The Philippine Online Chronicles

“Telenovela,” or “Circus”— words often thrown around whenever there is a political drama in the Philippines. It is apt no matter the generation, no matter the crisis the nation finds itself in. The last few weeks has been no less a roller coaster of events.

After months of waiting, President Aquino has made his move. As Gloria Arroyo was about to leave the country, she was stopped by the Justice Secretary. And the Supreme Court moved to grant a temporary restraining order granting Mr. Arroyo and Congresswoman Arroyo the opportunity to leave. Checkmate, Gloria when the Regional Trial Court issued an arrest warrant for Mrs. Arroyo.

The root of this problem dates back to 2010, in the waning days of the Arroyo Presidency. The position of chief justice was about to be opened. Chief Justice Puno was set to retire, just days after the 2010 Elections. The opinion of the Arroyo Government of course is that it could appoint the next Chief Justice.

The President has 90 days from the start of the vacancy to appoint a replacement Chief Justice. Since Chief Justice Renato Puno was set to retire.

“This would really destroy the credibility of the Supreme Court,” Fr. Bernas remarked. He added that the position of the Chief Justice wasn’t important that the Justices couldn’t nominate amongst themselves an acting Chief until such time as a new one could be appointed.

According to Norman Bordadora, Fr. Bernas was of the opinion that “Anyone who accepted the position of Chief Justice from Mrs. Arroyo would open himself or herself to impeachment by the next Congress.”

@FrancisAcero (a lawyer) tweeted “@cocoy He said the first statement BEFORE De Castro v. Judicial and Bar Council. From there, the second statement is clear. No contradiction”.

So the Supreme Court did rule in De Castro versus Judicial Bar Council determining that Arroyo did have the power to appoint the next Chief Justice. The argument goes:

”The argument has been raised to the effect that there will be no need for the incumbent President to appoint during the prohibition period the successor of Chief Justice Puno within the context of Section 4 (1), Article VIII, because anyway there will still be about 45 days of the 90 days mandated in Section 4(1), Article VIII remaining.

The argument is flawed, because it is focused only on the coming vacancy occurring from Chief Justice Puno’s retirement by May 17, 2010. It ignores the need to apply Section 4(1) to every situation of a vacancy in the Supreme Court.

The argument also rests on the fallacious assumption that there will still be time remaining in the 90-day period under Section 4(1), Article VIII. The fallacy is easily demonstrable, as the OSG has shown in its comment.”

And now we’re here.

What Fr. Bernas noted in 2010 has come to pass. It was a blitz. The House of Representatives moved to impeach Chief Justice Renato C. Corona. A hundred and eighty-eight people signed the impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Corona, and it has been transmitted to the Senate which set to convene as an Impeachment Court.

Perhaps most telling about the reasoning behind the impeachment complaint is in the first paragraph of its prefatory statement which goes,

“Never has the position of Chief Justice, or the standing of the Supreme Court, as an institution, been so tainted with the perception of bias and partiality, as it is now: not even in the dark days of martial law, has the chief magistrate behaved with such arrogance, impunity, and cynicism. And yet, for the authentic rule of law to prevail, the public must have absolute trust and confidence in the justice, probity, integrity, and impartiality, of the members of the Supreme Court. To have any justice, much more, a Chief Justice, who does not live up to the expectation of being like Caesar’s wife— beyond reproach— is to fatally impede the ability of our institutions to function and dispense true justice to the people”.

You get a sense of the morality behind the Administration’s desire to engage the Chief Justice in the impeachment court. You get a sense why the Chief Justice is viewed as a “stumbling block”, by the government.

On the flip side, you see the other side of the argument. For some people, they view this as an assault by President Aquino on the Judiciary. For them, it is a breach of the equal protection clause of the Constitution. This is why you hear words like “Chilling effect” on the justices of the supreme court. You get a Senator remarking that Noynoy Aquino is turning out into a Dictator the likes of President Marcos. They argue that Aquino has made the House of Representatives his bitches and so he could do anything he wants if he gets the Supreme Court in line.

You get people yelling online and offline that your rights are being trampled. Forgetting the fact that Arroyo is being charged with much worst— stealing an election. An election where it is our right to choose who our leader ought to be. Forgetting too of how Arroyo has used legality to the fullest.

For members of the judiciary— lawyers, justices who live and breathe the law, the Supreme Court ruled that Arroyo could appoint the Chief. It is the law. It is an understandable position. It is also an understandable position that they argue, if we cannot trust the Supreme Court as final arbiter what happens to us now? Chaos?

Ironically, the Palace feels the same way. What happens to the reforms they are attempting to do, if cases filed in court will not get the appropriate, fair play it deserves? The Palace said its Truth Commission was blocked by the Supreme Court. And so the Palace believes that it can not trust the Supreme Court to give it fair and equitable hearing.

Chaos?

There is much cynicism when it comes to Justice in the Philippines. For far too long it is said that Justice could be bought. Whether the decision is in the lower court, or high above with the Supreme Court. I can not recall a time when a justice has been caught taking a bribe. Then again, there is Marites Vitug who is being sued for libel for publishing a book on the Supreme Court called, Shadow of Doubt.

So you have a Supreme Court that interprets the law, and Midas Marquez giving marching orders to RTC Judges. Chief Justice Corona went on to say that the campaign against him is “baluktot na daang matuwid”. Never mind that cases need to be heard had to be postponed as Courts went on holiday in support of their Chief. Never mind that some of those cases mean another day spent in jail. The Chief Justice needed a crowd, and so his troops came in black forgetting their place.

Emotions are clearly running high, and we forget about the girl who said, “I’m sorry”, as we grapple to make sense about this latest circus. Is it any wonder why the Palace calls the Chief Justice, a “stumbling block”?

“There being no obstacle to the appointment of the next Chief Justice,” The Supreme Court wrote in De Castro versus Judicial Bar Council. “Aside from its being mandatory for the incumbent President to make within the 90-day period from May 17, 2010, there is no justification to insist that the successor of Chief Justice Puno be appointed by the next President.”

The Supreme Court interprets the law however they see fit.

As a non-lawyer, and as an observer of these events, I wonder, in all this mess where did the wise men go? The De Castro versus Judicial Bar Council ruling clearly was the first step in this crisis. Just another chess piece moved, and its effect now stand before us, in the here and now.

Corona’s impeachment trial proceeds and whether or not it brings a “Chilling effect”, should affect only those who have done wrong, right? As a citizen, is it too naive to ask of our Judiciary to be beyond reproach? And with high ratings, President Aquino has license to hunt. That's why he was voted into office in the first place, correct?

@JojoMalig “The Copy Editor”, wrote on his twitter something apt. He tweeted, “Corona may not be the entire SC, but remember why Sun Tu decapitated the Emperor’s favorite concubine? Exactly.”

Meanwhile, The Little Girl who said, “I’m sorry”, (did she mean that, by the way?) awaits trial. Her son was charged with Tax evasion, right? Uncovering and righting wrongs made in 9 years of Arroyo rule is hard work. Due process is such a hassle.

Image credit: Manuel Buencamino via ProPinoy