Supreme Court asked to reverse Chief Justice ruling
By Christina Mendez and Edu Punay (The Philippine Star) Updated March 23, 2010
12:00 AM
|
| |
MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court (SC) was asked yesterday to reconsider its ruling last week
allowing President Arroyo to appoint the next chief justice despite the ban on midnight appointments.
Six senatorial candidates of the Nacionalista Party (NP) asked the High Court in a nine-page motion for
reconsideration to reverse its decision and declare that the position of chief justice is covered by the ban on
appointments during the election period under Article VII Section 15 of the Constitution.
They asked the tribunal to consider their appeal through a motion for intervention since they were not a party
in the case before the ruling was issued on the consolidated petitions.
The intervenors, led by lawyer Adel Tamano, include representatives Satur Ocampo and Liza Maza, former
labor undersecretary Susan Ople, Gwen Pimentel and former Cavite congressman Gilbert Remulla.
They accused the SC of interpreting what is already clear in the Charter by justifying that the provision on
midnight appointments is in conflict with Article VIII Section 4 (1), which states that any vacancy in the
judiciary “shall be filled within ninety days from the occurrence thereof.”
“It is well established in our jurisprudence that where the law is clear, there is no room for interpretation. The
courts must apply the law not as they think it ought to be but as they find it and without regard to
consequences,” the group argued.
They believe that the High Court’s conclusion is absurd because it failed to consider the “clear intent of the
framers of the Constitution and instead adopted a narrow interpretation of the two provisions.”
“If the framers of the Constitution did intend that there should be a situation where there will be an acting
chief justice, why then does the Constitution provide for a 90-day period to fill such vacancy. It could have
simply provided that the appointment of any vacancy must be immediate,” the senatorial bets argued.
They alleged that the Court’s interpretation is “not only too restrictive but defies the basic tenets of common
sense.”
Lastly, they reiterated the argument that the exceptions are “temporary appointments to executive positions
when continued vacancies will prejudice public service or endanger public safety.”
“There is nothing in the said provision which exempts the judiciary from its coverage,” they added.
The NP senatorial bets’ move is backed by party standard-bearer Sen. Manuel Villar
“I support the initiative of Tamano and the NP bets,” he said in an interview with reporters Sunday night.
Villar has reiterated his concern over the SC decision, which he described as another obvious attempt by
President Arroyo to control certain institutions such as the judiciary by appointing the most number of
justices during her term.
Ople, for her part, lamented how the Court seemed to have amended the Constitution instead of merely
interpreting it.
“The prohibition against all appointments two months before the presidential elections is very clear. I believe
that by citing what was not stated therein as part and parcel of the Constitution is already an act of
amendment,” said the youngest daughter of the former constitutional commissioner Blas Ople.
“We respectfully seek the Supreme Court’s reconsideration because this is an issue that involves the
independence and credibility of the highest court of the land and how it interfaces with the Office of the
President at the crossroads of our democracy,” Ople appealed.
Last March 17, the SC ruled that Mrs. Arroyo could appoint the replacement of Chief Justice Reynato Puno
without violating the Constitution. Nine of the 15 justices were of the view that the constitutional ban on
midnight appointments does not cover the judiciary.
JBC set to meet after Holy Week
Meanwhile, the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) is set to meet after Holy Week to discuss last week’s SC
ruling allowing President Arroyo to appoint the next chief justice.
Acting Justice Secretary Alberto Agra, ex-officio member of JBC, said the eight-man collegial body would
resolve several issues in a meeting set on April 5 in Baguio City before resuming their selection process for
the chief justice post.
Agra told reporters that the JBC could possibly decide if it would already start the selection process for the
vacancy for the position of associate justice in the Supreme Court that would be vacant with the imminent
appointment of the next chief justice.
He said they would also decide if there is a need to interview candidates and what to do with several
allegations against some aspirants.
Agra said the body would also tackle the conditions set by two nominees, associate justices Antonio Carpio
and Conchita Carpio-Morales, who said they would only accept the appointment if it will be made by the next
president.
“We have to ask them what will be their position now based on the decision by the Court,” he said, adding
that Carpio and Morales might be asked to manifest if they are still interested in the post.
Agra stressed that the eight-man JBC should abide by the Court’s order and perform its mandate of
completing the nomination process and submitting a shortlist to Mrs. Arroyo on or before May 17.
“I think not to agree with the ruling is not an option for the JBC since we already submitted to the jurisdiction
of the Supreme Court when it submitted its comment on the petitions,” Agra explained.
This statement rejects the suggestion of Sen. Francis Pangilinan, a member of the JBC from 2001 to 2008,
that the JBC should vote if it agrees or not with the SC ruling and file a motion for reconsideration if
necessary.
Meanwhile, Quezon City Rep. Matias Defensor, a member of the JBC, wants the body to submit to the
President all six names in its short list of nominees for the next chief justice.
“I think we have to submit all six nominees, including the two who don’t want to be appointed chief justice by
the incumbent President,” Defensor told reporters.
Aside from Carpio and Morales, the other nominees are associate justices Renato Corona, Arturo Brion and
Teresita de Castro, and Sandiganbayan Justice Edilberto Sandoval.
Most senior
The most senior of the five Supreme Court justices is Carpio, whom Chief Justice Reynato Puno has
designated as acting chief while he is on sabbatical leave.
Defensor, who chairs the House justice committee, said he would urge the JBC to still include the names of
Carpio and Carpio-Morales in the list it would submit to the President.
There are speculations that Mrs. Arroyo favors Corona instead of Carpio to be the next chief justice.
The decision has sparked protests and criticisms from lawyers and experts on law and the Constitution, and
even from those who wrote the Charter in 1987.
Ateneo law dean emeritus Fr. Joaquin Bernas and Christian Monsod, both members of the 1986
Constitutional Commission that wrote the Constitution, said the nine justices misread the Charter.
Bernas and Monsod said the provision clearly prohibits midnight appointments, including those in the
judiciary.
The only exceptions are temporary designations to executive positions that are critical in the delivery of public
service or ensuring public safety, they said.
Meanwhile, nearly half of Filipinos or 43 percent believe that President Arroyo has the right to appoint the next
SC chief, according to a recent survey conducted by the Issues and Advocacy Center (The Center).
The survey, conducted from March 3 to 10, found that 43 percent of Filipinos are in favor of allowing the
President to appoint the next chief justice against 38 percent who oppose it.
Meanwhile, Malacañang downplayed moves to impeach the Supreme Court justices who voted to allow Mrs.
Arroyo to appoint the next chief justice as just part of the noise during election season.
Press Secretary Crispulo Icban Jr. said that coming out with such a statement is easy but making it happen
is another matter.
Nueva Ecija Rep. Eduardo Joson said that he would initiate a signature campaign in Congress to impeach
the nine magistrates for culpable violation of the Constitution and gross ignorance of the law. With Marvin Sy,
Christina Mendez, Jess Diaz, Helen Flores
|
|
