Category: supreme court

the sereno shebang

read raul palabrica’s Ominous precedent in the hight court, narciso reyes’s Supreme Court quandary, rene saguisag’s …cost of judicial independence, jose sison’s Wrong move, ana marie pamintuan’s Shortcuts, and elinando cinco’s If the impending Sereno impeachment were a new- product launch, it sorely needs industry endorsements.

clearly, the solgen’s  big idea (or was it the speaker’s) of asking the supreme court to remove cj sereno from her position via a quo warranto proceeding instead of letting her go through an impeachment trial is actually a very bad idea.

hindi bale sana if the supremes had stayed above the fray, distanced themselves from the lower-house impeachment hearings, as behooved them.  then it would be a different story, then we would not be under the impression that the supremes would kick her out in a heartbeat if it were up to them, and that’s not fair.  sereno deserves to be heard, must be given the opportunity to respond to accusations in the proper court, that is, the senate trial court.  she was right to stay away from the snakepit, the cesspool? that is the lower-house.

hindi rin bale sana if we were not under the impression that the case against the chief justice is weak, or why else did the honorable reps need some seven months, over some 15 day-long hearings, to come up with something, anything, as in, best efforts ang peg? anyway it’s more a political rather than a judicial matter, the senate sitting as an impeachment court cannot NOT take into consideration that very powerful ones in the  duterte admin want her out, full stop? by hook or by crook? no ifs or buts?

the “honorable” reps should stop appearing on tv, trying to convince us that the chief justice is as bad, as evil, as corrupt, even, as crazy, as they are, i mean, as they say she is.  and media peeps should stop giving them airtime.  they’ve had seven months.  it’s the cj’s turn and we badly want to hear her defense, yes?

tama si cj,  tapusin ng congress ang sinimulan nila.  wag tayo pumayag na basta na lang sipain ng supremes si sereno.  we need to hear her side, so we can all make up our minds who and what to believe.  they made us suffer through 7 tortuous months of lower-house hearings, we deserve the closure that a senate trial will bring, whatever the outcome, for good or ill.

at the moment i’m not sold on the notion na walang panalo si sereno.  na kahit hindi pa siya ma-convict sa senado di na siya makakabalik sa supreme court, that the damage to the institution would be reparable only if given a fresh start, without sereno.  yeah, right, armed with a whole new set of precedents to judge by, how fresh is that.

of course the supreme appeal of the quo-warranto scheme was that it would save the lower house from the hard work of  prosecuting the case vs. sereno in the senate.  it would seem, however, that the “honorable” ones have recovered from that moment of weakness.  the news is that former senate prez juan ponce enrile himself, who supported the midnight appointment of, then presided over the trial court that impeached, corona has joined the prosecution panel, woohoo, let the games begin.

‘piso para kay leni’ nixed by supremes

suspicious daw the timing of the supreme court decision denying the petition of vp leni robredo’s supporters that they be allowed to pay some 6 to 7M of the 15M total in electoral protest fees owed the presidential electoral tribunal (PET).  read rina jimenez-david sa inquirer:

At this point in time almost all “eyeballs” are on the dispute between Commission on Elections Chair Andy Bautista and his estranged wife Patricia. In the heated exchange of accusations and counterclaims, including imputations of hidden wealth, an extramarital affair and the existence of a “third eye,” the name of Bongbong Marcos has cropped up, mainly because Ms Bautista’s lawyer is a good friend of the defeated vice-presidential candidate. Is the marital spat just a conflict between husband and wife? Or are Robredo, the Comelec and the conduct of the 2016 elections the ultimate targets? The timing is suspicious indeed.

i have family and friends who voted for leni, and who are indeed passionate about that win, and they wanted to send money, pero paano ba, tanong sa akin.  kaninong bank account puwede magpadeposito, kilala mo ba ang mga iyan?  so katrina asked a friend in the vp’s camp, and he referred us to the facebook page kung saan nakapost ang essential info. 

but as it turns out, the law is quite clear about it, a public official may not cannot accept goodies of any kind:

Presidential Decree No. 46 prohibits public officials from receiving gifts or any other valuable thing on any occasion when the gift is given because of an official’s position, regardless of whether or not the gift is given for past favors, or if the giver is expecting to receive a favor or better treatment in the future.

The same prohibition against receiving gifts can also be found in Republic Act No. 6713, which specifies that prohibited gifts include those with a value that “is neither nominal nor insignificant.”

and yet and yet bongbong marcos was allowed to accept donations, in fact admitted that friends helped him raise 36M of the 60M total.  napaka-unfair.  bongbong is not a public official, kasi nga natalo siya ni leni, so he lodges a protest and forces leni to engage, tapos siya lang ang puwedeng humingi ng donations?  but should PET rule in bongbong’s favor, what is to prevent those generous donors from exacting favors from the new veep?  such interesting names, presumably donating in the millions, presumably with vested interests in a marcos vice presidency.  next stop, malacañang?  

in contrast, leni’s donors are anonymous citizens, across classes, who won’t be asking the vp any favors except precisely to fight this good fight.  and in fairness, my sib and friends weren’t naive.  alam nila na baka hindi pumayag ang PET, in which case okey lang sa kanila, let the money then go to the veep’s  anti-poverty program, was the attitude.

i’m not sure what they’re thinking now, now that the incredible tish bautista has raised serious questions about the credibility of the 2016 elections.  i’d be thinking, what if leni loses, bongbong as vp will get to use the money?  umm, baka dapat iderecho na ang milyones sa home for the aged or somewhere like that.  but wait, may motion for reconsideration pa daw.  baka naman matauhan pa ang supremes.

if not, LP spokesman barry gutierrez says the robredo camp will be raising the money instead.  the liberal party to the rescue?  bakit ngayon lang.

The Supreme Court martial law ruling: Legal foundation for autocratic rule?

MEL STA. MARIA

Are we witnessing the early signs of the constitution’s evisceration? Did the Supreme Court lay the legal foundation for the undue expansion of Martial Law to other parts of the country? Have the seeds of authoritarianism been judicially planted?

And just like the criticism on the Supreme Court that legitimized dictator Ferdinand Marcos’ Martial Law regime in 1973, did the present Supreme Court make itself a willing partner emasculating our democratic institutions?

Read on…

Tug of war

Manuel L. Quezon III

As the hearings in the Supreme Court on the martial law petitions take place, many hope to find out what ought to have been put on the record weeks ago—namely, what factors contributed to President Duterte’s decision to impose martial law in Mindanao.

Read on…