by ROY C. MABSA (Manila Bulletin)
http://mb.com.ph/articles/248396/4-presidential-bets-unite-vs-appointment-new-cjFor the first time, four bitter rivals for the presidency in the May, 2010 automated elections see eye-to-eye as they all cautioned President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo from appointing a new Chief Justice, citing “delicadeza” and possible conflict of interest.
The reactions of the presidential contenders came after the Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the right of President Arroyo to appoint the next Chief Justice. Liberal Party (LP) standard-bearer
Senator Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III warned that President Arroyo may be cited for conflict of interest as she herself may be facing various cases that may reach the High Court when she steps down from her post.
“Let us look at it from the idea of a conflict of interest because the incumbent President may herself face several cases (before the SC),” Aquino said in reference to possible charges that may emanate when the President ends her term on June 30, 2010.
From the legal view, Aquino noted, the new ruling effectively reverses a previous SC decision prohibiting the President from appointing members of the judiciary two month immediately before a scheduled presidential election.
He pointed out that the Supreme Court, then led by Chief Justice Andres Narvasa, ruled during that time that the outgoing President “is neither required to make appointments to the courts nor allowed to do so.”
Aquino said under the Narvasa decision, Section 4(1) of Article 8 of the Constitution simply means the President is required to fill vacancies in the courts “within the time frames provided therein unless prohibited by Section 15 of Article 7.”
Aquino asked how the Supreme Court could interpret, decide and issue a completely different pronouncement en banc, while citing the very same constitutional provisions which remained unchanged since 1987.
For his part Nacionalista Party (NP) presidential bet Manuel Villar Jr. said the issue of appointing a new Chief Justice should have been left to the next President.
“I feel sad because it is my belief that such an appointment should be left to the next President. Nevertheless, we cannot do anything anymore since the Supreme Court has already decided on the issue,” Villar said.
Saying he strongly disagreed with the SC decision, Villar said they (NP members) will still exhaust all means to contest the SC ruling. “Kung makapaghahabol pa, titingnan natin kung mahahabol pa sa decision na ito.” (“If there is still a chance, we will contest this controversial SC ruling.”)
Pwersa ng Masang Pilipino (PMP) presidential bet Joseph Estrada, likewise, said that out of delicadeza, President Arroyo should have given way to her successor.
Meanwhile, administration bet Gilbert Teodoro suggested that the President act with “prudence” despite the High Court decision.
The Lakas-Kampi presidential candidate urged the President to study carefully her actions’ impact to the public.
Nine of the 15 justices voted to allow President Arroyo, who steps down from office on June 30, to appoint the successor to Chief Justice Reynato Puno, who retires on May 17.
According to the nine, Section 15 Article VII that prohibits midnight appointments does not apply to the Supreme Court.
The High Court ordered the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) to submit the short list of nominees for Chief Justice to Malacañang “on or before May 17.” But it did not say whether President Arroyo could appoint Puno’s successor before the vacancy occurs.
Of the nine justices who voted in favor of Arroyo appointing the next Chief Justice, five interpreted the Constitution as exempting the entire judiciary from the ban, and four made a special case to exempt only the High Court.
The five justices who concurred in that President Arroyo could appoint all vacancies in the entire judiciary until June 30 were Associate Justices Lucas Bersamin (who wrote the decision), Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, Roberto Abad, Martin Villarama Jr., and Jose Perez.
Those who separately concurred in that the President could appoint only to vacancies in the High Court during the election ban were Associate Justices Arturo Brion (who wrote a separate opinion), Diosdado Peralta, Mariano del Castillo, and Jose Mendoza.
The decision caused an uproar among various sectors of the society, including legal luminaries.
But Supreme Court Spokesman and Court Administrator Midas Marquez urged all oppositors to the SC decision to file their motion for reconsideration as soon as possible so that the High Court could readily address them and finally put closure on the issue.
In an interview during the holding of the Justice on Wheels in Makati City Thursday, Marquez said the filing of motion for reconsideration is the right of anybody who feel aggrieved by the SC decision.
Meanwhile, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Davao del Sur Chapter will file a motion for reconsideration.
Lawyer Israelito Torreon, IBP chapter president, said they will be filing the motion for reconsideration as the “blanket prohibition, under the 1987 Constitution, to the President to make appointments within the prohibitory period is very clear that it does not even require an interpretation but application.”
“The rule of law must prevail and not the dictates or whims of a fading but infamous regime,” Torreon said. (With reports from Rolly T. Carandang and Ben O. Tesiorna)
The reactions of the presidential contenders came after the Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the right of President Arroyo to appoint the next Chief Justice. Liberal Party (LP) standard-bearer
Senator Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III warned that President Arroyo may be cited for conflict of interest as she herself may be facing various cases that may reach the High Court when she steps down from her post.
“Let us look at it from the idea of a conflict of interest because the incumbent President may herself face several cases (before the SC),” Aquino said in reference to possible charges that may emanate when the President ends her term on June 30, 2010.
From the legal view, Aquino noted, the new ruling effectively reverses a previous SC decision prohibiting the President from appointing members of the judiciary two month immediately before a scheduled presidential election.
He pointed out that the Supreme Court, then led by Chief Justice Andres Narvasa, ruled during that time that the outgoing President “is neither required to make appointments to the courts nor allowed to do so.”
Aquino said under the Narvasa decision, Section 4(1) of Article 8 of the Constitution simply means the President is required to fill vacancies in the courts “within the time frames provided therein unless prohibited by Section 15 of Article 7.”
Aquino asked how the Supreme Court could interpret, decide and issue a completely different pronouncement en banc, while citing the very same constitutional provisions which remained unchanged since 1987.
For his part Nacionalista Party (NP) presidential bet Manuel Villar Jr. said the issue of appointing a new Chief Justice should have been left to the next President.
“I feel sad because it is my belief that such an appointment should be left to the next President. Nevertheless, we cannot do anything anymore since the Supreme Court has already decided on the issue,” Villar said.
Saying he strongly disagreed with the SC decision, Villar said they (NP members) will still exhaust all means to contest the SC ruling. “Kung makapaghahabol pa, titingnan natin kung mahahabol pa sa decision na ito.” (“If there is still a chance, we will contest this controversial SC ruling.”)
Pwersa ng Masang Pilipino (PMP) presidential bet Joseph Estrada, likewise, said that out of delicadeza, President Arroyo should have given way to her successor.
Meanwhile, administration bet Gilbert Teodoro suggested that the President act with “prudence” despite the High Court decision.
The Lakas-Kampi presidential candidate urged the President to study carefully her actions’ impact to the public.
Nine of the 15 justices voted to allow President Arroyo, who steps down from office on June 30, to appoint the successor to Chief Justice Reynato Puno, who retires on May 17.
According to the nine, Section 15 Article VII that prohibits midnight appointments does not apply to the Supreme Court.
The High Court ordered the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) to submit the short list of nominees for Chief Justice to Malacañang “on or before May 17.” But it did not say whether President Arroyo could appoint Puno’s successor before the vacancy occurs.
Of the nine justices who voted in favor of Arroyo appointing the next Chief Justice, five interpreted the Constitution as exempting the entire judiciary from the ban, and four made a special case to exempt only the High Court.
The five justices who concurred in that President Arroyo could appoint all vacancies in the entire judiciary until June 30 were Associate Justices Lucas Bersamin (who wrote the decision), Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, Roberto Abad, Martin Villarama Jr., and Jose Perez.
Those who separately concurred in that the President could appoint only to vacancies in the High Court during the election ban were Associate Justices Arturo Brion (who wrote a separate opinion), Diosdado Peralta, Mariano del Castillo, and Jose Mendoza.
The decision caused an uproar among various sectors of the society, including legal luminaries.
But Supreme Court Spokesman and Court Administrator Midas Marquez urged all oppositors to the SC decision to file their motion for reconsideration as soon as possible so that the High Court could readily address them and finally put closure on the issue.
In an interview during the holding of the Justice on Wheels in Makati City Thursday, Marquez said the filing of motion for reconsideration is the right of anybody who feel aggrieved by the SC decision.
Meanwhile, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines-Davao del Sur Chapter will file a motion for reconsideration.
Lawyer Israelito Torreon, IBP chapter president, said they will be filing the motion for reconsideration as the “blanket prohibition, under the 1987 Constitution, to the President to make appointments within the prohibitory period is very clear that it does not even require an interpretation but application.”
“The rule of law must prevail and not the dictates or whims of a fading but infamous regime,” Torreon said. (With reports from Rolly T. Carandang and Ben O. Tesiorna)
No comments:
Post a Comment