My favorite Chief Justice is under fire. Expect a group of lawyers, particularly those with pending cases with the division of the “Chief”, his friends and the academic communities who know CJ Puno to picture him as the paragon of “honesty and incorruptibility”. He will be paraded as a “constitutionalist” exemplar and a civil right advocate. The “incorruptibility part” description would pale the stature held by the great jurist, J.B.L. Reyes and as a civil rights advocate, he would be portrayed as Martin Luther King Jr. ‘s worthy competitor. The media’s pro- bias for the Chief on account of his anti-GMA stand would be seen as barometer of such integrity and level-headedness, he is a beacon of light, truth and justice.
CJ Puno would like to be remembered to have started to reform the judiciary and try to rid it with misfits. But the grand mission he has embarked on was only to serve his own vainglory so he could be perceived to have bequeathed to the nation a “reformed judiciary”. His actions would be fraught with contradictions that would finally fall flat on his face. For to appear “holier-than-thou” in a place generally occupied by the most mendacious, CJ Puno must have been recruited from an environment entirely sanitized from the infectious corruption which in Philippine setting is almost a way of life. There is no such thing as controlled environment in Philippine legal circles.
CJ Puno is embarking in a crusade in tattered moral armor!
The Philippine Judiciary is like a tightly-knit mob organization where only those with the right culture of duplicity can survive in it. Except for a few judges and prosecutors who have maintained their timeless moral equilibrium, most members, to say the least, are dishonorable enough to earn the disrespect of the public.
CJ Puno, I should say had started reforming the courts, specially the inferior ones and his effort has netted several judges and Court of Appeals Justices. It was not done with the best and noble purpose. It was done to deflect the public focus on the corruption of the SC itself. This charade had hurt the pockets and the name of people who looked at him as the “godfather” of the judiciary. The media-leak of his own indiscretion was an attempt to dethrone a “Mafioso” who could no longer serve the purpose of the organization, or to situate him in a rightful place, with the very people he himself wanted out of the judiciary. Expect CJ Puno to come clean and build the bridges he had burned so he could be accepted back by his “distinguished brethrens”, otherwise, everyone can show him the easy way out of this debacle.
I would end my piece from a quote from Thomas Jefferson:
“If ever this vast country is brought under a single government, it will be one of the most extensive corruption, indifferent and incapable of a wholesome care over so wide a spread of surface. This will not be borne, and you will have to choose between reformation and revolution. If I know the spirit of this country, the one or the other is inevitable. Before the canker is become inveterate, before its venom has reached so much of the body politic as to get beyond control, remedy should be applied. Let the future appointments of judges be for four or six years, and renewable by the President and Senate. This will bring their conduct, at regular periods, under revision and probation, and may keep them in equipose between the general and special governments. We have erred in this point, by copying England, where certainly it is a good thing to have the judges independent of the King. But we have omitted to copy their caution also, which makes a judge removable on the address of both legislative Houses. That there should be public functionaries independent of the nation, whatever may be their demerit, is a solecism in a republic, of the first order of absurdity and inconsistency.
Contributing Writer: Jose C. Camano
Popularity: 1% [?]
An excellent contribution, JCC. Very non-idolatrous compared to others.
Any thoughts on the matter of the writ of amparo? Why do people think it is so great. It’s 60 year history in Mexico is strewn with graft and corruption — in the Judiciary — involving the use of amparo to protect drug lords and other organized type criminals.
I guess I really don’t like the fact that every Sunday, the Right Reverend Justice Puno becomes a Methodist minister and preacher.
Yup he is under fire from a Congressman who saw his idol (FPJ) defeated by GMA, then who was one of the men who wanted to impeach GMA and who suddenly switched sides to have his wife run under KAMPI.
But alas there were two of them who wanted to run (spliting the vote )and the third one came out the winner.
For a lawyer who was suspended by the SC not for any legal breach but for ethical standards your piece is well founded. In the local parlance mabaho ka… At least you can safely tell your children that “hindi ka tulisan.”
So far, apart from the Paras family and men who organized KAMPI and of course you that is actually not a chink in the armor of the CJ but a badge of honor.
I vehemently disagree with his reconstruction of the Constitution in ruling that Erap resigned but that power was given to him under our system of laws.
The messengers and the message versus the CJ must have basis and be so very clearly a hatchet job.
Puno sided Davide and Panganiban against Cecilia Munoz Palma on Saturday, 20 Jan 2001 in arguing for the Supreme Court stepping into a clear case of impeachment under trial, over which it has no jurisdiction (whatsoever). Fait accompli, there was no way SCORP was going to rule that in effect it had overthrown Erap. He showed no moral spine. None of them did that decided Estrada v. Arroyo, which was worse than Javellana v. Executive Secretary, because here SCoRP itself has indeed demonstrated the evils of judicial activism taken to the level of putschism. The worst thing they did at Edsa Dos was not done in chambers or in the context of any case before them. The worst thing they did at Edsa Dos they did at a noisy demonstration in front of a religious shrine. But People Power was a mere fig leaf, the cover for the greatest crime ever committed by SCoRP in conspiracy with the AFP. Though of course everyone has their own favorite greatest crime. hehe. What was yours?
J_AG, DJB
I have written a book about my administrative case and the entire resolution is chapter 3 of the book. I have put that also in my blog. Other mortals would have kept their “misconduct” under wrap, but I don’t believe I am guilty of anything and therefore I was bold enough to bring it into public consciousness. Please read also my two motions for reconsideration (also in my blog) to get the entire picture of the case.
http://jcc34.wordpress.com/2008/05/26/my-suspensio-from-the-practice-of-law/
http://jcc34.wordpress.com/2008/09/08/an-open-letter-to-chief-justice-reynato-s-puno/
DJB,
My favorite line from Ninoy when he was being interviewed (while he was under detention) by Nathanielz during the 1975 election to the Batasang Pambansa of which Ninoy was one of the candidates, goes something like this:
Nathanielz: “Are you not thankful that President Marcos has allowed you to speak before the media?”
Ninoy: “Nakatihaya ako matapos akong suntukin ni Ginong Marcos, pagkatapos tinulungan niaya akong makatayo. Dapat bang sabhihin ko, Ay naku, Maraming Samalat Ho, Ginoong Marcos”.
I will draw the same parallel with the Writ of Amparo. The writ of Amparo was designed to address extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances. It was the mini-version of the Mexican recurso de amparo, which you claimed was designed to protect the drug lords from being snatched by police authorities.
The problem it seeks to address is very intuitive enough of the malady that besets the country: “extrajudicial killing”. The bigger picture is that the courts are irrelevant because of the slow grind of the wheels of justice and the judges are corrupt, so people, the vigilante types, (army or hired goons) would resort to swift glorifying justice by killing people extra-judicially.
In the eighties, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Director and then Mayor of Manila Alfredo Lim disillusioned the way the courts coddled the drug dealers would take the law into his hands by painting the houses of noted drug dealers with words that these are drug dealers.
It was also inside an NBI van where one Pepe Oyson, a suspected drug-dealer was slain.
It was not during Mayor Lim’s tenure as an NBI Director however, where a noted lawyer from Quezon City with clients involved in illegal drugs had vanished and never seen again. This lawyer was supposed to meet some NBI agents regarding his clients’ problem with the law and has never heard of since then. I knew this lawyer personally because he was the lawyer of a policeman accused for shooting to death a catholic priest and an army chaplain over a traffic snafu in one crowded squatter streets in Bago Bantay, Quezon City in 1996. I was prosecuting the policeman and was asking the Judge to recall the bond for the provisional liberty of the accused because the evidence for his guilt for murder was strong and that bail should have not been granted. The Judge looked down on me and so was the lawyer and tried to berate my competence as a lawyer in front of my client. My client was the sister of the priest and took the cue from the Judge and retired me as a lawyer because she felt that my services were inadequate for the case of this magnitude and the lawyer was well-connected to the judge.
Of course we cannot deny the fact that the writ of amparo addresses also the extrajudicial killing and disappearances of personalities identified with the “left movement”.
Does the “extreme right” detests the court as much as the law enforcers against drug dealers do so they would put the law into their hands to address the issue of “maintaining order” in the society?
How does the court also address the extra-judicial killing and forced disappearances perpetrated also by the left?
Should we be grateful to CJ Puno for the writ of amparo, where from my perspective he was trying to provide additional remedy for victims and relatives of lawlessness spawned by the ineffectiveness of the court itself?
In the first place, is he really a champion of civil liberties and of justice. I do not get a sense of these virtues from him after I wrote him my letter. :)
J_AG,
The people who leaked to media CJ Puno’s alleged inaction over the Limchaikong case was a court insider and not Mr. Paras. The latter would not know about what is cooking-up in the inner sancturum of the SCORP. Why is there a court insider who wants CJ Puno put into a bad light? Did he step on the toes of his colleagues? If he was righteous, should not his colleagues support his righteousness?
But rest assured that this problem will be patched soon enough. All he has to do is to come up with some sort of accomodation. :)
Hon’ble Chief Justice of India P.N.Bhagwati was best during my pride period in profession. I consider him best after a long gap of Good Judges.There were few, like H.R.Khanna Justice Krishana Eyer Justice KuldeepSingh, who were dynamic and creative like Justice Bhagwati. I pay my tribute to all of them.
Great lives spread an aura and fragrance which outlive their mortal sojourn on earth. If one makes a closer study of what distinguishes these men and keeps them apart from the rest, two qualities stand out. The first is their concern for the good of others. The second is a constant striving for perfection and excellence with purity in personal and public life. Honour, dignity, friendship and compassion are the traits of such worthy men. They know intuitively that nothing worthwhile or enduring is ever achieved without character and that, in the ultimate analysis, all worldly possessions and achievements like authority, wealth and status are mere wayside stops in the exciting journey of exploration of the mortal dimensions of the human personality.
Perception of impulse to stimulate the message conveyed through holy Epic of Ramayana, I remained stands still to get the meaning hidden between the lines. The realization of the truth started entering into my mind by diplection of the different character of the people living at the contemporary period of Sat-Yug. There were the jealousy in the mind of step mother Kaikei which given effect into the action by Mainthara and ultimately the king Dashrath, who has pledged to accomplish two desires of his youngest queen by the impulse of the emotion. He was compelled to denounce the thrown to his dear worthy son Shri Ram and the other vicious design uttered in the shape of boon to spare him from making his descendent heir for kingdom but to send him to the exile. The character of Shri Ram is not in the hatred, but to follow the great tradition i.e. “let my Life be Sacrificed, but there may not be unequivocal repudiation from promise”. It was not only attributable for himself, but the desire of his father and step mother for giving effect to the said promise to be carried out by accepting the offer of exile for himself. The duty of the spouse in order to accomplish the tradition of remaining shared during the good days and also to follow the bad days in services of her husband also with the equal enthusiasm. The dedication of the brother Laxman to follow his brother during the period of the adversity and to protect his sister-in-law during the absence of Shri Ram and to sleep on the earthly bed is the first and foremost lesson conveyed through the holy epic of Ramayana.
The second lesson required to be learn by the different segmentation of the society comprising of the layman in the contact of the ruler from the public at large and reaction thereafter. The diplomatic conversation of Nishad Khewat with Shri Ram by not allowing him to enter in his boat till washing of his feet under the garb of alleged fear psychosis of saving his boat from being converted into the human beings conveys the message of sentimental affiliation and association by the almighty power, which is not only omnipresent, but also omniscient. Thereafter, eating the berries already tested by the women namely Shabri, lowest community of a Dhanuk (Passi), having the piggery business but instead of showing any dejection from accepting such berry, the character of Shri Ram is displayed in eating them.
The most crucial part of lesson in the epic of Ramayana, when Mother Sita was abducted by Ravan and she was crying for help from all such living creatures including birds and animals, but no one listen, as the abductor was none else than Ravan. It was a Jatayun, a vulture, eating the flesh of dead animals, who dared to challenge the most powerful ruler on earth fully knowing that he will not survive, but none else came to save Mother Sita, or even to make efforts to save her except a vulture.
It is true that Shri Ram killed Bali from behind the trees but when Bali asked him, as to why Shri Ram preferred to have the friendship with his weaker brother Sugreev, who could not protect his wife from Bali aggression, instead of having the friendship from the stronger person namely the Bali who kept Ravana inside the Soldier pit below his arm for six months, the reply of Shri Ram in support of the righteous person, irrespective of his status is the second lesson conveyed in Ramayana.
When the fighting could not be avoided, then instead of calling the army from Ajodhya, why Shri Ram preferred the Army comprising of the monkey, bear and even the squirrel who built the Ram Shetu to reach the golden kingdom of Ravan. Ravan was himself Brahmin by caste but on account of his conduct of consuming liquor and having the carnal desired of greed and lust, the entire quality of his worship to lord Shiva was converted into the sin committed on this earth. Thus the army of the petty animals or that of lowest segmentation of the society was having the potential to defeat him. Thus the third lesson conveyed in Ramayana is that it is not material as to which caste an individual is born, but the quality of the life and the perception of its ideology is supreme.
The Fifth lesson conveyed through epic Ramayana, as to why the golden Lanka was given back to the brother Bhibhisan of Ravan, instead of having the expansion of his kingdom and to return back to his native place after completion of the period of exile of fourteen years.
The Sixth lesson is having the mixed reaction, one conveys the greatness of Shri Ram while from another point of view people criticizes to Shri Ram for denouncing mother Sita ji on the instigation of the washer man but as the ruler of Ajodhya, the comfort of the king were immaterial instead of his reputation to maintain the high tradition of the kingdom.
Thus ultimately the conclusion conveyed through the holy epic of Ramayana is that of the attachment with the spirit of detachment and victory over the vices, while association with lowest segmentation of society for expansion of kingdom, which the society at present, especially the so called Brahmins and swami ji in the luxurious ashrams, posing themselves to be the protector of our Vedic Hindu Religion have totally forgotten or they have given up these high traditions, only for gaining more power, more money, more comfort and ultimately started ruining the Hindu Tradition of sacrifices.
The actor who was sentenced to jail for six years in 2007, is out on bail.
He had sought the court’s permission to travel to the US to take part in a UN conference and to shoot a film.
Dutt is the most high-profile of 100 people convicted in connection with the series of explosions that killed 257 people in India’s financial capital.
Dutt, one of Bollywood’s most bankable stars, found fame playing gangsters and anti-heroes.
Opposition
Dutt is to travel to New York in early February to attend a conference there on malnutrition in his capacity as a United Nations goodwill ambassador.
He was granted permission to leave the country by Chief Justice KG Balakrishnan.
yogesh,
are you saying that our court problems are identical?
i think cj puno had it coming. when he tried to bridge the great divide that separates justices from politicians, he stepped down from his ivory tower – a kind of cordon sanitaire, that shields his kind from the rough and tumble of politics. his public advocacies, good or bad, compromise his ability and duty to be an impartial adjudicator. in the performance of their role, judges and justices, i believe, must be extra prudent about exercising their personal freedoms, e.g. speech, if they are to maintain the majesty of, and reverence for, the law as they pronounce in the cases brought before them for adjudication.
jcc
your problem is you pick up bits of events and use those bits to draw your conclusion.
How in heavens name will a decision of the SC en banc concur in the result but not in the decision itself. Chong, the SC en banc must concur with the decision based on their interpretation of the facts and existing jurisprudence. A majority of the justices did not write their opinions concurring with the ponente.
Why have an SC then? The process of thesis plus or minus antithesis should equal a collegial synthesis.
Now it has come out that this Justice Reyes made his initial resolution even before the respective memorandums of all parties were filed.
The CJ and the rest of the Sc called for oral arguments to go after the case to settle the issue. Rules of court once again must follow the process.
Now as to your being found wanting by the SC that makes whatever you say tainted by that fact.
Unlike Atty. Allan Paguia who went down with his ship so to speak, who I believe was disbarred because of his insistence that the constitution was violated by the SC decision affirming the so called resignation of Erap you chose to cut and run and defend yourself in a blog.
There is one thing that observers have noted about the human condition. Victims of perceived injustice are known to sacrifice all to fight.
It is about commitment. In dialectics of all sorts the most committed will eventually win.
The country is paying for the sins of fanatical religion and a lack of appreciation of ideas and ideals. Essentially this is a country of medicine man and witch doctors wrapped up in modern clothing.
Dialectics or argumentation/discourse is the only method of coming to the objective reality for the most part.
But that takes time as the process of synthesis must spread and take hold.
Hence the expression of an enlightened citizenry is the best defense versus tyranny.
The usurpers of power know this and are experts at distortion and if you look at the generations (most especially the youth) of Pinoys their entire belief systems have been distorted to resemble either religious fanatics or nihilists.
This sordid attempt to nail the CJ on this issue is totally without foundation and basis. Even the man who filed as a taxpayer is known to Paras.
DJB in my estimation is dead on when he says that science is religion.
The process of discovery is science. We are all born to die. Organized religion sells immortality that is why it is very saleable. Unless we rationally accept that we are all here for a limited time frame and what happens after is a mystery then rationally we should make the best of things.
Even atheists cannot be certain about certainty. They are all certain about uncertainty.
Anyone who wants to personalize their faith in the after life and their messiah is free to do so as long as it does not transgress others.
Will you look at this guy Bencard–
His subjective view that the SC should be above politics and remain in their ivory tower.
His version of politics is rooted in politics of personalty.
Under our system of government which is republican and power is supposedly shared between three co-equal branches the Chief Justice is not supposed to be holed up in his ivory tower.
Unless he was asleep all throughout the last few years he would have surely noticed the blatant attempt of the executive to overstep the boundaries drawn out by the constitution.
The only issue he has strongly spoken out about was the issue of unexplained disappearances and alleged killings by state principals.
It is remarkable but only after international attention and the CJ’s shining a light to it did it drop drastically.
The next President should sign the Rome treaty and that will open the possibility of filing murder charges versus some members of the state in the International Criminal court.
That is truly what the majesty and reverence for law must be. Dispensing true justice. It is not simply an abstract but must be carried out and displayed before the entire community.
JAG,
Bencard does make a good point however that Puno’s public advocacies have compromised his impartiality and cold neutrality as a judge.
Perhaps the larger point is that the 1987 is being used to justify a judicially activist–I say putschist–Supreme Court. Paradoxically, the things we have sough to eliminate with its radical provisions are becoming reality.
SCoRP cannot exist in an ivory tower, but its judges must not forget the Code of Judicial Conduct.
What happened to Erap is just the most egregious example of how strong and dangerous SCoRP can be when it does come down from that Ivory Tower and starts moving in on real palaces and parliaments.
In my personal view, the role of SCoRP, in theory and in the practice of promulgating and enforcing the 1987 Constitution deserves wide public debate. A better understanding of its limits is needed. The dictum that “the Constitution is what SCoRP say it is become pernicious poison unless seen as strictly limited to the actual cases of controversy brought before it. This business of coming down from the Ivory Tower has been encourages SCoRP to do things that actually reform society and enforce rights. These are of course vouchsafed by the 1987.
But the Spiderman Principle applies, and all the more SCoRP must realize that its DISCRETION is really the only thing that can save Constitutionalism from SCoRP itself.
It is not true that the Judiciary is the weakest branch of govt. Certainly not under the 1987. Thus the adoration of the SCoRP’s role in Edsa Dos by even reflexively oppositionist newspapers like PDI and civil society represents an ultimate danger to themselves!
_____________________________________________________________
Unlike Atty. Allan Paguia who went down with his ship so to speak, who I believe was disbarred because of his insistence that the constitution was violated by the SC decision affirming the so called resignation of Erap you chose to cut and run and defend yourself in a blog. J_AG.
____________________________________________________________
That’s quite a mouthful. It is you who is in the habit of picking up bits and pieces and draw the wrong conclusion. Are you certain that Paguia was disbarred? There should be a process there.
Should one be disbarred for taking a point of view different from the SCORP?
And I did not run. It is obvious that you want to talk about my case without even reading it and the anti-thesis of my case, my two motions. But that is beside the issue.
Let us talk about the SCORP and not religion.
What rules of court you are talking about? A deliberation of a case is made and the court would take the vote and agree on a resolution of the case. A Justice is assigned to write a majority decision. Dissenting Justice may write his dissenting opinion or he may not.
The case of a congressman who was being unseated had been reported to have been agreed upon en banc and the resolution was sent to Puno for his signature. CJ Puno did not act on it instead scheduled the case for oral argument.
Now what is the other version of the story which you seem to be familiar of? Please spell it out.
The SCORP is not supposed to sit in ivory tower. It must adjudicate controversies and adjudicate them justly.
But the members of the SCORP are also human beings. They can be canard and duplicitous as the other members of the government, Congress and Executive. If you claim that the members of the SCORP under CJ Puno are more honorable than the members of Congress or the occupant of Malacanang you are already making a moral judgment contrary to human experience.
SCORP had perverted the Constitution under Marcos, it has perverted the Constitution under CJ Davide, it has perverted the Constitution under CJ Puno when it claims that it can adjudicate on question that is purely political involving MOA-AD.
The members of Congress are elected by the people every four, or 3 years, the President every four years and therefore they served under the pleasure of the people.
SCORP members are life-tenured. They can pervert the constitution, commit high level corruption and yet they do not subject themselves from the mandate of the sovereign people every four years. It is a branch of government that is above the sovereign people.
Please read T. Jefferson:
“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is “boni judicis est ainpliare jurisdictionem,” and their power the more dangerous as they are in once for life . . . The constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.”
the President is elected every six years, not 4. mus mistake.
ja_g @6:46 am, this guy, bencard, would like to ask you this. if you were an accused “extra-judicial” killer, would you be comfortable having your case heard and decided by a “staunch advocate” against the type of crime you are accused of? the point is, a judge, like caesar’s wife must be above reproach or suspicion of bias and pre-conceived convictions. judges are judges, not advocates or “reformists”. those are roles best left to proper entities, e.g., the press, clergy, civil society, etc.
as a lawyer, i detest a judge-politician, doing both activities at the same time.
bencard,
my take is CJ Puno is a politician masquerading as a jurist. he loves the limelight and would hugh the headlines like politicians do. fill-up his itineary with speaking engagements, would like to be interviewed on hot issues of the day even on the apparent slip of the tongue prayer of Secretary Dureza. He was the copycat of CJ Davide. If he walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then he must be a duck.
But we are forgetting the caution of Thomas Jefferson that “jurists” have their own corps and party affiliation. But despite their corps and party affiliations, most jurists would simply confine their activities in chamber pondering on the issues that confront the nation that are brought within their attention. They do not seek the adulation of the public for if they do that, they compromised the interpretation of the law to suit the sentiments of the public.
Exhibit A: GMA had already scrapped the controversial MOA-AD. Seven of the jurists said that the court stay out of it because it is a political question. Eight, lead by Puno said it was justiciable. The public was not in favor of the MOA-AD and Puno had telegraphed an overwhelming public sentiment and ride through that public sentiment by castigating the President for entering in such “unconstitutional” agreement.
A judicious jurist would simply throw out the case because making a pronouncement about it is equivalent to slapping the President on her face. But everyone else was slapping GMA on her face and so CJ Puno had joined the melee by doing exactly the same thing as everyone else was doing.
That is my favorite Jurist, CJ Puno. :)
looks like the good cj did not check his political ambitions at the door when he accepted the chief justice position. how sad!