On SC's decision on who may and may not appear in the impeachment court

We are wary of the Supreme Court’s arbitrary selection of witnesses it allows to appear in the impeachment court.

We now have an issue where the Supreme Court, whose Chief Justice is on trial in the impeachment court, can decide who can or cannot appear in the proceedings. Araceli Bayuga, an employee of the SC, was allowed to testify in defense of the Chief Justice, yet the driver, process server and security guard subpoenaed have not been allowed to appear.

This impeachment court must assert its authority in uncovering the truth, and it should not allow even the SC to stop it from performing its function, and it should not be prevented from fulfilling its constitutional duty. In the United States, the impeachment court can subpoena even the sitting President. Sadly, in our case, we are unable to subpoena a driver, a security guard because the Supreme Courts says we cannot do so.

SC should not interfere in the impeachment trial

The Supreme Court should not interfere in the impeachment trial because the Constitution gives the Senate the sole power to try and decide impeachment cases. It will also leave a bad taste in the mouth should they interfere because it may be perceived as an attempt of the Supreme Court to rescue the Chief Justice from being accountable to the public. The impeachment process as a constitutional mechanism to exact public accountability from the highest ranking officials of the land will be undermined by any interference from the SC.

We do not wish to ignore the Supreme Court, and to avoid this we urge the Supreme Court to respect the powers and prerogatives of the impeachment court by not stepping into the fray. Our position is that the rulings and decisions of the Senate as an impeachment court cannot be subject to judicial review. If the Senator-Judges err in the conduct of its proceedings, the correction of such error is not by way of judicial review, but by the sovereign will of the people--who can and ought to reject us at the polls if they believe that we committed errors in our judgment as Senator-Judges.

The SC’s image will be further tarnished if it prevents the Senate from doing its constitutional duty to try and decide the case against the Chief Justice. A TRO on the subpoena of dollar bank accounts may be perceived as a desperate attempt at shielding the Chief Justice from accountability and a move to suppress the truth. It will be damaging to the SC as an institution.

SC ruling on Luisita, victory for farmers

We welcome the Supreme Court's ruling to distribute almost 5,000 hectares of land from Hacienda Luisita to over 6,000 farmer-worker beneficiaries.

This is a victory for our farmers. Perhaps the ruling was long overdue, but this is a good start toward attaining equity and toward the realization of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.

We would like to see more such victories for those still awaiting land distribution. We must give our farmer-workers their due. They are our crucial link to our food supply, as such we must do all we can to secure them. Our next crucial challenge, then, will be to make the land viable and productive in order to improve the farmers' incomes and release them from bondage.

On the legality of the DOJ-COMELEC panel, and what this could mean regarding GMA's arrest

It is my understanding that, this afternoon, the SC will deliberate on the petition filed by Mike Arroyo questioning the legality of the creation of the DOJ-COMELEC panel. Based on the findings of this panel, the COMELEC filed the electoral sabotage case last Friday. If at some point the SC declares the panel unconstitutional then the warrant of arrest issued by the RTC court where the case against Arroyo was filed will be without force and effect. The arrest warrant will be rendered void. I fear that this will be the final outcome, and I pray I am wrong.

Standing up to the Supreme Court is a constitutional duty of the executive and legislative branches under the principle of checks and balances

This latest clash between the executive and judicial branches of government is testing the limits of our constitutional democracy and, to my mind, rightly so. Clearly, the old ways and the old approaches in our efforts to fight corruption and lawlessness have failed us. The system of justice thus far has failed to ensure respect for the rule of law. Hence, we see the prevalence of lawlessness and, most unfortunately, the Supreme Court in a string of controversial rulings has helped little in restoring faith and respect for our system of justice.

These rulings include: the flip-flopping on the case involving the League of Cities, wherein the SC flip-flopped four times in a span of two years; the flip-flop in the FASAP PALEA case; the TRO against the House of Representatives when it initiated impeachment proceedings against Ombudsman Mercy Gutierrez, who was accused of protecting the ARROYOS by sitting on cases filed against them; the voiding of the Truth Commission meant to investigate the Arroyos; and the TRO last week to allow the Arroyos to leave for abroad without any certainty as to whether they are to return, nor any definitive finding as to whether her condition was indeed life threatening (See dissenting opinions of Justice Sereno and Carpio).

In fact, in all of the above-mentioned cases, the SC has courted insubordination and disrespect for what many have described as the whimsical and arbitrary exercise of judicial authority.

It is in this context that, as a member of the legislative branch of government, I am convinced that we need to push the and test the limits of our constitutional democracy and see how far we need to go, how far we need to test its efficacy to effect sweeping change and reform. Yes, this is out of the norm. Yes, this is non-conventional because, clearly, we cannot do the same thing over and over again and expect to see real change happen. We need to do things differently. We need to take risks and venture into unfamiliar legal and constitutional terrain if necessary. We need to experiment with new approaches. We need to be bold and daring and--yes--even irreverent, if we wish to see real change happen.

Hence, we support the position taken by Secretary Leila De Lima, and we urge the Supreme Court to read the writing on the wall. Arbitrary and whimsical court orders, directed towards a co-equal, have no place in a constitutional democracy. It must be opposed vigorously. In fact, both the executive and legislative branches of government must unite in its exercise of its constitutional duty and its obligation to serve as a check on a wayward judiciary.

No, this is not anarchy. This is democracy at work. It is the principle of checks and balances at work. It is, to my mind, the sworn duty of the executive and the legislative departments to act as a check on a wayward judiciary. We will respect the Supreme Court, yes, but we will do so as a co-equal and not as a meek, submissive and inutile subordinate.

Make sure Arroyos come back to face charges

We remind the Supreme Court and the Department of Justice that it is the government's obligation to ensure that the Arroyos return to the country to face the charges already filed against them.

For the sake of the credibility and image of the Supreme Court, I hope that with their decision, the safeguards they have put in place will be sufficient to ensure that the Arroyos return because if they do not, then the Supreme Court must be prepared to take the flak from a public disgusted with abuse and corruption in government.

If they flee, it would be a slap on the face of the Blue Ribbon Committee which recommended the filing of graft charges against the former First Gentleman.

Also, the report on the PCSO investigation by the (Blue Ribbon) Committee is being finalized. The efforts of the committee would be for naught should they flee. Also it was recommended by the 13th Congress that GMA be held accountable in the mismanagement of the fertilizer fund during her term, as well as her involvement in the ZTE-NBN scandal.

The Senate itself has an interest in ensuring that the Arroyo couple does not flee, considering the time and effort we put into the investigation and, more importantly, the findings of wrongdoing that require accountability on their part. The senate has been criticized in the past as conducting investigations that lead to nowhere. If the Arroyos flee and refuse to return we would again have another set of investigations that would be for naught. The ZTE-NBN controversy, the fertilizer scam, the PNP choppers controversy all cry out for closure, all investigated by the Senate, all needing accountability on the part of the Arroyos.

It is in the interest of the Senate as an institution to view the matter of the right to travel of the Arroyos in a broader sense. We sifted through the evidence. We sat through hundreds of hours of testimonies. We secured documentary evidence as proof of wrongdoing. We were even brought to court on the issue of executive privilege precisely because we were interested in the truth. Given all these, we ought to do more than just accept the argument that the Arroyos are free to leave the country and that we cannot do anything about it. The same goes for the Supreme Court. The people deserve the truth and it may again evade us as if we allow the Arroyos to leave the country despite the fact that legal proceedings have already been instituted against them.

My statement on the SC ARMM postponement ruling

We welcome the postponement and the appointment of OIC’s. This is doing things differently and seeking new approaches to address the problems in the region. To expect real change to happen by doing the same things over and over again is insanity, it has been said. Going ahead with the ARMM elections now would simply keep ARMM where it is: Violent, corrupt, and inutile to effect change.

It was a close shave considering it was 8-7 but we are thankful that we can still draw some support from the Supreme Court for the reform efforts of the president. We do hope however that there won’t be any last minute flip-flopping by the SC on the issue. Given recent developments and the close vote one cannot help but be wary of the final outcome. Still it is a welcome development for the cause of real reform in ARMM.

Fill up unfilled judgeship positions

We urge the Supreme Court to prioritize the filling up of unfilled positions in the judiciary as court cases continue to pile in the country’s courts’ backlog.

As it stands one fourth of the positions of judges nationwide remain unfilled. This is totally unacceptable because it is one major cause of delays. Today the average case life is six years in the first level. Six years to dispose of a case is ridiculous. Wala pa ang apela dito. And we find out that 25 percent of the salas have no judges. Cases languishing in courts where there are no judges is lamentable.

In 2007, as chair of Justice Committee and Senate JBC rep and with the leadership of then Chief Justice Panganiban, we were able to reduce the vacancies to 16 percent. Instead of moving forward however, the subsequent Supreme Court leaders allowed the vacancy rate to balloon. Paatras at hindi pasulong ang ginawa ng hudikatura.

We will support the measure to have savings placed under the stewardship of the DBM unless the judiciary commits to correcting this anomalous situation and drastically reduce the number of unfilled positions. How do we expect the people to have faith in a justice system that allow for cases to drag on for six years or more? The system is obviously broken and is in need of urgent repairs. No wonder there is wanton disregard for the system. It isn’t working and there can be little or no respect for damaged goods.

My statement on the Supreme Court's ruling on the impeachment case vs Ombudsman

We welcome the Supreme Court’s ruling on the impeachment case against the Ombudsman. There was this growing perception that the Supreme Court was taking the cudgels for former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo whose administration has cases that have been gathering dust in the Ombudsman. We also welcome the decision as we believe that impeachment is a matter that falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of Congress, and that the Supreme Court should never have intervened in the first place. That the SC realized its mistake is a welcome development.

The failure of the Ombudsman to act swiftly on corruption cases have emboldened many to continue with their corrupt ways. The last thing we want is a Supreme Court that is perceived to be a stumbling block in the efforts to address pervasive corruption in government.

Thankfully, the Supreme Court also avoided the embarrassing situation of it being ignored by a co-equal branch if it insisted on interfering in a process that is exclusive to the House of Representatives as stated in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court should be above all

It cannot get any lower than this.

The quality of decisions has reached an all time low. How on earth can we legally and morally say that a son of a former president can represent a party list organization for security guards? He doesn’t represent security guard. Even a third grader can tell you that. He represents his mother and their family and their personal and political interests, and the Supreme Court expects us to accept and respect its decision saying it isn’t so and he truly represents the marginalized security guards sector?

Herein lies the highest court of the land. It may be that Hubert Webb is innocent. It may be that Executive Order #1 may not be legally in order. But when this Supreme Court decides, doubts are immediately cast. For how can you trust a Supreme Court with a spate of bad decisions, such as allowing a marginalized sector to be represented by a marginalizer?

A Supreme Court decision is supposed to stand the test of time because it sets a precedent for all cases of similar nature in the future. How can future generations find wisdom from the whims of a few magistrates?

The Supreme Court, to be above all, must rise beyond personal dictates.

Supreme Court running amuck

First they encroach on the impeachment proceedings against the ombudsman in the House, then they absolve their own against charges of plagiarism. They then threaten the UP College of Law with sanctions for expressing a contrary view to their own. Now they declare the truth commission as illegal.

This is the Supreme Court running amuck. If there are harsh criticisms thrown their way I believe they should be ready to take it given their recent string of highly questionable decisions.

Desisyon sa Truth Commission, si GMA lang ang masaya

We lament the Supreme Court’s declaration of the Aquino administration’s Truth Commission as unconstitutional.

We fear the ruling may unwittingly create the public perception that the former president cannot be investigated and cannot be held liable for her actions, and may further harm the image and reputation of the Supreme Court.

Malungkot isipin na ganito ang naging desisyon. Di man ito sinasadya ng Korte Suprema, ang mensahe ng desisyon na ito na ipinapamalas sa taumbayan ay yung mga pang-aabuso at katiwalian sa ilalim ng gobyernong Arroyo ay di dapat ma-imbestigahan. Ang epekto nito sa isipan ng publiko ay pinapawalang-sala si Ginang Arroyo sa mga eskandalo at pagiging sangkot nito sa katiwalian at pang-aabuso sa gobyerno. Makakasama ito sa imahe ng korte. Nawa’y magbago pa ang pasya ng ating mahistrado sa pamamagitan ng isang motion for reconsideration. Tiyak ang pinakamasaya sa nasabing desisyon ay walang iba kundi si GMA.

We hope that by way of a motion for reconsideration on this adverse ruling, the Supreme Court will reconsider its position and “allow the President to fulfill his campaign promises.”

With all due respect, the Supreme Court should be a partner and not a stumbling block in the Aquino administration’s anti-corruption efforts.

Maagang pamasko ito kay GMA. Pero ika nga e, di naman araw-araw ay pasko. Naniniwala ako na sa bandang huli, mananagot din si GMA sa mga kasalanan niya sa bayan.

My thoughts on SC's decision that the Truth Commission is unconstitutional: This is a sad day for our judiciary

We are deeply saddened by the decision. Considering the numerous corruption scandals that hounded the previous regime, the ruling may unwittingly create the public perception that the former president cannot be investigated and cannot be held accountable for her actions. I am afraid that this ruling may further harm the image and reputation of the Supreme Court.

President Aquino ran on the campaign promise of addressing corruption and poverty. We hope that by way of a motion for reconsideration on this adverse ruling, the Supreme court will reconsider its position and allow the President to fulfill his campaign promises. With all due respect, the
supreme court should be a partner and not a stumbling block in the Aquino administration's anti corruption efforts.

SC should leave academe alone

It would be best for the Supreme Court to consider the matter a closed case and refrain from pursuing the contempt case against UP College of Law faculty members.

The position taken by the UP faculty members on the issue finds solid support and is buttressed by the dissenting opinion of justice Sereno. This alone should prove that there is no basis to sanction the UP College of Law faculty members.

Judicial restraint will best serve the interest of the Supreme court. With all due respect, the Supreme Court should learn to choose its battles and to my mind, this isn't one of them.

JBC should refuse to be made a tool for the violation of the Constitution

In order to prevent Malacañang from making a midnight appointment for the post of Chief Justice to the Supreme Court, all the JBC has to do is refuse to submit a shortlist to Malacañang. By doing this, Malacañang will have no basis to issue an appointment, as a shortlist prepared by the JBC is a constitutional requirement for a valid appointment to the Judiciary.

The JBC should refuse to be made a tool for the violation of the constitutional ban on midnight appointments spelled out in Section 15 Article 7 of the Constitution. We urge the JBC to maintain its independence as a constitutional office. Let the next President make the appointment.