Category: supreme court

juan ponce enrile, estelito mendoza, and the supremes

what a show of legal acrobatics and selective justice from the supreme court, no less.  the credit, of course, goes to enrile’s defense counsel na talaga namang matinik at kagilagilalas.  for some history, read Estelito Mendoza: Champion for “the wrong side” by raissa robles (2011), Joker Arroyo et al. versus Estelito Mendoza et al. by belinda olivares-cunanan (2000), and Estelito Mendoza’s defense of Louie Gonzalez by solita monsod (2008).

sabi nga ni raissa robles:

He can make white look black and vice versa. Plus he has a grateful army of former students, colleagues and subordinates scattered far and wide in the Philippine judicial and legal system.

and sabi nga ni associate justice marvic leonen sa kanyang dissenting opinion:

Special privileges may be granted only under clear, transparent, and reasoned circumstances. Otherwise, we accept that there are just some among us who are elite. Otherwise, we concede that there are those among us who are powerful and networked enough to enjoy privileges not shared by all.

(Other accused) … remain in jail because they may not have the resources to launch a full-scale legal offensive marked with the creativity of a well-networked defense counsel. After all, they may have committed acts driven by the twin evils of greed or lust on one hand and poverty on the other hand.

yes, a powerful, creative, and well-networked defense counsel is all it takes to get around the law.  and, but, what does that say about the eight arroyo-appointed supremes who dared preempt the sandiganbayan?  why the sudden inordinate rush to release enrile?  is it possible that enrile and/or mendoza called in favors of one kind or another and there was no saying no?  or were the eight just eager to establish a precedent for the benefit, next, of gloria arroyo?

kaya ko namang lunukin yung old age and ill health as pusong-mamon reasons for moving him (and her) from hospital arrest to house arrest, but to hear that he is raring to go back to work, in fact, is expected back in the senate on monday, if senate clowns are to be believed, is beyond outrageous, it’s unbelievable, as in, wow, is he no longer under arrest?!?  he is presumed innocent, the evidence is weak, blah blah blah, or so argues, nay, rules, estelito mendoza from on high, and that’s all there is to it?

the timing is highly suspicious.  just when marcos’s version of the bangsamoro bill is up for discussion.  except that i remember enrile evincing great interest in the original BBL as a welcome experiment in parliamentary government, or something to that effect.  can it be that he has changed his mind?  OR has he been set free to bring the aquino-iqbal BBL back on track, sorry na lang si bongbong?  is my imagination on over-drive?

and, but, what would it say about a senate that’s eager to welcome enrile back, no questions asked?  do these lawmakers owe enrile and mendoza some favors, too, of one kind or another?  are they testing our limits?

the good news is, justice secretary leila de lima has finally found her voice.

De Lima said the Aug. 18 ruling was not final, as it was “subject to the 15-day rule of filing a motion for reconsideration.”

“The People of the Philippines, through the Ombudsman, can and must file a motion for reconsideration,” De Lima told the Inquirer on Saturday when asked about the state’s legal recourse.

“[T]he decision can only be deemed final and executory if no [motion for reconsideration] is filed within 15 days from receipt [of the ruling] or, if one is filed, upon the denial of the [motion],” she said.

so.  let’s see how enrile and mendoza try to win this one.  think nation, and history, dear supremes.  we are watching, and taking notes for the worldwide web.

sona, tsona, torre de manila #takeitdown

i’m deep into a book project — so far, purely a labor of love — and all the political drama is just white noise.  i did stop to listen to the president’s sona but went back to work the moment the testimonials started.  i forgot, though, all about the vice president’s tsona and caught only the tail end when he gave special mention to each of the SAF44, of course, and why not, since nakalimutan sila ng presidente — like nakalimutan niya ang FOI — it was good to be reminded, lalo na’t narinig ko si palace spokesman lacierda sa ANC raving about how this wonderful president has a knack for bouncing back even from the worst falls in trust rating, as in mamasapano times, because, look, his trust ratings are up, people have forgotten mamasapano, yey, mamasapano is no longer an issue, or something to that effect.  excuse me, but many of us have long memories actually.  deep in our psyches, everything is factored in, one way or another, and when we want to remember the details, there’s always the web, thank goodness.

but  yesterday’s oral  arguments sa supreme court on the torre de manila case, i could not resist.  the tweets were interesting so we tuned in and caught the last two and a half hours of associate justice francis jardeleza’s interpellation of DMCI counsel vincent lazatin.  it was all most instructive.  i loved jardeleza’s carefully grounded questions and deliberate pace — he refused to be rushed,  or to be distracted.  he made the point that surely DMCI knew the risks of building such a tower in such a zone of no-high-rises behind the rizal monument.  now i wonder if the perfect unobstructed vista of luneta park and manila bay was the main selling point?

and let’s not forget that juicy tidbit about DMCI seeking “presidential intercession” from malacanang’s Presidential Action Center, and apparently getting it, which emboldened the NHCP, it would seem, to issue its own “permit”.

On October 11, 2012, respondent NHCP received a 1st Indorsement dated September 13, 201219 from the Presidential Action Center, referring to respondent NHCP the request of DMCI Consultant Alfredo A. Andrade seeking presidential intercession to facilitate the processing of their application for a certification. Acting on the communications received on the matter, the NHCP Board of Commissioners discussed the Torre de Manila project during its meeting on October 19, 2012.

Thus, in a letter dated November 6, 201221 addressed to DMCI Consultant Alfredo Andrade, respondent NHCP stated that the project site of the Torre de Manila condominium is “outside the boundaries of the Rizal Park and well to the rear (789 meters, according to Mr. Ancheta) of the Rizal Monument; hence it cannot possibly obstruct the front view of the said National Monument.

oral arguments continue on august 11.  the court has asked dr. serena diokno, chair of the NHCP, to be present, or to send her lawyers.  it should be verrry interesting because diokno dares, all by her lonesome, to disagree with solicitor general florin hilbay — the chief legal counsel and constitutionalist of the government —  who has seen fit to assert that

… the Constitutional mandate to conserve, promote, and popularize the nation’s historical and cultural heritage resources includes, in the case of the Rizal Monument, the preservation of its sightlines.

*

TAKE IT DOWN #torredemanila

TAKE IT DOWN #torredemanila

DMCI’s torre de manila is a hideous sight, an ugly and offensive intrusion on our view of the rizal monument.

So there stands Rizal, a bronze sculpture with an obelisk as his backdrop set on a stone base, the Noli-Fili in his hand and the tableaux at his feet — Inang Bayan nursing her child and the two boys reading. It might as well be the nation’s mission-vision statement concretized in immortal consciousness: Rizal’s dream to build a strong society enlightened in its endeavor to create equal opportunities to a better life through education while always guided by the basic principles of unity and integrity. ~ Amelia H.C. Ylagan

as such — as the nation’s mission-vision statement concretized — the rizal monument deserves to dominate that landscape and skyline.  no one and nothing deserves to be seen in the same frame, least of all a 46-floor tower of distraction that stands more for the joys of capitalism than anything else.

come on, guys, take it down.

it’s the right thing to do, and it will be cathartic for the people, release some of the frustration, if not anger, over accumulated grievances as another administration that promised CHANGE bites the dust.

nothing ever changes around here, really.  except for the faces.  palakasan pa rin.  same old, same old.  read Tense Torre TRO hearing about why, allegedly, chief justice sereno and associate justice carpio voted against the TRO.  read the Erap-Lim word war erupting over Torre  and how the NHCP backed off, flip-flopped on the issue.   shame on them all.

rizal would be livid.

Brion’s hand on Abad’s collar

By John Nery

Much has already been said about the incident involving Budget Secretary Butch Abad and a score of student protesters at the University of the Philippines the other week. Inquirer reporter Erika Sauler’s summary sentence, in a report she filed a few days after the incident, can serve as a helpful wrap-up: “As he exited the auditorium [and made his way] to his vehicle, a group of protesters from Stand UP (Student Alliance for the Advancement of Democratic Rights in UP) ganged up on him, calling him a thief as they threw crumpled pieces of paper, placards and coins in his direction.” Other reports described one protester grabbing Abad by the collar.

Regardless of where one stands on the issue, whether the students were justified in their violent protest or not, the incident seems to me to demonstrate that words in fact have consequences in the real world.

When the Supreme Court released its decision finding parts of the controversial Disbursement Acceleration Program unconstitutional, the following two paragraphs were immediately taken as justification for the anti-DAP position.

“Nonetheless, as Justice [Arturo] Brion has pointed out during the deliberations, the doctrine of operative fact does not always apply, and is not always the consequence of every declaration of constitutional invalidity. It can be invoked only in situations where the nullification of the effects of what used to be a valid law would result in inequity and injustice; but where no such result would ensue, the general rule that an unconstitutional law is totally ineffective should apply.

“In that context, as Justice Brion has clarified, the doctrine of operative fact can apply only to the PAPs that can no longer be undone, and whose beneficiaries relied in good faith on the validity of the DAP, but cannot apply to the authors, proponents and implementors of the DAP, unless there are concrete findings of good faith in their favor by the proper tribunals determining their criminal, civil, administrative and other liabilities.”

In other words, President Aquino, Abad and other officials were deemed guilty until proven innocent (or possessing good faith). I think there is a straight line from this extraordinary inversion, from Justice Brion’s hand, to Abad’s collar.