Senator Santiago Is An Embarassment To The World Court!

I was already worried when Senator Miriam Santiago joined for the first time the impeachment court  on January 25, but her outburst yesterday in the Senate confirms my apprehension that the lady senator is mentally challenged. She is an embarrassment to the International Criminal Court which sits her as one of the jurists of that body that prosecutes world thugs and criminals unless of course that body is an assembly of self-righteous demagogues and quacks, then she could be in a very comfortable company. My only concern is that she looks like she is not even competent to run after the local thugs (hoodlums) of the judiciary.

Senator Miriam Santiago is not exactly my expert on  constitutional law, because she rambles her thought on that piece of document and she thinks that her previous  years  sitting as a judge of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City and her having a doctorate degree in law from Michigan University makes her competent  on the constitution; the rules on procedure, and on every topic under the sun.

The Senate had already ruled that the prosecution can present evidence on the ITR, (alpha lists) and other real estate acquisitions of the Chief Justice and his wife Carina pursuant to the two sub-pars of Article II of Impeachment which was innocuously captioned  “Non Disclosure of SALNs,” of the Chief Justice.  However, her taking the floor to upbraid private prosecutor Lim and demanded from him to  read the said Article II and to point out which of these allegations constitute violation of the graft and corrupt practices act was an effort to grandstand on the floor.  Parliamentary courtesy was thrown out the door and she turned the Senate into a pit of brawling mob and indecent people instead of an emporium of satesmen and honorable elected representatives of the sovereign people.  She riled against the private prosecutor who is not a member of Congress arguing with her but she does not have any problem with defense lawyer S. Cuevas, who likewise is not a member of Congress arguing with anyone in the chamber.

She literally acted like a spoiled brat in tantrum and screaming at the top of her lungs because her lollipop fell on the gutter and washed away by the water under.

She purposely provoked herself into fighting her own bogeymen and started the fight with her combative request to the prosecutor to read the articles of impeachment like a grade school teacher would ask her nervous young student to enlighten her of the nature of the pleadings when it was obvious that her motive was to scold  the Private Prosecutor on how sloppy the particular article was written.  The entire Senate had already passed judgment on that article and had liberally construed it to enable BIR Commissioner Kim Henares to testify and have the  documents she brought to the Senate be marked as evidence,  but Senator Santiago chose to speak out of sync.

In another corner, Joker Arroyo looked like a spurned suitor blabbering hilariously in a pitch which was incredibly inaudible telling the Senate that unless the documents marked by the prosecution are offered and accepted by the body, these papers remain useless piece of documents because they are not public documents.  You can give defense counsel S. Cuevas credit when he corrected the octagenarian solon that the admission of Congress of the documents would not lend any extra character to what was already considered a public document.  He said that if it was notarized  and/or subscribed before someone authorized to administer an oath, the document is considered public document.  Please take note that the SALNs,  and sales documents of real properties in the name of the Coronas or their  children/in-laws are notarized and under oath and therefore they are considered public documents that are entitled to the presumption of being regular and duly executed pursuant to  law.

I would add that all documents filed in various  government offices charge with duty to keep and accept these documents are considered public documents and therefore  accorded  with the prima facie presumption of regularity. The papers brought to the Senate by Commissioner Henares are public documents  and they enjoy the presumption of being faithful evidence of the transactions contained therein unless a contrary evidence is presented to overcome that presumption. Their being accepted or rejected by the Senate does not alter their character as public documents.

Accordingly, I  find   the attempts of some Senators, Joker Arroyo most specially, to downgrade the value of these  documents before the eyes of the public without presenting contrary testimony or documents to discredit them as very dishonest and revolting.

On  a lighter note, I find it refreshing though that Senators Lacson and Guingona, correctly addressed the public aspect of the proceeding and reminded their colleagues that the public  are part of the proceedings and are looking into whatever documents are being shown and marked on the floor unless the proceeding is made closed-door.

The public however are not interested in the character of the documents.  They are more interested on what they contain.

The attempt of some senators and the defense to “judicialize” the proceeding and lecture the public and the prosecutors  of what are competent and admissible evidence is a  charade meant to cushion  the damage caused by the documents to the Coronas.  Whatever attempt at legalese is  lost in the minds of the public who saw the entire process in the Senate as a simple case of arithmetic and not Wigmore’s treatise on what constitutes as competent and admissible evidence in the courts of law.

Is there an accusation that CJ Corona is a thief?  If there is, his SALNs, ITR (alpha list), and real property acquisitions are material and relevant in proving such accusation.  The public are interested in his income to see if those income can sustain those expensive realty acquisitions by the Coronas. Any contrivance or lawyerly trick to prevent these otherwise relevant evidence from being entered into the records of the Senate deserves the highest public contempt.

Did CJ Corona betray a public trust? 

Perhaps Senator Santiago should consider this accusation as not part of those offenses enumerated in the anti-graft and corrupt practices act (RA 3019).  This is a political offense like those offenses considered as “high crimes and other misdemeanors” in the U.S. jurisprudence  and therefore need not be alleged as a violation of specific provision of statutory law.

I have to go back to my primer on impeachment just to show that Senator Santiago was wrong on her meanderings of the impeachment process as a “quasi-judicial proceedings” instead of the process being purely ”political” and I have go to back to the text of the constitution to show that other acts not constituting a violation of statutory laws are impeachable offenses as long as they fall under the broad category of  “betrayal of public trust.”

 And since impeachment was not intended to punish the erring official but to protect public interest, it is my submission that the degree of evidence required for conviction is only substantial proof  and not proof beyond reasonable doubt as proposed by the defense.

These are what David Barton has compiled in his primer on “Restraining An Overactive Judiciary: Impeachment:”

“Because criminal acts by an official already had a forum for prosecution (the regular courts of law), impeachment covered the non-criminal offenses,  yet even though designed primarily for non-criminal acts, the grounds  for impeachment may also include statutory offenses since Art. II, Sec. 4 par 1, specifically cites treason and bribery as grounds for impeachment (although at the time bribery was included in the Constitution, it was not a statutory offense).  Understanding them, the original grounds for impeachment, it is not surprising that impeachment  … in the century-and-a-half following the ratification of the Constitution  usually revolved around a non-statutory and non-criminal charges rather than today’s standard of a direct violation of statutory law.” 

“What evidence supports the assertion that today’s standards do not comport with the historical standards -  that impeachments were not to be limited solely to criminal or statutory violations?  Notice, for example, Alexander Hamilton’s succinct declaration:” 

“The subjects of its jurisdiction are … of a nature which may be peculiar propriety denominated “political.” 

Professor John R. Tucker similarly explained: 

“The process of impeachment is a political proceeding, against the accused as an officer of the government, to protect the government from present or future incumbency of a man whose conduct has proved him unworthy to fill it…  The impeachment power was intended to cleanse the government from the presence of worthless and faithless officials”. 

“In  his Commentaries, William Rawle similarly confirmed that impeachment was for “political offenses,” and Justice Story declared the same in numerous locations throughout his Commentaries on the Constitution.  Notice:”

“The jurisdiction is to be exercised over offenses which are committed by public  men in violation of their public trust and  duties.  Those duties are, in many cases, political. Strictly speaking, then (impeachment) partakes of a political character as it respects injuries to the society in its political character.”

“The offenses which the power of impeachment is designed principally to reach are those of a political or of a judicial character. The offenses to which the remedy of impeachment has been and will continue to be principally applied are of political nature. There are many offenses, purely political, which had been held to be within the reach of .. impeachments, not one  of which is in the slightest manner alluded to in our statute book. And, indeed political offenses are of so various and complex a character, so utterly incapable of being defined or classified, that the  test of positive (statutory) legislation would be impracticable if it were not almost absurd attempt to it.” 

“There is also much force in  the  remark that an impeachment  is a proceeding purely of political nature.  It is not so much designed to punish an offender as to secure the state against gross official misdemeanors.  It touches neither his person nor his property, but simply divests him of his political capacity.”

“The offences to which the power of impeachment has been and his ordinarily applied as a remedy are ” what are aptly termed political offences growing out of personal misconduct, or gross neglect or usurpation, or habitual disregard of the public interests.”

“There  is much additional evidence to prove that impeachment was not to be limited to the current narrow scope of criminal acts.  For example, George Mason, the Father of the “Bill of Rights” explained that impeachment was for attempts to subvert the Constitution, and Alexander Hamilton declared that impeachment was to be used for  “the abuse or violation of some public trust.. (or for) injuries done immediately to the society itself.  Constitutional Convention delegate Elbridge Gerry considered “mal-administration” as grounds for impeachment, and William Rawle included the inordinate extension of power, the influence of party and of prejudice as well as attempts to infringe the rights of the people.  Justice Story in addition to his reasons given above, also listed “unconstitutional opinions” and “attempts to subvert the fundamental laws and introduce arbitrary power.  Very simply, impeachment was the recourse when judges attempted to disregard public interests, to affront the will of the people or to introduce arbitrary power by seizing the role of policy-maker.”  (Restraining An  Overactive Judiciary, p. 16-17).”

I will take issue too against Senator Santiago’s meanderings of the provision of the constitution that the Senate can impose reprimand or suspension of the impeached official on trial. 

Sec. 2 of Article XI of the 1987 Constitution provides:

“The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman may be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.”

The provisions speaks of “maybe removed”  from office through impeachment.  It did not say that part of the penalty could be suspension or reprimand. Senate may removed the impeached official or may acquit him.  One cannot read from the text of the constitution that the Senate can impose sanction like “reprimand or suspension.”

Further, Sec. 7 of Article XI of the  1987  Constitution states:

“Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippines, but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to prosecution, trial, and punishment, according to law. “ 

The text of the constitution puts removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the Philippine as the only penalty that can be imposed by the Senate against the impeached official and no others, and it was meant as a limitation of power to impose the penalty like imprisonment which is a function of the regular court and it was not an enumeration of series of possible sanction like reprimand and suspension from office as the lady Senator had erroneously mused.

That since any political perception of “misbehavior in office” not resulting to a crime punished by the statute can be a ground for impeachment, it necessarily follows that the evidence required is not beyond reasonable doubt, but enough evidence to convince the the Senate that the officer has misbehaved.

 “(I)n 1926, federal judge George W.English was impeached  for judicial high-handedness and profanity, in 1933, federal judge Harold Louderback was impeached for seeking to hide his assets during a personal divorce proceedings;  and in 1936, federal judge Halsted L. Ritter was impeached for corruption and income tax evasion.  The evidence is irrefutable; the basis for most impeachments was non-criminal and non-statutory. ”

“Perhaps the broadest scope of what constitutes an impeachable offense was given by Representative, later President Gerald Ford when proposing the  impeachment of Supreme Court Justice William  Douglas. Ford explained:

“An impeachable offense is what majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history; conviction results from whatever offense or offenses two-thirds of the other body considers to be sufficiently serious to require removal of the accused from office.”

“Ford like Joseph Story before him, had buttressed his conclusion by a detailed analysis of each impeachment brought  before Congress to that point.  Consequently many legal scholars correctly concluded that the “high crimes and  misdemeanors” clause should not be interpreted in a manner which limited it to criminal or legal offenses.  For example, the learned legal commentator Raoul Berger stated:”

“Judges are not thus removable (by election); and their tenure “during good behavior: (Art. III, Sec. 1) indicates that the Framers did not intend to shelter  those who indulged in disgraceful conduct short of “great offenses.”  This is not to import the standards of “good behavior: into high crimes and misdemeanors” but to indicate that serious infractions of  “good behavior,” though less than great offenses,” may yet amount to “high crimes and misdemeanors.”(ibid, p. 23-24). 

I believe the text in our  the constitution that says “betrayal of  public trust” as a ground for impeachment is subsumed in the terms “other misdemeanors” in the great American jurisprudence which we unquestionably adopt in our local jurisprudence.

It follows, I suppose that the required evidence should not be “beyond reasonable doubt” but only enough evidence to convince the members of the Senate that the official concerned had failed to discharge the burden of good behavior while in office.

It’s A Quicksand, Justice Cuevas!

It was not  only Atty.  Enriqueta Vidal, En Banc Clerk of Court of the Supreme Court who experienced great discomfort in  trying to protect Chief Justice Renato Corona while testifying on January 18, before the Senate. The defense team also  keeps turning and twirling   to  control the damage occasioned by the release of the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth (SALNs) of the embattled jurist. 

The defense has to raise every imaginable objection to the presentation of the copies of the  SALNs of the Chief Justice and later on to the marking  of real estate properties in the name of CJ Corona, his wife, his daughters and son-in-law.   The objections become annoying that every time the lead counsel would open up his mouth, to object, one can easily telegraph that precipitous attempt to hide the truth from the public.  You can sense the muffled hush from the gallery over such clever maneuver from the defense counsel that led Senator Ping Lacson to comment that the objection of the defense was dilatory and counter-productive. 

Whatever legal objection the defense has over the documentary evidence of the prosecution against CJ Corona, such is lost in the simplicity of the issue rightfully etched  in the minds of the public. —  Is CJ Corona a thief? 

If he is not a thief, he can explain the contents of his SALNs.  If The SALNs are incomplete, and he has other properties not included in the them, can the Chief explain why it was not in his SALNs?  Similarly, are the properties of his daughters and son-in-law within their financial capacity to acquire, or are they simply holding the properties for the Chief Justice as dummies?

The objection that some properties are not in the name of CJ Corona  but in the name of his daughters or son-in-law and therefore not relevant in the inquiry on the ill-gotten wealth of the Chief Justice,  actually begs the issue.  Thus the more Justice Cuevas,  tries to shield the Chief Justice by his aberrant objections on the floor of the Senate,  the more he clobbers his client with mud.  Both of them are irretrievably sinking in the quicksand. 

Every property, realty or cash or even jewelries of the Corona family  are relevant in the determination of whether such were earned lawfully or “ill-gotten” .  If  their acquisitions were unlawful, the Chief has to answer for them under the law.

Article II of the Impeachment is broad enough to cover the issue that CJ Corona was  guilty of corruption which is punishable under RA 3019, and therefore such constituted  betrayal of public trust.

 Assuming Article II of the impeachment complaint covers only non-disclosure of SALNs,    such however, includes the issue that while the SALNS were now disclosed to the Senate, such were purposely downgraded and therefore, amounts to half-disclosure or even non-disclosure. He could not raise the issue of “harrassment and fishing” expedition” against the prosecution and for feasting on his SALNs because he is not a private citizen but a high profile public servant whose wealth is subject to public scrutiny pursuant to the constitutional provisions on accountability and transparency of public officials.

The “ultimate facts” requirement for pleadings had been complied with by the prosecution and Serafin Cuevas cannot raise this alleged flaw in the pleadings.  “Ultimate facts” is a minimum procedural requirement to put respondent on notice of the nature of the breach he was being prosecuted.  Anyone reading the articlee of impeachment will get the basic understanding that the Chief Justice, among others, was being put to task for corruption and hidden wealth and he was properly put on notice when the impeachment complaint was served upon him and his lawyers seasonably filed their answer thereof.  Otherwise, if CJ Corona cannot make heads and tails out of the Impeachmnet Complaint, the defense should have not plead thereto, he should have asked for a bill of particulars or request for a more concise and detailed enumeration of his wrongdoings before going to trial. 

At any rate, here is  Sec. 8 of R.A. 3019:

Sec. 8.  Dismissal due to unexplained wealth.  If in accordance with the provisions of Republic Act Numbered One thousand three hundred seventy-nine, a public official has been found to have acquired during his incumbency, whether in his name or in the of other persons, an amount of property and/or money manifestly out of proportion to his salary and to his other lawful income, that fact shall be a ground for dismissal or removal.  Properties in the name of the spouse and unmarried children of such public official may be taken into consideration,  when their acquisition through legitimate means cannot be satisfactorily shown. Bank deposits shall be taken into consideration in the enforcement of this section notwithstanding any provision of the  law to the contrary.

And here is Sec. 2 of RA 1379 (Presumption of Unlawfully Acquired Property By Public Official):

“Whenever any public officer or employee has acquired during his incumbency an amount of property which is manifestly out of proportion to his salary as such public officer or employee and to his other lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired property, said property shall be presumed prima facie to have been unlawfully acquired.”

CJ Corona has a lot of explaining to do about those properties in his SALNs as well as those not in his SALNs.  Unlike those litigants in the Supreme Court whose case the court can railroad for lack of powerhouse lawyers to advocate for their cause, CJ Corona has a battery of lawyers and his case is being monitored by the public which makes it totally impossible to strip him of his office if innocence preponderates in his favor.  But the systematic effort of his lawyers to thwart the introduction of documentary evidence against the Chief only serves to highlight that those documents must be damaging to the Chief. 

The ordinary Juan de la Cruz on the street  may not know the finer nuances of the law which Cuevas wanted the public to appreciate, but definitely he knows that the bottomline in this case is a simple arithmetic.

Doing Your Homework Won’t Hurt!

A week before the impeachment trial of CJ Renato Corona, I emailed Congressman Neil Tupas, Jr., through his House website.  My email could have been routed to his “spam” folder because I have not received any response; or simply,  the team thought that they have every base already covered hence an outside help is not needed.  But it looks like the prosecution was in total disarray yesterday.  I just hope that it can recover from its initial shock!

Dear Congressman Tupas, Jr.;

I do not know you from Adam, but I think your team need a friend.    Like many of our people, I too was tired  with the order of things in our judiciary. Let me work at the background of your team because CJ Corona has a formidable one, the lead of which is no less than ex-jurist Serafin Cuevas, my professor in remedial law.  He is very eloquent, sharp and witty.  Any other lawyer in the defense team  falls  below his legal skill and genius.

This is not meant to scare your team.  It is to recognize the fact that you are up against the best legal minds there are in the horizon. Your only advantage is your quest for the truth  – and let not the truth suffer because your team is ill-prepared for this process.

The impeachment is a small step towards reforming the judiciary.  For even if he is removed by the Senate, the judiciary would still be a big non-performing branch of the government unless one is a high profile litigant with lots of money that can hire hotshot lawyers to bend the law and flaunt it as  pristine moral directive to which everyone must submit.    This is where you were up against – hotshot lawyers with a sleight of hands that can make bad thing appear like good.  How you wish you could have them on your team to make good appear what it is: “good.”

But the impeachment is a monumental step in demolishing our concept that “judicial integrity” and “independence” are equivalent to “judicial untouchability” even in the face of its own tyranny.

I trust in the sublime purpose for which the impeachment was embarked on and I want your team to succeed.  This battle cannot be won  in trenches of the Senate, but  in the hearts and minds of the people outside it and the press that will herald this glorious struggle of Congress as the voice of the sovereign people against the a judiciary whose very chief has become the  symbol of injustice itself.

Your team has to do its homework.  Hitting a home run will not come easy.  Be prepared!

I therefore offer my legal training to research for your team and help in my own humble ways to find light from this total darkness. 

Sincerely,

JCC

You may visit my blog to mirror my capacity to deliver the kind of services I have offered.

World Bank Report: An Indictment of The Supreme Court!

One needs only to read the report of the World Bank about its loans of P900 Million  to the Supreme Court to find out that the Court had misprioritized the disbursements of the money instead of devoting it to improve the  delivery of justice in the country.  And that the Supreme Court performance regarding the management of the funds  in 2010-11, at a time that CJ Renato Corona was the  head of the Court already, was “unsatisfactory” and the loan considered  a “high risk.”

The issue of whether such report was officially released by the World Bank or not  does not argue against its existence.  As a lender, the Bank is only monitoring the disbursement of the funds.  As a matter of policy, it could not be expected to join in the intramurals  of the host country.  The quality of the information is not diminished simply because the disclosure of information was “unofficial.”  The information itself should be the measure of its own worth.

Here is Annex 4 of the World Bank Report I have copied from Rappler.Com.

 “This Review identifies fiduciary failures which appear to have begun in 2010 and accelerated in 2011. From mid-2010, project decision-making became more centralized; Program Management Office (PMO) capacity deteriorated;  lack of segregation of functions  caused a breakdown in the internal control environment and elimination of internal checks and balances; questionable procurement and expenditure decisions led to ineligible expenditures, retroactive contracts, uncontrolled commitments, increase risks of contingent liabilities and potential for over-commitment of project funds; vendor payments were delayed; and project account difference between Court offices remained un-reconciled. As a result, the quality of project implementation and the reliability of project financial information deteriorated. Ad hoc/unplanned use of projects is exemplified by IT goods procurements during 2010-2011 – some were not agreed with the World Bank or reflected in the procurement plan or were not connected with the project developments objectives, and 62% by value was procured not for front-line judges and court personnel who desperately need such equipment for backlog reduction and case management, but for the Supreme Court and appellate courts in Manila, in small lots.  A clear picture of commitments, contingent liabilities, impact of exchange rate losses and the quantum of uncommitted project funds is no longer available, and the project financial statements cannot be relied upon. The review confirms that the project fiduciary environment has deteriorated to an extent that project management, project procurement and project financial management are now rated “high risk” and “unsatisfactory”  The PMO is requested to point out any factual errors or omissions in this Review.”

Age Has Taken Over The Genius of Sen. Enrile!

Whatever goodwill Senator Juan Ponce Enrile had earned during the first day of the  impeachment proceedings totally evaporated today when he ruled that the  motions for “subpoena duces tecum and ad testificandum” filed by the prosecution against the family of Chief Justice Renato Corona are covered by marital and familial privilege and therefore the Senate cannot issue the subpoenas.  

As regards the “ad testificandum” the rule may be invoked, but only by the parties themselves, but the  “duces tecum”  (documenary evidence), is not covered by either the “self-incrimination” doctrine, or of the “marital privilege communication” principle because these are not testimonial evidence.

Furthermore, the issuance of subpoenas is a ministerial duty of any tribunal.  The right to object to them lies with the party and can be raised only at an opportune time, i.e., during the trial and not prior to it and it  cannot be ruled upon motu propio by the Senate or by the Court but have to be invoked by the party that enjoys the privilege. The entire Senate which ratified the ruling  of Senator Enrile did not know any better.

“Self-incrimination” and “marital communication” privileges should be invoked only by the party that is affected. And because these are personal rights, the same can be waived.  Sen.  Enrile cannot invoke these rights ahead of the parties who can invoke and assert only the same during court hearing and on questions directly propounded to the witness that clearly put him/her into the prospect of incriminating himself/herself or violate the marital/filial privilege.   A blanket acceptance of the privilege without the specific question that triggers the invocation of the privilege is not what the rule contemplates.

Sen. Cayetano was more in point when he said that the witness can only invoke it at opportune time and he cited Wigmore that the privilege have exceptions.  He even went to say that it should not cover the in-laws who was also requested by the prosecution to appear during the hearing to shed light on his being a registered owner of a piece of property claimed to be part of those acquisitions of his father-in-law, the emnbattled chief justice.

And while Senator Enrile admonished the prosecution and the defense during the first day of the trial for litigating the impeachment in the public arena, it was quite obvious that he was pandering to the same public acclaim himself by delivering a lecture on the concepts of “marital and filial privilege” and the doctrine of “self-incrimination” through the Senate clerk in an epic misplaced erudition.

My faith in the prosecution though and my initial admiration of Congressman Neil Tupas had been dashed.  To think that I have volunteered to work with the prosecution for free  and to lend my trial experience to it but without getting any response from my offer speaks volume of the team’s overconfidence.  I was hoping that any of the prosecutor would stand up against Sen. Enrile and put out that smirk in his face by telling him that he is a legal fraud.  I could have texted my position to any of the prosecutor, but I have no access to anyone of them.

I can only pray for a much lesser disaster in the days to come!

But it was obvious that my professor, Justice Serafin S. Cuevas was grandstanding.

The Danger of CJ Corona Acquittal!

Nothing much can be achieved in the impeachment of CJ Corona even if successful in the Senate except to sear in the public memory that a radical change in the leadership of the  Supreme Court, touted before as the “untouchable” branch of the government  is but a myth.  But surely, it will not alter the present dynamics of the court and the manner by which it would dispose a case that comes to it for review involving litigant or litigants that were responsible in conferring on the members of the institution the privileged of their positions.

Thus it doesn’t matter if Corona is out.  It doesn’t make the job for PNOY much easier.

Without CJ Corona, the Supreme Court would still be composed of  11 magistrates appointed by Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and three magistrates appointed by President Simeon B. Aquino. Though Justice Antonio Carpio was her appointee, this jurist was able to wiggle himself out from her clutches.  But voting would still much run along the same gridlines: a majority to favor the old caliphate of GMA, and get her and her regular Mafiosi network of criminals off the hook. 

But why would someone make an effort to make a court that should be co-equal and independent be a tool of PNOY?  Because  the court has not shown any degree of independence in the past, it might as well be a tool of someone who wants to see government bureaucrats walk the path of righteousness than be a tool of a thief.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has just one vote just like the other magistrates but he could make some moral persuasion to his “distinguished brethrens” by promising them  foreign travel complete with allowances, hotel accommodations and free meals courtesy of World Bank Loans if they vote in accord with the “conscience” of the Court.   But the CJ  need not go this far if you consider that these associate jurists were also appointees of the previous power broker, and though she had lost her luster, she still holds tremendous power at the back door.

It is not an argument that these jurists can make more money or goodwill by kowtowing with the new administration of PNOY.  The problem lies with their past enlistment of  padrinos that made their entry into the highest tribunal possible and the “utang na loob” syndrome continues beyond the tenure of  their previous power-brokers.  These past favors are not limited to conferring on them the majestic title of a “justice of the court,” they can include also very personal favors as hospital payments of the jurists or their immediate families; cancelled checks in their names; records of money transfers to their bank accounts, or  a dossier of their indiscretions which she can dangle like a sword over their heads.  CJ Corona himself was honest enough to admit that GMA had spent some money for his hospitalization.

Now you can understand why many would not disclose their  SALNs and would take issue with the prosecutors for not disclosing their own SALNs.  But these congressmen would stay only in Congress for three years and if they are lucky, for another three years. In the case of jurists, they stay in the court for life or until retirement age of 75.  They make money unseen by the public for a period of  30 years if they join the judiciary at age 45, and yet they would begrudge Congressmen for not showing their illicit income for six years.  It is not a case of the kettle calling the pot black; it is a case of market vendor with altered weighing scale calling a bank swindler the greater thief.

In 1927,  Governor Leonard Wood bent  Chief Justice George Malcolm of the colonial Supreme Court to decide a case against Manuel Luis Quezon rather than face a media flurry over the jurist’s young Filipina mistress.

Mr. Marcos, acting as a modern-day Wood had crippled the opposition to his regime during martial law by diplomatically asking them to join his regime; bribe them, and threaten them if the first two options had failed.  This was the reason why of the 10 jurists of the Supreme Court during martial law, only Justices Roberto Concepcion and Claudio Teehankee were the conscientious objectors. All the others have their tails wrapped around their balls. This was also the reason why mid-way the martial law era, the  public only saw Ninoy Aquino, Tanada, Sumulong, Soc Rodrigo, Anding Roces, Jovito Salonga and Jose W. Diokno putting up with the dictator.

GMA has never been a neophyte of the chemistry of power, after all she was a daughter of a President. She could have learned also from Mr. Marcos and Erap, the consuming politics of blandishment and bribery.  She allowed the military to have their own business apart from the regular payolas from jueteng and she cornered government contracts to her friends and supporters the way Mr. Marcos would make business for his cronies and Erap for Atong Ang and his “midnight cabinet.”

Just like Marcos, GMA had the Comelec under her thumb and she packed up the Supreme Court with her spineless loyalists masquerading as upright jurists.  At the time that her authority was waning, she had managed to skirt the prohibition in the constitution and appointed a Chief Justice who now faces a legal gauntlet for treating her with royal reverence.

While a public euphoria over the dismissal of CJ Corona can generate a tremendous goodwill for the president to make way for his political agenda of reforming the bureaucracy, a contrary ruling can spark a wildfire that can destabilized the nation.

This early the Senate and the defense were already cautioning the public against trial by publicity which is another way of saying that the public should not weigh into the process of impeachment and leave the Senators to appreciate the evidence against CJ Corona.  As if the public cannot discern the legitimacy of purchases of some 45 posh real estates in Metro Manila by the Chief Justice, or his wife and children from sources that they can credibly explain.  It has nothing to do with admissibility of evidence or the finer nuances of the law; it has something to do with a simple arithmetic.

That the public is being cautioned to control their passion is simply to prepare them from reacting convulsively if the Senate sees things differently.  There is a fear that the indirect recall by the sovereign of their jurist through the Senate could translate into a direct recall of their judicial officer if they go to the streets to demand his resignation once the debate in Congress turns out to be a spectacular circus with Senators dressed as clowns.  This could be another Erap impeachment  in the making.

If this happens, GMA who suddenly recovered from her ailments through local medical intervention that she was able to write an economic treatise, could recoil in fear that no matter what the institution says of Corona’s innocence, the public is ready to make a different judgment.  It will dim her own chances of getting  through the same fast lane because a public outrage could invite a military intervention which could be totally pro-PNOY or a lost command out for another adventure!

The republic which hobbles today in crisis, can easily become paralytic and turns into a genuine banana republic.

Opening Statement Before The Senate Impeachment of Chief Justice Corona

Honorable Senators sitting as impeachment court, ladies and gentlemen in the galleries, citizens of the republic and friends.

Steve Jobs, co-founder of Apple, and President of Pixar, in 2005, five years before he died said:

“Don’t be trapped with dogma,  which is living with the results of others’ thinking.  Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your inner voice!“

Today, we are at the cross road that makes  imperative that we examine the  dogmas which the firebrands conveniently stoke to hold us down in our chain and fuel our fears of anarchy if we make a  judicial official accountable for his conduct.  Let this generation confront these dogmas to find out if they hold any meaning then and now! 

Accountability is what impeachment is all about.  It is a process enshrines in the constitution itself; to put to task an errant public official and strip him of the office which is temporal and to which he could not claim any birthright.

The house  had braved this old beaten path, but this time, it was successful to impeach a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for  betrayal of public trust  in an overwhelming majority of 188 out of 285 members.  The lower house hopes that this august chamber joins it and the people in their outrage against this murkiest judicial scam that puts personal loyalty above the interest of the nation.

In the forthcoming trial, the house prosecutors will catalogue with unmistakable certainty the wrongdoings of the respondent who have failed to detach his personal as well as his wife’s relations with the former president and considered this relationship and the overflowing kindness that proceed from it as wholesome to the business of the nation rather than inimical to its best interest.

The defense, will regale us with lofty ideals like “judicial independence”, “separation of powers”, and  “checks and balance”.  The very ideals the magistrate himself have relegated at the back burner by  ingratiating himself and his wife to the previous power-broker and secure bounties from that relationship no other mortal can,  until a new regime unforgiving of his betrayal, comes to haunt him.

These very core concepts which over extend the doctrine of social contract by John Locke   and Montesquieu,  had found their home in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison and provides sustenance to the doctrine that judicial review is the exclusive domain of the court. (Lansang V. Garcia,  44 SCRA 448; Barcelon v. Baker,  5 Phil.  807).

The essence of republicanism or democracy itself, shall reverberate in this chamber in its full splendor  — as convenient  shield of the  jurist we now seek to dethrone.

The defense will entrap us with its dogma. It will stoke our fears. It will show us our chains and beg us to wear them once again and imprison our minds as well as our  hearts that beat for the true meaning of republicanism — power belongs to the  people and not to its  temporal occupants; accountability and transparency are at the forefront of social contract, and democracy itself shall perish if we submit to the proposition that a jurist, though how unfit he is, and how treasonous his acts were, is immune from the recall of the people laid in the context of impeachment.

Where lie the principles of  ”checks and balance” “equality” and “separation of power” in the order of things that accept as truth that only the court has the authority to review the business of the legislative and the executive branches while the latter two branches are powerless to review the acts of the court which even if found injudicious, would obscure them by ascribing to the process meant to hold it accountable to the public, as an affront to its integrity and independence and injurious to the institution that acts as the guardian of the liberty of the people?  Where is the logic behind these dogmas?

But the defense will insist that we should honor these political philosophies and the exclusivity of the doctrine that only the court can say what the law is. It  would blur the finer nuance of the landmark of case of Marbury, that did not remove from the President, who took an oath to defend and enforce the constitution, his assumed authority that he can interpret it and say that it was the court that perverted it.

Or the principle in the constitution that allows Congress to impeach a jurist and for the Senate to decree a conviction for culpable violation of the constitution, if these  two collegial bodies  are wanting in authority to interpret the constitution?

In the meantime, constitutional scholars had wrangled with this landmark case and its subsequent enlargement (Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 18) that made the court rather than a co-equal, superior than the others.

Jean Smith, John Marshall’s biographer said:

“The legal precedent for judicial review, that unique American doctrine that permits the Supreme Court to declare acts of Congress and the executive unconstitutional, trace to the holding in Mabury v. Madison.  Marshall  did not say that the authority  to interpret the Constitution rested exclusively with the Court, and he certainly did not endorse the grandiose schemes that envisaged the Supreme Court as a board or review sitting in judgment  on each act of Congress to determine its constitutionality.  He simply stated that the Constitution was law, and that as a judicial matter, it could be interpreted by the Court in cases that came before it.” (John Marshall, The Definer of a Nation, p.  324).

The defense will put hurdles into our path and even misread their own dogma to mislead the people and shut off their inner voice that yearns for transparency and accountability.

The court’s concept of “independence” is untrammeled discharge of its duties outside the review of the sovereign people as laid out in the constitution.  Thomas Jefferson abhors this submission.

“The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass.”

At the end of the day, the members of this august chamber as the undisputed voice of the sovereign people shall provide expression of their yearning to return the power back to them and unseat this pretender to the judicial throne.

Thank you and may God Bless Us All!

Rule of Law, Blackmail, All In The Eyes of The Beholder!

Where the Supreme Court exercises its duty under the constitution, it is called “rule of law” but when Congress exercises the same function in accord with the same constitution, it is called “the mother of all blackmails”.

It was a politically charge atmosphere in the House yesterday and Congressman Edcel Lagman cannot hide his displeasure over the decision of his colleagues to impeach CJ Renato Corona in an overwhelming majority of 188 Congressmen out of 285. 

His description of this latest political exercise was indeed colorful, to defend the jurist, a beneficiary of a former caliphate that had lost its luster and its once notorious power broker, now massaging her bruised pride in a hospital bed.

Congressman Lagman could only offer his eloquence and loyalty to placate the beleaguered magistrate and the lady that once distributed the largesse of the state to her rent-seeking courtiers. But the Congressman from Albay was partial in his read of the constitution again.  Just like the way he read the botched Truth Commission.

Par. 2, of Article VII of the constitution says:

(2) All cases involving the constitutionality of x x x….

decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances, and other regulations, shall be decided with the concurrence of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.

Congressman Lagman praised the Supreme Court, which voted 8-5, (barely 52 per cent of the entire court) for adhering to the constitution and in protecting the civil liberty of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo when it froze the Watch List Order of the Department of Justice, thus allowing GMA and Mikey Arroyo to travel abroad had not the DOJ refused to heed the court’s order.

But the same solon called it “mother of all blackmails” when his 188 colleagues  or about 66 per cent of the House, voted to impeach CJ Corona.

The same constitution which allows the Court to freeze any order of the executive or its department or declare it void under the law, allows also Congress on a vote of one third of its members to impeach a court officer like CJ Corona.

Article XI, Accountability of Public Officers:

(3) A vote of at least one-third of all the Members of the House shall be necessary either to affirm a favorable resolution with the Articles of Impeachment of the Committee, or override its contrary resolution.

Here is one branch of government by exercising its function deserves praise and adulation while another branch doing exactly the same deserves censure.

Aside from Congressman Lagman, there are others who take cudgels for the court  invoking the separation of powers as an arsenal against the House, whose members were partisans of the executive department out to  destroy the independence of the judiciary on promise of congressional allocations.   Suddenly the world ‘partisan’  and ‘independent’ become relevant in this debate.  Most members of the court had been GMA’s partisans; their appointment to the court – was comparable to congressional allocations, their titles are bankable,  they approximate several gold bullions.   Ask any high profile litigants or bring to mind the Meralco-GSIS row that showed some jurists’s hand in the cookie jar.

While congressmen have to spend money to get the mandate from the people as a pre-condition to vie for allocations later,  court members are selected on patronage,  a  circle of power brokers determine who gets the plum and their loyalties are checked at the door to insure that they can be trusted upon to interpret the law for the benefit of their patron. 

Occasionally, a jurist’s  dedication to truth and justice would   propel  him or her  to get off from this vicious ‘horse-trade’ and used the law in all its splendor to upbraid this system of vicious patronage.

Teehankee, Concepcion and Carpio are those few who got out of from the pernicious patron-vassal relationship and found the majesty of the law a comfort for their intransigence.  But the majority remain “court jesters” despite their legal training, and continue to regale their benefactor at the expense of the nation.

Whether an act was in accord with the rule of law or a blatant blackmail depends on who is the beholder.  Legislator Lagman, had he been in the company of the new administration would have no problem joining his colleagues in the house in this momentous occasion to make the chief justice account for his judicial behavior, but for now, he must writh in discomfort at the other side of the political wagon.

When The Crooks Invoke The Rule of Law!

During the reign of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (2001-2010), Senator Ping Lacson was charged with the murder of publicist Bubby Dacer and his driver, Emmanuel Corbito.  He cried ‘political vendetta.’  He elevated his case to the Court of Appeals up to the Supreme Court and won.  He called it the triumph of  ‘the rule of law.’

By some stroke of fate, his accuser a couple of years ago would now cry ‘political vendetta’ for her being made to account for  ’election cheating’ and plus other tawdry deals that enraged the nation.  In various maneuvers she wants the case for election sabotage which was one among those so far filed, quashed by the Supreme Court.  She would want the rule of law to prevail in her case.

So the rule of law is synonymous with a judicial short-cut that is favorable to the litigant. If GMA is cleared by the SC without allowing the trial court to look into the details of the charges against her, in the same way that the case against Senator Lacson was pre-empted by the Court of Appeals and by the Supreme Court  without allowing the Regional Trial Court which issued the warrant for his arrest to look into the finer details on how Dacer and Curbito were torched and ditched in one grassy field in Cavite in 2000  —  that in their warped sense, is the ‘rule of law.’

But in the case of  Lacson, there are some that were not convinced with the ruling of the Court of Appeals/Supreme Court, nor of another case being in held in “limbo” that has something to do with the death of 11 members of the Kuratong Baleleng in 1995.

But public perception does not count.

GMA wants the same full measure of the ‘rule of law’ that works well in the case of Senator Lacson.

Whatever opinion the public have, is inconsequential.  It is only the courts of law that can say that  GMA broke the law and must suffer from that breach.  The courts said so in the case of Ping Lacson.

Both Lacson and GMA know how the system works, but you would be amazed on how both of them had adeptly played the “vendetta” card and its flipside,  the “victim” card outside the courtroom with the objective of winning a favorable public opinion even if this opinion has no bearing on the matter.

If their concept of the ‘rule of law’ is a fair trial, they must not quarrel with with public on their perception of their guilt – after all it was only a perception of their wrongdoing. They would still be processed by the courts.  If they have an unshakeable faith in the integrity of our judicial institution, let that institution alone settle the accounts —  not public opinion!

But as politicians, both of them know how public opinion unravels politicians.  So they must not only win their battle in the “courts of law” but in the bar of public opinion as well.

The ‘rule of law’ in the case of Erap was Congress acting as an impeachment court, said that the second envelope containing the alleged account of ERAP with Equitable Bank cannot be opened in the impeachment proceedings in 2001.

But public opinion went against ‘the rule of law’ and demanded that Erap resign the presidency.

The ‘rule of law’ in the case of Marcos was when the Presidential Electoral Tribunal declared him the winner of the snap election in 1986.  But public opinion went against that rule of law.

Pandora’s box was opened, because the rule of law does not always sit with the common man’s  simplistic view of what the law is or what justice is.  If GMA is cleared today by the Supreme Court, you can expect a pandemonium on the streets by people clamoring for her blood.

The princesses of our judiciary have no problem calling them a ‘mob’ but did not the same judiciary team-up with this ‘mob’ to depose Erap from office in 2001?

But who really is a mob? The noisy people demanding that justice be served or people wearing purple robes pondering quietly and methodically on how to pervert the law and allow their patron from whom they owe their offices get away with the law?  Or to extend a favor to a Senator and put clossure to the victim’s families frustrating pursuit for justice?

What  is the essence of establishing a regional trial court if its authority can be short-circuited by those who have the money and hotshot lawyers that can shop for a forum that is very friendly to their quest for the ‘rule of law?’

We are  contemptuous at a group of tumultous people on the streets who broke the law on civility, harangue pedestrians and civilians in order to bring their  own concept of what justice is, but on the other hand, we cozy up and droll at another  group of people that had observed all  civility in their cloistered ivory towers filled with rituals and swearing at  Themis’s side in order to break the law of the land and the constitution!

The first group were up in arms in righteous indignation against corruption and crime, the other, hideous in protecting them.  We call the first group a ‘mob’, the other,  “Your Honors” and there’s the rub!

Is A Compromise over Unjust Justice Possible?

The battlefield had been drawn, the war drums tapped; and swords unsheathed.  An epic battle between a corrupt Supreme Court with a very low public rating and a very popular president is unfolding.  You can predict the outcome.  But victory will come only if the jurists whose reputations had been tarnished by injudicious partisan rulings,  resign their posts and allow a new Court to convene and save the institution from moral paralysis.  This option had been done before, it can be done now!   

This route will provide a high moral road towards the Court’s redemption.  Anything less means the people had been vanquished again; and the corrupt bureaucracy, once more, had triumphed. 

To stave off this constitutional crisis, Senate President Juan P. Enrile proposed that the Church intervenes while his colleague, Senator Escudero proposed to convene the Executive-Legislative Council. 

The proposed solution is a brazen attempt to mislead the people again.  This overture for political parley is a charade for horse trading.  We’ll go soft on Hacienda Luisita, you go soft on GMA and her allies, you keep your dogs on leash and we keep ours muzzled.  Let us keep our options open for future trading and let us kiss and make for general consumption. 

If the executive and the judiciary patch up their differences along political compromises, the people would be treated with a frenetic vaudeville; of media hype  over a crisis that had been successfully averted, but it will always fall short of addressing the absence of moral integrity in the judiciary -  a big let down to the people whose basic requirement for efficient delivery of justice is the presence of incorruptible judges in the court’s majestic halls!