It’s a shame . The revelation is that there is a marked conflict between the Justices of the Supreme Court.
It is indeed a great shame that those initiating this conflict are those bucking for positions and/or favors. Or those who have a bone to settle with the majority.
Tough. But this sort of thing happens in any politically-inspired assemblies, including the Senate Impeachment Court.
…….so much so that whether the Bill is passed or quashed, there will be lingering dissent from amongst the losers.
This dissenting opinion will keep the arguments heated up and divisive, even after the Supreme Court makes a rule on the Bill.
There also will be those who are poor losers or they just don’t want to lose! (ayaw patalo!)
The people forget that there is one venue that would result in a conclusive adjudication, and that is, a referendum!
A referendum just about puts the RH question upon the shoulders of the people who really should be the one to decide on this.
A referendum on the RH Bill eliminates the onerous steps of the Congress and the Supreme Court grinds.
Actually this is a misnomer. This in reality a management strategy. But since this is propagated by the Labor Department, this may be termed as a Labor Strategy.
It goes this way: When a company is floundering due to a combination of low profits and a labor dispute, the problems are simplified. With an offer of compensation, the company fires, retires, or lays off a huge number of employees, Then with the hiring of new employees that would have wages equivalent to a much lower starting wages, the company cuts down on expenses, particularly the paid sick leave, vacation leave, retirement pay. Also, the newly hired employees will be more manageable particularly regarding the fringe benefits that they will get from the company. The retirement fund for these newly-hired employees has yet to be built up, hence the company will owe them zero-amount the first number of years.
The company will appear to take care of the employees under severance with severance payments, pension buy-outs, or any other amount of money to sweeten their disconnection from the company.
They may even be re-hired by the company, this time thru an agency which is not part of the company, and with a much lower, casual, no-benefits category.
What does the company benefit from this action? Well, a severance of relationships with disgruntled and bothersome employees, streamlined management of labor, and a big reduction in expenses.
Will the employees take this lying down? Why not? if they are under the gun and there is a threat to their getting fired so that their retirement fund is forfeited!
Remember Captain Mendoza’s retirement pay?
Will the Supreme Court consent to this? Why not? If it is legal, and they ignore their conscience!
(you know what? They could have done this thing conveniently just by changing ownership. In which case, the new management can fire everybody, It only has to contend with giving back the benefit entitlements in a lump sum)
The budget for the Justice Department has been reduced for this year.
The Supreme Court issued a restraint order to the House of Representatives to stop the impeachment procedures on the Ombudsman. The Speaker says ok for now.
The President will have a meeting with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
It’s muscle-flexing, I tellya, twixt the branches of Government.
Newly installed Supreme Court Chief Justice, Renato Corona, guests in Anthony Taberna’s Punto Por Punto, where he poured out his life, which proved to be a scriptwriter’s inspiration. Serious, scrupulous, and sincere, he is one to confirm that the mantle of an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, and more so as Chief Justice, compels the wearer to prove himself worthy 0f the honor.
In response to controversies about his being biased in judgement to favor the one who appointed him to the post, his tart reply to everyone concerned is —-”watch me!”
(The late Canadian Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, facing the media, said these famous words—–“Will I do it? Just watch me!”)
The premiere act of prospective President, Noynoy Aquino, is to ignore the newly installed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Renato Corona, and have himself sworn in as President by a barangay captain.
This may be a grand gesture to appease the masses, but for this official event, doing so constitutes plain theatrics, and childish at that.
For his first act as President, Noynoy Aquino confirms my idea of him as President. And that is—-he would be one who would be selective in the type of conflicts he will engage, the kind of fray he will enter, and the particular problems he will solve. He will be choosy, and that anything he would undertake would be done if there were people he could rely on to back him up. Otherwise, he would be a shirker.
Statement of the UP Law Faculty on the Appointment of the Next Chief Justice
[this is a public statement and may be freely copied and reposted]
Maintain Fealty to the Rule of Law:
Let the Next President to Appoint the Next Chief Justice
Statement of Members of the Faculty
January 18, 2010
Essential to the existence of a democratic republic is its fealty to the Rule of Law. Any attempt to circumvent clear constitutional text must be justified on grounds of absolute necessity. The need to fill in a lacuna in constitutional text through interpretation must be made on the basis of real needs and not imagined scenarios.
We, the members of the UP College of Law Faculty, are of the firm conviction that the incumbent President cannot appoint the next Chief Justice when the present Chief Justice Reynato Puno retires on May 17, 2010. We do not see any reason why the constitutional provision for the President not to issue any “midnight appointment” in the twilight of her term should not be followed.
The President’s appointing power is limited by an express provision in article VII, section 15 of the Constitution, to wit:
Sec. 15. Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a President or Acting President shall not make appointments, except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety.
This provision proscribes any “midnight” appointment made by the incumbent President of the Republic starting from March 10, 2010 to June 30, 2010. This prohibition was conceived to prevent the scandalous actuations of two past administrations whose acts had to be rectified by Supreme Court decisions.
The only exception is to make “temporary appointments” and only for “executive positions”. Even this exception is qualified by the phrase “when continued vacancies… will prejudice public service or endanger public safety.”
The position of Chief Justice is not an executive position. The appointment of a Chief Justice is not a temporary appointment. Whoever is appointed sits until her/his retirement at the age of 70 years old or sooner upon her/his resignation. The retirement of Chief Justice Puno, on the eve of May 17, 2010, is well within the period of the constitutional ban on appointment. The clearest textual reading of the Constitution is that the incumbent President cannot appoint the next chief justice.
It has been suggested that the absence of a Chief Justice might trigger a constitutional crises because it is the Chief Justice that presides over the Presidential Electoral Tribunal and that s/he presides over the entire Supreme Court.
This argument is pure speculation in the light of settled practice that an Acting Chief Justice may be appointed from among the incumbent justices of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court also does not cease to function simply because it has less than fifteen justices.
The appointment of a permanent Chief Justice by the incumbent President causes more concern. She has appointed all 14 of the other justices of the Supreme Court. If the sitting Chief Justice will be her appointee, the maintenance of the independence of the judiciary may be seriously jeopardized.
It is also argued that the Constitution requires that any vacancy in the Supreme Court must be filled within a period of ninety days. This is not clear from the second paragraph of section 9, article VIII of the Constitution. Even assuming but without conceding this to be true, the next President will have until August 15, 2010 or a month and a half to select the next associate justice. A month and a half is also sufficient time to reflect on who can be chosen as the next Chief Justice. All presidential candidates must by now be considering their own choices of who might become Chief Justice. The Chief Justice is traditionally chosen from among the most senior justices of the Supreme Court.
We therefore find no overriding, logical and imminent reason that would require that the plain meaning of the Constitution as ratified by our people be violated. There are more serious repercussions to the rule of law as well as the independence of the judiciary if the Judicial and Bar Council transmits a list of nominees for the Chief Justice and if the incumbent President actually makes an appointment. It is this threatened unconstitutional act that will cause a true constitutional crises.
Thus we, members of the faculty of the UP College of Law,
(1) Urge the Judicial and Bar Council not to transmit the names of the nominees for the position of Chief Justice until after a new President shall have assumed office on June 30, 2010;
(2) call on the incumbent President to exercise restraint for the sake of judicial independence and respect for the Rule of Law and therefore refrain from appointing the next Chief Justice; and
(3) call on our colleagues in various law faculties, law students and our alumni to make their voices be heard on this very important issue.
(SGD.) DEAN MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN
(SGD.) PROF. PATRCIA S. DAWAY, ASSOCIATE DEAN
(SGD.) PROF. PACIFICO AGABIN, FORMER DEAN, UP LAW
(SGD.) PROF. CARMELO SISON
(SGD.) PROF. EDUARDO A. LABITAG
(SGD.) PROF. DANTE B. GATMAYTAN
(SGD.) PROF. THEODORE O. TE
(SGD.) PROF. JOSE JESUS M. DISINI
(SGD.) PROF. FLORIN HILBAY
(SGD.) PROF. E. (LEO) D. BATTAD
(SGD.) PROF. IBARRA M. GUTIERREZ III
(SGD.) PROF. SOLOMON F. LUMBA
(SGD.) PROF. ROMMEL J. CASIS
(SGD.) PROF. JOSE GERARDO A. ALAMPAY
(SGD.) PROF. ARTURO E. BALBASTRO
(SGD.) PROF. CHRYSILLA CARISSA P. BAUTISTA
(SGD.) PROF. DIANNE DESIERTO
(SGD.) PROF. DOMINGO P. DISINI, JR.
(SGD.) PROF. ROBERTO N. DIO
(SGD.) PROF. ROSARIO OLIVAS-GALLO
(SGD.) PROF. ROWENA V. GUANZON
(SGD.) PROF. STEPHANIE GOMEZ-SOMERA
(SGD.) PROF. CONCEPCION L. JARDELEZA
(SGD.) PROF. KAREN OLIVIA V. JIMENO
(SGD.) PROF. CARINA C. LAFORTEZA
(SGD.) PROF. JOSE C. LAURETA
(SGD.) PROF. ANTONIO GM. LA VIÑA
(SGD.) PROF. JOSE M. LAYUG, JR.
(SGD.) PROF. TERESITA PAZ G. PASCUAL
(SGD.) PROF. ROGER QUEVEDO
(SGD.) PROF. RODOLFO QUIMBO
(SGD.) PROF. JANUARY A. SANCHEZ
(SGD.) PROF. MARY ROSE S. TAN
(SGD.) PROF. EVALYN G. URSUA
(this copy was sent in by Daisy Gabriel)
The Supreme Court ruled that the candidates for the 2010 elections will not be obliged to retire even when they are on the campaign trail.
This thought sends shivers down my spine.
Now I have shivers going up and down my spine.
All concerning justice in the country.
This particular ruling achieves what Judge Ray Bork has written against,
The Politicising of the Supreme Court. Read his book about the topic.
I say again, Filipinos have the knack of straddling the limits of the law.
Mga tamad na nga tayo mga maeergo pa!