What is Chief Justice Reynato Puno up to?
First news reports had said that his launching of a ‘Moral Force’ was simply that: of a new citizens’ movement to fight corruption in the public service.
http://www.gmanews.tv/story/156631/Moral-force-member-invites-other-groups-to-join-crusade
Now we are hearing in the coffee shops that is really is a nascent political party designed to ‘draft’ the Chief Justice for next year’s elections.
People around the Chief Justice, according to my sources, “really want to gauge whether a Puno candidacy will fly given the current line-uo of wannabees.”
Wherever this trial balloon leads to, the honorable magistrate must understand that he should not, and cannot use his office as public information center for a patently partisan activity without damaging public support for the Supreme Court.
It is bad enough that the judiciary, including the high court, is perceived to be prone to corruptive ‘influences’.
And I am putting it mildly, lest ‘defenders of the faith’ accuse me of being contemptuous of the Supre Court.
I believe firmly that despite CJ now being in the minority of a Court dominated by appointees of the incumbent de jure president the tribunal can and will still rule on issues on judicial rather than partisan (read loyalty to the appointing power) considerations.
This belief will be put to the test soon with regard the Supreme Court’s deliberations at its summer sessions in Baguio on the Philippine Baselines Law whose constitutionality is under question.
Back to my main point, why is it that SC spokesman Midas Marquez is acting as press officer for the Moral Force group???
Be honest with the people and they will understand, Mr. Chief Justice. Filipinos may even rally behind you.
But pray tell us please what your true intentions are, ok?
Popularity: 1% [?]
All I can say is that if one quacks like a duck, walks like a duck then he must be a duck. Its regrettable that he accepted the position of a jurist when his heart is embroiled in politics. All those anti-GMA judicial opinions were calculated attempts to ride the crest of public displeasure over the incumbent president and paddles his own ambition. No different than Bayani Fernando who uses his MMDA funds to plaster metro manila with antiseptic banners to promote his presidential ambition though in his case the message is “clealiness”, in CJ Puno, the message is constitutional rubbish.
Anybody can run for President. If Moral Force Movements can save
our country from our present Politicians and Leaders, who are mostly
Opportunists. Then, we have to give it a try. How would we know it
works unless we try? We can debate endlessly, but we will not get
any results.
Here is a portion of congressman Ruffy Biazon’s take on this subject:
http://ruffybiazon.blogspot.com/2009/04/chief-justice-puno-and-moral-force.html
“[...] It may be said that there is nothing wrong for the Chief Justice to make known his desire for moral recovery in this country. Indeed, there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, every Filipino should by now have it in his heart and soul to have moral recovery within himself and call on others to do the same.
But heading a movement that seeks to engage in political moral reform while at the same time being the Chief Justice is opening the leadership of the High Court and the institution itself to vulnerability. To make it clear, I am 100% in agreement and supportive of the goals and objectives of the Moral Force Movement. But my concern is that the Chief and the Court might be unwittingly dragged into an arena that they are supposed to avoid.
While it is the noble intention of the Moral Force to provide a guide and standard in moral governance, it also clear that the agenda is political because the ends is to enable the populace to elect the ideal leaders in the coming 2010 elections. The Moral Force may not want politicians to be a part of their movement, but they are engaged in politics themselves. [...]“
Moral Force is ok, as long as there is no self-serving vested interest.
Edsa Dos was a moral force. Look what it got us into.
I’m for it, but let’s be alert for wolves in sheep’s clothing.
Yes, all this moral force ek-ek. Pluzeee.
Tasio,
Where did you recruit CJ Puno from? Answer: From the judiciary who is noted for “hoodlums in robes”.
if Puno gets elected as pres, PI will be known as the nation of hoodlums in robes….
rally na naman?
nah……tawagin mo akong hoodlum, magnanakaw, puta.. wag lang… utusan… =)
“But heading a movement that seeks to engage in political moral reform while at the same time being the Chief Justice is opening the leadership of the High Court and the institution itself to vulnerability. To make it clear, I am 100% in agreement and supportive of the goals and objectives of the Moral Force Movement. But my concern is that the Chief and the Court might be unwittingly dragged into an arena that they are supposed to avoid.”
CJ Puno is “wittingly” using his position as Chief Justice to promote his political ambition. The “moral force” ek ek is but another political slogan to hoodwink the gullible electorate.
@ding
how do we know he wants to run? rumors? wouldn’t he have to resign?
My sources tell me he really wants to finish his term on The Bench.
But as in the case of Pampanga’s Governor Ed Panlilio, CJ Puno “is in a period of discernment.”
It is against this backdrop that my post is titled such.
how do you know he’s discerning?
so when you say:
“Back to my main point, why is it that SC spokesman Midas Marquez is acting as press officer for the Moral Force group???
Be honest with the people and they will understand, Mr. Chief Justice. Filipinos may even rally behind you.”
by implication, you are saying HE IS NOT honest, coz he isn’t saying, “I’m thinking about runnung”?
but just now, your sources say he wants to finish his term…
i guess, i wanna ask: if someone wants to start a moral crusade, why can not just believe him?
Corruption in this country is no longer opportunistic, it has become pervasive, fed mainly by the annual CDF of congressmen and senators. Add the huge numbers reported in the executive departments and we have the whole country – from Appari to Jolo – in a constant state of corruption. Oh my God, how did we get into this mess?
Gabby,
Did I say I don’t believe him?
I am saying that while my sources tell me he has not really made up his mind yet, there is a disconnect between what Atty. Marquez is doing and what his boss has publicly said.
Your are parsing my statements inaccurately.
Read back to my closing sentence if you care to, Amo.
ok. let me clarify my understanding.
do you believe him? do you not believe him? should we believe him? is there anything that he did/said that helps us to answer any of these questions?
also, you mentioned Atty marquez. maybe i am too naive, but IF he is acting as the press officer for the moral force, why is this wrong?
Atty. Midas Marquez, is the SC Clerk of Court. This is a clear case of electioneering. Using your office to promote a political candidate and the proposed candidate is using his office to promote his ambition. Well, laws in the country are applicable only to small fish. The big fish are exempt to it. Typically Filipinos.
Ding,
All those body contortions had already been telegraphed. Senator Lacson was the first one who read through these contortions by offering to give way to CJ Puno, who incidentally is the Chief Magistrate, in an office that is sitting on the “Kuratong Baleleng” case.
Am sure neither of us are dense Gabby.
Let me admit to you, here and now, for the record: I BELIEVE IN CJ PUNO.
But the potentially damaging machinations of certain entities who may actually MEAN WELL could compromise him and his office.
Re Atty. Marquez,
I am a taxpayers, he is a public sector employee. By acting as the Moral Force’s de facto media officer is the conflict of interest not apparent?
thanks for not calling me dense. i’m trying my level best to understand this. salamat.
ok. JCC said, mali ang ginagawa nya coz its electioneering. he said “Using your office to promote a political candidate and the proposed candidate is using his office to promote his ambition.”
but sabi mo, puno is not a candidate. not even leaning toward it? so, how can he be electioneering?
conflict of interest — Because someone is a public sector employee, he can concurrently be a media officer (or whatever) in some private initiative? so, di rin sya puwedeng humawak ng posisyon in any private initiative?
thats extreme, don’t u think?
conflict of interest in a fiduciary situation comes when you claim to be an impartial adviser when you are not.
why is that the case here? can’t a public sector employee campaign for morals? is there some law prohibiting this?
i honestly don’t see it yet. thanks.
unless there is proof that this moral force thingie is really a political party in disguise, yun puwede pa. is there proof? sabi mo wala di ba?
GabbyD,
Not my style to call some people at FV less dense. I said some people here are clowns, but you were not one of them. I said “body contortions”. Kungbaga literary invocation of “reading between the lines”
CJ Puno had his itinerary full of speaking engagement. He lodged a comment even to the apparent slip-up prayer of Secretary Dureza. He loves the limelight of politics and his legal opinions in Court are mostly anti-GMA. And this one tops them all: “calling the MOA_AD justiciable issue of which the court freely to rule on because it involves the “constitutionality” of the MOA-AD, even after the President had put the issue at the back-burner”. He does not understand the meaning of “mootness” and would love to rule on the issue just to slap GMA on her face because everyone else was slapping her on the face. He would love to ride on the displeasure of the public against GMA and project himself as a beacon of “constitutional government”.
Primer,
From where I sit, CJ Puno is not fit to lead a “moral force” because he has none. Here is my letter to him which you can savor.
http://jcc34.wordpress.com/2008/09/08/an-open-letter-to-chief-justice-reynato-s-puno/
And please don’t tell me that I am bias against CJ Puno because if you do that you will also throw the same refrain against “Crime Watch Society”. Noted members of this Society lead Mr. Jimenez are Mr. Visconde, the father of the celebrated massacre of the Visconde’s in Paranaque, Ms. Agarao, the widow of a lawyer in Laguna who was slain for political vendetta and other people who were victims of lawlessness. They banded themselves together to fight against lawlessness in the country and to express their displeasure over criminals and the ineffectiveness of the court which spawned the dreaded “extrajudicial killings”
You cannot accused this group of being biased against the criminals or the corruption in the court because they have been victims of criminals and had suffered under the court’s inability to address their issues. As they were victims, they were the most competent persons to ventilate these issues.
GabbyD,
Not my style to call some people at FV less dense. I said some people here are clowns, but you were not one of these clowns. I said “body contortions”. Kungbaga literary invocation of “reading between the lines”
CJ Puno had his itinerary full of speaking engagement. He lodged a comment even to the apparent slip-up prayer of Secretary Dureza. He loves the limelight of politics and his legal opinions in Court are mostly anti-GMA. And this one tops them all: “calling the MOA_AD justiciable issue of which the court can freely rule on because it involves the “constitutionality” of the MOA-AD, even after the President had put the issue at the back-burner”. He does not understand the meaning of “mootness” and would love to rule on the issue just to slap GMA on her face because everyone else was slapping her on the face. He would love to ride on the displeasure of the public against GMA and project himself as a beacon of “constitutional government”.
Primer,
From where I sit, CJ Puno is not fit to lead a “moral force” because he has none. You can read my blog entry, An OPen Letter to CJ Puno and deduce therefrom if morality is one of his virtues.
And please don’t tell me that I am bias against CJ Puno because if you do that you will also throw the same refrain against “Crime Watch Society”. Noted members of this Society lead by Mr. Jimenez are Mr. Visconde, the father of the celebrated massacre of the Visconde family in Paranaque, Ms. Agarao, the widow of a lawyer in Laguna who was slain for political vendetta and other people who were victims of lawlessness. They banded themselves together to fight against lawlessness in the country and to express their displeasure over criminals and the ineffectiveness of the court which spawned the dreaded “extrajudicial killings”.
You cannot accused this group of being biased against the criminals or the corruption in the court because they have been victims of criminals and had suffered under the court’s inability to address their issues. As they were the victims, they are the most competent persons who can relate about these issues.
I happened to believe that I was also a victim of the most grievous injustice. Before you come up with a contrary opinion please read also my motions for reconsideration and do not limit yourself with the “conclusion of the SC” because such conclusion is not supported by the facts and law of the case”.
Erratum:
“taxpayer”
We are in agreement, jcc.
Gabby,
Siguro and tawag diyan ‘dinedeadma’ nila given that the actual candidacy filing deadline is November 30.
So ngayon, hakahaka lahat lalabas kahit na halatang obvious.
Here is one more instance where objective blogging fuels a “good” discourse on a particular subject.
An exchange of ideas transpired between a PDI columnist and a member of Congress about the same topic we are discussing here at FV — all made possible by the advent of online communication. Perhaps objective blogging may render the proposed controversial bill “Right to Reply” unnecessary.
Congressman Ruffy Biazon’s media statement (which he also later clarified in an entry in his blog titled, “Chief Justice Puno and the Moral Force Movement: A Delicate Balancing Act”) is responded by Conrado de Quiros in his column with an article titled “Transformative”.
In return, reacting to “Transformative”, the congressman wrote an entry in his blog titled “Open Letter to Mr. Conrado De Quiros.”
Here are excerpts from their discourse: (best if readers read the full texts of the articles mentioned.)
————–
Transformative
————–
By Conrado De Queros
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20090414-199180/Transformative
Chief Justice Reynato Puno should resign his post first before leading the Moral Force Movement. So says Muntinlupa Rep. Rufino Biazon.
“While it is true that Philippine society needs moral recovery, there is also no denying that much of it is political reform and one must join the political fray to be an agent of change in that field,” Biazon said. “Being the Chief Justice, he must make a conscious effort not to be dragged into politics.”
Let’s see if this makes sense: Philippine society needs moral recovery. Moral recovery is largely a political exercise. Only politicians may engage in a political exercise. Politicians (as we know them) are what Philippine society needs to morally recover from. Only the people this society needs to morally recover from may mount a moral recovery program.
How’s that for Catch-22, Philippine style?
Why on earth does Puno have to resign to crusade for moral recovery? At the very least, there is a difference between politics and partisan politics. Partisan politics we may leave to politicians, politics we may not. Politics is too important to leave to politicians in the same way that economics is too important to leave to the economists and law is too important to leave to the lawyers. (Writing is the exception: It is far too important to leave to amateurs. But that’s another story.) It is not only our privilege to engage in politics, it is our duty to do so—as citizens of the republic. [...]
————————————
Open Letter to Mr. Conrado De Quiros
————————————
by Ruffy Biazon
(blog:ruffybiazon.com)
[...] Third, the logic which you applied on my statement is overstretching the meaning of what I had said. You wrote:
“Let’s see if this makes sense: Philippine society needs moral recovery. Moral recovery is largely a political exercise. Only politicians may engage in a political exercise. Politicians (as we know them) are what Philippine society needs to morally recover from. Only the people this society needs to morally recover from may mount a moral recovery program.”
The basic idea behind my statement is that the Moral Force movement is led by Chief Justic Puno, who at the same time is the head of the Judiciary; the reform sought by the Moral Force movement is in the field of politics, which will necessitate their engagement in politics; but politics and the judiciary do not mix.
Therefore the point is not that moral recovery in politics is reserved only for politicians. The point is that the Chief Justice (the position, not the person) should not be engaged in politics. It is the position he occupies that makes the circumstances of the Honorable Reynato Puno unique from all of the other Filipinos in this country who are calling for moral recovery.
I perfectly agree with your point that as an individual, each one of us has the right to call for moral recovery and that “it is not only our privilege to engage in politics, it is our duty to do so as citizens of the Republic”. But I do believe that the Chief Justice, whoever may be occupying that position, must not engage in politics. [...]
i don’t get cong. ruffy’s idea… congresman ko pa man din sya! :)
“but politics and the judiciary do not mix.” … “The point is that the Chief Justice (the position, not the person) should not be engaged in politics.”
my question is why? di ko gets.
1)i understand seperation of powers between executive, legislative and judiciary. is this what he is talking about?
is moral force about creating laws?
is moral force about executing laws?
i don’t think so.
what is this about? labo…
GabbyD,
Politicians to effectively rule must have the popular sentiments of the public behind them.
Jrists should be impervious of these political and public sentiments and must look at the facts and the law with cold neutrality of a judge and must be ready to court even public censure and ire if that will render justice to an ordinary man.
The blog, to my mind, ought not be a ‘sounding board’ for what reads as jcc’s rather chronic hatred of CJ himself and the office of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court second.
At this point, there is not enough legal basis that indeed there exists a conflict of interest since CJ does not officially belong to a political party nor has he already filed his candidacy to run for president.
Even the case of BF is argumentative since no legal contest has yet been filed against the MMDA chair precisely because such ‘accusation’ just probably doesn’t hold water.
Primer,
I thought you are not gullible as you want to portray.
Senator Lacson has already read CJ Puno’s body contortions and the guy already sound off his willingness to give way to CJ Puno, who happened to be sitting on the “Kuratong Baleleng” case.
I don’t have any chronic hatred against CJ PUno. What I have is contempt for him and it is for a reason. Please read my blog entry, An Open Letter to CJ PUNO.
Each to his POV.
But would it be wrong to hold our leaders to higher standards as they hold public trusts?
Not granting that… is does delicadeza no longer count for anything? How about Caesar’s wife.
Looking at it from another prism, perception is in the ultimate, a likely determinant of reality.
my previous comments on this threads are awaiting moderation. is this one way of saying, they are awaiting censhorship?