Supreme Court: Just file your appeal
By Edu Punay (The Philippine Star) Updated March 19, 2010 12:00 AM
MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court (SC) defended yesterday its decision to allow President Arroyo to appoint the next chief justice and advised critics to just file an appeal.
“The court has spoken. Many of those criticizing the decision are those who have been preempting the court from day one to rule in accordance with their view. They still have a remedy – a motion for reconsideration,” said Jose Midas Marquez, court administrator and spokesman.
Marquez said the ruling is not yet final and aggrieved parties may appeal or file a motion for clarification.
He admitted that the SC has yet to come up with a doctrinal ruling on the issue of whether the ban on appointments during an election period applies to the entire judiciary.
Marquez said he was surprised by critics’ reactions to the ruling even if many of them had not yet read it entirely.
The SC, dominated by Arroyo appointees, voted on Wednesday to allow the President to appoint the successor of Chief Justice Reynato Puno who retires on May 17.
The magistrates ruled that the ban on appointments under Article VII Section 15 of the Constitution does not apply to the post of chief justice.
This ruling has whipped up a storm of protest and expressions of indignation.
Malacañang called on administration critics to respect the controversial SC ruling and accused them of engaging in “fantastical talk” about Mrs. Arroyo’s alleged plan to stay in power.
“It should be an eye-opener for us to see how the opposition, ranging from President Erap’s (Estrada’s) party to the Makati Business
Club, has come together not only to denounce the SC ruling as unconstitutional - as if they are the better judge of the issue - but also to scare our people with fantastical talk about presidential holdover, election failure, and even, of all things, martial law,” deputy presidential spokesman Gary Olivar said.
“Even Senator Aquino has stooped to claiming that the Arroyo government is worse than Marcos, whom he claims at least did not try to hide behind legalities,” Olivar said.
“Our democratic system allows for dissenting opinions, allows for different perspectives. However, we settle these perspectives through a system, a procedure, that will eventually give the authority to a body that is empowered by the Constitution and that body exercises its decision-making power - it is exercised and people accept it,” Arroyo spokesman Ricardo Saludo said.
“The President will abide by the decision of the court once it is final and executory and she will fulfill her constitutional duty - that’s it, nothing more to add and I think that’s pretty clear,” Saludo said.
Estelito Mendoza, one of the petitioners in the consolidated cases asking the SC to allow Mrs. Arroyo to appoint Puno’s successor, said presidential candidates and politicians should spare the High Tribunal from politicking.
“They should not inject politics in this issue, which involves the Constitution. They should not use it as investment in their presidential campaigns,” Mendoza, a former solicitor general said.
“We should no longer look at who appointed the current justices. President Arroyo has been the appointing authority for the past nine years. And we already saw how the Court in many times have ruled on cases unfavorable to the Palace,” he told The STAR over the phone.
Four governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines also came to the defense of the SC decision.
IBP governors Milagros Fernan-Cayosa of Northern Luzon, Ferdinan Miclat of Central Luzon, Jose Cabrera of Bicol and Roan Libarios of Eastern Mindanao also called on the legal community and the public to “follow the rule of law and refrain from unnecessary attacks calculated to erode public faith in the Supreme Court.”
“The Court has spoken loud and clear. Let us support and respect its overwhelming decision declaring that the appointment of the next chief justice is not covered by the election ban,” they said in a joint statement.
Shortlist readied
Sen. Francis Escudero, the Senate representative to the Judicial and Bar Council, said that once the SC ruling becomes executory, the JBC would have no choice but to submit to Mrs. Arroyo a shortlist of candidates to the top SC post.
“We are obliged to follow because if we don’t, there will be a constitutional crisis, anarchy,” he said. “Imagine if you just ignore the decisions of the court.”
“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,” acting Justice Secretary and JBC ex-officio member Alberto Agra explained.
Liberal Party spokesperson Sen. Francis Pangilinan said the JBC should file a motion for reconsideration and not allow itself to be a rubber stamp of the SC.
“The JBC as a collegial body should vote on whether or not it agrees with the Supreme Court decision, and if it has the vote favoring opposition to the ruling, it should file a motion for reconsideration with the SC,” Pangilinan said.
Former elections chief Christian Monsod, one of 50 framers of the 1987 Constitution, said there is no ambiguity in the Charter regarding the prohibition on presidential appointments.
“There is no ambiguity in the Constitution. I think the ambiguity is in the minds of those justices,” Monsod said in a radio interview. With Paolo Romero and Aurea Calica
View previous articles from this author.
Posts
0 comments: