MANILA TIMES: WHO WANTS PAO CHIEF ACOSTA OUT?
MANILA, JANUARY 10, 2011 (MANILA TIMES) RICARDO SALUDO - Is the Palace is behind the move to remove Chief Public Attorney Persida Rueda-Acosta, the high-profile, media-savvy, and multi-awarded chief of the Public Attorneys Office (PAO) tasked with giving legal assistance to the poor and the needy?
Last week Justice Secretary Leila de Lima received a January 3 draft opinion from DOJ lawyers stating that Acosta and all her deputies at PAO lacked Career Executive Service (CES) eligibility for their positions and "may be removed from office by the appointing authority without violating their constitutional and statutory rights to security of tenure."
The opinion was requested by the Career Executive Service Board (CESB), a body under the Office of the President administering the CES system of tenured government executives. Even before Sec. de Lima had signed the draft opinion, CESB Executive Director Anthonette Allones affirmed it, saying it was based on law. This writer was a CESB member when he headed the Civil Service Commission (CSC) in 2008-09.
The apparent effort to unseat Acosta and her team comes at a time when she has taken up the cudgels for widower Lauro Vizconde. He recently saw the conviction of his wife and his daughters' alleged killers overturned by the Supreme Court in a slim vote of just seven in favor, four against, and four abstained or on leave. On Vizconde's behalf, the PAO has filed a motion for reconsideration on the ruling.
Among the seven defendants acquitted after 15 years in jail was Hubert Webb, son of former senator, actor and basketball star Freddie Webb and brother of broadcaster Pinky Webb. His co-accused are also scions of prominent personalities: Antonio "Tony Boy" Lejano, actress Pinky de Leon's son; Michael Gatchalian and Miguel Rodriguez, sons of prominent lawyers; Peter Estrada, a wealthy businessman's son; Pyke Fernandez, son of a retired commodore; and police officer Gerardo Biong.
The Webb defense attorney is now arguing that it is the Solicitor General, not the PAO chief, who has authority to intervene in the Vizconde case. But both the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) and the DOJ, not to mention the Palace, do not seem keen to file a motion for reconsideration on the acquittal ruling. Indeed, right after the December 14 acquittal, Malacañang and the DOJ called for a reinvestigation of the Vizconde massacre supposedly to find the "real killers."
This despite the High Court's express statement that its ruling did not mean that those acquitted were innocent of the crime. Rather, the decision by just seven of the 15 magistrates merely found that "guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt," said High Court spokesman Court Administrator Midas Marquez.
Despite the widespread view that the Vizconde convictions should not have been overturned, the Palace did not push for a review of the 7-4-4 ruling, passing up the chance of overturning it with just two justices switching sides. Yet in its own High Court case over Executive Order No. 1 creating the Philippine Truth Commission, Malacañang wasted no time in filing an MR against a stronger ruling by 10 of the 15 magistrates.
Moreover, Malacañang was quick—and right—to get the Solicitor General to deviate from legal convention and intervene in another court proceeding where, like the Vizconde case, the public sees a possible miscarriage of justice: the Ombudsman's plea bargain with accused plunderer Carlos Garcia, the former Armed Forces comptroller who allegedly amassed over P300 million in ill-gotten assets.
Notably, two justices for whom President Benigno Aquino 3rd had expressed support in the past, voted to acquit Webb and his co-accused: Conchita Carpio-Morales, whom PNoy asked to administer his of oath of office, and Maria Lourdes Sereno, his only appointee on the bench. On other hand, Chief Justice Renato Corona and Justice Arturo Brion, both former Arroyo Cabinet members, voted to affirm the convictions.
Another justice seen to be in Malacañang's good graces, Antonio Carpio, did not take part in the deliberations, being a former defense lawyer for the alleged killers. He was also said to be the magistrate accused by Vizconde of lobbying his colleagues to acquit Webb; the Supreme Court denied the widower's charge.
Acosta herself was a private prosecutor in the Vizconde massacre case in the Parañaque court that handed down the guilty verdict after a four-year trial in 1995. Webb's lawyers cited that past role in their petition to dismiss the MR filed on Vizconde's behalf. They also quoted PAO rules issued by Acosta herself barring its lawyers from handling prosecution work. Acosta countered that the prohibition was for trial proceedings, not the filing of MRs.
The PAO chief has written Sec. de Lima rebutting the draft DOJ opinion, asserting that the PAO Law enacted in 2007 removed the PAO leadership from CES coverage. CSC Senior Commissioner Cesar Buenaflor, a lawyer, agrees. In a statement to media, he said under Sec. 16 of RA 9406, "the qualifications of the chief public attorney are like those of the chief state prosecutor, who only needs the practice of law to qualify for the position." As the independent constitutional body overseeing the 1.3-million-strong bureaucracy, the Civil Service Commission exercises authority over the qualifications for appointive government positions.
As Commissioner Buenaflor noted, the PAO Law states: "The Chief Public Attorney shall have the same qualifications for appointment, rank, salaries, allowances, and retirement privileges as those of the Chief State Prosecutor of the National Prosecution Service. The Deputy Chief Public Attorneys shall have the same qualifications for appointment, rank, salaries, allowances and retirement privileges as those of the Assistant Chief State Prosecutor of the National Prosecution Service."
The CESB and the DOJ draft opinion cites general laws on the civil service which they contend have included the top PAO posts in the Career Executive Service. But based on normal legal principles, the PAO Law, being both a specific and a more recent statute, should take precedence over past legislation. Indeed, like most acts of Congress, RA 9406 contains a section repealing or amending previous laws and issuances contrary to its provisions.
Moreover, RA 9406 stipulates: "The Chief Public Attorney, Deputy Chief Public Attorneys and Regional Public Attorneys shall not be removed or suspended, except for cause provided by law." This is to ensure that the PAO cannot be pressured in the handling of cases even by powerful politicians in high office. Indeed, like the Solicitor General, the Chief Public Attorney is not subordinate to the DOJ Secretary, as the 2007 provides: "The PAO shall be an independent and autonomous office, but attached to the Department of Justice . . . for purposes of policy and program coordination."
The Acosta controversy would be nothing more than a legal dispute over bureaucratic qualification standards were it not for the Vizconde massacre case and the apparent Palace position not to take further legal action on the acquittal ruling, in contrast to its far more aggressive stance toward other court cases, even challenging legal convention and judicial courtesy to intervene in the trials of the Magdalo rebel soldiers and the "Morong 43" suspected NPA insurgents, and Gen. Garcia's plea bargain.
In this writer's stint of over a year in the CSC and the CESB, one does not recall any instance of the PAO officials' eligibility being questioned. Nor was there any such move during the Arroyo Administration. Now, the Palace-controlled CESB is raising the issue just when the PAO is intervening in a controversial court case in a manner contrary to Malacañang's apparent stance.
If President Aquino does not want the PAO to file the Vizconde MR, then he could oust Acosta and her team or threaten them with removal, courtesy of a DOJ-CESB opinion allowing him to do so. The PAO officials would almost surely go to the CSC or the courts to contest their firing for lack of CES eligibility. If they fail, their PNoy-appointed replacements could be ordered to withdraw the Vizconde MR, just as the DOJ was told to recall the charges and evidence filed against the Morong 43.
In conclusion, we paraphrase this column's ending on January 5: As the latest executive-judicial tussle grinds on, Filipinos can only hope that the eventual resolution will preserve and advance the impartial rule of law, unswayed by partisan agenda, as well as the independence of court proceedings in our constitutional democracy.
----------------------------------------------------------
Chief News Editor: Sol Jose Vanzi
© Copyright, 2011 by PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE
All rights reserved
----------------------------------------------------------
PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE [PHNO] WEBSITE
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/phnotweet
This is the PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE (PHNO) Mailing List.
To stop receiving our news items, please send a blank e-mail addressed to: phno-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Please visit our homepage at: http://www.newsflash.org/
(c) Copyright 2009. All rights reserved.
-------------------------------------------------------------
