Carpio, Solgen among CJ bets - The Philippine Star » News » Headlines

Carpio, Solgen among CJ bets - The Philippine Star » News » Headlines

"x x x.

MANILA, Philippines - A member of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) confirmed yesterday that acting Chief Justice Antonio Carpio and Solicitor General Francis Jardeleza have been nominated for chief justice.

Lawyer Jose Mejia, regular member of the JBC from academe, said Carpio has been included in the initial list of candidates after he and the other four most senior justices of the Supreme Court (SC) were automatically nominated under the rules.

Carpio, who heads the JBC as ex-officio chairman, inhibited last Monday from the selection process for the post of chief justice.

Carpio finished law at the University of the Philippines and placed sixth in the 1975 Bar examinations. He is a founding partner of the Villaraza Cruz Marcelo and Angangco Law office.

The four other magistrates in the list are Associate Justices Presbitero Velasco Jr., Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, Arturo Brion and Diosdado Peralta.

Mejia said Jardeleza, on the other hand, was nominated by UP College of Law Dean Danny Concepcion last Wednesday when the JBC started accepting applications and recommendations for the top judicial post vacated by ousted chief justice Renato Corona last May 29 after he was found guilty by the Senate impeachment court.

Jardeleza was deputy ombudsman for Luzon before he was named solicitor general last February.

He also finished his law degree from UP and earned his master’s degree from Harvard University in the US. He is also a former lawyer and executive of San Miguel Corp.

Apart from Jardeleza, who is reportedly among those being considered by President Aquino for chief justice, the council had received two more recommendations.

Mejia confirmed that lawyer and women’s rights 

advocate Katrina Legarda was nominated by UP Law Professor Myrna Feliciano, while Ateneo law school Dean Cesar Villanueva was recommended by lawyer Ramon Torralba Jr.

Legarda is known in legal circles as a defender of abused women and children.

She was lead counsel in the statutory rape case filed by an 11-year-old girl against then Zamboanga del Norte Rep. Romeo Jalosjos.

Her “battered women syndrome” defense strategy had also led to the acquittal of a woman who had been sentenced to death for killing her husband.

The SC has since accepted this as valid legal defense.

Villanueva, on the other hand, is a recognized authority in Philippine commercial law. He placed second in the Bar exams in 1981.

There were two other applications accepted by the JBC, but Mejia said he could not recall their names because they were not prominent.

The JBC will accept recommendations until June 18. The nominees will then be asked to formally manifest if they will accept the nominations.

Meanwhile, Justice Secretary Leila de Lima admitted yesterday her being considered for chief justice as earlier reported was still uncertain.

She said she would make the decision if and when she would be nominated and President Aquino would endorse her.

“I will defer to the wishes and wisdom of the President. I hope to get the chance to talk to him first,” she told reporters.

“Personally, I am not interested. If no one nominates me then that’s fine. I’ll have a quieter life. If I will be nominated, then that’s the time I will decide,” she said.

De Lima, an ex-officio member of JBC who also inhibited from the discussions on the new chief justice, said comments in the media made for or against her possible nomination remain as speculations.

“Now those making comments, especially columnists in newspapers, are a bit offensive already. I think they should hold their horses,” she appealed.

President Aquino, meanwhile, refused to comment on Carpio’s nomination as chief justice.

Asked whether the removal of Corona could promote better relations between the executive and judiciary, Aquino said, “I think so.”

“In fact, I’m almost certain that...will be the case,” Aquino said.

He clarified that he was not trying to influence the JBC indirectly by commenting on the issue of next chief justice.

“I distinctly remember the JBC resisted (former president) Arroyo’s request for an expanded list. The Constitution says three nominees for the position,” Aquino said.

He said he was bound by the list to be provided by the JBC.

“The Constitution says so. That’s the only party (that) can nominate. I have to fill the position in 90 days. They have promised to finish their deliberations in a month,” Aquino said.

The President said he would interview all nominees to make sure he would make the right choice.

“There has to be a solid basis (for the appointment). For instance, my appointees to the Supreme Court, I really interviewed all of the candidates,” Aquino said.

x x x."

SC: Appointment of ex-COA chairman Villar unconstitutional » Nation » News | Philippine News | philstar.com

SC: Appointment of ex-COA chairman Villar unconstitutional » Nation » News | Philippine News | philstar.com

"x x x.

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court has declared as unconstitutional former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's appointment of Reynaldo Villar as chairman of the Commission on Audit (COA) in 2008.

In a 30-page decision penned by Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr., the SC en banc held that Villar’s appointment violated Section 1(2), Article 9(D) of the Constitution.

"The Chairman and Commissioners [on Audit] shall be appointed by the President with the consent of the Commission on Appointments for a term of seven years without reappointment….Appointment to any vacancy shall be only for the unexpired portion of the term of the predecessor," the High Court said.

"[T]hen President Macapagal-Arroyo could not have had, under any circumstance, validly appointed Villar as COA Chairman, for a full seven-year appointment, as the Constitution decrees, was not legally feasible in light of the seven-year aggregate rule. Villar had already served four years of his seven-year term as COA Commissioner.

"To recapitulate, a COA Commissioner like respondent Villar who serves for a period less than seven years cannot be appointed as chairman when such position became vacant as a result of the expiration of the seven-year term of the predecessor (Carague). Such appointment to a full term is not valid and constitutional, as the appointee will be allowed to serve more than seven years under the constitutional ban," the Court maintained.

On February 15, 2001, Mrs. Arroyo appointed Carague as COA head for a term of seven years, pursuant to the 1987 Constitution.

On February 7, 2004, Arroyo appointed Villar as third COA member for a seven-year term starting February 2, 2004 until February 2, 2011.

Following Carague’s retirement in 2008, Villar was designated as acting COA chairman and on the same year was nominated and appointed COA head.

Villar, whose appointment was confirmed by the Commission on Appointments on June 11, 2008, was to serve as COA Chair, as expressly indicated in the appointment papers, until the expiration of the original term of his office as COA Commissioner or on February 2, 2011.

However, Villar raised the matter to the High Court, arguing that his term of office as COA Chair should be up to February 2, 2015, or seven years reckoned from February 2, 2008 when he was appointed to the position.

While his petition in the Court was still pending, Villar wrote President Benigno Aquino III on February 22, 2011 signifying his intention to step down from office upon the appointment of his replacement, Ma. Gracia Pulido-Tan.

x x x."

In Medias Res » Blog Archive » How do you solve a problem like Miriam?

In Medias Res » Blog Archive » How do you solve a problem like Miriam?

"x x x.

Bullying and posturing, she spoke with arrogance; mercilessly heckling her peers and haranguing ordinary witnesses. She seemed to relish her loss of emotional control. Her rant made an already offensive voice even more grating, with an atrocious accent that thickened speech in either English or Filipino.

The Senate allowed her every courtesy. But she did not seem to appreciate this, and at every turn displayed how bereft she was of the sense of dignity required by the occasion and office. Her only concern was to be herself. And what a sad and pathetic self that was.

Why do we let her get away with it? Why do media continue to favor her with slavish coverage?

A flash back might help how this has come to pass. I still remember a younger Miriam Defensor Santiago, an RTC (Regional Trial Court) judge before she was appointed in 1988 by President Corazon Aquino to the Bureau of Immigration. There she won popular approval, awards, and more recognition for her efforts to clean up an agency long tainted by corruption and bribery. During her stint in that office, the process of application became orderly, with less opportunity for pay-offs made by fixers to officers, or at least, it was not on display.

She already had this terrible accent then, and it seemed to get worse, the more she was interviewed and asked to speak on public occasions. It seemed she broadened her vowels more, lengthening these in what might been an attempt to speak English like one born to the language. She was obviously bright and witty. She was quick with the quip, smart, and squelching in repartee. The lawyer and civil servant became media’s darling.

Why not? Media in search of a quick story found in her an always ready statement and sound bite. She made it easy for a reporter to write one’s quota for the day. And wherever she went, a coterie of fans and journalists would be around, the latter insistent on baiting her to say something that they could turn into that “she said” story of the day.

Soon enough, the news grapevine would share more than just the subject’s cheap contrivance for media attention. One also heard of planes being held to wait for her and her insisting that those inviting her to speak guarantee a full house of no less than 200. But the media have been easy on the not-so-gentle lady from Iloilo, giving her only the kindest of media’s soft treatment.

As she has gotten older, the quick wittedness has slipped to brash insult, the scold her natural default. Her expressions of displeasure began to sound trite and tired, with no other purpose except to vent. Losing self-restraint, she speaks, arms flailing, face grimacing, shooting questions to reduce a target to shame. She recalls the sad caricature of the screaming Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland, who shrieked for the execution of some offending lower life.

Do we deserve this?

x x x."

The Midas Marquez touch | GMA News Online | The Go-To Site for Filipinos Everywhere

The Midas Marquez touch | GMA News Online | The Go-To Site for Filipinos Everywhere

"x x x.

It did not help that he held another job that created an inherent conflict with his better-known persona as spokesperson, that of Court Administrator. As Court Administrator, he is duty-bound to oversee the various lower courts and is the conduit between these courts and the Supreme Court.  As such, he is expected to be partisan, in favor of these courts, in relation to the Supreme Court, on whose behalf he was also expected to speak, and the other branches of government, from which would come such important matters as budgets. He could not be expected to be both partisan and independent at the same time. That he failed to see this line clearly showed 

That, to me, was when the man, named after one whose touch turns everything golden, lost his luster.

Midas Marquez spoke for two Chief Justices.  That, in itself, is a feat: for two heads of the Judicial Branch to repose so much confidence in one who is relatively young.  This feat, however, also became his downfall. For, in so doing, he lost track of the reason why he needed to speak and for whom he was supposed to speak -- it was for the Supreme Court itself, composed not of one person but of 15 persons whose only intervention in Philippine society is through their collective decisions.  

As members of the Court are expected to be independent, so too should one who speaks for the Court -- not loyal to one person (the Chief Justice) but fiercely loyal and passionately committed to one institution alone (the Supreme Court and the judiciary). 

When he started speaking for the Court, it was for his former boss, Reynato Puno, for whom he served also as Chief of Staff.  When Chief Justice Puno retired, his successor, the now-removed former Chief Justice Renato C. Corona retained him to speak for the Court, on top of his now new assignment as Court Administrator. It became evident early on that he was fiercely loyal not to the Court itself, as an institution, but to one person, the then Chief Justice.  

He would be present physically on television talk shows where the embattled Chief Justice would be interviewed (something that is unprecedented for members of the Court who are expected to be reclusive, by reason of their job) on his midnight appointment as Chief Justice.  
He would continue to articulate the positions of the former Chief Justice and his family members. When the former Chief Justice was impeached and being tried, he would wage verbal war with members of the executive branch. His physical presence, during the times that the former Chief Justice would appear before the Senate, would be noticeable but inexplicable -- after all, the former Chief Justice had retained independent counsel and independent spokespersons. His presence spoke volumes about where his loyalties lay.

When the smoke settled and the former Chief Justice was removed, it became a question of "when," not "if,"  he would be relieved as spokesperson of the Court.  And it came as a surprise to very few that one of the first acts of the Court, in its special session after the removal of the former Chief Justice, was to confirm that Atty. Marquez was no longer speaking "for the Court," as the post was coterminous with the former Chief Justice. That, by itself, was telling -- that the Court itself would acknowledge that its own spokesperson was not speaking for the Court but for one man alone because of the coterminous nature of the relationship.

Midas remains as Court Administrator; his erstwhile deputy, Atty. Cleo Guerra (his opposite number in many ways than one as Atty. G prefers to be unobtrusive, speaking only when necessary, taking a page from Atty. Khan's experience) has taken over as Public Information Office (PIO) head and spokesperson in an acting capacity. Where Midas was combative, Cleo is the opposite.

In the same way that Midas could not be ignored when he was speaking for two Chief Justices, he will be missed -- even his many opponents will concede this.  Without him, there is no lightning rod ready to accept the criticisms thrown the Court's way and equally ready to dish out his own criticism. Whatever his shortcomings may be when he was speaking for Chief Justices, no one can fault him for his passion -- though one may disagree on how misplaced the passion may have been -- in defending his principals.

Midas's experience, however, should give the Court pause to consider some administrative guidelines for the PIO head and the spokesperson of the Court.  

The spokesperson of the Court is, to the public, the Court itself. He is expected to be the image, persona and voice of the Court.  How much or how little he reveals to the public should be a matter for the Court to decide, not for the spokesperson.

Clear standards for the performance of duty should be set forth; a clear understanding of what these duties and functions are, in relation to the Court, members of the Court, and to the other branches of government, should be arrived at; and more importantly, the coterminous nature of the relationship should be reconsidered.  A spokesperson for the Court should not be coterminous with the Chief Justice but should perhaps be term-bound; a spokesperson expected to speak for the Court but is coterminous with the Chief Justice is placed in an inherent conflict of interest position, from the very start.

The impeachment process that led to the removal of Attorney Corona as Chief Justice of the Philippines should also provide some lessons on how this voice, image and public persona of the Court should act.  For an institution whose main strength is its independence and whose main weapon is reclusiveness, the balancing of interests, in this regard, will be difficult but, considering our recent experience with Attorney Corona, it is necessary. 

I wish Midas well and, though this may not be welcome news to his detractors and opponents, I am sure he will be back in the public eye in some form or manner. Hopefully, this experience may not be lost on him.  After all, the country does need people who can invest so much passion in something that they believe in -- and, though one may disagree with how he invested his passion, Midas has shown just what one can do with passion alone. - GMA News

x x x."

Why was the Fariñas palusot speech so persuasive? | GMA News Online | The Go-To Site for Filipinos Everywhere

Why was the Fariñas palusot speech so persuasive? | GMA News Online | The Go-To Site for Filipinos Everywhere

Belatedly, we thank and congratulate Rep. Rudy Farinas of Ilocos Norte for his effective and powerful closing arguments during the penultimate trial date of the impeachment trial of CJ Corona. It led to his conviction.

"x x x.

The lesson for students of communication: obscure references to laws, grandiloquence and screaming will not get you far, but a speech with both form and substance, well-crafted arguments and the right shade of rhetorical colors, and spoken at the right time and in the right place, can go down in history. 


x x x."

Make screening for next CJ transparent

Make screening for next CJ transparent

"x x x.

MANILA, Philippines - What do ex-Chief Justice Renato Corona and former Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez have in common?

They were both impeached (Corona was convicted on May 29, 2012; Gutierrez resigned even before the trial started in the Senate in 2011). They were both appointees of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and identified as her allies.

More significantly, they got the unanimous vote of the 8-member Judicial and Bar Council, the body that screens and nominates aspirants to the judiciary and the Office of the Ombudsman.

The 1987 Constitution created the JBC supposedly to depoliticize the judiciary. It's chaired by the Chief Justice and is composed of a retired Supreme Court (SC) justice and a representative each from the Senate, the House of Representatives, the Department of Justice, the private sector, the academe, and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

Getting the unanimous vote of the JBC meant that both Corona and Gutierrez, as far as the 8 were concerned, met the criteria of probity, integrity and independence.

That both were impeached on charges of lack of independence and betrayal of public trust shows that the JBC has to improve its selection process and be more transparent in making their choices, court observers said.

"The impeachment of Gutierrez is a direct testimony to the weakness of the JBC process," said Vincent Lazatin, executive director of the Transparency and Accountability Network.

And it's strike 3 already for the JBC. Even before Corona and Gutierrez, another JBC nominee was put in the hot seat.

In 2007, Sandiganbayan Justice Gregory Ong was nominated by the council as associate justice of the Supreme Court and was in fact appointed to the High Tribunal by Mrs Arroyo. It was later discovered that Ong is not a natural-born Filipino, which is one of the basic qualifications for aspirants to the Court. The SC had to revoke his appointment.

"We have to be very careful in our assessment," former Court of Appeals Justice Aurora Lagman said. Lagman has been in the JBC for almost 4 years. Lagman said she is open to receving recommendations from civil society groups and court observers.

The list of proposed reforms is long, however.

Today, the current members of the JBC are Ma Milagros Fernan-Cayosa (Integrated Bar of the Philippines), Jose Mejia (academe), retired Court of Appeals Justice Aurora Lagman (private sector), Iloilo Rep Niel Tupas (House of Representatives), Sen Francis "Chiz" Escudero (Senate), Secretary Leila de Lima (Department of Justice), and retired SC Justice Regino Hermosisima).

They convene on Monday to begin the selection process for Corona's replacement.

Of the current crop, only Escudero, Lagman and Hermosisima were part of the JBC when the council unanimously voted for Corona. Sen Francis Pangilinan, on the other hand, represented the Senate when the council voted for Gutierrez as Ombudsman.

Be transparent

Where did the JBC go wrong? Lazatin cited lack of transparency.

The votes of the candidates used to be kept secret. The JBC only released their voting tally in 2009. Now it's posted on the JBC website .

Even if the voting tally is made public already, however, the bases for the choices of the JBC members are still not disclosed.

Lazatin said there should be a scoresheet so the public will know how the members graded the aspirant's independence, integrity and competence.

Lazatin, who belongs to the watchdog Supreme Court Appointments Watch, said the scoresheet should also show how the JBC members take into consideration the complaints and the opposition filed against the applicants or nominees.

UP law professor Dante Gatmaytan said a scoresheet could at least show the "minimum" standards considered by the JBC members. "That could do some good," he said.

But Jose Mejia, a member of the JBC, said adopting a scoresheet system may not be easy, however. "It's hard to quantify the qualities of aspirants...what if I'm stingy in terms of giving 'grades?' The scores may not reflect the actual capability of the candidates," he said.

Show it on TV

Another part of the selection process - the public interviews - has been opened to the public already.

It was Senator Pangilinan, former JBC member, who proposed in 2002 that the interviews be made accessible to the public.

But Lazatin said the public interviews should be televised now.

The public interviews are meant for aspirants to articulate their judicial philosophy and answer complaints against them.

If the interviews are aired live, the public will know if anything questionable about the applicants' qualifications and character is raised. "It will raise pressure on the JBC. They would have to justify why they are voting for candidates whose competence or independence is under question," he said.

Ex-JBC member and former Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez said he sees nothing with the proposal. "It's already public, so I'm okay with it," he said.

Mejia and Lagman said they are open to allowing the news media to air the interviews live. "There used to be concerns that having cameramen inside the room may affect the orderliness of the interviews," Mejia said. "But if we were able to have the impeachment trial aired live, then maybe we can do the same for the JBC interviews."

Do more research

Gatmaytan said the JBC also needs to exert more effort in checking the background of the aspirants. "There's a perception that the JBC only acts on the information that land on their desk," he said.

He said the JBC should look at the decisions penned by the applicants, the papers they had written, the research they have conducted. These would give the council a sense of the aspirants' level of understanding and critical thinking.

Mejia said they already do this, but simply to assess the capacity of applicants in efficiently writing decisions.

Gatmaytan said that in the United States, the Senate examines the writings of the applicants to better understand their political and ideological leanings. It's a way of knowing how the aspirants think and how they stand on various issues that may confont the High Court.

Gatmaytan, one of authors of the study “Averting Diversity: A Review of Nominations and Appointments to the Philippine Supreme Court (1988-2008)," (the other author is Cielo Magno), also said the JBC should consider diverse backgrounds.

In their study, Gatmaytan and Magno found out that the appointees to the judiciary are predominantly male, came from schools in Manila, hailed from Luzon and are members of the judiciary already.

While Gatmaytan clarified that the JBC may not be consciously steering toward the same choices and standards, he said it may be time to make diversity a standard. "We may want to change our lens and look for diverse backgrounds," he said.

SALN submitted

One of the positive steps the JBC had taken long before the Corona impeachment was its requirement for the submission of the applicants' Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN).

"It's part of checking their integrity," Lagman said. "It will be easy to compare the growth of their wealth after and before they were appointed with the SALN they gave us," he added.

Gatmaytan stressed though that the public should also play an active role in the selection process. Nominate credible candidates. Question the choices of the JBC. Question even the President's choice.

"I think we forget that we are the ones who have the power," he said. -Rappler.com

Related stories:

• CJ position now vacant
• JBC must convene soon
• x x x."

DOLE Wage Order No. NCR-17, s. 2012 | Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines

DOLE Wage Order No. NCR-17, s. 2012 | Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines

Download full text.

Republic of the Philippines Department of Labor and Employment2/F. 1650 DY International Building cor. San Marcelino Street and Gen. Malvar Street, Malate, Manila Telefax: 527-51-55/400-6765

WAGE ORDER No. NCR-17

PROVIDING A COST OF LIVING ALLOWANCE (COLA) AND INTEGRATING THE EXISTING COLA OF P22 INTO THE BASIC WAGE IN THE NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION

…

Source: Department of Labor and Employment

Keep politicians out of Supreme Court | Inquirer Opinion

Keep politicians out of Supreme Court | Inquirer Opinion

"x x x.

With the removal of Corona as Chief Justice, there is now a scramble among members of the judiciary, lawyers, and politicians to be appointed as his replacement. President Aquino has set the correct first step: the Chief Justice should come from inside the Supreme Court. Personally, I think the seniority rule that has been followed for decades should be continued to avoid infighting and intrigues among the associate justices.

There is another reform that I propose when it comes to appointing associate justices: that appointees should come only from the bench, the academe, and the ranks of practicing lawyers. Politicians should be excluded. Politicians have a tendency to spoil a basket of good apples.

In recent years, more and more politicians have been appointed to the Supreme Court. There was a time when about a third of the justices were former congressmen, senators and Cabinet members.

The high court must be above suspicion at all times to maintain the people’s trust and confidence in the rule of law. How can it be above suspicion when there are ex-politicians among its members? Politicians make a lot of debts during their terms in public office and it is not far-fetched for some of these people to whom the justices owe debts to collect on these favors when a case where they have an interest reaches the high court. And as the Corona affair has shown, the case is resolved in favor of the friend even if the merits of the case favor the other side. That would make Lady Justice cry in shame.

Hopefully, that would not happen too often. But like one rotten apple that contaminates a whole basket of good ones, just one such case will destroy the people’s faith in the judiciary. The best thing to do is not to appoint a politician to the high court. Politicians have most of the privileges in the government—pork barrel, allowances of all sorts, power and influence, appointment of relatives and friends to cushy government positions, award of fat contracts to favorite companies, etc. Let’s limit their privileges to the Supreme Court.

Besides, the entry of politicians into the high court disillusions the members of the lower courts. The ambition of every member of the bench is to be appointed justice of the high court. That prompts them to perform better in the lower courts so that they would be promoted to higher courts and, ultimately, to the Supreme Court. That ideal is destroyed when outsiders elbow out judges from the high court. They become cynical and just enrich themselves as much as they can in their present positions. No use aspiring for a higher position.

x x x."

GUILTY: When the defense acted as prosecutors « Harry Roque’s Blog

GUILTY: When the defense acted as prosecutors « Harry Roque’s Blog

"x x x.

By the time the prosecution had rested, the betting was that the former CJ would be acquitted. But the strangest thing happened: the defense actually picked up the cudgels for the prosecution. First, they summoned Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales and enabled her to present to the impeachment court the AMLAC report detailing that the ex-CJ had US$10-12million in bank deposits. Then the defense flip-flopped and contrary to its initial refusal, allowed the CJ to take the stand. In his opus, the ex-CJ proved what the prosecution could not: that he had US$2.4 Million and about 80 Million pesos in deposits, sums which he did not declare in his SALN. The climax was when the former CJ walked-out of the proceedings after his 3 hour monologue. That was the turning point. Even those who were unsure of the CJ’s guilt could not absolve him lest they themselves earn the public ire.

The rest is history. On the basis of both the testimony of the Ombudsman and the former CJ, and courtesy of the latter’s walkout, the  Senate found Corona guilty. Thank goodness for the defense. It did a splendid job for the prosecution!

x x x."

The Defense of Marriage Act and States' Rights | Mother Jones

The Defense of Marriage Act and States' Rights | Mother Jones

"x x x.

The gay-marriage debate hit a major milestone today. A federal appeals court has declared the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. The groundbreaking ruling will no doubt end up before the Supreme Court.

Interestingly, the three judge panel was comprised of two Republican appointees. The unanimous decision was made at least partly on federalist, states' rights grounds.

"One virtue of federalism is that it permits this diversity of governance based on local choice, but this applies as well to the states that have chosen to legalize same-sex marriage," Judge Michael Boudin wrote for the court. "Under current Supreme Court authority, Congress' denial of federal benefits to same-sex couples lawfully married in Massachusetts has not been adequately supported by any permissible federal interest."

Now, there's a dark and a light side to federalism. States' rights—and really, we should put "rights" in quotation marks here—have been an excuse for plenty of atrocities, including slavery and segregation. The states in question are home to plenty of their own tyrannies, great and small.

On the other hand, right now a handful of states have stood in defiance of bad federal laws, including DOMA and the federal ban on medical marijuana. When gay couples married in Massachussettes are denied federal healthcare benefits, or when federal agents take down marijuana dispensaries in California, it's hard not to sympathize with a little federalism. It's a facet of our democracy that has, like democracy itself, been used for good and ill.

x x x."

In The Know: Selecting the next Chief Justice | Inquirer News

In The Know: Selecting the next Chief Justice | Inquirer News

"x x x.

Section 7, Article VIII, of the Constitution requires that a Supreme Court justice be a natural-born Filipino, at least 40 years old and must have been a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice of law in the country for at least 15 years.

The Constitution also requires that a member of the judiciary “must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity and independence.”

The Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) has the primary function of recommending appointees to the judiciary, as required under Section 8, Article VIII, of the Constitution.

The JBC is composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio chairman, the secretary of justice, and a representative of the Congress as ex officio members, a representative of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, a professor of law, a retired justice of the Supreme Court and a representative of the private sector.

In fulfillment of its function, the JBC submits to the President a list of at least three nominees for every vacancy in the judiciary. From this list, the President makes his choice.

A vacancy on the Supreme Court must be filled within 90 days from its occurrence.

The selection process for nominees for judicial offices, including that of Chief Justice, is specific:

The JBC first announces the vacancy, and an active, nationwide search for candidates follows. Applications and recommendations are submitted to the JBC secretariat.

The applicants are evaluated based on their qualifications and background. They also undergo physical and psychological examinations.

A notice about the candidates is published by the JBC secretary in two newspapers. The notice informs the public that any complaint against a candidate may be filed with the secretary within 10 days.

The candidates concerned have five days from receipt of the complaints to file their comments.

Those who pass the initial screening are interviewed by the JBC.

The council subsequently meets for the final deliberation to choose the  candidates to be recommended to the President.

To be considered a nominee, a candidate must obtain the affirmative votes of the majority of the JBC members. On the question of integrity, a candidate is automatically disqualified on the negative vote of even just one JBC member.

Once appointed by the President, the justice will serve on the Supreme Court, during good behavior, until the mandatory retirement age of 70, or until he or she becomes incapacitated. Lawrence de Guzman,Inquirer Research

x x x."

How PNoy can ensure Supreme Court independence | GMA News Online | The Go-To Site for Filipinos Everywhere

How PNoy can ensure Supreme Court independence | GMA News Online | The Go-To Site for Filipinos Everywhere

"x x xx.


President Aquino's appointment of the next chief justice of the Supreme Court will set the tone for an independent judiciary.

Whether he likes it or not, his next appointee will be suspected of being beholden to him, no matter whom he or she may be. To obviate this predicament, it is of utmost importance that the president restore the seniority tradition followed by presidents in the appointment of the chief justice, with the infamous exception of Gloria Arroyo's appointment of Renato Corona.

That is, Aquino must appoint the most senior among incumbent justices as the next chief justice.  Even President Erap, for all his shortcomings, followed the tradition by appointing Hilario Davide, then the most senior justice, as chief justice. This seniority tradition has served the Supreme Court well, if we are to judge by the high esteem with which chief justices have been held even during the days of the conjugal dictatorship.

And rightly so, because the seniority tradition, inter alia, has resulted in the following advantages: 1) It insulates the position of chief justice from political jockeying among the nominees vetted by the Judicial and Bar Council, or their patrons;

2) The mechanism for succession is based on tradition, and not on subjective preferences. Hence, the natural suspicion that there was a quid-pro-quo arrangement sub rosa between the president and his appointee is truncated, if not minimized. The chief justice is thus invested with an aura akin to that of Caesar's wife in that there is never any penumbra of a doubt as to how he got the position;  

3) Even under Civil Service rules, the next-in-rank rule is followed in the promotion of public officials to vacant positions, so as to prevent favoritism by the appointing authority, maintain professionalism and prevent demoralization in the organization. It is now up to President Aquino to restore the faith of the people in the judiciary by restoring the seniority tradition in his appointment of the next chief justice.

Gloria Arroyo trivialized this age-old tradition which had served our judiciary well. And look what happened because of her myopic, selfish actions. The Supreme Court, on account of the perceived partiality of her appointee, among other laments, was plunged into a nadir of obloquy and disrespect this nation had never experienced before, culminating in the unprecedented spectacle of impeachment of the chief justice.

PNoy, by reviving the seniority tradition, will henceforth be judged as a statesman by history, because he would be restoring the independence of the chief justice. Future presidents will think twice before disregarding it again. If, on the other hand, he disregards this tradition, he is no better than GMA. He will be following and institutionalizing a bad precedent set forth by a bad president. Sad to say, he will become the monster he detests. We urge our beloved Pnoy to do right by the judiciary. The nation expects no less.

Dan Amosin is a practicing lawyer in California and a faculty member of the University of the East in Manila l980 to l986; l979 graduate of the UP College of Law; former senior editor of The Philippine Collegian l975-l976. 

x x  x."

Petition: The International Criminal Court: Reconsider and reject the election of Miriam Santiago as ICC Judge. | Change.org

Petition: The International Criminal Court: Reconsider and reject the election of Miriam Santiago as ICC Judge. | Change.org

"x  x x.

We submit that a person who is emotionally or psychologically unstable, prone to fits of uncontrollable rage, lacking in patience and empathy, ruthless with the feelings of fellow human beings, bereft of civility and uncaring about decorum does not deserve a place in your honorable court.

We further submit that an individual who has admitted to having publicly lied and who has demonstrated partiality, prejudice, lack of principles and questionable integrity as a public official does not deserve to be a judge, much less a judge of the International Criminal Court.

In this regard, we regret to inform you that such an undeserving individual has been elected to the International Criminal Court, in a lapse of good judgment on the part of the government of the Republic of the Philippines.

We are referring to Miriam Defensor-Santiago, a member of the Philippine Senate, who has been elected to the International Criminal Court and is shortly scheduled to take her oath of office.


x x x."

PRESIDENT BENIGNO S. AQUINO III’s SPEECH ON THE CONVICTION OF SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE RENATO C. CORONA

(42) PRESIDENT BENIGNO S. AQUINO III’s SPEECH ON THE CONVICTION OF SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE RENATO C. CORONA

"x x x.

PRESIDENT BENIGNO S. AQUINO III’s SPEECH ON THE CONVICTION OF SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE RENATO C. CORONA

by Noynoy Aquino (P-Noy) on Wednesday, May 30, 2012 at 9:42pm ·

Kahapon po, naging saksi tayo sa isang napakagandang patunay na umiiral ang ganap na demokrasya sa atin pong bansa. Dalawampung senador ang bumoto upang matanggal bilang Punong Mahistrado ng Korte Suprema si Ginoong Renato C. Corona.

Mulat tayo sa kung saan nag-ugat ang lahat nang ito. Sa matagal na panahon, namayani ang agam-agam na ang piring ng Hustisya ay nakatanggal para sa mayayaman at makapangyarihan. Di po ba nakita nating may basehan ang agam-agam na ito. Di lang po dito sa atin, pati na ang World Bank -- isang dayuhang institusyon -- ay nagkuwestyon dahil miski ang aid na galing sa kanila para iayos ang ating Hudikatura ay hindi napunta sa dapat nitong patunguhan.

Nangarap po tayong baguhin ito. Naghangad tayo ng isang sistemang pangkatarungan na may malinaw at tunay na kahulugan ng tama at mali. Naghangad tayong ibalanse ang timbangan: kung saan ang inosente ay papasok sa hukuman nang panatag ang loob na siya’y mapapawalang-sala, at kung ikaw naman ay maysala, maghanda ka na dahil tiyak na mananagot ka.

Marapat pong balikan ang konteksto ng impeachment ni Ginoong Corona. Alam na po natin ang malalim na pinagsamahan nila ni Ginang Arroyo. Simula pa lang kinuwestyon na natin ang kanyang midnight appointment dahil sa pananaw na labag ito sa Saligang Batas. Sa kabila nito, noong nagkita kami ang tanging hiniling ko po sa kanya, iparehas sana niya ang laban. Ang sagot pa nga niya sa akin, huwag daw akong mag-alala, dahil lahat ng magiging desisyon ay aayon sa batas. Sa paglaon po, naging malinaw sa atin na imbis na siya mismong dapat nagbibigay-linaw sa batas, ang siya pong nagpapalabo nito.

Sa EO 1 pa lang, hinarang na agad. Nakita naman po ninyo ang mga nadiskubre nating kalokohan pag-upo pa lamang sa puwesto; hanggang ngayon, pinagdudusahan ito ng mga Pilipino. Ang iniuutos sa atin, lahat ng administrasyon bago po sa atin isali sa imbestigasyon para raw ho parehas. Kailan pa po tayo matatapos ng pagsusuri kung ganun, at kailan tayo makakakilos?  Kaya nga’t sistematiko ang ninanais nating tugon sa mga problemang ito, upang matigil na ang pagkasangkapan sa mga butas sa batas, at iwasan ang paglala ng mga sugat sa sistema. Pero pinigilan nila tayo. Imbes na makiisa, itinali pa ang mga kamay ng mga naghahangad na gumawa ng tama. Parang siniguradong hindi na matatapos ang gusto nating ilatag na reporma.

Pati po sa EO 2, na sana’y umayos ng situwasyon ukol sa mga midnight appointee, nilagyan ng status quo anteorder. Pag-aaralan daw nila, pero natapos na po ang term ng nagsampa ng kaso tulad ng mga kapwa  midnight appointee, wala pong nangyari, wala pong pagdidinig na nangyari.

Nilunok po natin lahat nang ito, dahil hindi natin pakay makipag-away; solusyon ang ating hinahanap. Ngunit mali nga po sigurong umasa kami ng patas na laban mula kay Ginoong Corona.

Hindi nagtagal, napatunayan na ang mga agam-agam: pagdating kay Ginang Arroyo, handa si Ginoong Corona na ikiling ang timbangan ng hustisya. Naglabas ng isang Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) ang Korte Suprema; muntik nang magtagumpay si Ginoong Corona na bigyan ng pagkakataon si Ginang Arroyo na hindi harapin ang mga alegasyon tungkol sa electoral fraud noong 2007. Mantakin po ninyo: Mula sa Las Vegas, bumalik pa dito sa bansa si Ginoong Corona para lamang pangunahan ang paglalabas ng TRO. Pinaaga nang Biyernes ang kadalasan ay Martes na en banc session. Walang oral argument, hindi nabigyan ng sampung araw ang bawat panig para magpaliwanag. Siguro po kung nasunod ito, baka natiyak kung totoong maysakit nga si Ginang Arroyo. Nagbigay ng mga kundisyon ang Korte Suprema, ngunit kahit hindi ito nasunod ng mga Arroyo, ipinatuloy pa rin ni Ginoong Corona ang paghahain ng TRO.

Obligasyon po ng Ehekutibo na imbestigahan at sampahan ng kaukulang kaso si Ginang Arroyo. Subalit pinahirap, kundi man ginawang imposible ang pagsasampa natin ng kaso bago maubos ang taning ng prescriptive period doon po sa electoral fraud case.

Kung natuloy silang umalis, ang malamang na ginawa nila ay nagbakasyon lang habang maubos ang prescriptive period ng kasong isinampa sa kanila, at babalik sa panahon kung kailan hindi na sila puwedeng sampahan ng kaso. Mukhang hanggang nasa puwesto si Ginoong Corona—gaano man kalakas ang kaso, gaano man katibay ang ebidensya—ay hindi masasakdal ang kanyang padrino. Ito na nga po ang naging huli at sukdulan.

Naharap po tayo sa sangandaan: hahayaan ba nating manatili ang ganitong sistema kung saan nadadaan sa palusot ang katarungan, at naeengganyo ang mga kawatan na ituloy ang baluktot na pamamaraan, lalo na kung may kapit sila sa kapangyarihan?

Halos buong bayan po ay sumubaybay sa paglilitis ni Ginoong Corona, at maliwanag na sa atin ang matibay na basehan ng impeachment. Muli, walang personalan sa laban na ito. Sariling mga pasya po ni Ginoong Corona ang nagbubunsod sa paglilitis na ito. Siya ang pumiling hindi magdeklara ng katotohanan sa kanyang SALN. Siya ang gumamit ng kanyang pamilya para magpalusot sa kanyang salapi at ari-arian. Siya mismo ang nagkaladkad ng pangalan ng kanyang mga mahal sa buhay upang pagtakpan ang sariling mga kasalanan. Batid nating lahat: si Ginoong Corona ang kumatawan sa maruming bahagi ng ating Hudikatura.

Ang pinakamalaking handog ng paglilitis na ito: Muli po nating napatunayan na posible palang makamit ang pagbabago. Posible palang magkaroon ng justice, at hindi puro just-tiis ang litanya sa ating bansa. Napatunayan nating mangingibabaw ang katotohanan, laban sa pagkukubli; mananaig ang tapat, laban sa tiwali; at magtatagumpay ang tama, laban sa mali. Higit sa lahat, napatunayan nating hindi pala ako nag-iisa sa pagpasan ng adhikaing maisaayos ang ating sistema.

Nagpapasalamat po tayo sa buong senate impeachment court, lalo na po kay Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile: kung ang bawat mahistrado po ay sing-talas ninyong mag-isip, at gaya ninyo ay walang kinikilingan, siguro po ay hindi na natin dinaanan ang kabanatang ito. 

Sa ating prosecution team, sa pangunguna ni Congressman Niel Tupas, na hindi natinag sa kabila ng pagmamaliit at paninindak, nagpapasalamat din ako. Kay Congressman Rudy Fariñas na nilinaw ang pilit pinalalabo ng depensa. Salamat din sa mga private prosecutor na itinaya ang kanilang kabuhayan, at nilabanan ang pinakamataas na mahistrado. Nagpapasalamat din po ako kay Speaker Sonny Belmonte, na minabuting tumindig bilang tinig at pinunong ganap ng institusyong nagpadala ng Articles of Impeachment sa Senado, salamat din po. Pati rin po sa defense panel ni Ginoong Corona, nagpapasalamat din ako. Sadya man o hindi, nakiambag kayo sa paglabas ng katotohanan. Nagpapasalamat po ako, higit sa lahat, sa taumbayan; kayo pa rin po ang aming lakas, at habang patuloy ninyong ipinamamalas ang suporta sa ating agenda ng mabuting pamamahala, hindi po tayo mabibigo. Gaya ng pagtatanggal ng balakid na nakaharang sa ating tuwid na daan, kinailangan natin magtulong-tulong at mag-ambagan upang idiin ang nag-iisa nating mensahe: Sino ka man, gaano man kataas ang iyong katungkulan, kung nagkasala ka sa taumbayan, mananagot ka.

Ngayong matagumpay nating nabunot ang isang tinik sa pinakamataas na puwesto ng ating hudikatura, tapos na po ba ang laban? Kung totoo po ang paratang na pinepersonal natin si Ginoong Corona, masasabing tapos na nga. Pero hindi po natin siya pinepersonal; ang hangad natin ay ayusin ang sistema, kaya’t hanggang mayroon pa ring mga nakaambang tanggalin ang piring ng katarungan, tuloy pa rin ang laban.

Pagtutuonan po natin ng pansin ang paghahanap ng may integridad, may sariling pasya, mahusay, at tapat na magtitimon sa atin pong hudikatura. Mayroon po tayong siyamnapung araw para pag-aralan ito; hindi po natin mamadaliin ang pagpili, dahil ayaw nating magkamali at bumalik na naman sa dating situwasyon.

Sa mga minamahal ko pong kababayan: muli, maraming salamat sa inyong pagtutok at pagsuporta sa ating agenda ng reporma. Nakita po natin: kung walang katarungang umiiral, hindi matatapos ang sigalot. Kinailangan nating pagdaanan ang prosesong ito, subalit ito ay unang hakbang para matiyak na ang mga naghahari-harian, na para bang sila na ang batas, ay mananagot din. Patas po ang laban; ang hangad natin ay puwedeng magkatotoo, basta’t handa tayong tumaya, maninindigan, at ipaglaban ang tama.

Nakikita po ninyo kung paano tayo nananatiling tapat sa mandatong kaloob ninyo: Pinapatatag po natin ang sistema; ipinapakitang tunay na nakapiring ang Hustisya. Nagbubunsad na ito ng isang lipunang kung ano ang ipinunla ay siya ring aanihin: Ang mabuti ay magbubunga ng mabuti, at ang kasalanan ay tiyak na pananagutan.

Muli, maraming salamat. Mabuhay ang sambayanang Pilipino!

Magandang gabi po.

x x x."