This is how things stood before yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling that outgoing President Arroyo can appoint a Chief Justice- In- Waiting:
1. 15 Article VII of the 1987 Constitution still prohibits the incumbent president from making appointments two months before an election and until his or term expires.
2. this year, the election ban started on March 10 and will last until the end of President Arroyo’s term on June 30.
3. Put in simpler words, Under the 1987 Constitution, an outgoing president is barred from making appointments two months before an election and until the end of his or her term.
4. In the case of Mrs. Arroyo, she cannot issue midnight appointments from March 10 to June 30.
Ponder, too, these antecedents:
During the time of Prresident Fidel V. Ramos the justices disallowed FVR from making appointments during an election period.
Former Constitutional Commission member and Ateneo de Manila Law Scool dean emeritus Father Joaquin Bernas had said that even without a formal petition filed before it, the Supreme Court (SC) on its own could put an end to the raging controversy surrounding President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s possible naming of a chief justice during the period covered by the election appointment ban.
Bernas told a forum organized by the watchdog group Supreme Court Appointments Watch (SCAW) that the SC, motu propio or on its own accord, could rule on the constitutionality of Arroyo’s selection of a replacement for Chief Justice (CJ) Reynato Puno.
CJ, the only remaining non-Arroyo appointee in the Court, prudently chose not to participste in the deliberations today as he is also chair of the Judicial and Bar Council.
If Arroyo forces the issue and appoints the next chief justice, he said the SC could strike it down without waiting for a party to lodge a petition.
Father Bernas cited the case involving the disputed appointments of judges Mateo Valenzuela and Placido Vallarta to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in May 1998.
He stressed how the SC en banc went ahead on its own and invalidated the judges’ appointments since these were well within the period covered by the election appointment ban.
In the event the JBC does not submit a list and President Arroyo appoints a chief justice during the period of the appointment ban, Bernas said this would trigger a constitutional crisis as this would be a blatant violation of the Constitution.
The High Court said:
The appointment of the next Chief Justice by the incumbent President is preferable to having the Associate Justice who is first in precedence take over. Under the Constitution, the heads of the Legislative and Executive Departments are popularly elected, and whoever are elected and proclaimed at once become the leaders of their respective Departments. However, the lack of any appointed occupant of the office of Chief Justice harms the independence of the Judiciary, because the Chief Justice is the head of the entire Judiciary. The Chief Justice performs functions absolutely significant to the life of the nation. With the entire Supreme Court being the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, the Chief Justice is the Chairman of the Tribunal. There being no obstacle to the appointment of the next Chief Justice, aside from its being mandatory for the incumbent President to make within the 90-day period from May 17, 2010, there is no justification to insist that the successor of Chief Justice Puno be appointed by the next President.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/191002.htm
Here’s what several key senators are saying:
Senator Aquilino Pimentel Jr.:
It’s a big blow s rule of law. The decision is another blight in the armor of the SC [Supreme Court] as an institution.
Senator Mar Roxas:
It scares many of our people that even on a very crucial issue of constitutionality and decency in government, the Justices of our Supreme Court would bow to the mighty powers of this President, who has bent the rules and even our Constitution to suit her whims. It sends a chill into our people’s hearts that a scenario of a failure of election could really happen, especially now with automation of the elections under question by many sectors and experts.
We must rely on our faith in the principles and processes that give democracy its lifeblood. We shall appeal this decision. We shall fight, within the bounds of decency — bounds that the current administration seems to care little for — so the people’s will prevails.
The prohibition imposed on an outgoing president to name the head of constitutional bodies, especially a body as sensitive as the Supreme Court was also put in place to guard against the kind of abuse being exhibited now.
Sen. Francis Escudero:
I will block any effort to compel the JBC to submit to the President a shortlist of candidates to the top SC post without a final ruling from the high tribunal. As a lawyer, I have my own interpretation of the law, but this decision is really a big disappointment because the law clearly states that the incumbent cannot appoint anyone within the period of the constitutional ban. However, this is not that first time that I have been disappointed by the decision of the court.
With this development, Justices Renato Corona and Conchita Carpio-Morales (who have stated that they would not accept the position if the appointment will be made by President Arroyo) might have to clarify their statements and inform the JBC if they still would want their names to be included in the list of nominees. The ball is in their Court. We have to find out from them, are they still applying for the decision of Chief Justice or not? If the two decide to withdraw their names from the list, the next issue would be whether or not there would be enough nominees for the post – a minimum of three for the JBC to choose from and submit to the
Sen. Benigno Aquino III:
The ruling effectively reversed a 1998 SC decision prohibiting an outgoing president from appointing members of the judiciary two months before the end of his or her term. Is this because the SC is now packed with Arroyo appointees?
The Court, then led by Chief Justice Andres Narvasa, ruled that an outgoing president “is neither required to make appointments to the courts nor allowed to do so. The Narvasa decision states that Article VIII Sections 4(1) of the Constitution “simply means the President is required to fill vacancies in the courts within the time frames provided therein unless prohibited.
Sen. Richard Gordon:
With the SC ruling, the constitutional highway ahead of us will all be defined by a Gloria court.
Anticipating the decision, Father Joaquin Bernas opined that the worst-case scenario is widespread protest in response to Arroyo’s midnight appointment. He even hinted that he himself would join the protest.
The constitutionalist went on to warn that a justice who accepts an appointment under these circumstances would be an “accessory to the crime” since the appointment would constitute a “culpable violation of the Constitution,” and this means the new chief justice may be impeached.
But Bernas said it is possible to implement the two contradictory provisions in the Constitution on the election appointment ban and the need to fill the vacancy in the Supreme Court within 90 days from time CJ Puno retires on May 17.
The solution is to prevent President Arroyo from naming the next chief justice and to just let the next president make the appointment.
He noted that the next chief executive would still have 45 days left or until August 15 to choose the next chief justice from the time he or she assumes office on June 30, 2010.
Seems quite reasonable and easy to do, right?
But not if you consider how the emerging mindset of Arroyo is, as mirrored from her lapdogs:
1. She will do what is expedient.
2. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo will name a CJ In Waiting even though the results of the elections are expected a couple of days after May 10, 3. She will ignore that fact that the Philippines would already have a President-elect!!!
The ignoble premise ?
That she cannot ‘neglect’ her sworn duty not to leave a vacancy in the Supreme Court unfilled.
Hogwash many would say.
But for someone facing the likelihood of criminal charges after June 30,
GMA will play her trump card and make sure that the highest court of the land is populated by her appointees.
So there.
Postscript:
Minutes ago former ConCom member and former COMELEC Chair Christian Monsod told DZMM radion:
I never imagined I would witness this in my lifetime – the repeat of what happened during the Marcos years – a Supreme Court consisting of appointees of a sitting President. This is no longer the Supreme Court envisioned by the Constitution. What we have now is an Arroyo Court.
Popularity: 2% [?]
Clearly when the courts act with willful intent to advance the interests of one person over the good of the public, justice no longer exists, and democracy no longer exists. I had been writing that the Judiciary was on the right track under Chief Justice Puno. This ruling is more than a setback, it is destruction of the entire concept of justice. What hope is there when the highest and and most esteemed panel of justice in the land sells itself like so many whores and gigolos to pay back favors and protect illicit power-mongering?
Ms. Arroyo has a choice. Leave with dignity. Or leave as a scourge upon the Filipino Republic, giving no respect for the lives and deaths of so many who fought to build and defend an honorable way to live and govern.
By all indications, she chooses poorly . . .
Joe
Now, I know why DJB, Rom, Bong, Benign0, and Bencard had totally opted out from FV.
This will be my last participation in this blog but I have to explain my position. FV has totally become one singular thought with no meaningful dissent allowed. I have submitted an article 2 days ago about the libel suit filed by Justice Velasco against Ms. Vitug who released a book recently entitled “Shadow of Doubt”. My article was not published despite my follow up.
Now there is a cacophony of anti-Supreme Court sentiments on its ruling allowing the President to appoint a CJ in replacement of Reynato Puno and it was published even if my article was submitted earlier.
It is apparent to me now that FV would be quick to publish an article if it is anti-GMA. All others are subject to the predisposition those who controlled the forum.
I happen to agree with the decision of the Supreme Court about the right of the President to appoint a Puno’s replacement and could have explained it in a regular article (not comment) and I do not believe in the claims of Justice Mendoza and J. Bernas that the decision was unconstitutional, but my article would appear pro GMA, and therefore might not see light in this forum.
I am writing the article in blog. http://jcc34.wordpress.com
I happened to agree with the decision and I would have submitted an article about it, but I
I agree with the ruling
jcc,
Well, I will miss your oppositional views, and always enjoyed arguing with you, as it never turned to names. I also learned a lot.
I think FV is just going through a growing patch, call it adolescence, and is not responding well to people who give earnest inputs. A big flaw, for sure, as it takes work to write a piece, and it is indeed insulting to be met with silence. It is strange for a forum of modern communication to err so, and I hope it is just some kind of oversight.
Keep opposing. Balance is essential to finding the right path. Like-minded people speaking to themselves is about as boring and non-constructive as it gets. Rather like AP . . .
Best . . .
Joe
There is an accusation that FV has “totally become one singular thought with no meaningful dissent allowed”. That is a very serious accusation against this blogsite that we love so much for its fairness and balance treatment of writers and commenters and their divergent views. I for one would like to hear the side of the editors/moderators about this accusation just to be fair in my judgment of what really happened and whether the accusation is true or not.
Who are the editors and moderators? JCC deserves an explanation.
You will be missed,JCC.
You, however, are in error when you lump together individuals you mention in so far as the reason for your decision to leave FV.
Some left on their own accord while a couple were given the boot for violating house rules.
Be well…
yes, ding,
DJB left because of the quality of the discussion, ROM for the same reason, BongV and Benign0 could have been booted out because they happened to have different views than the majority here at FV. Bencard left because FV he claimed he is being censored and so do I.
“Having different views”
You are confused Manong. Bencard , the most highly respected lawyer censored?
Ding,
Please follow this link:
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?v=feed&story_fbid=1101999047570&id=1754521322
Your own comments in this thread are continuing, JCC.
Why don’t you share here or even supply the link to your home blog post?
Permit me to query your position re the Supreme Court itself.This is what the post is about.
apparently the SC has an interesting reason. there is contradictory provision, that says vacancies in d SC should be filled. also, if the framers (collectively) intended for the ban on late appointments to hold for d judiciary, then the clause would also be in the judiciary section of the constitution.
my crystal ball is a bit hazy now, but I can still discern the new chief justice to be Justice Renato Corona, GMA’s former chief of staff.
The members of the Supreme Court have been selected by the JBC.
Not by the CBCP, not by the INC, not by the Makati Business Club
but by the JBC. Not by JPE, not by NoyNoy, not by Mike Arroyo,
by the JBC.
You don’t like the members of the Supreme Court, chase down the JBC.
The JBC should first go to NoyNoy. The JBC should submit for next
supreme court justice only the candidates that NoyNoy approves of.
The JBC should only submit names that NoyNoy has selected.
Separation of powers, isn’t this the process?
Okay, I read a lot and dabble in fictional writing. I can see a wonderful story line developing here.
A megalomaniacal leader of a developing country has stolen from the state coffers. The only way he can stay out of jail is to stay in power.
He has stuffed the House of Representatives with his puppets, using good old public cash by the bagfuls to accomplish this. These kissy-assy legislators will do anything for him.
He has appointed his loyal military officers to top slots, leapfrogging them over more senior people to assure there will be no military intervention against his acts. Indeed, he will have the force of the army behind him.
He has stocked the Supreme Court with lackeys of high mind and high allegiance so any case sent to them will be rendered on his behalf.
He has friends on the election commission who will make sure the forthcoming national election dissolves in a chaos of administrative screw-ups, technology problems, and, more than anything, animosity between candidates.
The people behind the lead candidates will turn on each other like so many wolves, hyenas, bobcats and badgers doing battle.
The megalomaniacal leader will declare a national emergency, martial law, and stay in power for as long as necessary. In the best interest of the nation, of course.
Our hero will emerge, a quiet woman named Dell working in a mundane office job for a newspaper publisher on an island far from the capitol.
The country’s internet and cell-phone services will be shut off, also in the best interest of the nation, of course. The country will go silent.
Patriotic generals will turn against the President and will be shot by forces loyal to the President. Nobody will know about this right away, but Dell will find out.
The senate will turn against the President but be disbanded, with a handful jailed for treason. For the good of the nation, of course.
The people will rise up and there will be Iran-style bludgeoning put-down. Terror will wear army fatigues. Most people won’t know what is going on, will feel isolated and powerless, and will just go obediently home.
Dell, who has contacts with other media sources, will find out precisely what is going on and will put together a small band of really ingenious and determined cyber commandos. They know they have to take down the power structure, especially the President.
Well, that’s what I’ve got so far. I’m working on the ending. It might be a year or two off. Think it will sell? Pretty wild fiction, eh?
Joe
but Joe Am, The 1987 Constitution is well-written. GMA may want to appoint her lawyer-husband as supreme court justice, the 1987 constitution has this provision:
– the JBC creates a list of names;
– the president can only select from the JBC’s list of names
The JBC should only submit names that NoyNoy has selected.
Separation of powers, isn’t this the process?
But Villar may win. The JBC should then ask for names from Villar
and NoyNoy and the JBC should select the names common on both list.
That is how the JBC can show its independence.
Mike H,
I confess to not having a lot of trust or confidence in much of anything these days. I do think the 1987 Constitution is sound, other than the provision that artificially limits opportunities for amendment. That is why I wonder as to the midnight raiders who wanted to convene a rewrite convention for motives unstated. It is these raiders who did the most to undermine my trust. Oh, and the Ombudsman’s ineffectiveness. Oh, and the ZTE, fertilizer, C-5 and other scandals. And the local civil registrar who wants me to bring in spaghetti for the staff before processing my request. And all those people cheating on price when they see my white face. And a few other things, but I’ve yammered quite enough on this, except to ask: Trust. Do Filipinos not grasp the concept, or what?
Joe
Did you ever heard the word:PRIVILAGED. Pres. Gloria Arroyo, her family
and her cahoots are above the Law. We, the Common Tao must obey the Law.
Or else we are in trouble. This is the reason candidates spend Billions
of Pesos in their campaigns to become President. Presidents are treated
like Gods. Look down on their people. Immuned to prosecution. And are
above the Law.
“Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos”
It’s obvious that the only pertinent constitutional provision as regards gloria’s proscription from appointing the next CJ is:
(Emphasis mine.)
The provision of the law does not make any distinction as to whether the ban on the Presidential appointments is for positions in the Executive Department or the Judiciary. Following a well-settled principle in statutory construction, we must not distinguish where the law does not distinguish (1). In addition, where the law is free from ambiguity as to whether a President may or may not appoint a Supreme Court (Chief) Justice, the court may not introduce exceptions or conditions where none is provided from considerations of convenience, public welfare, or for any laudable purpose (2); nor may it engraft into the law qualifications not contemplated (3).*
—–
(1) Robles vs. Zambales Chromite Mining Co., et al., 104 Phil. 688, 690 (1958).
(2) University of the Phil. Board of Regents vs. Auditor General, 30 SCRA 5 (1969).
(3) Ramos vs. Court of Appeals, 108 SCRA 728 (1981).
*The whole paragraph is lifted from here. I just modified some sentences to fit in our discussion.
addendum:
…where the law is free from ambiguity as to whether a President may or may not appoint a Supreme Court (Chief) Justice during the ban…
forive me ding. i should not be posting anymore at FV but this is just to highlight the point when a singular thought pattern at FV becomes apparent. everybody was commenting against the SC ruling without them reading the ruling first.
the principle that when the law does not distinguish, neither should we is but one principle. there are others. one which says that specific provision of the law controls over the general provision and the intent of the framers constitution can be taken into account to read into the provisions the meaning of the law.
guys, read first the decision before opening your big mouth simply because you feel that the ruling has helped GMA, the person long-demonized by this blog. i have no love lost with GMA, for one, I dislike her too, but i am looking at the ruling from its institutional aspect and not on patronage aspect.
so, jcc, whats your opinion?
i would love to hear it.
GabbyD,
Here it is. You will not find this kind of musing from FV regulars.
http://jcc34.wordpress.com/2010/03/18/appointment-power-is-an-executive-privilege/
Yep, I find it amusing in light of the fact that aside from reading the majority decision prior to my post above, I also read AJ Conchita Carpio Morales.
Btw, I already used my previous post in Erap’s disqualification here:
“Comelec’s Flawed Reasoning.”
The SC (majority) is not infallible…and so anyone commenting on the topic…even AJ Lucas P. Bersamin knows that as he struck down <a href= http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1998/nov1998/am_98_5_01_1998.htmlNarvasa’s ponencia on Valenzuela.
Sorry…
The SC (majority) is not infallible…and so anyone commenting on the topic…even AJ Lucas P. Bersamin knows that as he struck down Narvasa’s ponencia on Valenzuela.
—–
“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…”
A President is an official in the Executive branch of government…it’s but natural to stipulate such prohibition in Article VII of the Constitution: The Executive Department. But there is a qualification:
“…EXCEPT temporary appointments to EXECUTIVE positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety.”
Therefore, the prohibition is a blanket, total, comprehensive, or all-inclusive one covering ALL appointments (be it in the Executive Department or the Judiciary) that is made by the President.
—–
from the citation No. (3), Ramos v. CA, in my first comment above:
It’s quite interesting to note that no less than lawyer JCC here reconciled Article VII, Section 15 and Article VIII, Section 4, Paragraph (1) when he said:
Article VII, Section 15 (the TOTAL ban on appointments during election year), happening 1x every 6 years, is the SPECIFIC provision and is in control over…
the GENERAL provision: Article VIII, Section 4, Paragraph (1) – the 90-day requirement for the vacancy to be filled – which operates most of the time (i.e., 5x in 6 years) unless it temporarily ceases to operate during election year.
i wonder what the word “specific” means here.
is the rarity of the event equivalent to its specificness?
GabbyD,
That’s just me, the non-lawyer…playing with the words “musing,” “general” and “specific.” (Was actually tickling JCC’s fancy…perhaps he’ll stay here for a few more comments.)
Well, except for necessary but temporary appointments to Executive posts, the general rule is that there is total ban on Presidential appointments during election season. Neither interpretation nor construction is needed as the plain language of the provision clearly says so.
The 90-day requirement to fill the vacancy in the Judiciary seemingly complicated things but in reality it did not. It will only cease to operate on account of the election ban (and perhaps a fresh 90-day allowable time may commence after June 30).
The appointing power rests on the President’s Executive privilege…but it has specific limitations. Limitations that would NOT make an outgoing President feel he/she did not fulfill his/her duty.
That’s how simple I, the non-lawyer, wish to understand the whole thing.
I honestly believe that we should give ample bandwidth and attention to the lone dissenting opinion by Justice Conchita Carpio Morales.
It was short, but brilliantly succinct and elegant in its arguments. I can’t help but laugh at the majority decision while reading the dissenting one.
Truly, Arroyo’s lawyers and appointed Justices are worthy of the title “legal alchemists.”
in the dissenting opinion, she describes the majority decision as weak when it turns on how its uses the organization of the constitution as a key component of its argument.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/march2010/191002_carpio-morales.htm
her top 3 arguments:
1) Constitutional draftsmanship style is the weakest aid in arriving at a constitutional construction
2) The establishment of the JBC is not sufficient to curtail the evils of midnight appointments in the judiciary
3) All rules of statutory construction revolt against the interpretation arrived at by the ponencia
it is interesting stuff, but as a non-lawyer, i have no idea how to best evaluate these arguments. but i do like her principle of looking at the intent of the framers to decide on questions about what the constitution means.
JCC,
I read your post. The JBC is in the 1987 Constitution. The intent behind the JBC is obviously to create a more independent judiciary, to make it less susceptible to presidential caprice
As to the ruling itself. What part of Art VII Sec 15 did you and the nine justices not understand?
MB,
Less susceptible from presidential caprice and independent enought to make a grand corruption?
You asked, “What part of Art. VII Sec. 15 I and the nine justices did not understand?” Reverse your query: “What part of the ruling of the SC you did not understand?
BTW, just like others who had been dreaming of an independent judiciary and the logic of the JBC, please read this:
http://jcc34.wordpress.com/2009/08/14/judicial-and-bar-council-a-malignant-tumor-that-must-be-excised/
JCC,
“What part of the ruling of the SC you did not understand?”
The long winded and tortuous explanation why a single sentence keft them befuddled.
So what about you, what was your difficulty understanding a simple straightforwards sentence?
MB,
I am befuddled with that also- I call it garbage, but is in the garbage that I find the soothing result. If you said that you read my blog, then you missed my statement that I agree with the result arrived at by the Court but did not find the reasoning compelling enough. I have a compelling reason why I would allow the President to apppoint a Puno replacement and it is in my blog.
JCC,
The 1987 Constitution placed a time limit on the President’s power to make appointments with one exemption and that is stated clearly in the provision.
That’s why I do not agree with the result or the reasoning of the Court or with your compelling reason.
Having said that, the Court has ruled and once it’s decision is final and executory it becomes law. So we have to live with it until the decision is overturned,
One thing I learned about the Court’s ruling is that the Constitution can be amended without going through a ConAss or ConCon. A simple reinterpretation of its provisions will do the trick pala.
JCC,
I don’t follow the logic on this one:
“the framers of the Constitution had appropriated for themselves some of the appointments in the JBC which is constitutionally conceded to the President”
As I understand it, the framers wrote the Constitution and the people ratified what they wrote. So who is appropriating what and from whom? Isn’t a ratified Constitution the sovereign will of the people?
Unmindful of what they were taught or what they actually teach, some lawyers like to do their own interpretation and put ambiguity into the text of the Constitution.
“The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members”
will mean Congress will vote jointly.
- Some HOR and Palace lawyers
“The President shall not be eligible for any re-election”
will mean any past President can be re-elected as long as he is not the immediate-past President (or the incumbent President).
- Nicodemo Ferrer (Comelec 2nd Division) and Erap lawyers
“No person who has succeeded as President and has served as such for more than four years shall be qualified for election to the same office at any time”
will mean any past President can be qualified for election if he didn’t complete his 6-year term provided his incumbency is not more than 4 years.
- Nicodemo Ferrer (Comelec 2nd Division) and Erap lawyers
Now it’s out of the bag. Even the “Supreme” magistrates themselves are guilty of putting ambiguity to the text of the Constitution:
“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”
will mean the President can appoint members of the Judiciary even in election period.
Joseph Story, American lawyer and jurist, once said:
“Where the words are plain and clear, and the sense distinct and perfect arising from them, there is generally no necessity to have recourse to other means of interpretation.”
Perhaps Joseph will be sad and I’m sure most of us are…for this flawed reasoning that some lawyers like to do will now forever be the norm.
Dear JCC,
Please rethink your decision to leave. My posts have not been seeing the light of day also given that I’ve submitted them even earlier than you or Ding. And I’m sure you know where my inlcinations are so I do not think it’s censorhsip or even editing.
But the it’s probably because Nick is constantly on the road enroute to someplace and there’s no moderator on board. So I’m assuming its something else and not what you suspect as your views are certainly valued, at least by those who are better informed, more civil and respectful of diversity.
Regards,
Dean
Dean,
I am continuing to post in this thread just to explain my position. You will not see me posting in any other thread.
Query: Why is there a defeaning silence from this website on the case of libel filed by Justice Velasco vs a journalist-blogger, Ms. Vitug when the issue there would have a far-reaching effect on how FV bloggers themselves would behave in the future?
Why is the veteran Ding did not even care to notice the “chilling-effect” of this suit? Prferential bias or selective amnesia? Or this blog despite its claim for righteous crusade after all has its tail wrap around its balls? -
I have in the past defended this blog from Reyna Elena’s accusation that this blog was populated by third rate pundits whose towering credentials is their being able to have internet access and the ability to punch their keyboard and produce masterful pieces of garbage.
I thought for a while that FV was legit…. Will take awhile before I get over it.
Oh jcc, don’t try to read into my silence.
Am still getting a copy of the book.
“I have in the past defended this blog from Reyna Elena’s accusation that this blog was populated by third rate pundits…”-JCC
Manoy Jose,
I hope you did not change your mind about that. Because that indictment by Reyna Elena of FV writers includes you, :).
BTW Nashman,
You consider CJ Puno honorable? Please read:
http://abs-cbnnews.com/views-and-analysis/03/11/10/chief-justice-puno-chameleon-marites-da%C3%B1guilan-vitug
And don’t tell me that Ms. Vitug has also an ax to grind.
BTW,
While the Supreme Court is being castigated for its corrupt behavior, I want the Nashman to blog into my professional misconduct as enunciated by the same corrupt Court.
Care to have a copy of the decision to refresh your memory?
JCC, i will indulge…
Whether the supreme court is/was corrupt during your time, you were still an EXTORTIONIST.
Nothing changes the fact that you were suspended for a year for being an extortionist.
And up to this day you still do not know what the definition of ‘Extortion’ is.
Stop being narcissistic, the main article is not about you…and the justices who handled your case are not even on the bench right now…so you are comparing apples to calamansi.
Go leave if you want. angdami mo pang drama. the internet is a big wide place…ngayong jutanders ka na saka ka pa naging emo.
go back to the original post bert. i think he was after patricio, and his group of simple-minded people. and yet, if reyna elena considers me a third rate pundit, i am pretty sure others in this blog would qualify as fourth rate pundits.
btw bert, i am not afraid to hide my credentials. i have them so i flaunt them. that’s what reyna was croaking about.
oh, btw bert, i reviewed the original post. reyna elena was also referring to you.
that’s ok, Manoy Jose, I have this bad habit of not minding what people say about me. third rate pundit, fourth rate, fifth or zero…I don’t care. let me just say this: I truly and honestly believe that you are a very good pundit. And reyna elena was wrong about FV writers.
NASHMAN,
Coming from a corrupt court and from your bad mouth, I consider it to be an honor whatever is your perception of my person. Oh, masaya ka na pinatulan na kita?
JCC is an intellectually dishonest person. He describes himself as a Jeffersonian.
Well the Jeffersonian model for Presidential appointing power to the U.S. Supreme Court is tempered by the concurrence of the U.S. Senate.
Here the Philippine Constitution invests the JBC with vetting the candidates. There are also restrictions of when the President can appoint.
He now contends that his Jeffersoian instinct vets himself with the rightful opinion that the President in this regards is unilaterally allowed to appoint the Chief Justice of her choice at any time.
How Un-Jeffersonian of her.
Jag,
You shoot-off the hip again. Here read this to find that I want the check on the appointment power of the President returned to the Commission on Appointment of Congress and not the JBC which is a constitutional anomaly in the present set-up.
http://jcc34.wordpress.com/2009/08/14/judicial-and-bar-council-a-malignant-tumor-that-must-be-excised/
Noynooy sez that he will not recogniz the nxt spreme court
justice. Is he talkng salitng-hindi-nag-iisip or can he
actaually dothat?
pustahan tayo, he can do that ako.
I do solemnly swear [or affirm] that I will faithfully and conscientiously fulfill my duties as President of the Philippines, preserve and defend its Constitution, execute its laws, do justice to every man, and consecrate myself to the service of the Nation. So help me God.”
.. huwag niyo lang kalilimutan dahil sinabi ko na naman. Huwag kayong aasa na susunod ako sa Supreme Court palagi. I make no pomises whn I do not recgonize one or mor ofthe Suprme Cort justices.
forget my last post. Speculating is not necessary since Nyonoy has strted hisretreatfrm his earlir bravadurra pornuncement thathe will not recgnize the next GMA appointment to the supreme court. Jamby, on the other hand… heh heh heh ang tapang pa ring magsalta pero neber mind, hindi naman mananalo si Jemby, eh.
Privilages have their own advantages. President will do what they want
when they are in office.