Category: supreme court

Are the Supremes and the Senate in cahoots?

Puwede namang hindi na lang naki-alam ang Korte Suprema, lalo na’t they practically changed, and added to, the rules, in a hair-splitting kind of way, by unanimous vote yet, which has lost the Court a lot of credibility. What if they had stayed out of it instead, left it to the Senate to deal with the Articles of Impeachment, dismiss it with or without a hearing, and let the Senate thereafter be answerable, accountable, to the people who elected them.

We have no such recourse with regard to the Supremes, and that is so unfair. We’re expected to just take their word for it — null and void, ab initio — no matter what we think, kahit may pinag-aralan at nag-iisip at nakakaintindi rin naman kahit hindi tayo abogado.

The mindset is, the Supremes know best when it comes to the rule of law, and that it is best, too, for the country that we all bow to the the wisdom of “the gods of Padre Faura” because theirs is the final say, never mind if we’re not quite persuaded (more like blindsided) by the ponente’s looooong-winded arguments [97 pages of text and footnote], because to insist daw that the Senate ignore the Supremes is to be a “banana republic” kasi ang ibig sabihin, wala tayong “rule of law”.

Thank goodness that former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and Associate Justice Adolf Azcuna have weighed in:

CJ PANGILINAN: … I would have favored – if I were still an incumbent – the issuance of a Status Quo Ante order requiring the parties to maintain the current situation. … As part of due process, I would have asked for Oral Argument before promulgating any decision. If the Court had patiently heard Oral Argument on less important problems like the recognition of foreign divorces and the PhilHealth petitions, why not on this monumental case? In the least, if only to accord respect to a coequal branch of the government, the HOR, I would have called for Oral Argument before making up my mind and casting my vote.

J. AZCUNA:  THE SUPREME COURT CANNOT BE THE ONE TO CRAFT THE RULES TO ENFORCE ART XI OF THE CONSTITUTION. … the Supreme Court members are themselves impeachable officials. So they cannot be the ones to define the rules for their own possible impeachment. This would go against the very heart of due process— No one can be the judge in one’s own case. [CAPS Azcuna’s]

Beyond that and more, from the likes of Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and lawyer Christian Monsod, a framer of the ’87 Constitution  https://www.youtube.com/, my beef is with the timing. February 18 pa noong nag-file ang bigtime abogados ni VP Sara ng petition to nullify the Articles of Impeachment. What took the Court so long?

Check out SP Chiz‘s July 29 statement to the press re the July 25 null-and-void sound effects from the Supreme Court that I bothered to transcribe, for the record. He sounds like he’s feeling quite vindicated about redefining “forthwith” and allowing the “remand”. Totoo kaya ang chismis na linigawan niya at ng isang DDS senator ang Korte Suprema to intervene when, and in the way, they did? Perhaps to spare not just VP Sara but also the Senate from the inevitable intramurals? Or coincidence lang, synchronicity baga, na on the same wavelength siya at ang Supremes?

SP CHIZ: Personally, ang posisyon ko, bilang abogado, ay ito. Nagdesisyon ang Korte Suprema. Sang-ayon ka man doon o hindi, dapat ito’y sundin. Kung hindi, magkakaron tayo ng constitutional crisis at baka tingnan tayo ng mga karatıg-bansa natin at ibang tao na isang banana republic kung saan sinusunod lamang natin ‘yung mga gusto natin.

Bilang pananaw pa sa desisyon ng Korte Suprema. Lima sa labing-isang pinag-utos ng Korte Surpema na isumite ng Kamara ay kabilang sa order o kautusan ng Senate Impeachment mismo, kaugnay sa compliance ng Kamara sa one-year ban. Sabi nga ng isang kritiko ng Senado nung mga panahong ‘yon: Wala daw karapatan ang Senado utusan ang Kamara, na tanungin ang Kamara kaugnay ng one-year ban. Sabi ng kritikong ‘yon, desisyon daw ‘yon ng Korte Suprema. Ngayong nagdesisyon naman ang Korte Suprema, ang sinasabi ng parehong taong iyan ay: the Senate is the sole judge of impeachment cases, dapat ‘wag pansinin.

Ano ba yan. Talaga bang nagbabago kung anong tama at totoo ayon sa batas depende sa gusto natin? Hindi ba dapat, ano man ang gusto natin, dapat ang sundin natin ay ang batas at ang Saligang Batas. At ayon sa Konstitusyon, Korte Suprema lamang ang bukod tanging may kapangyarihan magbigay-buhay at mag-interpret ng ating Saligang Batas. May mga parte din ng desisyon na hindi ako sang-ayon, pero kung babasahin natin ng lubusan, kabilang yung mga separate opinions …

Nakasaad din sa desisyon ng Korte Suprema: hindi nagkaroon, mula’t-mula, ng jurisdiction ang Senado doon sa impeachment complaints dahil sa paglabag sa Bill of Rights, partikular, due process of law.

… kaugnay sa paglabag sa due process kinlaro din nila yon. Na kapag violation ng due process ang pinaguusapan, ay wala na tayong puwede i-review o ibalik pa dahil nawalan na ng jurisdiction mula sa simula ang anumang korte o husgado, ayon sa majority at unanimous decision. https://www.youtube.com/

Violation of due process nga ba?

J. AZCUNA: The Constitution provides that NO PERSON SHALL BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE, LIBERTY OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW (Art. III, The Bill of Rights). Someone being impeached does not stand to be deprived of life, nor of liberty, much less of property. So what is the Constitutional basis for insisting on applying due process rules IN ALL PHASES OF IMPEACHMENT?

None.

***

Is the Supreme Court facing a perfect storm? by Joel Ruiz Butuyan

Firestorm over impeachment authority Inquirer Editorial 

The Supreme Court betrayed the people by Tony Lopez

 

 

“Extra-constitutional musings”

Until now, the Senate has been savaged by lawyers, law deans, law students and even plain housewives for allegedly failing to do what the Constitution commands. Some of them may have even begun to believe that an extra-constitutional option would be a better alternative. By going to trial now, and making sure the trial works, the Senate could effectively put these extra- constitutional musings to rest and reassure the nation that the impeachment process still works and should be given a chance. There would be no need to mobilize public sentiment, as some sectors seem to believe they should be doing, in favor of some costly alternative. https://www.manilatimes.net/

That’s from “The Senate and its discontents” by former Senator Francisco “Kit” Tatad, one of the 11 who refused to open the second envelope, circa Erap. Interesting that he brings up the notion of “an extra-constitutional option” — meron nga ba? Parang wala.

If in the 20th Senate, the VP’s allies have enough votes to manage to dismiss the case without convening as an Impeachment Court, on whatever grounds, a walkout by the opposing Senators, even if supported by The People (as in Edsa Dos) would not necessarily compel the VP to resign. And even if she were to resign, she could still run for president in 2028 even if she may be guilty of betraying public trust atbp.

*

Thanks to former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban for calling out the Senate in his column today: “Senators, do you know where the impeachment proceeding is going to?”

To the Supreme Court where the 20th Congress and the lawyers may delay and scuttle it till forgotten by our people?

To the waste basket, never mind the people’s cry for accountability (credible polls say that a vast majority—from 78 to 88 percent—of our people want accountability and transparency)?

To embarrass the VP who expressed a desire to clear her name via due process from her alleged maltreatment by the HOR?

To the battle in July 2025 for the election of the senate president of the 20th Congress who would thereafter preside over the reconvening of the IC?

To be fair, I did not identify the senator-judges alluded to though readers could name them based on what they saw and heard during the live coverage of the IC sessions, and on printed media reports. I leave it to their discretion as elected public officials to retain the public trust by answering the questions in the song popularized by the chanteuse Diana Ross. https://opinion.inquirer.net/

*

And then my YouTube algo came up with a Doris Bigornia phone interview of Senator-elect Tito Sotto who has changed his tune, now agrees that the Impeachment Court continues into the 20th Senate. BUT he’s saying that it’s the Chief Justice who should be the Presiding Officer of the Impeachment Court, as when a president is impeached, because the VP’s office and duties are more like the president’s, or something like that. Also, that if the VP is impeached, it’s the Senate Prez who becomes Acting VP until the prez appoints a new one, which means “ikaw pa ang tratraidor sa papalitan mo” … a confict of interest for the SP, who can also be replaced even while the prez has yet to appoint a new VP,  or something like that. https://www.youtube.com/

For a very brief moment there, it sounded reasonable, but is it even possible to have the Chief Justice preside in the VP’s impeachment without amending the Constitution?  I emailed CJ Panganiban forthwith and here’s his reply, also forthwith:

The Constitution provides that the Senate President presides except when the President is the respondent in which case the CJ presides. There is only one exception, we cannot add another whether by our wise judgment or by far fetched logic.

So there. Which brings me back to “extra-constitutional musings” and how to get the DDS allies in the Senate to behave as honorable senators should, like recuse, or restrain themselves until we’ve all heard all of the evidence. How ironic that we succeeded in removing two presidents but can’t do anything about a Senate that threatens to acquit an impeached vice president without a trial.

sanchez, the senate, and the supremes

not surprised that convicted rapist-killer antonio sanchez had his family lobbying hard for his release by whatever means.  plan A: win a grant of clemency from president duterte through the intercession of imeldific political ally, imelda marcos herself, among other luminaries, helped along by his former legal counsel, now presidential spokesman sal panelo’s FYI (for-your-info) to the bureau of pardons and parole (BPP).  but, of course, now that the shit has hit the fan, panelo and imee marcos (for imelda) say their offices are swamped by letters of request for this and that, and everything is simply forwarded / referred to the offices concerned.  really?  no sifting the grain from the chaff, the valid from the invalid, the bongga from the  basura?  walang due diligence?

plan B: avail of the Good Conduct Time Allowance (GCTA) law that the good senators of the 15th congress so conveniently enacted in 2013, and in such ambiguous terms that even an unrepentant sanchez just might qualify, and he almost did, thanks also to the it-would-seem just-as ambiguous implementing rules and regulations (IRR) crafted by then DOJ sec, now detained senator, leila de lima and then DILG sec mar roxas.  in the first senate hearing DOJ sec menardo guevara didn’t beat around the bush:  the law is not clear and needs to be amended.  read Guevara wants GCTA law amended amid controversy.

Guevarra’s proposed amendments include a clear classification of whether the law should be on reformative and rehabilitative side, or punitive or retributive, and clear definition of “heinous crimes.”

“We came to a conclusion that the intent of the law was to exclude those convicted of heinous crimes, as well as habitual delinquents, escapists, recidivists. But that came only after a tedious and laborous harmonization of the various provisions of this law,” he said.

“Had it been clearly stated in one single provision — stand alone provision — that the benefits of this law shall not apply to these classes of people, then we’ll probably not have a conclusion such as what we have now,” he added.

so.  sino nga ba ang mga senador na ito ng 15th congress who are, at bottom, responsible for the crappy GCTA law.  philstar‘s jess diaz did the research and found that some senators who have been holding forth in the senate hearings, fuming now over the almost-release of sanchez, are among the law’s authors.  such as senators frank drilon, ping lacson, bong revilla, francis pangilinan, and tito sotto.  read ‘Expanded good conduct law was Senate idea’.

Senate Bill 3064 was contained in Committee Report No. 82, which the committee on justice and human rights, and the committee on constitutional amendments, revision of codes and laws submitted on Nov. 17, 2011.

The Senate version consolidated eight similar measures on counting the period of detention as part of a prison term and expansion of GCTA as provided in the Revised Penal Code.

The authors of the eight measures were then senators Manuel Villar Jr., Francis Escudero and Miriam Defensor Santiago.

Villar, Escudero, Santiago, and colleagues Loren Legarda, Antonio Trillanes IV, Franklin Drilon, Ramon Revilla Jr., Sergio Osmeña III, Francis Pangilinan, Aquilino Pimentel III, Ferdinand Marcos Jr., Panfilo Lacson, Manuel Lapid, Alan Peter Cayetano, the late Joker Arroyo and Edgardo Angara, Jinggoy Estrada, Teofisto Guingona III and Vicente Sotto III signed Report No. 82.

the four who did not sign: then senate prez juan ponce enrile, senators gregorio honasan, ralph recto, and pia cayetano. it would be interesting to hear why not. did they think it was badly crafted?  did they perhaps foresee that the likes of the incorrigible antonio sanchez could take advantage of the ambiguities?  or did they share marcos sol-gen estelito mendoza’s opinion that the GCTA law undercuts sentences handed down by courts?

Mendoza told senators in Thursday’s hearing that the GCTA, a law enacted in 2013 to fast-track the release of well-behaved convicts and decongest the country’s jails, could create a constitutional crisis.

… “Once rendered, it ( a sentence) is not subject to change. It is immutable. It must be implemented and rendered as executed by the court,” said Mendoza..

“If the congress which grants excessive time allowance which undercuts the judgments of courts, that might be subject to constitutional question because of our basic principle of separation of powers,” said Mendoza.

read also philstar columnist alex magno’s Sloppy.

The good conduct time allowance law, being so sloppily crafted, allows bureaucrats a wide margin of discretion. That is, we know, always bad.

The vulnerability of any bureaucratic unit to corruption correlates with the width of the margin of discretion of its bureaucrats. This is why administrative reforms in the BIR and the Customs Bureau focus on reducing the margin of discretion and increasing transparency of transactions.

The badly crafted good conduct time allowance law, aggravated by even worse crafted implementing rules and regulations, is more than an invitation to corruption. It is an invitation to an orgy.

It is not surprising that early releases of prisoners have become commodities for sale to the highest bidders. The bigger the bribe, the more expeditious the processing.

clearly, sanchez was trying to buy his way to freedom, one crooked way or another, and without paying up the php12 million plus owed the sarmenta and gomez families, as ruled by the supreme court.  i wonder what the supremes have to say about that.

by the way, di ko gets ang prescriptive period of 10 years, which i am willing to assume is meant to favor the victims’ families – they shouldn’t have to wait longer than that? – but what if it turns out to favor instead the convicted rapist-killer who dares defy the supremes and refuses to pay?

di ko rin gets kung bakit hindi napilit, na-obliga, na-compel si sanchez na magbayad, never mind his continued protestations of innocence.  hindi daw siya, si kit alqueza daw ang mastermind sa pagpatay kay gomez; later, si allan jun sanchez daw, anak niyang kauuwi from london studies ang niregaluhan ng eileen, or so says mon tulfo who heard it first from a “prison official” na inuutangan daw ni sanchez para sa nurse who visited him regularly for his health na nabuntis daw niya.  yeah, it gets murkier and sleazier by the day.

so, whose responsibility was it to make sure that the supremes’ ruling was executed?  the executive branch?  or the judicial branch?  both of the above?  senator drilon is right: it is not for the DOJ to invoke the lapsed prescriptive period.  let the DOJ file a case and let the supremes decide.  i’d love to hear “prescriptive periods” defended when it works in favor of the convicted criminal instead.  i wonder what marcos sol-gen estelito mendoza would say about that.

and here’s hoping that former senator juan ponce enrile also weighs in; after all he was the senate prez when that slapdash slipshod law was passed.  and he sure could use the pogi points, too.

sneaky snaky snarky supremes

surely, the ouster of cj sereno by fellow supremes who hate her is not good for country.  legal circles are aghast.  too many laws  defied, broken, re-interpreted.  it is all so destabilizing.  surely there is some other way of dealing with the problem.  surely a senate impeachment trial is the wiser option, let the chips fall where they may.

the original sin was pNoy’s, appointing one so young and so junior.  ang daming nilampasan, in-overtake.  kumbaga sa traffic, daig pa ni sereno ang naka-wangwang, tabi lahat ng nakapilang senior associate justices na mga next-in-line for the cj post.  at least in cj corona’s case, isa lang ang nilakdawan, ibig sabihin tipong senior na rin, may karapatan na rin si corona, besides being president gloria’s former chief of staff, or something like that.

anyway.  the original sin was pNoy’s, the mortal sin was sereno’s, for accepting the appointment.  surely she knew that she would be met with hostility, but perhaps she believed that mar roxas would succeed pNoy and then maybe leni would succeed mar, soon enough the hostile ones would have retired and LP-friendly ones appointed, and then it would all be a breeze to the end of her term.

but mar lost.  ka-DDS na ang majority supremes.  and duterte has spoken: sereno must go.  and so the house of reps got moving and built a case with the help of some five supremes, no less, and the senate has been waiting.  BUT BUT BUT what happened nga ba?

the cardinal sin was solgen calida’s.  why did he have to butt in with the quo warranto?  mahina kasi ang kaso ng house of reps?  tama ba si senator ping lacson?

PING LACSON @iampinglacson 6 hours
Ang biggest ‘winners’ sa SC decision ay ang mga abogadong pulpol na handa sanang magkalat na katangahan sa impeachment trials na hindi na mangyayari dahil malamang hindi na ipadala ng House ang Articles of Impeachment sa Senado.
11 May 2018
580 Retweets 1.4K Likes

more seriously, senate president koko pimentel is calling for the RULE OF LAW.

The Supreme Court is supreme in a lot of things but not in everything. In impeachment matters the Supreme  Court is not supreme, because the Senate is the one and only impeachment court. The Chief Justice an “impeachable official” who can be removed only after impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate.  The reputation and esteem of this present Supreme Court will now rise or fall on the basis of the soundness or unsoundness of the this controversial decision upholding a very unusual remedy to oust a sitting Chief Justice.  Let us all uphold the RULE OF LAW. The people must be given time to reiview this decision.  And the Supreme Court itself must also take the time to review its own decision.  If the supreme court is not supreme in everything then it is also not infallible in everything.  The respondent Chief Justice must be given the opportunity to file a Motion for Reconsideration.  God bless our beloved country.

if sereno is not impeached by the senate, the supremes, of course, will be no less hostile, the situation no less untenable.  sereno may have to exit the scene anyway, to keep her sanity.  but let her cross that bridge when / if she gets there.

meanwhile, here’s praying that the supremes (even just one or two? three?) graciously change their minds about the quo warranto, and soon.  if only to shut sereno up, LOL.  her media blitz is quite effective, the message quite arresting, even exciting, particularly the call for a national conversation (!) on everything that’s wrong with filipino society, before it’s too late.

the lady is hitting the ground running.  maybe there’s hope.