"In societies where Robbing Hoods are treated like a celebrity it is but natural to expect political parties to act like a Mafia syndicate" Political Jaywalker "In a nation where corruption is endemic people tend to confuse due process with aiding and abetting criminals" Political Jaywalker "War doesn't determine who is right, war determines who is left" Bertrand Russell "You have just one flash flood of money, you keep your people poor. It's like a time bomb and it's scary" Philippine Lawmaker

Noynoy Aquino’s Campaign Promise on Renato Corona’s Appointment as CJ

There is no question that what the Philippines need right now as of yesteryear's is a unifying leader to lead us out of the muck that past elected leaders legitimate or garcified has continuously failed time and again to live up to their mandate.
When President-Elect Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III declared in his campaign that he will not recognize the appointment of Supreme Court chief justice Renato Corona by outgoing thief errrr chief executive Gloria Arroyo who seems to have the propensity to tiptoe like a thief in the night with her midnight appointments, and subsequently follow it up that he refuses to recognize said appointment, is he really sowing the seeds of divisiveness? When Aquino issued the statement is that not being consistent with his campaign promise that shows he is a man of his word and true to himself and the people? Are we really serious about change or we just want to argue and talk about it till we are blue and now that he is showing signs that he is fulfilling his promise to the 13million Filipinos who gave him the mandate for his anti-corruption stance we are buckling down?

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and their decision being the court of last resort is therefore final that effectively becomes part of the law and the rule of law should be respected. I am not a lawyer but when the SC justice who were demoted to mere judges by JM Nepomuceno in our exchange at FB came out with a decision that is in direct contradiction to what is written in the constitution and the appointee knowingly accepts said position when the provision is so crystal clear that even a 5th grader comprehends without a problem, is it then the rule of law or the rule of man? If that is the case do we have justices whose comprehension ability was that of a 4th grader or lower as they are inquisitively asking which part of Section 15, Article 7 of the Constitution did they not understand that an outgoing president cannot appoint Two (2) months immediately before the presidential election and up to the end of his term? UP Constitutional Law Prof. Harry Roque has this to say at Inquirer in his article a breach of the mandate:

The issue is not the jurisprudence but the breach of the mandate. The fact that the Court is referred to as “Supreme” is not a guarantee that it is infallible and will never abdicate its constitutional mandate. This happened in our recent history on two occasions: in Javellana when the Marcos Supreme Court sought refuge in the political question doctrine and abdicated its all-important tasks as guardian of constitutional supremacy, and in Aquino, which eventually inspired People Power 1.

The presumptive president-elect must keep his promise not to recognize the legitimacy of an Arroyo-appointed chief justice for two reasons. First, he must honor the mandate of the sovereign people when they ratified the 1987 Constitution. Second, this has become a political issue already decided by the people when they gave the presumptive president-elect an overwhelming mandate.

Does the majority of the members of the high court believe that their rulings can be etched in stone without any political context? I submit that the Court’s role is to uphold the supremacy of the Constitution so that despots may be prevented from rewriting or interpreting the fundamental law to suit their personal and selfish interests. It should, however, not be exercised to thwart the true intent of the people who gave their mandate to the Constitution. And certainly, judicial power cannot and should not be used to thwart the popular will of the sovereign who only now chose Noynoy Aquino as their true leader based on a promise not to recognize the legitimacy of an Arroyo midnight appointee.
This is coming from a constitutional law expert who will soon take an indefinite leave of absence from teaching Constitutional Law and Public International Law at the UP College of Law and will also resign as professor from the Philippine Judicial Academy in protest over De Castro vs JBC. Is this an act disrespecting the rule of law especially when he is also exhorting other law professors to do the same?

This is not just giving me a headache but at the rate things are going I may need to go see a psychiatrist especially when I read my idol Senadora Brenda errr re-elected Senator Miriam Santiago drops some insanely heavy terminologies in defense of Corona’s appointment as unassailable, to quote:

The controversy had been “laid to rest under the doctrine of res judicata, meaning it can no longer be re-litigated in court, because it has already been decided with finality,” Santiago said on Monday.

“After the Supreme Court decision in De Castro versus Judicial and Bar Council last March, which settled the issue, any petition is now precluded, on the theory of so-called collateral estoppel,” the senator said in a statement.

Santiago was referring to the fact that the high court had decided twice that President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo could appoint a replacement for outgoing Chief Justice Reynato Puno, who retired Monday.

She also reminded critics on the need to obey the law, which she defined as “the doctrine that general constitutional principles are the result of judicial decisions determining the right of private individuals in the courts.”

“The problem with critics is that they mistake the law as it is with the law as it ought to be, according to their layman’s interpretation. A line has to be drawn between the rule of law and the dystopian concept of freewheeling ethics,” she said.
Whew, that was heavy, res judicata, collateral estoppel but what struck me was the term dystopian concept of freewheeling ethics, now is she serious or is she seeing a different reality that she alone sees especially when I am reminded of her similar dystopian description of the Supreme Court she now wants us to respect upon getting dropped out of the list for the justice of Supreme Court appointment awhile back which I quote:

“I’m not angry, Mr. President, I am not angry,” she began, addressing Senate President Manuel Villar.

I am irate. I am foaming at the mouth. I’m homicidal. I’m suicidal. I’m humiliated, debased, degraded. And not only that, I feel like throwing up to be living my middle years in a country of this nature. I am nauseated. I spit in the face of Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and his cohorts in the Supreme Court.”
So how is it that when people who are not frothing in the mouth in anger like her are insulted and belittled as ignoramuses? Those who agrees with Noynoy are definitely not homicidal or worse suicidal. They maybe humiliated and debased too in feeling nauseated, but not necessarily wanting to spit on the face of Renato Corona as chief justice and his "cohorts." So why are the people getting lectured with such heavy terminology by one whose statement puts her sanity in question?

By the way dystopian is dys-/dus- (Latin/Greek roots: 'bad' or 'abnormal') + -topos (Greek root: 'place') = 'bad place'

eu- (Greek root: 'good') / ou- (Greek root: 'not') + -topos (Greek root: 'place') = 'good/no place'

dystopia n. an imaginary wretched place, the opposite of utopia

utopia n. a place or state of ideal perfection, the opposite of dystopia

So if we go by my idol’s take on the controversy, we the public has a dystopian concept of freewheeling ethics, but wait a minute here, is this not supposed to be an accurate description of those in the cheat errr seat of power which includes her? The world seems to turn upside down, ooops, wait that is not accurate since it is round and that is just how it is but in the bola bola Republic of the Philippines, Virginia M. Moncrieff at Huffington Post seems to accurately describe what comes close to a dystopian concept not of those Santiago targets but the other way around especially the nut jobs, to quote:

Noynoy is the comfort candidate. In a country where crooks, charlatans, film stars, sportsmen and nut jobs routinely stand for, and get voted into office, Mr. Aquino represented a steady and secure vote. He campaigned heavily on anti corruption - "If there is no corruption, there is no poverty" is a rough translation of his election logo - and has promised to start prosecuting corrupt officials with weeks of his swearing in.
I believe Renato Corona is highly qualified for the position and a man of integrity, except his voting record seems to favor Gloria Arroyo, but of course we have to give him the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately it is probably more on doubt as in whatever Gloria Arroyo does is doubtful and in order to restore his and the Supreme Court’s credibility and respect they deserve, he should exercise delicadeza by resigning, deferring and waiting for the president-elect to perform his duty in appointing the chief justice. I say don’t take resigned former administration poll lawyer Romulo Macalintal word saying that Aquino’s plan not to take oath before incoming Supreme Court Justice Renato Corona would be an embarrassment for the country. What is embarrassing is the fact that a 5th grader has better comprehension abilities than the SC justices and I am afraid that someone will be laughing their way to the bank if the SC does not reverse themselves and Corona as if he sat on his seat with a super glue thus he is staying put.

During the reign of Hitler's terror in Germany and Europe people have no choice but to respect the rule of law. It does not matter that they are committing genocide, systematically exterminating the Jews because that was the political climate back then. But in the end no evil deed goes unpunished and what we have while GMA's reign of corruption pales in comparison, did we forget or are we forgetting that her mandate is questionable at best and do we want the incoming administration to legitimize an otherwise illegitimate regime? Are we heading towards dystopia and the irony of ironies is it seems and I pray not, that it takes a nut job to recognize one, lol.......

Subscribe in a reader
Pedestrian Observer Group Blog
Click on the images to receive your free email updates
POGB will not sell, exchange, use or allow any 3rd party access to your email for
any other purposes without exception, email exclusively for article updates only.

Follow PJ @ Facebook, NetworkedBlogs, & Twitter

0 Speak Out:

Related Posts with Thumbnails