007 – election took place and Penera was declared the winner. The case for disqualification was still pending in the COMELEC head office, second division.
24 July 2007 – Penera was disqualified for engaging in premature campaigning, in violation of Sections 80 and 68 of the Omnibus Election Code. The decision was penned by Commissioner Nicodemo T. Ferrer (Ferrer), Second Division. Commissioner Rene V. Sarmiento dissented with the opinion of the two commissioners.
The COMELEC en banc upheld the second division and so as the Supreme Court in its first decision rendered on September 11, 2009.
The Supreme Court Decision
In the first decision, the majority agreed with the dissenters that one can only be considered a candidate when the following requisites are present: 1.) he/ she has already filed his COC, and 2.) at the commencement of the campaign period. Absent of any of them, one therefore cannot be considered a candidate pursuant to the provision of Sec 15 of RA 8436.
The disagreement lies in the interpretation and application. Although the majority agreed with the definition however they reasoned that upon the filing of his/ her COC, the prospective candidate already explicitly declares his/ her intention to run as a candidate in the coming elections. The commission by such a person of any of the acts enumerated under sec 79(b) of the Omnibus Election Code (i.e holding rallies or parades, making speeches, etc) can, thus, be logically and reasonably construed as for the purpose of his/ her intended candidacy. To stress its point the majority said that “when the campaign period arts and said person proceeds with his/ her candidacy, his/ her intent turning into actuality, we can already consider his/ her acts, after the filing of his/ her COC and prior to the campaign period, as he promotion of his/ her election as a candidate, hence, constituting premature campaigning, for which he/ she ma be disqualified. Also, conversely, if said person, for any reason, withdraws his/ her COC before the campaign period, then there is no point to view his/ her acts prior to said period as acts for the promotion of his/ her election as a candidate. In the latter case, there can be no premature campaigning as there is no candidate, whose disqualification may be sought, to begin with.”
The opinion of the majority in the first decision though legally flawed I must admit is fair, sensible and appropriate. When one filed his candidacy, he/ she already made his intention known to the world that he/ she’s running for public office thus making speeches, posting banners, holding parades or rallies after he filed his COC and before the campaign period is in truth and in fact premature campaigning and undeniably he has created an undue advantage against the opposing candidate. He does all these acts precisely to advance and increase his chances of winning. What else would it be for? The often he’s seen the better.
On the other hand, the then minority which became now the new majority has the law on their side at least technically speaking. A person who filed his COC cannot be considered a candidate for all its intent and purposes under the law unless until the campaign period, thus suffice it to say premature campaigning has been rendered practically extinct under the new law. Therefore under the present jurisprudence, no person can be guilty of premature campaigning either before or after he filed his COC. Just perfect! So, brace yourself for the next succeeding elections you will see faces that will bore you to death.
The very act that I thought was unfair is now being given by the Supreme Courts its imprimatur. There is no stopping these people now from starting to post, flash, advertize, and bore us with their faces all year round. Just great!
Applying how little Juan understands it, if one plans to run for public office and starts to appear on TV and other media few months before the election, you can’t help but wonder why start with the ads now? Why didn’t they do it two years ago? Why suddenly when election is fast approaching we start seeing their faces like permanent screensavers on our PCs? You can’t help but notice this patently unfair fact. These people are so desperate that they will stop at nothing just so they’ll get what they wanted. Take Villar, for example, who already spent hundreds of millions even before formally announcing his plans of running for the highest office of the land. This man scares the hell out of me. He epitomizes not the rags to riches success-story but the old corrupt, callous and oligarchic ascent to power.
Admittedly, while we think of all these as really “premature campaigning”, the law has, as always, assumed a more technical meaning. The same goes to what really makes a person an official candidate. Of course, there cannot be premature campaigning without a candidate and a campaign period specifically prescribed by law. I was in quandary like probably most of you as to what the law and the recent jurisprudence have to say regarding this matter. It is for this reason that I started scouting for some legal provisions and resources and what I am about to share with you is a rather interesting case.
As a starting point I would like us all to take a peek at the laws directly related to this matter and these are:
1.) SECTION 80. Election campaign or partisan political activity outside campaign period. — It shall be unlawful for any person, whether or not a voter or candidate, or for any party, or association of persons, to engage in an election campaign or partisan political activity except during the campaign period: Provided, That political parties may hold political conventions or meetings to nominate their official candidates within thirty days before the commencement of the campaign period and forty-five days for Presidential and Vice-Presidential election.
2.) SECTION. 68. Disqualifications. - Any candidate who, in an action or protest in which he is a party is declared by final decision of a competent court guilty of, or found by the Commission of having xxx (e) violated any of Sections 80, 83, 85, 86 and 261, paragraphs d, e, k, v, and cc, subparagraph 6, shall be disqualified from continuing as a candidate, or if he has been elected, from holding the office. Any person who is a permanent resident of or an immigrant to a foreign country shall not be qualified to run for any elective office under this Code, unless said person has waived his status as permanent resident or immigrant of a foreign country in accordance with the residence requirement provided for in the election laws.
3.) SECTION 15 of Republic Act No. 8436, as amended by Republic Act No. 9369. Official Ballot.
xxxx For this purpose, the Commission shall set the deadline for the filing of certificate of candidacy/petition of registration/manifestation to participate in the election. Any person who files his certificate of candidacy within this period shall only be considered as a candidate at the start of the campaign period for which he filed his certificate of candidacy: Provided, That, unlawful acts or omissions applicable to a candidate shall effect only upon the start of the aforesaid campaign period:..
4.) SECTION 79. Definitions. - As used in this Code:
x x x x
(b) The term “election campaign” or “partisan political activity” refers to an act designed to promote the election or defeat of a particular candidate or candidates to a public office which shall include:
(1) Forming organizations, associations, clubs, committees or other groups of persons for the purpose of soliciting votes and/or undertaking any campaign for or against a candidate;
(2) Holding political caucuses, conferences, meetings, rallies, parades, or other similar assemblies, for the purpose of soliciting votes and/or undertaking any campaign or propaganda for or against a candidate;
(3) Making speeches, announcements or commentaries, or holding interviews for or against the election of any candidate for public office;
(4) Publishing or distributing campaign literature or materials designed to support or oppose the election of any candidate; or
(5) Directly or indirectly soliciting votes, pledges or support for or against a candidate.
And now the landmark decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Penera vs COMELEC which I’m sure will not fail to titillate the minds of those interested about dynamics of Philippine elections. Here, you will see how the Supreme Court flip flopped in its interpretation of the law. You will see how the majority suddenly disappeared and what was the dissenting opinion suddenly, after less than two months, became the better view.
PENERA vs COMELEC
The COMELEC’S Decision
The facts below were taken directly from the decision of the Supreme Court.
This case stemmed from the filing of a motion for disqualification against the petitioner Rosalinda A. Penera (Penera) as a candidate for the position of mayor of the Municipality of Sta. Monica, Surigao del Norte (Sta. Monica) in the 2007 Synchronized National and Local Elections. Penera and private respondent Edgar T. Andanar (Andanar) were mayoralty candidates in Sta. Monica during the 14 May 2007 elections.
Penera and private respondent Edgar T. Andanar (Andanar) were mayoralty candidates in Sta. Monica during the 14 May 2007 elections. The latter accused Penera and her political party of unlawfully engaging in election campaigning and partisan political activity prior to the commencement of the campaign period.
Chronological presentation of facts:
29 March 2007 – a day before the start of the authorized campaign period on 30 March 2007 – Penera and her partymates went around the different barangays in Sta. Monica, announcing their candidacies and requesting the people to vote for them on the day of the elections.
2 April 2007 - Andanar filed before the Office of the Regional Election Director (ORED), Caraga Region (Region XIII), a Petition for Disqualification against Penera.
19 April 2007 – Penera filed her answer arguing, citing the case of Barroso v. Ampig wherein the Court supposedly ruled that a motorcade held by candidates during the filing of their COCs was not a form of political campaigning.
14 May 2007 – election took place and Penera was declared the winner. The case for disqualification was still pending in the COMELEC head office, second division.
24 July 2007 – Penera was disqualified for engaging in premature campaigning, in violation of Sections 80 and 68 of the Omnibus Election Code. The decision was penned by Commissioner Nicodemo T. Ferrer (Ferrer), Second Division. Commissioner Rene V. Sarmiento dissented with the opinion of the two commissioners.
The COMELEC en banc upheld the second division and so as the Supreme Court in its first decision rendered on September 11, 2009.
The Supreme Court Decision
In the first decision, the majority agreed with the dissenters that one can only be considered a candidate when the following requisites are present: 1.) he/ she has already filed his COC, and 2.) at the commencement of the campaign period. Absent of any of them, one therefore cannot be considered a candidate pursuant to the provision of Sec 15 of RA 8436.
The disagreement lies in the interpretation and application. Although the majority agreed with the definition however they reasoned that upon the filing of his/ her COC, the prospective candidate already explicitly declares his/ her intention to run as a candidate in the coming elections. The commission by such a person of any of the acts enumerated under sec 79(b) of the Omnibus Election Code (i.e holding rallies or parades, making speeches, etc) can, thus, be logically and reasonably construed as for the purpose of his/ her intended candidacy. To stress its point the majority said that “when the campaign period arts and said person proceeds with his/ her candidacy, his/ her intent turning into actuality, we can already consider his/ her acts, after the filing of his/ her COC and prior to the campaign period, as he promotion of his/ her election as a candidate, hence, constituting premature campaigning, for which he/ she ma be disqualified. Also, conversely, if said person, for any reason, withdraws his/ her COC before the campaign period, then there is no point to view his/ her acts prior to said period as acts for the promotion of his/ her election as a candidate. In the latter case, there can be no premature campaigning as there is no candidate, whose disqualification may be sought, to begin with.”
The opinion of the majority in the first decision though legally flawed I must admit is fair, sensible and appropriate. When one filed his candidacy, he/ she already made his intention known to the world that he/ she’s running for public office thus making speeches, posting banners, holding parades or rallies after he filed his COC and before the campaign period is in truth and in fact premature campaigning and undeniably he has created an undue advantage against the opposing candidate. He does all these acts precisely to advance and increase his chances of winning. What else would it be for? The often he’s seen the better.
On the other hand, the then minority which became now the new majority has the law on their side at least technically speaking. A person who filed his COC cannot be considered a candidate for all its intent and purposes under the law unless until the campaign period, thus suffice it to say premature campaigning has been rendered practically extinct under the new law. Therefore under the present jurisprudence, no person can be guilty of premature campaigning either before or after he filed his COC. Just perfect! So, brace yourself for the next succeeding elections you will see faces that will bore you to death.
The very act that I thought was unfair is now being given by the Supreme Courts its imprimatur. There is no stopping these people now from starting to post, flash, advertize, and bore us with their faces all year round. Just great!
The Study of Law (Part 1)
Last semester, my professor asked us the most fundamental of all questions, “Why do you want to take up law?” It is basic yes but the answer has a lifelong impact to the person answering the question and to the people that he will serve in the future. You can hear all sorts of answers ranging from funny to more serious ones and all of the answers have but one similarity – helping those who are in need of the protection of the law. For young students of law (me included), they may not yet understand the nobility of the profession and I must admit to most of us passing the law subjects is our primordial goal thus studying is merely used as a means to an immediate end, the immediate end being to finish the semester without any failing marks but really beyond passing there lies the most significant role of us all – helping people in the best way we know.
The first time I went back to Law school I was feeling lost a bit - out of touch. What can you expect after almost five years of absence? I was really in quandary. Good thing I had professors who pushed me hard without them knowing it probably. To name one that would be Professor Ada Abad aka Bostsip, the President/ CEO of AHINI Corporation.* * *Bostsip was one of those who made me realized (again) how interesting the study of law is with all its intricacies and nuances. If there is one thing that I am confident that I learned by heart that would be Labor Relations. And this semester? …
To be continued…
*** Our class functioned not as an ordinary class but as a company and we chose Ahini (named after the infamous Ah1n1). One thing nice about the set up was that the class was made to feel how it’s like to be in a company with each one of us occupying different positions - Managers, bar tenders, waiters/ waitress, valet parker, Finance Officer, HR and so on and so forth. I can still remember the “bickering” within the rank-and-file union during the CBA negotiation and of course the administrative investigation when the witness was asked to start all over again because he was caught lying as manifested by the inconsistencies of his testimony.
The first time I went back to Law school I was feeling lost a bit - out of touch. What can you expect after almost five years of absence? I was really in quandary. Good thing I had professors who pushed me hard without them knowing it probably. To name one that would be Professor Ada Abad aka Bostsip, the President/ CEO of AHINI Corporation.* * *Bostsip was one of those who made me realized (again) how interesting the study of law is with all its intricacies and nuances. If there is one thing that I am confident that I learned by heart that would be Labor Relations. And this semester? …
To be continued…
*** Our class functioned not as an ordinary class but as a company and we chose Ahini (named after the infamous Ah1n1). One thing nice about the set up was that the class was made to feel how it’s like to be in a company with each one of us occupying different positions - Managers, bar tenders, waiters/ waitress, valet parker, Finance Officer, HR and so on and so forth. I can still remember the “bickering” within the rank-and-file union during the CBA negotiation and of course the administrative investigation when the witness was asked to start all over again because he was caught lying as manifested by the inconsistencies of his testimony.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)