Filtered By: Topstories
News

Supreme Court allows Arroyo to appoint next chief justice


(Updated 8:36 p.m.) President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo can appoint the next chief justice, the Supreme Court said in a decision Wednesday, amid legal questions on whether the president can pick Justice Reynato Puno's successor within a period of two months before her term ends. In a special meeting, nine justices—Lucas Bersamin, Jose Perez, Roberto Abad, Martin Villarama, Teresita Leonardo de Castro, Arturo Brion, Jose Mendoza, Mariano del Castillo, and Diosdado Peralta—voted in favor of Mrs. Arroyo's appointment of the next chief justice. Only Associate Justice Conchita Carpio Morales gave a vote of dissent, while magistrates Eduardo Nachura and Presbitero Velasco Jr. said the case was premature. Puno, Antonio Carpio, and Renato Corona inhibited themselves from voting. Carpio—the most senior magistrate—and Corona are the strongest contenders for the top judicial post.
Citizens' groups and legal experts groups have expressed concern that Mrs. Arroyo would be able to tighten her hold on the high court if she is allowed to appoint the next chief justice before she bows out as President on June 30. All the current members of the high court, except Puno, were appointed by Mrs. Arroyo. Section 15 Article VII of the 1987 Constitution prohibits the incumbent president from making appointments two months before an election and until his or term expires. Applied this year, the election ban started on March 10 and will last until the end of President Arroyo’s term on June 30. Puno will retire on May 17, or seven days after the May 10 polls. The appointment of his successor has triggered legal and political debates, as it is the first time that the retirement of the chief justice falls on the period covered by Section 15, Article VII. "According to the majority, that constitutional ban on appointments only covers appointments in the executive department," SC spokesman Midas Marquez said in an interview over ANC. Instead, the justices invoked Article VIII of the Constitution, which applies to the judiciary and does not mention any ban on appointments during the election period, Marquez said. Section 4 of Article VIII requires the President to appoint a chief justice within 90 days from the retirement of the chief justice. The court’s decision on Wednesday was a response to separate petitions asking the high tribunal to prevent Mrs. Arroyo from appointing Puno’s replacement. The petitions were from the Philippine Bar Association, chapters of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the National Union of Philippine Lawyers and party-list group Akbayan. Candidates for the post are Associate Justices Antonio Carpio, Conchita Carpio-Morales, Teresita Leonardo-De Castro, Arturo Brion and Sandiganbayan Justice Edilberto Sandoval. JBC shortlist The Judicial Bar Council (JBC), a constitutional body that screens and nominates appointees to vacant judicial posts, has yet to submit a list to the President. Mrs. Arroyo can only name Puno’s replacement after the council submits a list of nominees. In an interview with ANC, deputy presidential spokesman Gary Olivar said the Palace is "pleased that the Supreme Court decided to support the position that the President has the right to appoint the next chief justice." He said Mrs. Arroyo would await the high court's final decision on the matter and the shortlist from the JBC. Justice Secretary Alberto Agra said the ruling is not yet final and the aggrieved parties could still file motions for reconsideration. However, until the decision is reversed, he said the JBC would continue screening the candidates that they would include in the shortlist. "As far as the JBC is concerned this is going to be our agenda next time we meet. At present we are still screening the nominees and unless that ruling is reversed there's no more legal obstacle for us to continue with the process, and at the some point submit the names to the President," he said in a separate interview with ANC. The JBC is composed of eight members chaired by Puno, who sits as ex-officio member. The other members are Agra, Sen. Francis Escudero, Quezon City Rep. Matias Defensor, retired SC justice Regino Hermosisima, Dean Amado Dimayuga Jr., Atty. J. Conrado Castro, and retired Court of Appeals justice Aurora Santiago-Lagman. Akbayan appeal One of the petitioners, the Akbayan partylist group, vowed to exhaust all legal means to pressure the SC to reconsider its decision. “We will certainly muster all the remaining legal actions to block this impending encroachment by the executive upon the powers and the independence of the judiciary. We will not give Mrs. Arroyo her day," Akbayan partylist Rep. Walden Bello said in a statement. He also warned the high court that a legal battle could spark a mass uprising reminiscent of the popular revolts that toppled former presidents Ferdinand Marcos and Joseph Estrada. “When rule of law becomes synonymous with the rule of Gloria, when the desecration of laws and the constitution are permitted to insulate Mrs. Arroyo from prosecution and incarceration for historical and current transgressions, the possibility of a political upheaval becomes real. In lieu of legal battles, the issue can turn into street battles ala-Edsa," Bello said. Another partylist congressman, Bayan Muna Rep. Teddy Casiño, said the decision sets a “bad precedent" for similar cases in the future. “We are disappointed with the decision because they basically reversed an earlier decision by the court disallowing [former] President [Fidel] Ramos at that time to appoint members of the court within that prohibition period," Casiño told ANC. Casiño was referring to the 1998 Supreme Court decision “In Re Appointments of Valenzuela and Vallarta," that invalidated the appointments of Hon. Mateo A. Valenzuela and Hon. Placido B. Vallarta as regional trial court judges by Mr. Ramos. "The appointments of Messrs. Valenzuela and Vallarta on March 30, 1998 were unquestionably made during the period of the ban. Consequently, they come within the operation of the first prohibition relating to appointments which are considered to be for the purpose of buying votes or influencing the election. While the filling of vacancies in the judiciary is undoubtedly in the public interest, there is no showing in this case of any compelling reason to justify the making of the appointments during the period of the ban. On the other hand, as already discussed, there is a strong public policy for the prohibition against appointments made within the period of the ban," the decision read. “Difficult to imagine" Dean Marvic Leonen of the UP College of Law said it is "difficult to imagine" why the magistrates would allow Mrs. Arroyo to pick the next chief justice when her successor can appoint Puno's replacement without violating the 90-day deadline. Leonen said he has yet to receive a copy of the decision but he was "curious" at how the SC interpreted the provision on the ban since it was intended to prohibit any sitting president from affecting the results of the elections. "Considering that this current president has already appointed 14 [justices to the court]. To me it’s obvious that they would want to appoint all the 15 members of the judiciary," he said in ANC News Channel. The ruling might compel the JBC to submit its shortlist to Mrs. Arroyo, he added. No hanky-panky in JBC Escudero said the JBC would await the court's final decision, even as he assured that the body go through the normal process before it forwards any shortlist to Mrs. Arroyo. He, however, said that considering the numbers of votes that allowed the President to make the appointment, "it might be difficult" for the petitioners to overturn the decision "unless something drastic happens." Traditionally, the JBC submits it shortlist to the president a week before the magistrate's retirement, Escuero said. Meanwhile, Escudero said they would have to interview Carpio and Morales whether they would still like to be included as candidates for the chief justice post. The two magistrates earlier said that they only like to be considered for the top judicial position on the condition that their appointment would be made by the next president. — Sophia Dedace/LBG/JCS/ABS, GMANews.TV
LOADING CONTENT