Leila oh Leila! Noynoy oh Noynoy!

De Lima accepts CJ nomination

Justice Secretary Leila de Lima just did the sour-graping gig.  She was excluded from the shortlist of candidates for the post of Supreme Court Chief Justice to replace impeached CJ Renato Corona.

The shortlist was submitted by the Judicial and Bar Council assigned by the Constitution for such a task.  The JBC did not cast a single vote for De Lima believing she was disqualified by three on-going disbarment cases against her being heard by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP).

De Lima’s response?  A bald assertion that the SC, JBC, and IBP were ganging up on her.  That she was being singled out by the three institutions.

 

 

Ganged up on her?  De Lima herself is an ex-officio JBC member but since she accepted the nomination as chief justice, she had to be replaced by Justice Department undersecretary Michael Musngi.  De Lima is Musngi’s boss but the latter did not vote for her as chief justice.  Rep. Niel Tupas, Jr., chief prosecutor against impeached chief justice Renato Corona and a key personality in the ruling Liberal Party also did not do so.  Thus, if there was any ganging up, her supposed allies participated in the ‘conspiracy’.

De Lima reacts to her disqualification

 

At best, De Lima cannot seem to understand that the choice of SC Chief Justice is bound by rules.  I guess she started believing the Palace’s spin that she was the strongest candidate.

She should realize that the main reason why President Noynoy is pushing her candidacy is a demonstrated readiness to obey the Palace’s bidding even at the expense of the law.  As a cabinet member, there is nothing wrong in doing the President’s bidding.  As a cabinet member, that is your job description.  It goes without saying that when following the President’s orders, one has to follow the law.  Or suffer the consequences.

 

 

 

Surely, you remember her defiance of Supreme Court-issued temporary restraining orders that could have allowed the departure of former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo for medical consultation abroad.

Former president Arroyo barred from leaving the country in late 2011

 

De Lima’s reason? Arroyo was a high flight risk.

Arroyo’s trip abroad last year was aborted.

At the time, de Lima may have believed that she was caught between a rock and a hard place.  And she decided to stop Arroyo’s departure in defiance of the Supreme Court.

However, the chickens have now come home to roost.  One cannot hope to be the chief  interpreter and enforcer of the law after defying it repeatedly.

What was Leila thinking?

But no; we know that Leila’s bid is at the behest of Pinoy.

President Noynoy and the embattled de Lima

What was he thinking?

Heel or hero?

That was the query propounded by Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago yesterday while she was asking questions of Rep. Tobias “Toby” Tiangco (Navotas).

Rep. Tobias Tiangco

 Continuing his testimony that begun last Monday, Tiangco said the majority in the House of Representatives was called to a caucus in January 2012 by House speaker Feliciano “Sonny” Belmonte with an unclear agenda–though rumors were swirling in the winds that the impeachment of Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona was the caucus’ main item.

Tiangco testified Belmonte opened the meeting with a declaration that Corona is major obstacle to President Noynoy’s anti-corruption program.  Ergo, he must be impeached.  

And then the game changer followed as far as Tiangco was concerned.  Belmonte reportedly told the assembly that no questions on the matter will be entertained.   And at this point, things became trickier.  Asked about physical copies of the Articles of Impeachment, Belmonte reportedly told the assembly that each can pick up their copies (after the caucus?) since they are still being reproduced.  It is also unclear if Tiangco testified that Belmonte directly threatened the majority to sign the complaint or suffer dire consequences.

What followed according to Tiangco, was a Powerpoint presentation by Rep. Niel Tupas Jr.–apparently a summary of the impeachment complaint.

Tiangco also did not make it clear if he read the impeachment complaint.  As far as he was concerned, Tupas’ presentation and Belmonte’s unwelcoming stance regarding questions were enough to convince him there was no probable cause against Corona.

Tiangco also revealed last Monday that he experienced delays in the release of his pork barrel funds when he refused to sign the impeachment complaint against former Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez.  

Heel?

If you were a member of the majority, you are expected to vote according to the preferences of the leaders of the majority.  In the Philippines, the leader of the majority is the President of the Philippines and among his chief lieutenants is the Speaker of the House of Representatives.   It will never happen that the majority in the House will be ranged against the President.  After all, the President is the chief dispenser of public largesse (through his alter ego) notwithstanding the constitutional provision that Congress has the power of the purse.

President Noynoy Aquino (r) and House Speaker Sonny Belmonte (l)

If one belongs to the majority and defies the wishes of the President and the House Speaker, what does he expect?  

To be handed the keys to a 7-star hotel penthouse suite?

Or to be sent post-haste to the dog house?

As his testimony progressed, Tiangco admitted that he eventually received all of his pork barrel allocation for 2011.

Hero?

Tiangco may not have informed us about anything we do not generally know regarding Palace-Congress relations specially on how Malakanyang can persuade congressmen to accede to the former’s preferences through a carrot-and-stick approach.  However, a direct testimony on the matter is still useful and refreshing.

Tiangco also got himself in a collision course against 188 colleagues (already organized as Movement of 188) who signed the impeachment complaint.  That takes guts since Tiangco will be dealing with these same members of the House until the end of their terms in 2013.  Crossing one’s legislator-colleagues can affect legislative proposals and funding requests.  Tiangco also suffers the risk of alienation and being snubbed by fellow legislators.

In short, testifying at the Senate entailed great risks and costs.

And yet Tiangco testified.

And his testimony came to naught.  

The Senate impeachment court ruled his account was immaterial since it pertained to the preparation of the impeachment complaint.  Senators believed their job was to try the impeached official.  They thought they had no business in the sovereign business of a co-equal legislative chamber.  They will hear the impeachment complaint–warts and all.

Hero or heel?

The categories may not be mutually exclusive.

Picking up a rock…and still being able to fly?

I did not comment on the on-going impeachment trial of Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona except for the blog-entry on the G-word [see <https://bongmendoza.wordpress.com/2012/02/29/four-letter-words/>].

My reasons: I did not have anything new to say or a novel spin on the developments even if the impeachment was the news of the day for three months running.  At many instances, I got bored with the proceedings when most of the business of the day was marking of exhibits and as the defense resorted to technicalities that a non-lawyer like me cannot follow.  Of course, I also had work to do.

Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago

This reminds me of the Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago’s admonitions against non-lawyers making commentaries on the impeachment proceedings.  At one point, she argued that the law is a body of technicalities.  For these reasons, it requires one to go through four years of law school and a year to prepare for and pass the bar examinations.  So there!

However, to our amusement and consternation, both the prosecution and defense panels resorted to several schemes which could be best considered as fool-hardy.

We Filipinos have a sensible warning: Do not pick up a huge stone only to fumble and the stone drops on your foot.

Gambits are risky and can go both ways. They could pay off big time or could land people hard on their back-sides.

Let’s consider the prosecution.  At the heart of its Article 2 of the Articles of Impeachment is the charge that Chief Justice Corona under-declared his assets (particularly peso bank deposits) in his sworn statements of assets and liabilities and net worth (SALNs).  If the prosecutors alleged this misdeclaration, it meant that they had prior access to Corona’s bank records even before they were able to prepare the Articles of Impeachment.  During the impeachment of then President Joseph Estrada, the House prosecution was allowed by the Senate to issue universal subpoenas for banks to submit bank records of Estrada and his alias–Jose Velarde.

Lead prosecutor Rep. Niel Tupas Jr.

 This time, the Senate allowed the issuance of subpoenas only pertaining to specific peso bank deposits of Corona.  The prosecutors complied by specifying the account numbers.  However, they found they needed to explain how they were able to obtain such information.  They needed some defense against the ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine; that if the evidence was obtained illegally, then it would be inadmissible in court.

Rep. Rey Umali

Rep. Rey Umali (Oriental Mindoro) tried to convince the senators he got an envelop containing the bank documents from a “small lady” within the premises of the Senate.  However, footage from the building’s CCTV cameras did not support Umali’s story.  So it was Rep. Bolet Banal’s turn to make his best shot.  Banal claimed he found the documents left at his house’s gate.  One senator (I cannot remember who) asked him if there were CCTV cameras outside his house.  I could claim he sorrowfully said there were none.

Rep. Bolet Banal

As things stand,  the prosecution’s gambits paid off.  The Senate ruled (with three not voting) to accept the evidence submitted regarding Corona’s peso deposits.  

Serafin Cuevas

 The defense panel, headed by former Associate Justice Serafin Cuevas, had their share of gambles.  The first was relatively minor: a charge that lead prosecutor Tupas was himself building a P50 million mansion in Quezon City.  It did not gain traction since it was Corona who was on trial.  Representatives are not impeached; they must win elections otherwise they cease to be representatives.

Then, in the middle of February, the defense panel clad in red shirts (but with Cuevas absent) gave a week-end press 

conference and accused Malakanyang of offering P100 million for each senator to defy the Supreme Court’s order to keep Corona’s dollar deposits secret.

The defense took a calculated risk.  The senators were predictably incensed and several took the defense to task for making the accusation and was asked to name names–a usual demand in Philippine politics.  Atty. Roy of the defense apologized profusely and explained that it was not their intention to tarnish the reputation of the honorable senators but only to warn of the Palace’s intentions.

It also appears that the defense’s gambit paid off.  During that same Monday, the Senate voted to uphold the Supreme Court’s ruling on Corona’s dollar deposits.  The apparent subtext is: if you voted against the Supreme Court, then you were reached by the Palace!

Other ploys of the defense did not meet as much success.  It wanted anti-Corona senators such as Senators Franklin Drilon and Kiko Pangilinan to inhibit themselves from the impeachment proceedings.  Suntok sa buwan ito!  It is clear that President Noynoy Aquino wants Corona impeached and as loyal members of the ruling Liberal Party, Drilon and Pangilinan are expected to support the President.  Even if that involves assisting a clearly-ill prepared prosecution panel.  

Senator Franklin Drilon

The defense could have gained greater credibility if they also asked for the inhibition of clearly pro-Corona Senators such as Defensor-Santiago.  That is, they want an impartial court.  In contrast, the prosecution panel (save for the Vitaliano Aguirre incident) takes Santiago’s tongue-lashing and tirades in stride.

In the past days, Corona himself went on a media blitz and implicated two senators in a seeming plot to unseat him as Supreme Court Chief Justice.

First, he claimed Sen. Teofisto Guingona III, also of the Liberal Party, asked him to share his term as chief justice with Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, the man believed to be acceptable to President Noynoy. Guingona dutifully denied Corona’s story and insisted they only met for dinner with other people.

Senator Teofisto Guingona III

Then Corona said that a male senator approached him and asked him to resign as chief justice.  He declined to name the said senator because supposedly it will make the latter ‘angrier’.  He added that senator knew that Corona was referring to him and that he will name him in due time. Feeling alluded to, Drilon denied Corona’s allegations and challenged the former to name the so-called senator immediately.

What is Corona’s game?  Why is he riling some senators who will judge him?  

I believe he is guided by the number of senators required to convict him.  At present, there are only 23 senators because the vacancy created by the election of Noynoy Aquino as President was not filled.  Be that as it may, 16 senators must vote in favor of his conviction.  If only 15 senators do so, he is acquitted and remains Supreme Court Chief Justice.  Put in another way, if 8 senators vote against his conviction, he is acquitted.

If indeed he (and his defense panel) is riling  Drilon, Pangilinan, and Guingona, he probably believes that the former will vote against him no matter what.  And the purpose of the propaganda offensive is to convince the public that the three will vote against him simply upon the bidding of the Palace.  One must remember that his chief battle cry is to maintain the judiciary’s independence.

The defense will present its case tomorrow.  The arguments of the defense will be the subject of future blog entries.

 

 

The judiciary and Philippine policy making

Judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court and in lower courts as may be established by law. According to the Constitution, judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights that are legally demandable and enforceable and the power of judicial review to determine whether or not an abuse of discretion occurred that amounted to a lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or government agency.

In 2006 for instance, the Supreme Court ruled adversely against several presidential orders including the so-called ‘calibrated pre-emptive response’ policy used by the security forces vis-à-vis public rallies and other forms of mass action, and the prohibition of executive branch officials from testifying before Congress without the President’s permission. On the other hand, it also upheld a presidential order placing the country under the state of emergency in February 2006 when the military foiled an alleged military coup. However, it ruled that the arrest of a university professor and the police raid on a newspaper office in relation to the state of emergency order violated the law.

During the same period, it also had to rule on the legal adequacy of efforts to amend the Constitution through the so-called ‘people’s initiative’. In previous years, the Court has been repeatedly asked if laws passed by Congress and signed by the President or treaties ratified by the Senate were constitutional. However, the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review over the acts of other governmental branches is activated only by a petition filed by other parties. On its own and absent such a petition, the Court cannot exercise its power of judicial review. Subject to these parameters, a majority of the Court’s justices (at least eight) serves as a veto player.

The Supreme Court is composed of a chief justice and fourteen (14) associate justices. The members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts are appointed by the president without need for confirmation and hold office during good behavior until they are 70 years of age or cannot discharge their duties due to incapacitation. Judges are chosen from a list of nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council, whose principal function is to recommend appointees. The Supreme Court exercises original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls and petitions for certiorari , prohibition , mandamus , quo warranto , and habeas corpus . The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over final judgments and orders of lower courts in such cases enumerated in the Constitution. It promulgates rules on pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts and admission to the practice of law. In addition, the Supreme Court exercises administrative supervision over all courts and their personnel.

The Constitution vests the judiciary with fiscal autonomy and decrees that budgetary appropriations for the judiciary may not be reduced by Congress below the amount appropriated for the previous years and, after approval, shall be automatically and regularly released. It also provides that no law can be passed to reorganize the judiciary when it undermines the security of tenure of its members.