Noynoy gets his wish in appointing Marvic Leonen as SC justice

After masterminding the successful procsecution of the former Chief Justice Renato Corona, President Noy is lucky to appoint not one but two of his personal choices to the Supreme Court! The new chief Justice is Ma. Lourdes Sereno, who does NOT crave the limelight, she is averse to media scrutiny.

Now Noy has the enviable choice of appointing today, November 21, relatively young at 49 years, chief government negotiator Marvic Leonen as Supreme Court (SC) associate justice, in place of the position vacated by Supreme Court Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno.

Leonen will forever be tainted as Aquino's YES man in the Supreme Court, though that remains to be seen. Now Aquino may quietly stop the SC in putting a final decision about the distribution of the vast sprawling Hacienda Luisita in Tarlac.

And yet we are aware that Pres. Noy Aquino promised to have a single term, that only means in 3 years he will step down. But history has always been farcical towards pronouncements on retirement on political ambitions. Perhaps Noy will get infected with hunger for power when his term is nearly up. But we are willing to wait and will continue to monitor this sad development, the SC DOES NOT look independent to the public! Now we have two appointees who may think of Utang na Loob when they decide cases involving the actions of President Noy and the interests of the Aquino-Cojuangco family.

We offer our congratulations to the Honorable Marvic Leonen, but we also send him a message that us political bloggers will be alert to follow his decisions on cases under consideration of the Supreme Court.

Should not Pres. Noy be more discreet in his personal choice for SC justice?

This does not look presidential at all. President Noy should have kept his mouth shut about his presonal choice for filling in the vacancy in the Supreme Court due to the elebation of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno.

It besmirches the reputation of the Supreme Court as a whole since the open endorsement of President Noy for Marvic Leonen gives the idea that there is one justice who owes his appointment personally to President Noy! Although it remains to be seen, his candidate will be judge preliminary as the President's man in the supreme court!

Pres. Noy! Will you please keep your mouth shut and let the JBC do its work ?!!


Further reading:

philstar.com, 11/12/2012: Noy wants Leonen for SC

Excuse me, it is those critical lawyers who should be disbarred in search for chief justice

Humor:


The most current opposition to the submission of Leila de Limas for Chief Justice comes from lawyer Atty. Rico Paolo Quicho, who served as Corona's defense counsel during the impeachment trial. Said he:

We cannot cherry-pick our morality. The same lofty legal and moral standards that were applied in unseating a chief justice should likewise be bases in naming a new one.

She does not possess the qualities of competence, integrity, probity and independence as made apparent by the facts surrounding her two disbarment cases,

Two disbarrment cases were filed against de Lima. One, by Attorney Agustin Sundiam, castigates De Lima of publicly encouraging the bashing of Corona. The other, by Attorney Ricardo Rivera, meanwhile, wanted her disbarred for her defiance of a Supreme Court-issued temporary restraining order allowing former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to travel abroad late last year.

I believe that their plea to have de Lima disbarred stems from de Lima's principled stand against the Corona Supreme Court. I believe that de Lima has made the right choice of DISOBEYING an UNJUST Temporary Restraining Order. Recall, that GMA wanted to travel abroad for the seeming purpose of seeking medical help, when the medical expertise can be simply found here! No, de Lima was justified in suspecting that former president GMA was scheming to escape to an unnamed foreign country without an extradition pact or treaty with the country!

May I suggest instead that the Supreme Court, which can discipline lawyers should instead look beyond this opposition to de Lima. In hindsight, these lawyers simply do not want to lose TWICE over the Corona affair. One for the quilty verdict against against Corona, the other for stopping de Lima nomination as a candidate for Supreme Court Justice because de Lima served as witness against Corona. de Lima actually has shown high standard of MORALITY.

In other words, we are suggesting that opposing lawyers to de Lima, should be the one disbarred for one crazy reason: SPITE. :)



Further reading: gmanenetwork.com

Does IBP speak with one voice?

I am surprised that today the IBP presented 2 full page ads presenting its position. Actually the first is the current official organization, through its Board of Governors, and the second is a group of former IBP National Presidents. Lets first present the first group position which can be read in a fullpage advertisement in the December 28, Phil Daily Inquirer A6.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines claimed that

1. the complainants (majority of the members of the Lower House of Representatives),signed the 57 -page complaint without reading and appreciating its ocntents and supporting documents, thereby violating the Constitution itself.
2. In instantly signing and elevating the complaint for Senate trial withou reading its contents and subjecting it to any discussion, the complainants violated due process and their own dutiy to make a determination of its sufficieny in form and substance and the existence of probable cause.
The IBP claimed that preliminary determination cannot be satisfied without actual reading and appreciation, if not discussion, of the complaint and supporting documents.
3. The impeachment complaint also failed to comply with the prescribed process in verifying its due execution. The complaint does not bear the certificate of acknowledgment by the House Sec-Gen as proof of his faithful compliance with the verification process.


The IBP claims that there are far more telling and serious defects in the substance of the impeachment complaint.

1. The grounds invoked in the impeachment complaint subvert the constitutional guarantees of separation of powers and judicial independence, the first principles of the Rule of Law.
   
2. The impeachment complaint also trifles with and violates the constitutional guarantee of protection of the law and due process, the first principles in our Bill of Rights.
   

In summary, for the guidance of the public , the IBP, through its Board of Governors, stands firm on its position that the impeachment omplaint run afoul witht eh Constitution in form and substance. The second group, still allied with the IBP, presented a manifesto, which they published in the Phil. Daily Inquirer, in page B2 of the same newspaper issue of December 28, 2011. In this manifesto, a group former IBP national presidents expressed their collective sense that the forthcoming impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona will be healthy for democracy! Here are some points from the manifesto:

1. Not one in public service is a sacred cow.
   
2. 2. We should recognize the primacy of the rule of law and respect the doctrine of separation of powers. This does not mean nor require that the Chief Justice be immune from criticism or impeachment.
   
3. As Chief Justice, C Corona should be the first to strengthen te Supreme Court as an institution. The CJ abandons judicial statesmanship and independence when by official actions, he shows marked subservience to the person who appointed him Chief Justice. The SC will be a credible court of last resot only if it is a court of moral force.
   
4. The President, as leader and father of the nation may and should speak in the strongest terms possible whenever the decisions of the Court of the actual official actuations of the Chief Justice no longer serve the best interest of the nation. After all, the welfare of the people is the highest law.
   Neither the House of Representatives be faulted. By impeaching Chief Justice Corona, it exercised its constitutional prerogative to initiate impeachment and and place the country on notice that the elected representative of the people are holding the Chief Justice accountable for his actions as specified in the Articles of Impeachment even as the poer to determine guild or innocence devloves upont the Senate.
   

The manifesto ends with the hope that

Let us come out of this experience as a stronger and better nation.


The manifesto was signed by the previous five national presidents of the IBP:

Raoul R. Agangco (1995-1997), Jose Aguil Grapilon (1997-1999), Arthur D. Lim (1999-2001), Teofilo Pilando (2001-2003), and Jose Anselmo I. Cadiz (2003-2006). The name of the current IBP national president Roan I. Libarios does not appear in the manifesto.



Based on my readings of these seemingly contradictory positions under the auspices of the IBP, the first advertisement delved too much on technicalities, which the Supreme Court in their rulings can either cite or ignore! . We are partial to the contents of the manifesto of former national presidents of the IBP.

Is Corona a politician or jurist? the unsigned 79 page reply.

We are wondering what to make of the 79 page reply to the Lower House of Congress charge of impeachement. Here are my first impressions:



The Honorable SC Chief Justice Corona, who has shown so much energy to protect His former patron, GMA or the President of the Republic of the Philippines, and to offer breathtaking legalized condonement of graft and corruption of former officials of the last administration for the lame reason of Executive Privilege!.


But the CJ is fighting back, firstly by hurling accusations back to the current President P-Noy, claiming that everything about the impeachment case was planned by the President, forgetting his own past actions of partiality to GMA. Of course He denied all charges in the impeachment complaint and moved for the impeachement trial to be dropped or dismissed.

The Chief Justice mistake was that people would be quiet about how the Supreme Court works, but He will get the shock of his life.

This only shows that the honorable Chief Justice is a studious politician in disguise and deserves to step down. Do it now, CJ Corona, do it for the good of the country, do it now as that other neer do well Ombudsman Gutierrez who has seen the evils of her ways!

We would like to have a copy of the Honorable Chief Justice Corona 79 page reply!

And what is unusual and shows how unprofessional the Honorable Chief Justice is, the reply does not look official at all. For He did not affix his signature! What does this mean? It can be declared defective!



to be continued,... your comments are welcome!

More reading:
GMAnetwork: Look who is talking

For the contents of the (75+ pages) reply , click on Jun Pasaylo: Corona answer to impeachment complaints.

House: CJ reply weak!

Corona asks Senate to dismiss impeachment complaint

The Justice who got away.

I only knew, today, an honorable Justice of the Supreme Court involved in the plagiarism case, a case where the SC court embarassed itself by issuing a contempt of court to the U.P. Law faculty has actually a pending impeachment case in Congress.

According to the news, the Congress committee handling the case is running out of time and may be forced to drop the case.

Practical considerations may justify this development, but we also ask the Honorable Congressmen to expedite any work, not only in legislative work, but also in impeachment cases, which Congress must initiate as enshrined in the Constitution.

We need to know quickly the truth of the matter, a cloud of doubt is enveloping on the Justice concerned. A stigma has been attached, which can only be removed if the said Justice is declared innocent of this silly but serious crime of plagiarism.

We want our august members of the Supreme Court to be beyond reproach and as a first measure restore the credibility and honor of any Justice put under a cloud of impropriety.

We suggest that this be tackled after CJ Corona case.

Futher reading:

1. House abandons Justice case


2. GMANetwork: SC clears fellow Justice in plagiarism case

The Supreme Court has absolved a member of the bench who was accused of plagiarizing portions of a controversial ruling on World War II comfort women, explaining that the attributions of the allegedly plagiarized material were merely “accidentally deleted" by a court researcher! Who the court researcher was, was not divulged. We should have a notarized oath that such silly mistake was done.

The ponente of the above decision was not divulged.

3. Wikipedia entry It is amazing that Wikipedia is publishing an article about persons of importance in its pages. This should be a further incentive for politicians, judges and even the President to be circumspect on their performance. The future generations will have the resources to know what happened!

The practical effects of the Supreme Court decisions under the honorable Chief Justice Corona

1. Their moral right to cite anyone in contempt of the SC has diminished. I am reminded of the U.P. Law School faculty case.
   
   
2. People like bloggers are having a field day questioning the morals and ethics of the SC (esp. CJ Corona). In my blog I will stick to the non-personal aspects which unfortunately is almost impossible to do. Just the fact that his Honor was a former Chief of Staff. Ethics has gone out of the window.
   
   
3. No laws can be broken but still the spirit of the law, Justice, has been violated.
   
   
4. We have the spectacle of the CJ charging Aquino of creating a dictatorship. This is a weak and a personal response, something our CJ would realize by now.
   
   
5. By associating the attack on the CJ as an attack of the whole Supreme Court, the CJ himself is the one sending a chilling effect and fear on the judiciary. The latter should not be afraid.
   
   
6. Damage has been done to the noble institution of the Supreme court. It is now pictured as having legalized the massive graft and corruption of the previous GMA administration.
   
   
7. The eggregious reasoning of "executive privilege" smacks of condonation of massibe graft and corruption and obstruction of truth and justice in the case of Neri.
   
   
8. The damn controversy has ruined the festive Christmas season. we can blame Pres. Noy for starting this, and CJ Justice for providing the reason!
   
   
9. This has awakened a lot of people to be more vocal and enter into debates which the latter(who hates entertainment?) delve low into personal attacks, arrrogance and worse even threats of physical injury or murder.
   
   
10. Their flipflopping of supposedly "final" decisions has diminished the image of the sC as the last stop of judicial process and has the unpleasant effect of projecting an image that they can be "bought".
    

We will expound on these later but meanwhile let's enjoy the Christmas season, food! friends! and of course remember the mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ.

A Fool's unsolicited open letter to the SC Chief Justice Corona.

A Satire, A Fool's letter to the Hon. Chief Justice Corona:

An Open Letter to Chief Justice Corona

How are you doing Sir? May the Christmas Season finds you well in the spirit of quiet contemplation over the previous events which brought the Judicial and Executive branches of government figuratively near to boxing blows.

The Philippines after all is the country of the great Manuel Pacquio, who in case he is not in the ring, is a noble congressman from Sarangani, a province of Mindanao. You have chosen to be quiet, showing either you are a gentleman, or simply you cannot answer
the thunderous public charges of partiality and dereliction of duty.

Did you not rule that Neri does not have to answer to Congress or Senate regarding some
hanky-panky because of "executive previlege"? In effect you have legalized corruption and the nation is poorer and the perpetrators richer.

Did you not with the SC as a colleagial body ruled that the UP Law faculty in contempt because it dared one of your esteemed brother in the SC to resign because of ``plagiarism''? Instead of upholding freedom of speech, you have given the country
a scare and a signal that the SC is a sacred cow, beyond reproach, beyond criticism because it is perfect and cannot commit an error!

Perrhaps in the mistaken belief that your life's biography will include the fact that you have attained the highest esteemed place in Philipine judiciary is enough, you have not given much thought what the future generations will talk about you.

First, in the land of the good ol whipping boy the U of the S of A, your appointement will never even be considered. The fact that you are a former Chief of Staff of the sitting president during your appointment time, is a red herring to members of the American Congress and Senate.

Perhaps the fact that people of the Philippines have voted entertainment people and crocodiles to congress and the senate may have blinded you to accept the appointment as a ``medal`` in your professional legal life. But that medal is tarnished,
not by your enemies but by the decisions you have made proving that you have a big ''utang na loob''

I am that you requesting that you resign, following the lady from the Ombudsman who had the decency to resign before she got to face a long
trial. Yes, sir, resign before you continue to make people lose respect for the supreme court. Resign and enjoy the spectacle of seeing President Noy in quandary what to do in case you have stepped down. Resign, before you can add more damage to the SC and the Philippines.

Are not graduates of Ateneo often told to be "men for all seasons"? Instead you have chosen to be a man for the previous president.

Corona impeached! Shall we be cheering?

From

Philstar comes
this startling news that Corona is to be impeached.

With clinical precision and with the numbers, congressmen-allies of President Aquino moved quickly yesterday to impeach Chief Justice Renato Corona for alleged betrayal of public trust, violation of the Constitution, and graft and corruption. Since the ruling party has the numbers, this is almost a sure thing.


We feel a little sorry about this, but Chief Justice Corona has brought this kind of confrontation by his amazing indiscreet display of blind loyalty to his patron, former president Arroyo. Unfortunate that the whole Supreme court suffers from this perception of bias.
From the silly excuse of "executive privilege" for covering up the corruption under her former administration, he has in effect condoned and abetted corruption!

And the blatant citation of contempt for U.P Law faculty for their strong commentaries about a fellow SC justice "plagiarism" marks the highest level of ignorance of the purpose of Supreme court, not only as the last resort for the carriage of Justice but as a protector of free speech.

But what gets the people's ire was its declaration of unconstitutionality of the "Truth Commision" as it specifically targeted the arroyo administration! Is there a more horrid example of bias for support of their patron>


The best thing to happen is for other Justices to resign on the grounds of loss of confidence. They have to be renominated throught the crucible of public scrutiny in Congress for their reappointments.

I dont know what will happen in this historical crossroad but let us help President Aquino in his mandate to create the New Filipino, stamping out corruption, and gaining investor confidence for the country and in one generation to let those "househelpers" and "maids" find noble work in their own country.

Why it had come to this?

Following the oral outburst of President Noy about the Supreme Court, the political blogging world is ablaze with endless analysis and hypotheses.

People are asking if the Supreme Court can charge the President of the Republic of the Philippines with contempt of court.

For the record, the SC has cited the U.P. Law faculty with contempt for its comments on one of its esteemed members, the very Honorable Del Castillo, involved in a "plagiarism" case.

Some of the comments in this "hot" event.

- Pres. Noy is resorting to "mob" rule and "popularity" for not getting what he wants.

- Why would the Supreme Court cite anyone, least of all the President for contempt for the comments he made? It should be defending that right! Unless he SC is filled with corrupt and inept judges, it should champion freedom of speech!

This is what we get when there is no delicadeza in the Supreme court. This would not come to a head if GMA did not appoint her FORMER chief of staff to the highest position. Utang na loob rules the day.

The onus is on the SC not Noy to prove the welfare and morals of the nation are foremost in their minds, and not the welfare of the previous president.

How can you stamp out corruption when the SC has given protection to former govt. heads with the lame excuse of "executive privelege"? The SC has in effect legalized corruption!

Supreme Court did not deliberate on Gutierrez petition??!!

We have a display of refreshing candor from Associate Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno of the SC. According to the Phil. Daily Inquirer filed by Marlon Ramos and published today. Readers should read the link to avoid misinterpreting the summary points shown below.

1. The Supreme Court initially shielded Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez from impeachment in the House of Representatives by granting her motion for certiorari of Sept. 13, 2010, “without” deliberating on the petition
2. This was disclosed in Assoc. Justice Sererno's separate opinion on the SC Feb. 15 ruling which lifted the status quo ante order which the magistrates—in a vote of 8-3 with four abstentions—issued in favor of the Ombudsman on Sept. 14, 2010, a day after she filed the petition.
3. The status quo ante order suspended the House impeachment proceedings for five months!!!
   and the majority in the SC granted Gutierrez’s petition despite her and Senior Associate Justices Antonio Carpio’s and Conchita Carpio Morales’ objections.
4. The quo ante order was voted upon in the morning of Sept. 14, 2010, without the benefit of a genuinely informed debate.Several members of the court” had not seen the copy of Gutierrez’s petition when the tribunal acted favorably on it during their regular full court session that day.
   
Copies of the Feb. 15 decision—which was issued after the high court conducted several oral arguments on the Gutierrez petition—as well as those of Sereno and other justices’ own opinions were only made available to the media last week.
5. The SC court did not issue a resolution explaining its Sept. 14, 2010, ruling. Instead, Supreme Court spokesperson Midas Marquez held a news briefing to announce that Gutierrez had won a reprieve from the court.
6. The House did not violate the constitutional provision barring the filing of more than one impeachment case within a year against a public official.
7. The first impeachment complaint against the Ombudsman was filed by former Akbayan party-list Rep. Risa Hontiveros, freed renegade soldier Danilo Lim and the parents of the late Navy Ensign Phillip Pestaño on July 22, 2010.
   
   The group accused Gutierrez of betraying the public trust and violating the Constitution for the “dismal and unconscionably low” performance of her office in convicting corrupt public officials.
   
   Bayan secretary general Renato Reyes Jr. filed a separate complaint against Gutierrez on Aug. 3, 2010, for her alleged failure to prosecute those behind the P728-million fertilizer fund scam.
   
8. the two complaints were consolidated as they were referred to the committe on Justice of the House in one day.
9. In her petition, Gutierrez claimed that the House justice committee violated her right to due process when it declared that the two complaints were sufficient in form and substance.

This raises the intriguing question. By their very acts and turn of events, we wonder if the Supreme Court has really shown impartiality to cases involving former appointees and friends of former president Macapagal -Arroyo when cases involving them arrive in their hallowed chambers, and when most of them are themselves appointees of Pres. Macapagal-Arroyo?

Definitions

A writ of certiorari currently means an order by a higher court directing a lower court, tribunal, or public authority to send the record in a given case for review. (wikipedia).

The objective of a "status quo ante" or the "way things were before" temporary restraining order or a rescission in which the situation is restored to "the state in which previously" it existed.

Getting to know the Justices of the Supreme Court.

From Philippines Supreme Court

Who are the current Justices of the Supreme Court? The official website gives educational and personal information on the current 2011 Supreme Court. I am surprised that the dates of appointment were not posted for all.

We will continue to revise this reference list on our honorable justices, adding their birthdays and other interesting information. The fact is that they are too human, they also have families, and have noble aspirations for our country but their decisions have so much impact on the ordinary Filipinos. The Supreme Court only deals with appealed cases and certain direct constitutional questions, it determines the constitutionality of the laws passed by Congress and its final executory decisions must be followed by the Executive branch.

Name	School	Nominated by
Chief Justice Renato Corona	Ateneo	G. Macapagal-Arroyo, April 9, 2002
Justice Antonio T Carpio	University of the Phlippines	G. Macapagal-Arroyo, October 26, 2001.
Justice Conchita Carpio- Morales	University of the Philippines.	G. Macapagal-Arroyo, September 3, 2002
Justice Presbitero J. Velasco Jr.	University of the Philippines	G. Macapagal-Arroyo,
Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura	San Beda College	G. Macapagal-Arroyo,
Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-de Castro	Univerity of the Philippines	G. Macapagal-Arroyo,
Justice Arturo D. Brion	Ateneo de Manila University,	G. Macapagal-Arroyo, March 17, 2008
Justice Diosdado M. Peralta	Ateneo de Manila University	G. Macapagal-Arroyo, January 14, 2009
Justice Lucas P. Bersamin	University of the East	G. Macapagal-Arroyo,
Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo	Ateneo de Manila University	G. Macapagal-Arroyo,
Justice Roberto A. Abad	Ateneo de Manila University	G. Macapagal-Arroyo,
Justice Martin S. Villarama	Manuel L. Quezon University	G. Macapagal-Arroyo,November 3, 2009
Justice Jose P. Perez	University of the Philippines.	G. Macapagal-arroyo,December 26, 2009
Justice Jose C. Mendoza	San Beda College	G. Macapagal-Arroyo,
Justice Maria Lourdes A. Sereno	?University of the Philippines	B. S. Aquino III

I am not a lawyer by profession. Any errors (misspellings, wrong data transcription) in this post are unfortunately mine and mine alone.