Category: supreme court

no live coverage of ampatuan trial :(

Supreme Court spokesperson Atty. Midas Marquez said that only 30 accredited media, close relatives and counsels of complainants and defendants would be allowed inside the court room.

“I am asking for everyone’s cooperation. We are doing this for everyone’s sake, we’re not doing this for us, we’re doing this for everyone’s sake: for the accused to have a fair trial and for media to be able to access the hearing. So let us please coordinate and cooperate with one another,” Marquez said in a press conference.

Security will be tight inside the court room as well.

Media would have to pass through three “stations” for security check and proper verification of identification. Only one reporter from each media outfit is allowed inside the court room. No cellular phones, recorders, and other devices are allowed inside the court room, Marquez said.

in a tv newscast i heard marquez saying it was to “avoid trial by publicity”; in an interview by pia hontiveros that i caught the tail of, he was saying it was to avoid a situation like joseph estrada’s impeachment trial that saw people taking to the streets, or something to that effect.

but but but senator rodolfo biazon is right to ask for full media coverage:

“The PNP (Philippine National Police) and the government must give full transparency,” Biazon said. “The executive department must provide transparency to eliminate any doubts, to disprove (speculations) that the Ampatuans are supported by the military and the government.”

“Halimbawa, dapat makita itong trial,yung court hearing na naka schedule na gawin sa Camp Crame. Talagang special na mga nilalang ang mga Ampatuans dahil talagang naghanda pa ng court para sa kanila (For example, this court hearing in Camp Crame must be made public. The Ampatuansare really special because a court has been prepared especially for them),” Biazon pointed out.

hmm.   i wonder if ampatuan’s lawyers have anything to do with this supreme court directive.   suddenly i’m remembering what alex magno said about andal jr.’s very matinik lawyers:

We know now the Ampatuans have hired the best lawyers money could buy — and I have phrased that as carefully as I can.

Those lawyers will throw in every rule in the book, find every loophole in the law and develop every excuse to invalidate evidence. They will fight tooth-and-nail, if not to clear their clients, make it impossible to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

…A judicial ruling, after all, is shaped by the give-and-take of the trial proceedings — not by the strength of conviction in the public mind about the guilt or innocence of the accused.

yeah, this is one of those times when “due process” works in favor of the accused, sorry na lang ang mga biktima.   let’s hope that prosecution witnesses stand firm in their face-off with the notoriously crafty sigmund sigfrid fortun.   too too bad we’re not going to see any of it :-(

minding the supreme court

if you’re not clear what the con-ass ram-through was all about, or why people are angry with the lower house of congress, read jarius bondoc’s Do they have SC in their pocket?

and if his suspicion is correct, na kaya pala ang lakas ng loob nina nograles na balewalain ang public disapproval dismay disgust, dahil hawak na ni gma ang supreme court, lalong naging interesante kung sinong i-a-appoint ni gma to fill up two vacant SC seats.

Supreme Court submits 6 names to JBC
By Norman Bordadora

MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court on Tuesday submitted six names for consideration by the Judicial and Bar Council for the two vacancies in the 15-seat high court.

During a meeting, the justices voted for Court of Appeals Justices Josefina Salonga (eight votes), Martin Villarama (seven votes) and Remedios Salazar-Fernando (six votes), Sandiganbayan Justice Francisco Villaruz (seven votes), lawyer Rodolfo Robles (six votes), and University of Sto. Tomas law school Dean Robert Abad (five votes).

The JBC rules state that the council would give due weight to the Supreme Court’s nominees when it draws up a short list of nominees for the President’s consideration in appointing new high court justices.

read also purple s. romero‘s  SC nominees: Congress should vote separately on Cha-cha.

…appellate court Justice Martin Villarama opposed the view that economic growth makes charter change indispensable. “The government should always be there [in ownership of public utilities and utilization of natural resources]. The suggested amendment is not urgent at this point,” he stressed.

Since the lower House is dominated by administration allies, Justice Remedios Salazar-Fernando … pushed for separate voting in a constituent assembly.

“The House of Representatives and the Senate should vote separately because the lower House could outnumber the Senate,” she warned.

Villaruz explained that the charter should be amended to restrict the power of the Congress to conduct inquiries because it is prone to abuse. Congress, in the exercise of its power to hold investigations in aid of legislation, has interrogated various personalities in controversies hounding the Arroyo administration such as the ‘Hello, Garci’ scandal, the fertilizer scam, and the aborted NBN-ZTE deal.

“There are a number of provisions that should be reviewed. The matter of the power of Congress to conduct investigation should be circumscribed,” he said.

Abad, on the other hand, said that legislation would be more efficient under the parliamentary system.

Robles, whose nomination surprised many because he was previously disqualified from the contention for being “overage,” said that a parliamentary form of government, “coupled with federalism,” is best suited for the Philippines.

naku, parang si villarama lang ang type ko.   ayoko kay remedios salazar-fernando, kahit pa for separate voting siya, dahil isa siya sa tatlong court of appeals manangs who acquitted daniel smith.  i hope she doesn’t get it, but i wouldn’t be surprised should gma oblige.