In the Philippine laws and juriprudence, if you look for legal loopholes you are expected to find one. And if you have a Supreme Court that justifies an associate justice's verbatim lift up of statements from other authors without attribution, truth becomes a commodity that the high court may have shamelessly abused.
On 07 December 2010 (Tuesday), the Supreme Court has declared the Aquino Executive Order No. 1 as "unconstitutional," ruling that the Truth Commission "violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution as it singles out of graft and corrupt practices in the previous administration" of former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
Petitioners Louis Biraogo (businessman), Edcel Lagman (Albay), Rodolfo Albano Jr. (chairman, Energy Regulatory Commission), Simeon Datumanong (Maguindanao), and Orlando Fua Sr. (Siquijor) argued that commissions like the Feliciano Commission, Melo Commission and Zenarosa Commission, while created by executive issuance, did not have full quasi-judicial powers that were given to the Truth Commission.
Petitioners Louis Biraogo (businessman), Edcel Lagman (Albay), Rodolfo Albano Jr. (chairman, Energy Regulatory Commission), Simeon Datumanong (Maguindanao), and Orlando Fua Sr. (Siquijor) argued that commissions like the Feliciano Commission, Melo Commission and Zenarosa Commission, while created by executive issuance, did not have full quasi-judicial powers that were given to the Truth Commission.
Of the 10-5 vote, those who composed the majority (see story) were Chief Justice Renato Corona, Associate Justices Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, Arturo Brion, Presbitero Velasco Jr., Diosdado Peralta (2009), Lucas Bersamin (2009), Mariano del Castillo (2009), Martin Villarama Jr. (2009), Jose Perez (2009), and Jose Mendoza (2010). Mendoza authored the decision.
Associate justices who desented were Antonio Eduardo Nachura (2007), Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio (2001), Conchita Carpio Morales (2002), Maria Lourdes Sereno (2010), and Roberto Abad (2009). Sereno was the sole appointee of current president Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III. The rest were appointed during the administration of Arroyo.
Associate justices who desented were Antonio Eduardo Nachura (2007), Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio (2001), Conchita Carpio Morales (2002), Maria Lourdes Sereno (2010), and Roberto Abad (2009). Sereno was the sole appointee of current president Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III. The rest were appointed during the administration of Arroyo.
The present Supreme Court has been known lately for making very controversial rulings that can be perceived as a play with the letters of the law while not necessarily being faithful to its spirit. These rulings include the "midnight appointment" of Chief Justice Corona himself (which the majority of associate justices ruled not covered in the Constitutional provision against midnight appointments), and the justification (accidental deletion of attribution is so convenient to be believable as we are talking here of lawyers not ordinary clerks) of Del Castillo's proven (the accidental deletion of attribution defense is in itself an admission) lifting up of other author's opinion without attribution when writing his own opinion in the case on Japanese comfort women ["The Supreme Court's Plagiarism Scandal," Newsbreak]. And this present ruling against the creation of the Philippine Truth Commission may as well be one of these highly head-shaking decisions.
Premeditation to Oppose EO 1
In her dissenting opinion, associate justice Maria Lourdes Sereño intimated that there was already an intention to subvert EO1 in the part of the majority SC justices. According to Frank Malilong ("Supreme Court's red herring," SunStar Cebu, 9 Dec 2010), "she described the majority's suggestion that 'there was a way to tweek EO 1' as a 'red herring.'" Red herring, according to wikipedia, is "a rhetorical tactic of diverting attention away from an item of significance," in this case, the search for truth of graft and corruption committed in the previous administration.
And the majority simply waited for any hint that a priority be given on seeking the truth in relation to the Arroyo administration. The reality, she said, is that “there is no way that it can be done without loss of dignity to the incumbent presidency” since the Court is in fact ready to strike down the EO “the moment the prioritization hints on focusing on the Arroyo administration.”
This information confirms that the majority of the SC justices already held a bias towards protecting the Arroyo administration and against EO1.
The Issue of Violating Equal Protection Right
Associate justice Sereño disputes the ruling that EO 1 violated the equal protection right based simply on an earlier but worse precedence in Arroyo's Administrative Order No. 78. AO 78, according to Sereño even singled out a group of people for investigation. She wrote, AO 78 “zeroed in on the investigation of ‘the rebellion of misguided military officers last July (2003)’ in order ‘to investigate the roots of the rebellion and the provocations that inspired it,’ and concludes that ‘this rebellion is deplorable.’”
This gives us an idea on how SC twisted law in order to protect the Arroyo administration using a very twisted logic, the same kind of logic used in exempting the appointment of Chief Justice Coloma from the Constitutional prohibition against midnight appointments as well as its subscription to the very convenient "accidentally deleted attribution" defense against the plagiarization offense that associate justice Del Castillo committed in his "Japanese comfort women" ruling, in order to protect the associate justice.
I can only say that the current Supreme Court has lost its moral ascendency to discharge blind justice on issues relating to the Arroyo administration because of these immoral maneuvers of the majority of justices.
Dissenting Opinions
ANTONIO CARPIO, Senior Associate Justice: "The majority opinion’s reasoning is specious, illogical, impractical, impossible to comply, and contrary to the Constitution and well-settled jurisprudence. To require that “earlier past administrations” must also be included in the investigation of the Truth Commission, with the Truth Commission expressly empowered “to investigate all past administrations,” before there can be a valid investigation of the Arroyo administration under the equal protection clause, is to prevent absolutely the investigation of the Arroyo administration under any circumstance...
"Here, petitioners do not claim to be adversely affected by the alleged selective prosecution under EO 1. Even in the absence of such a claim by the proper party, the majority opinion strikes down EO 1 as discriminatory and thus violative of the equal protection clause. This is a gratuitous act to those who are not before this Court, a discriminatory exception to the rule that only those “adversely affected” by an alleged selective prosecution can invoke the equal protection clause. Ironically, such discriminatory exception is a violation of the equal protection clause. In short, the ruling of the majority is in itself a violation of the equal protection clause, the very constitutional guarantee that it seeks to enforce.
"The majority opinion’s requirement that “earlier past administrations” in the last 111 years should be included in the investigation of the Truth Commission to comply with the equal protection clause is a recipe for all criminals to escape prosecution. This requirement is like saying that before a person can be charged with estafa, the prosecution must also charge all persons who in the past may have committed estafa in the country. Since it is impossible for the prosecution to charge all those who in the past may have committed estafa in the country, then it becomes impossible to prosecute anyone for estafa...
"A person investigated or prosecuted for a possible crime cannot raise the defense that he is being singled out because others who may have committed the same crime are not being investigated or prosecuted. Such person cannot even raise the defense that after several decades he is the first and only one being investigated or prosecuted for a specific crime." (Source)
CONCHITA CARPIO-MORALES, Associate Justice: (to be added)
MARIA LOURDES SEREÑO, Associate Justice: (to be added)
ROBERTO ABAD, Associate Justice: (to be added)
What Ordinary People Said [Source 1]
ROBERT REYES, activist priest: “By declaring the truth commission unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has declared (Arroyo) untouchable.It’s like saying that you can’t do anything with Arroyo as long as majority of the SC is with her.”
RODOLFO “Jun” LOZADA, whistle blower [$329-million NBN-ZTE deal]: “GMA (Arroyo) was clever enough and until now she’s still clever to make sure that her back will be protected by leaving so many cohorts and allies behind to the extent of creating laws that guarantee them tenure."
AMADO VALDEZ, dean of law [University of the East]: “How can there be a violation of equal protection when she is in a class by herself? How could she claim she will be isolated? I don’t think the Truth Commission can be invalidated on that ground.”
RENATO REYES, secretary-general [Bayan]: “The Truth Commission decision was preceded by other decisions involving Arroyo’s midnight appointments and a status quo order on the impeachment case vs. the Ombudsman. If this trend continues, and extends to the Ombudsman impeachment case also pending before the SC, there will be fewer avenues to make Arroyo accountable."
What Senators Said
FRANCIS PANGILINAN: “The Supreme Court might have unwittingly sent a message that abuses and corruption under the Arroyo (administration) should not be investigated. Its effect on the public mind is that it absolves Mrs. Arroyo from the scandals and her involvement in anomalies and abuses in government. The last time I checked, GMA was no longer President and the practice of suppressing the truth as state policy ended with her. The Supreme Court ruling preventing the government from investigating the former president makes me stop to pause and think."
JUAN PONCE ENRILE, Senate President: "The President can’t create an office like that, in my opinion, and then appropriate money for it. I also entertained some doubts about the validity of the creation of the Truth Commission.” (read report)
FRANKLIN DRILON: “Clearly, this decision is one of the many legal obstacles laid down by the Arroyo administration to prevent the former administration from being made to answer to the Filipino people for its abuses and and excesses. Its putting in place nearly 1,000 midnight appointees to key government positions is another example of that attempt to suppress public accountability.” (Source) "Gloria Arroyo on April 16, 2001 signed EO 12 creating the Philippine Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC)." (Source)
What Congressmen Said
LORENZO TAÑADA III, depute speaker: “Frankly, this is disastrous. We should question the Supreme Court’s motives. What’s the difference between this and the Melo Commission, which was also created by executive order?”
WINSTON CASTELO (Quezon City): “Unfortunately, the SC misread the intention (of the Aquino administration) and found more legal technicalities than ferreting out the truth.” (Source)
TEODORO CASIÑO, Bayan Muna party-list: “The Arroyo court is playing its role to the hilt in protecting the ex-President.”
NIEL TUPAS JR (Iloilo), Chairperson (Committee on Justice): "The Truth Commission was basically set up for the purpose of investigating because the body tasked by the Constitution to investigate and prosecute graft and corruption seems to have lost credibility... I don't think the Ombudsman is the right person to handle those cases." (Source)
In her dissenting opinion, associate justice Maria Lourdes Sereño intimated that there was already an intention to subvert EO1 in the part of the majority SC justices. According to Frank Malilong ("Supreme Court's red herring," SunStar Cebu, 9 Dec 2010), "she described the majority's suggestion that 'there was a way to tweek EO 1' as a 'red herring.'" Red herring, according to wikipedia, is "a rhetorical tactic of diverting attention away from an item of significance," in this case, the search for truth of graft and corruption committed in the previous administration.
And the majority simply waited for any hint that a priority be given on seeking the truth in relation to the Arroyo administration. The reality, she said, is that “there is no way that it can be done without loss of dignity to the incumbent presidency” since the Court is in fact ready to strike down the EO “the moment the prioritization hints on focusing on the Arroyo administration.”
This information confirms that the majority of the SC justices already held a bias towards protecting the Arroyo administration and against EO1.
The Issue of Violating Equal Protection Right
Associate justice Sereño disputes the ruling that EO 1 violated the equal protection right based simply on an earlier but worse precedence in Arroyo's Administrative Order No. 78. AO 78, according to Sereño even singled out a group of people for investigation. She wrote, AO 78 “zeroed in on the investigation of ‘the rebellion of misguided military officers last July (2003)’ in order ‘to investigate the roots of the rebellion and the provocations that inspired it,’ and concludes that ‘this rebellion is deplorable.’”
This gives us an idea on how SC twisted law in order to protect the Arroyo administration using a very twisted logic, the same kind of logic used in exempting the appointment of Chief Justice Coloma from the Constitutional prohibition against midnight appointments as well as its subscription to the very convenient "accidentally deleted attribution" defense against the plagiarization offense that associate justice Del Castillo committed in his "Japanese comfort women" ruling, in order to protect the associate justice.
I can only say that the current Supreme Court has lost its moral ascendency to discharge blind justice on issues relating to the Arroyo administration because of these immoral maneuvers of the majority of justices.
Dissenting Opinions
ANTONIO CARPIO, Senior Associate Justice: "The majority opinion’s reasoning is specious, illogical, impractical, impossible to comply, and contrary to the Constitution and well-settled jurisprudence. To require that “earlier past administrations” must also be included in the investigation of the Truth Commission, with the Truth Commission expressly empowered “to investigate all past administrations,” before there can be a valid investigation of the Arroyo administration under the equal protection clause, is to prevent absolutely the investigation of the Arroyo administration under any circumstance...
"Here, petitioners do not claim to be adversely affected by the alleged selective prosecution under EO 1. Even in the absence of such a claim by the proper party, the majority opinion strikes down EO 1 as discriminatory and thus violative of the equal protection clause. This is a gratuitous act to those who are not before this Court, a discriminatory exception to the rule that only those “adversely affected” by an alleged selective prosecution can invoke the equal protection clause. Ironically, such discriminatory exception is a violation of the equal protection clause. In short, the ruling of the majority is in itself a violation of the equal protection clause, the very constitutional guarantee that it seeks to enforce.
"The majority opinion’s requirement that “earlier past administrations” in the last 111 years should be included in the investigation of the Truth Commission to comply with the equal protection clause is a recipe for all criminals to escape prosecution. This requirement is like saying that before a person can be charged with estafa, the prosecution must also charge all persons who in the past may have committed estafa in the country. Since it is impossible for the prosecution to charge all those who in the past may have committed estafa in the country, then it becomes impossible to prosecute anyone for estafa...
"A person investigated or prosecuted for a possible crime cannot raise the defense that he is being singled out because others who may have committed the same crime are not being investigated or prosecuted. Such person cannot even raise the defense that after several decades he is the first and only one being investigated or prosecuted for a specific crime." (Source)
CONCHITA CARPIO-MORALES, Associate Justice: (to be added)
MARIA LOURDES SEREÑO, Associate Justice: (to be added)
ROBERTO ABAD, Associate Justice: (to be added)
What Ordinary People Said [Source 1]
ROBERT REYES, activist priest: “By declaring the truth commission unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has declared (Arroyo) untouchable.It’s like saying that you can’t do anything with Arroyo as long as majority of the SC is with her.”
RODOLFO “Jun” LOZADA, whistle blower [$329-million NBN-ZTE deal]: “GMA (Arroyo) was clever enough and until now she’s still clever to make sure that her back will be protected by leaving so many cohorts and allies behind to the extent of creating laws that guarantee them tenure."
AMADO VALDEZ, dean of law [University of the East]: “How can there be a violation of equal protection when she is in a class by herself? How could she claim she will be isolated? I don’t think the Truth Commission can be invalidated on that ground.”
RENATO REYES, secretary-general [Bayan]: “The Truth Commission decision was preceded by other decisions involving Arroyo’s midnight appointments and a status quo order on the impeachment case vs. the Ombudsman. If this trend continues, and extends to the Ombudsman impeachment case also pending before the SC, there will be fewer avenues to make Arroyo accountable."
What Senators Said
FRANCIS PANGILINAN: “The Supreme Court might have unwittingly sent a message that abuses and corruption under the Arroyo (administration) should not be investigated. Its effect on the public mind is that it absolves Mrs. Arroyo from the scandals and her involvement in anomalies and abuses in government. The last time I checked, GMA was no longer President and the practice of suppressing the truth as state policy ended with her. The Supreme Court ruling preventing the government from investigating the former president makes me stop to pause and think."
JUAN PONCE ENRILE, Senate President: "The President can’t create an office like that, in my opinion, and then appropriate money for it. I also entertained some doubts about the validity of the creation of the Truth Commission.” (read report)
FRANKLIN DRILON: “Clearly, this decision is one of the many legal obstacles laid down by the Arroyo administration to prevent the former administration from being made to answer to the Filipino people for its abuses and and excesses. Its putting in place nearly 1,000 midnight appointees to key government positions is another example of that attempt to suppress public accountability.” (Source) "Gloria Arroyo on April 16, 2001 signed EO 12 creating the Philippine Anti-Graft Commission (PAGC)." (Source)
What Congressmen Said
LORENZO TAÑADA III, depute speaker: “Frankly, this is disastrous. We should question the Supreme Court’s motives. What’s the difference between this and the Melo Commission, which was also created by executive order?”
WINSTON CASTELO (Quezon City): “Unfortunately, the SC misread the intention (of the Aquino administration) and found more legal technicalities than ferreting out the truth.” (Source)
TEODORO CASIÑO, Bayan Muna party-list: “The Arroyo court is playing its role to the hilt in protecting the ex-President.”
NIEL TUPAS JR (Iloilo), Chairperson (Committee on Justice): "The Truth Commission was basically set up for the purpose of investigating because the body tasked by the Constitution to investigate and prosecute graft and corruption seems to have lost credibility... I don't think the Ombudsman is the right person to handle those cases." (Source)
No comments:
Post a Comment