HIGH-ranking Roman Catholic clergy are allegedly lobbying with Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) members to support the request of Lakas-Kampi-CMD Rep. Matias Defensor of Quezon City “to commence the procedure in nominating the applicants and immediately submit to the President the list of at least three nominees for the position of Chief Justice,” it was learned.
Defensor’s request has been opposed by several legal personalities, among them former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban, retired Supreme Court (SC) Justice Vicente Mendoza and Commission on Elections (Comelec) Chairman Jose Melo, also a former SC member.
They pointed out that the President cannot appoint a Chief Justice before incumbent Chief Justice Reynato Puno retires on May 17 this year, adding that such an appointment two months before the May 10 elections and before the end of her term on June 30 is prohibited by the Constitution.
The lobbying by ranking Roman Catholic clergy is of common knowledge in judicial circles.
Several justices have been appointed at the behest of influential clergymen.
Among the influential bishops, bench and bar sources said, are the one who resides at a posh subdivision in eastern Metro Manila, a retired archbishop from Cagayan Valley and a bishop from Nueva Vizcaya.
An Integrated Bar of the Philippines national official, who requested anonimity, said that a former elections commissioner who was not confirmed by the Commission on Appointments was appointed to the poll body at the behest of the archbishop and bishop from Cagayan Valley.
Concerned members of the Judiciary are saying that the judicial process of nomination and appointment is outside the turf of Roman Catholic Church officials and other religious leaders.
A retired SC justice said that the lobbying by Roman Catholic bishops is done by telephone calls. A high- ranking Catholic official, the same source disclosed, even attempted to invite for dinner in his Metro Manila mansion a JBC member to persuade him to push for the nomination of a Court of Tax Appeals member for the Supreme Court. The JBC member declined the invitation.
JBC ‘inclined’ to agree with Defensor
THE JBC will continue its deliberations on Monday on Defensor’s proposal and will likely grant Defensor’s proposal to immediately start the screening and selection of the next Chief Justice.
A JBC insider said that it has been the JBC’s practice to open the nomination, conduct interviews and screen candidates prior to the actual vacancy.
“The mandate of the JBC is to screen and nominate judges and justices. The JBC is not in a position to determine whether or not the appointing authority has the power to appoint or not, or is authorized to appoint or not,” the official said.
The official said it would be up to President Arroyo whether to appoint or not the next Chief Justice even while the ban on appointments is still in effect.
The JBC insider noted the issue on whether or not the ban on appointments covered the Judiciary should also be addressed by the Supreme Court and not by the JBC.
“Who is JBC to determine that? It is only the Court which can determine whether or not the President has the authority to appoint or not in this particular period,” the official added.
The insider noted that the JBC would be prejudging the legal issue if it heeds the call of some groups for it to screen candidates and submit its shortlist of nominees for Chief Justice while the ban on appointments is still in effect.
The official, however, clarified that the President is not allowed to appoint a member of the SC prior to the vacancy.
Malacañang expects the JBC to act in the national interest when it tackles the appointment of a new Chief Justice on Monday, in preparation for the retirement of Chief Justice Reynato Puno on May 17.
“We are expecting them to do what is right for the national interest,” Deputy Presidential Spokesman Gary Olivar said.
Olivar said that Malacañang expects the JBC “not to be swayed by politicking and intrigues, that they will fulfill their duties to the Constitution and to the service of public interest.”
“That is what we expect from their meeting tomorrow,” he said.
GMA can appoint Chief Justice—Philconsa
Meanwhile, former agrarian reform minister Conrado Estrella and Manuel Lazaro, chairman and president, respectively, of the Philippine Constitution Association (Philconsa), announced that the group’s board of governors and officers adopted the official stance that “in these critical and uncertain times when anything is possible or probable to derail, delay or prevent the normal functioning of governance, President Arroyo may validly issue an appointment of a new Chief Justice, effective upon the retirement of Chief Justice [Reynato] Puno, as an extra precaution to address any possible political, legal and constitutional crisis.”
“The prohibited period” refers only to positions in the Executive department, not the Judiciary,” Philconsa said in a statement.
Lazaro said, “it is wiser and more prudent to anticipate and address possible contingencies or situations that might emerge. He added the Philconsa considered that the possible fallouts or perilous aftermaths of allowing a vacuum in the position of Chief Justice may be greater and riskier than the consequences or repercussions of inaction.
Estrella said that the possible repercussions generated by the surrounding circumstances, such as no-election [no-el], failure of elections, the election and proclamation of the Vice President, Senate President and Speaker of the House, hiatus in the post of Chief Justice demand the need of the President to appoint the Chief Justice upon Puno’s retirement.
“Should any untoward incident or accident occur, the presence of the Chief Justice will certainly help resolve and stabilize the aftermath of what may happen.”
Estrella said, “To anticipate and address possible or probable exigencies or situations that may affect or jeopardize normal governance will contain, if not minimize, the same.”
Philconsa’s legal posture was also guided by the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Antero Pobre v. Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago in AC 7399 promulgated on August 25, 2009. The Court, through its Third Division, unanimously held: “But while JBC functions under the Court’s supervision, its individual members, save perhaps for the Chief Justice who sits as the JBC’s ex-officio chairman, have no official duty to nominate candidates for appointment to the position of Chief Justice.” In short, the JBC’s mandate only covers vetting applicants to the Supreme Court, not justices already in the Court who may be considered for Chief Justice.
This was the same view of Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, who was himself a two-term president of Philconsa.
Thus, the choice or selection of a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court need not pass through the JBC screening or require the submission of the latter’s list of nominees should the appointee be already a member of the court. The choice is the sole prerogative of the President. And while ordinarily, an appointment requires first the occurrence of a vacancy, this is an exceptional instance where an appointment is made effective upon the future occurrence of a vacancy to meet an extraordinary situation, Philconsa said.
Appointment of Chief Justice prerogative of President
AS this developed, Lakas-Kampi-CMD presidential candidate Gilbert Teodoro said the appointment of the Chief, justice of the Supreme Court is the sole prerogative of the President, and unless nullified, it should be respected.
Teodoro, however, said the appointment must be done with utmost transparency and must be acceptable to Filipinos.
“It is not because were are on the other side of the political fence, we are seeing that everything the President does is wrong. Let’s respect the President’s appointment prerogative until it is nullified,” he said.
“What is important is to protect the Judiciary’s credibility by ensuring that the process of selection is transparent and that whoever is appointed is acceptable to people,” he added.
Teodoro said he was seeing the issues of credibility and acceptability of the appointment as bigger than the legal side of the appointment.
Administration allies, including Defensor, who is a member of the JBC, have insisted that Arroyo must appoint a successor of Puno ahead of his retirement in May.
However, the opposition said such move will violate the constitutional prohibition against midnight appointments.
Teodoro also said he would put more teeth to the judicial system during his administration as a key pillar in the move to improve the peace-and- order situation in the country.
(With J. San Juan, M. Gonzalez and R. Acosta)
Source:businessmirror.com.ph/
No comments:
Post a Comment