P-NOY REFUSES
FROM THE GLOBAL
INTERNET, JANUARY 6, 2012 (BLOGGER)
By Regel Q. Javines...
Atty. Midas Marquez, Spokesman of the Supreme Court, declared
"constitutional crisis" was material and existing in this present
administration. (Paraphrased)
In general point of view, "constitutional crisis" means that the "rule
of law" has been neglected, bypassed, disrespected, unobserved, twisted,
fabricated, and both literally and figuratively abused.
In (specific) legal point of view, "constitutional crisis" means more
than actions and implications abusive, demeaning, inimical, challenging,
repressing, and threatening to the independence, freedom, impartiality,
integrity, and exclusive authority of a co-equal institution of the government
For Judiciary, it is an "intermittent attack to the Constitution, to
the legal system, and to the autonomy of the institution; for Executive,
it is neither a crisis on the rule of law; nor a crisis on whatever respects of
the law but just adherence to the "check and balance" clause prescribed by law.
Who's hitting the bull's eye with a bang?
Whoever in the legal profession, academe, business, and even in the
housekeeping can perceive, feel, and understand that our country is suffering
not only a political disease but also a constitutional crisis.
Aquino Administration's Claims?
Expressly, the alleged Aquino administration's attack, intermittent attack to
the judiciary can be perceived rooted from what Aquino claimed, "midnight
appointment" of the chief justice of the Supreme Court. This claim became
pregnant and then gave birth to another claim, various claims that implicate
loss of confidence, trust, and integrity of the Supreme Court to the public.
The public, generally, are either knowingly or unknowingly participated in to
either support what Aquino claimed for or condemn those claims. On this respect,
we must give to the public the "benefit of the doubt."
To recall, the Judiciary has been slashed of budget; the latter has expressed
disappointment and a commencement of an "attack" to the financial
autonomy by the Aquino administration.
Then came the arrest of Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. The public
and the legal communities, local and abroad, witnessed how Aquino administration
simplified the rule of law to serve their interest.
Justice Department stretched out its authority in defying or disrespecting
the Supreme Court's issued Temporary Restraining Order
(TRO) against the former Watch List Order.
What made the Supreme Court to issue TRO amidst the Aquino
administration underlying grounds to hold Former President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo, et al?
Simply, the Constitution protects individual from any possible abuse of
authority from the state.
Any individual is guaranteed of his/her right to travel except in the
cases that the subject is an affront to the national security, health, etc.
Any individual is protected under the Constitution through
"presumption of innocence and respect for human rights" until the subject is
proven guilty of the charges.
Any individual, under the Rules of Court, is entitled to be protected
from incurring future irreparable damage and shall be guaranteed an equal
protection of laws, due process, presumption of innocence, and also shall be
guaranteed of his/her Constitutional right to travel except in the cases when
the subject has been charged filed in any competent court of jurisdiction.
Since the Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's case that time was
categorically and substantially qualified for the remedies every individual is
entitled of under the Constitution and in the Rules of Court, the Supreme Court,
with its decision is concurred after deliberation of the justices, can not be
construed guilty of being biased.
Aquino administration, again, is short of substantive legal reasons.
The rest are now manifestations…
It started out when Mr. Aquino lambasted Chief Justice Renato
Corona during the 1st Criminal Justice System, the public and the three co-equal
institutions of the government (Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary) can
interpret and understand Aquino's actuation as an "attack" to the
Judiciary. Whatever Aquino administration's explanation to the incident, still
it was either an "attack" or simply an "attack"; no other
diplomatic term can describe it at its very least impact to the Filipinos and to
the international communities.
Who has the accuracy to conclude that the Judiciary can no longer
decide cases impartial?
Then, whose face infested of shame, impatience, uncontrolled and
"unlikely" behaviour at that very moment?
Aquino administration may laugh at it loud; Judiciary may accept it as
arrogance, attack, and simply immaturity.
Whatever may we think of it, the public, still, think of it as "unlikely"
behaviour of the president that can be prejudged as "abuse of authority" and
"disrespectful act" that in turn, apparently, gave birth to the impeachment of
the Chief Justice.
Whatever Aquino administration's explanation to that, still it can be
presumed that Aquino has exhausted all his resources just to serve his interest
using the interest of the public as foundation of his actions.
Expressly, came the impeachment case against the Chief Justice.
Again, the public and the international communities witnessed the "railroading"
process of the case in the lower house.
Whatever Aquino administration's defences of, still, they simplified the rule
of law to serve their interest.
Although the Rules of Impeachment allows one-third votes enough to pass
and endorse the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, the process the
chairperson of the House Justice Committee utilized and defended DOES NOT
SATISFY OR SUBSTANTIATE THE ACCESSORIES OF THE PROCESS. I will stand by
that!
Then, what are those accessories of the process?
Rules of Impeachment is designed, built, and founded based on the
Constitution. The bedrock of principles of the Constitution is democracy, equal
protection, due process, and protection of human rights.
For democracy to exist and due process to serve, the House
Justice Committee shall present the Articles of Impeachment to all members of
the House for deliberation or whatever means for them to study the case and
decide BEFORE PROCEEDING TO A POLITICAL PROCESS OF DECIDING THE CASE BY
GARNERING A MAJORITY VOTES.
However, the lower house (infested of Aquino allies), has VIRTUALLY passed
the impeachment case, simplifying (euphemism for "railroading") the rule
of law.
Again, Aquino administration is short of substantive legal fortitude.
Considering the enumerated grounds for impeachment in the
Articles of Impeachment, the following are some of eight (8) articles discussing
the three (3) grounds for impeachment found by the House Justice Committee
strong and impeachable: (Please note that other remaining grounds not
included are redundant to other grounds. I just picked out one of the analogous
to the other in terms of legal basis and the other one different from the other
since the majority of the grounds of impeachment lies on "purely" court's
decisions.)
1.Chief Justice failed to publicly disclose his Statement of Assets,
Liabilities, and Net Worth
2.Chief Justice failed to account for the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF)
and Special Allowance for the Judiciary (SAJ) collections
3.Chief Justice recalled decision on the case of FASAP vs. PAL, Inc., et al
4.Chief Justice issued decision in favour of the Former President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo through issuance of Temporary Restraining Order
5.Chief Justice decided cases and issues in favour of the Former President
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
The three grounds for impeachment constituted in the eight articles where
manner of committing as such are: (a) Betrayal of public trust; (b) Commission
of culpable violation of the Constitution; (c) and graft and corruption.
Apparently, majority of the above grounds of impeachment is
impeachable IF AND ONLY IF the Judiciary is not a co-equal institution
having the sole authority to interpret laws, try cases as the last court of
resort, and decide cases in the context of the "rule of law".
For who has the capacity and integrity to assess the interpretation of the
law? Is it the Congress or the Executive?
Apparently, the above grounds of impeachment can be interpreted
as discriminatory, baseless, weak, and an affront to the sole authority of the
judiciary to interpret laws.
Anybody of clear thinking of the simplicities and complexities of laws and
the Constitution can attest the grounds as technically and substantially WEAK.
Judiciary's Claims
"Midnight Appointment" issue has decided already with the confirmation
of the Judicial Bar Council (JBC) -– an independent body that nominates
candidates for appointment.
Declaration of Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth
is required Article XI of the 1987 Constitution. Fortunately, Chief Justice
Corona said in his speech this afternoon that he has complied this requirement
long before the impeachment against him looms. In addition, JDF and SAJ issue is
a minor, trivial ground for such case since Judiciary has fiscal and
institutional autonomy guaranteed by the Constitution.
Finally, Supreme Court's decision is a collegial decision.
Associate justices and the chief justice as well deliberate points of laws
involving, relevant and related to the case they are deciding upon. The decision
of the Supreme Court is not a decision of the chief justice ALONE.
In addition, recalling decision signifies the dynamicity of the independence
of the Court. The Court, also, has the authority to repeal, recall, and modify
decision based upon the present conditions and requirements of the law.
Also, recalling decisions of the Court is affirmed and concurred by the
majority of the justices after deliberations on the finest strands of the law
are substantiated.
Then, what's the point of questioning the Court?
Who, again, has the capacity and authority to question the decision of
the highest court of the land commissioned by the Constitution to have that sole
authority as such?
Again, is it the Congress or the Executive?
We hope that Mr. Aquino will understand, of course, not now, but by and by…
Conclusion
Now, who says that "Constitutional crisis" is farce, invented, and
only a dream?
Who says that Philippines isn't presently suffering of that institutional
ailment? Then, who says it is?
Manifestations of "attacks" from Aquino administration from
"railroading" to "railroading" of the rule of law, whatever the administration
may call and defense it, STILL, an "attack" to the independence of the
co-equal branch of the government.
Understanding and interpreting the above scenario is OUTRIGHT an
"attack" to the judicial system impacting to a "Constitutional crisis"
Aquino administration vehemently DENIES and REFUSES it so!
Then, what were Filipinos and the international communities knowingly
and unknowingly witnessing at?
Chief Justice Corona simply puts it this way in his speech this afternoon:
Mr. Aquino is propelling his own version of "creeping martial law"
inspired by greed of power and desperation to fulfil his "baluktot" na "daang
matuwid." (Paraphrased)
We can still remember how the rebirth of the Philippine democracy and the
rule of law restored after the fall of a dictator. The late Corazon Aquino is an
emblem of unity and moving on, not of DIVISION and POLITICAL VENGEANCE…
Had the late Corazon Aquino still alive today, witnessing her son at that
such "commendable" actuations and decisions, she might have ended "crying
under the bed" or "praying" for her son's enlightenment…then walk
away…
THE AUTHOR
Regel Q. Javines http://rqjavines.wordpress.com/
REGEL Q. JAVINES graduated Valedictorian from elementary to high school, 1996
and 2000, respectively. In 2003, he took his bachelor's degree in Office
Administration in Polytechnic University of the Philippines Taguig campus (PUP)
and finished in 2007.
In his college days, he became the Editor-in-chief of the official student
publication, the Chronicler — the progressive student publication that
constantly fights for advancing student press freedom and autonomy, students'
democratic rights, and vigilantly serves as the mouthpiece of the struggles in
all four corners of the university and in the society.
FROM HIS FACEBOOK INFO:
WORK AND EDUCATION
College: Polytechnic University of the Philippines
Class of 2007 · Bachelor in Office Administration .
High School: Cahagnaan National High School; Class of 2000 .
Bato School of Fisheries: Class of 1996 .
PHILOSOPHY
Religious Views: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Mormons.
Political Views: Liberal Socialist
Die to live just and equitable society...when a time there is no hope,
offer it; when no one believes it, keep it....
Favorite Quotations:"Res ipsa loquitur"
Chief News Editor: Sol Jose Vanzi
© Copyright, 2012 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.
-------------------------------------------------------------Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phno/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phno/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
phno-digest@yahoogroups.com
phno-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
phno-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
