In relation to my previous entry (hidden judicial skeletons), may I state that the root cause of the painful demoralization now infecting and destroying the spirit of unity and harmony in the Philippine Supreme Court and further endangering the very existence and survival of the Philippine justice system is nobody else but the much-maligned and power-conscious Philippine President Gloria Arroyo, as vehemently argued in a recent editorial of the well-respected Philippine Daily Inquirer, which is reproduced verbatim hereinbelow:
Editorial
Sorry spectacle
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 23:47:00 02/12/2010
ONE OF THE COUNTRY’S FOREMOST authorities on Constitutional Law, Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J., earlier warned about the sorry “spectacle” that would develop if the Supreme Court justices were to disagree publicly over the question of whether or not President Macapagal-Arroyo has the power to appoint the replacement for Chief Justice Reynato Puno after he retires on May 17 this year. But the division in the Court has in fact become public, with two senior justices—Antonio Carpio and Conchita Carpio Morales—saying they welcomed a nomination by the Judicial and Bar Council but would only accept an appointment by Ms Arroyo’s successor, and a third one—Renato Corona—accepting the nomination without conditions. Now the spectacle has turned out to be worse than Bernas might have imagined, with one candidate virtually accusing his principal rival of orchestrating a campaign to destroy his reputation in order to gain “control of the judiciary.”
Last Monday, Corona wrote the JBC to defend himself against allegations made by lawyer Fernando Campos that he had accepted favors in exchange for a favorable ruling in a case involving on-line cockfight betting. Campos earlier asked the JBC to find out how Corona was able to “leave hurriedly” for Las Vegas and watch the fight between Manny Pacquiao and Ricky Hatton in May last year after dismissing the case Campos filed against Pagcor and PhilWeb Corp. Corona dismissed Campos’ accusation as a “vicious lie,” saying he had used his personal funds for the trip.
He did not stop there, however, and went on the offensive, denouncing “some people” for having “no qualms about destroying the reputation of those they perceive to be stumbling blocks to their ambition.” He asked: “Who breached the rule of confidentiality and colluded with Campos in filing this complain against me? Was Campos’ ‘reliable source’ a member of the First Division?”
The chief of the First Division was Corona’s chief rival, Carpio, and he was not about to let insinuations about improper conduct go unchallenged either. Carpio immediately wrote the Chief Justice to deny that he was behind Campos’ complaint, saying he had never discussed the matter with the losing lawyer. Carpio also called for a thorough investigation of Corona’s allegations about a breach of confidentiality as well as collusion to bring a justice down. “I believe that any justice committing such misconduct should voluntarily resign from the Court out of delicadeza,” he said.
What about justices who make a spectacle of themselves by fighting in public? Bitter personal rivalries fought in the open can hardly restore the people’s faith in a Court that has produced some rather strange decisions, such as those on executive privilege and the creation of tiny cities that do not deserve the name. Such displays of personal animosities cannot help assure the people that the justices of the high court can decide cases—possibly including the issue of constitutionality of Ms Arroyo’s appointment of a new chief justice—purely on the basis of law rather than friendship and loyalty to anyone.
All this, of course, would not have happened if only Ms Arroyo had not signified her intention to exercise a prerogative that she may not have at all. The Constitution clearly forbids the President from making appointments 60 days before the presidential election and up to the end of her term. Another constitutional provision says the President should fill any vacancy in the Supreme Court within 90 days. Ms Arroyo will step down from her office on June 30, leaving the next president with still 45 days to name a new chief justice. She cannot claim she has the obligation to issue the appointment for fear that she might run afoul of the law. The real burden of meeting the constitutional deadline falls on her successor.
By May 17, when Puno retires, Ms Arroyo will have about six weeks left in her term of office. It is a period of transition, a time for preparing for a smooth transfer of power to the newly elected president. In the waning days of her presidency, it would be the height of irresponsibility for Ms Arroyo to deepen the division and create confusion in the Supreme Court.
See:
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/editorial/view/20100212-252892/Sorry-spectacle
