HIGH CRIMES (1 OF 2 PARTS)
MANILA, FEBRUARY 7, 2012 (BLOG
COMMENTARY) BY DEAN JORGE BOCOBO "The heart has reasons that Reason knows
nothing of." (Blaise Pascal)
High Crimes 1987 Art XI Section 2 names the impeachable offenses:
Section 2. The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the
Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman
may be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable
violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other
high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.
All other public officers and employees may be removed from office as
provided by law, but not by impeachment.
The second week of trial in the impeachment case of Chief Justice Renato
Corona ended on a sour note for the Prosecution, as several Senator Judges
(Jinggoy, Recto, Chiz) rose up to question the impeachability of offenses Corona
is being accused of, or at least what they may amount to if the process of
presenting evidence cannot be made more efficient and convincing.
Defense Counsel Justice Serafin Cuevas put a really fine point on it by
saying that there were were no criminal or administrative sanctions for
unintentional inaccuracies in ones Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net
Worth.
Posted By: Dean Jorge Bocobo Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to
Facebook On Saturday, February 04, 2012 0 Insightful Comments
Is the Supreme Court Exempt From Silly Midnight Bans?
The ban on midnight appointments in the 1987 Constitution can be
found in Art VII Sec. 15 The Executive:
Section 15. Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and
up to the end of his term, a President or Acting President shall not make
appointments, except temporary appointments to executive positions when
continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public
safety. Nothing would seem to be clearer or more definite, and yet on March 17,
2010 the Philippines Supreme Court ruled that appointments to the Supreme Court
are exempt from this ban in a Decision penned by J. Bersamin GRP191002
The Supreme Court today ruled that the prohibition under Article VII, Section
15 of the Constitution against presidential appointments immediately before the
next presidential elections and up to the end of the term of the President does
not apply to vacancies in the Supreme Court. But it required a breath taking
somersault and the dusting off of some hitherto unknown "framers' intentions"
from the darkened folios and dim recollections of the 1986 Constitutional
Commission:
In its March 17 decision, the Court said that "Although Valenzuela came to
hold that the prohibition covered even judicial appointments, it cannot be
disputed that the Valenzuela dictum did not firmly rest on the deliberations of
the Constitutional Commission. Thereby, the confirmation made to the JBC by then
Senior Associate Justice Florenz D. Regalado of this Court, a former member of
the Constitutional Commission, about the prohibition not being intended to apply
to the appointments to the Judiciary, which confirmation Valenzuela even
expressly mentioned, should prevail." Like so many others who have read this
SCoRP decision, I'm disgusted with the Corona Supreme Court for exempting itself
from the long-standing Midnight Ban on Election-Period Appointments by the
President in a brazen demonstration of SELF-SERVICE that I believe amounts to a
grave abuse of juridical and logical discretion. Well so much for stare decisis
non movere? So much for Final Arbiter?
Consider this bit of prose in the Bersamin Ponencia GRP191002:
"...that had the framers intended the prohibition to apply to Supreme
Court appointments, they could have easily expressly stated so in the
Constitution, which explains why the prohibition found in Article VII (Executive
Department) was not written in Article VIII (Judicial Department); and that the
framers also incorporated in Article VIII ample restrictions or limitations on
the President's power to appoint members of the Supreme Court to ensure its
independence from "political vicissitudes" and its "insulation from political
pressures,"[33] such as stringent qualifications for the positions, the
establishment of the JBC, the specified period within which the President shall
appoint a Supreme Court Justice." The clause I've highlighted in red in the
above paragraph contains a very deceptive and sly piece of reasoning about why
the Judicial Department might be exempt from the midnight ban on appointments.
It is based on the purely facile observation that the ban is not mentioned in
Article VIII on the Judicial Branch of government, but in Article VII on the
Executive Branch. But what could be more obvious? The 1987 Constitution places
the ban on election period appointments in the Executive Branch (1987 Article
VII Section 15) for the obvious reason that the appointing power is the Chief
Executive. Even more clearly, the ban applies to all presidential appointments
to all branches of government, except as noted in the same 1987 provision.
Posted By: Dean Jorge Bocobo Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to
Facebook On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 1 Insightful Comments
By their rules shall we bind them
Joaquin Bernas, S.J. worries about a number of things in regards to
IMPEACHMENT.
First is whether the impeachment trial is a civil or criminal proceeding.
Second is what the Quantum of Evidence and Proof are required to convict.
Though Fr. Bernas claims to be exasperated with the term, I'm quite
comfortable with impeachment being a sui generis process, whose nature,
practices and rules of procedure are evolving with the institution as the
Congress learns how to wield the special Constitutional powers of impeachment
granted exclusively and solely to the House and Senate.
The Rules of Senate and House, separately and together with the orders,
rulings, proceedings, records, testimonies relating to the Senate Impeachment
Court and the trial of the accused Chief Justice Renato Corona are now the body
of jurisprudence and official record by which we are giving life to Article XI
of the 1987 Constitution on Accountability of Public Officers.
By itself, the text of the 1987 Constitution is necessarily too thin and
laconic, to satisfy the intellectual demands of Constitutionalists and ordinary
citizens that impeachment be better defined.
But look at 1987.XI.Sec3(8):
(8) The Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment to effectively
carry out the purpose of this section. Like a magical link, this provision
empowers the House and Senate to literally create whatever RULES on impeachment
they need to "effectively carry out the purpose" of impeachment. The evolution,
adoption and utilization of these Rules are a matter of public interest and
record and should be open to public debate like any other important matter of
public policy.
Fr. Bernas also addressed the matter of what penalties go with conviction by
the Senate Impeachment Court.
He does not answer a question I still don't have a good answer to: what
happens if Accused CJ resigns before a verdict is pronounced. He clearly vacates
his post, but is a permanent lifetime ban automatically attached to resignation,
or does the Senate have to impose it?
How does resignation differ from conviction in regards to subsequent civil
and criminal prosecution?
Posted By: Dean Jorge Bocobo Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to
Facebook On Monday, January 30, 2012 0 Insightful Comments
Constitutional Ban on "Midnight Appointments"
The 1987 Constitution expressly commands the President:
Section 15. Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and
up to the end of his term, a President or Acting President shall not make
appointments, except temporary appointments to executive positions when
continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public
safety.
In January, 2010, Constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin Bernas opined that anyone
accepting an unconstitutional appointment would be an accomplice in the act and
be liable for impeachment, as indeed Renato Corona has found himself to be,
impeached and presently on trial in the Senate, after PGMA appointed him Chief
Justice just two days before the 2010 May elections.
Bernas' point is crystal clear: Renato Corona in this case has committed a
culpable violation of the Constitution by accepting a clearly unconstitutional
appointment from President Gloria Arroyo right smack in the middle of the period
during which a Constitutional ban exists on such "midnight appointments."
Posted By: Dean Jorge Bocobo Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to
Facebook On Sunday, January 29, 2012 0 Insightful Comments
Keeping An Eye on K+12
Starting with the appointment of De La Salle University's Bro. Armin Luistro
as Secretary of Education, the Aquino administration has committed both
political capital and vast budgetary resources to the K+12 Basic Education
Program.
Integral to K+12 is the introduction and adoption of a largely new K+12 Basic
Education Curriculum which the department has to sell to Congress in order to
get the requisite multiyear legislative commitment of funding and support as the
Department undertakes a most ambitious expansion program from the present ten
year basic education cycle to the global standard thirteen year K+12 program.
The Deped affords a glimpse at its upcoming new K+12 Curriculum in this Press
Release.
Enjoyable, easily understood lessons using the language spoken at home, less
contact time, and interactive.
These are just some of the features of the new curriculum for Grade 1 and
first year high school students that the Department of Education will implement
starting June 2012 under the K to 12 basic education reform program.
Education Secretary Br. Armin A. Luistro FSC said the new curriculum is
centered more on the students rather on the traditional way of teaching which is
focused on the teacher. "We are making it a real learning experience for the
students, meaning, it will be less on memorization but more encouraging of
critical thinking," he added.
It helps that the new K to 12 curriculum will implement the mother
tongue-based multi- lingual education (MTB-MLE) in studying lessons from Kinder
up to Grade 3. Studies have shown that students learn better when the language
used at home is the same language used in discussing class lessons. DepEd is
already piloting MTB-MLE in various schools nationwide using eight major
regional dialects.
I'm all for those "enjoyable, easily understood lessons" (especially in
algebra and high school chemistry). I'm also full of hope and some apprehension
over the "Mother tongue-based multi-lingual education" to be used in
Kindergarten to Grade 3. I wonder how this helps in the declared purpose of the
K+12 Curriculum to facilitate the beginning of formal Science subject study at
Grade 3.
When the Department first removed the Health and Science Subject from the
Basic Education Curriculum in Grades One and Two, on of several reasons advanced
was this. Many students at Grade 1 & 2 are supposedly unprepared to absorb
Science Lessons because of lack of English proficiency. So they suggested that
formal Science Subject start at Grade 3 with Science "integrated" with the
English Subject. But after ten years, do the outcomes justify continuing the
policy of a truncated science curriculum? In my opinion, the answer is NO!
Posted By: Dean Jorge Bocobo Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to
Facebook On Saturday, January 28, 2012 0 Insightful Comments
Expanded Certiorari Power
Consider the opening provision of Article VIII on the Judiciary in the
1987 PH Constitution:
Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in
such lower courts as may be established by law.
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and
to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality
of the Government. Above provision comes as two separate sentences. The first
vests the Judicial Power in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be
established by Law. The second statement appears to be the Constitutional
well-spring of the so-called "expanded certiorari power" allegedly vouchsafed to
the Judiciary by the 1987 Constitution.
What is most often adduced is that virtually any question involving the
Constitution and any instrumentality of the government, can be addressed to the
Supreme Court for its Judicial Review and adjudication as the Final Arbiter of
the Constitution. "The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means."
has become the battlecry of judicial papists who see the Constitution as a
secular equivalent of the Catechism to be interpreted by the Supreme Court of
wise justices.
Posted By: Dean Jorge Bocobo Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to
Facebook On Friday, January 27, 2012 0 Insightful Comments
The Alpha List
The so called Alpha List of "local employees" giving their salaries and tax
withheld is explained by private prosecutor ARTHUR LIM in the video clip shown
by Rappler Dot Com. During yesterday's trial session during which the main
prosecution witness was Bureau of Internal Revenue Commissioner Kim Jacinto
Henares And some Scream Therapy from Senator-Juror Miriam Defensor Santiago
Posted By: Dean Jorge Bocobo Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to
Facebook On Thursday, January 26, 2012 0 Insightful Comments
Article Eleven
The historic trial of the Philippines Supreme Court Chief Justice
Renato C. Corona is covered under Article Eleven of the 1987 Constitution.
This article is all about the Accountability of Public Officers--of which
there are exactly thirty-one (31) impeachable officials, namely: President, Vice
President, Ombudsman, 15 Supreme Court Justices, 7 Comelec, 3 Civil Service, and
3 Audit Commissioners. For convenience I am quoting in full the first 3 sections
of the relevant article 11 of the Constitution:
1987 Constitution Art XI
Section 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and
employees must, at all times, be accountable to the people, serve them with
utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism
and justice, and lead modest lives.
Section 2. The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the
Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman
may be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, culpable
violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other
high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All other public officers and
employees may be removed from office as provided by law, but not by impeachment.
Section 3. (1) The House of Representatives shall have the
exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment.
(2) A verified
complaint for impeachment may be filed by any Member of the House of
Representatives or by any citizen upon a resolution or endorsement by any Member
thereof, which shall be included in the Order of Business within ten session
days, and referred to the proper Committee within three session days thereafter.
The Committee, after hearing, and by a majority vote of all its Members, shall
submit its report to the House within sixty session days from such referral,
together with the corresponding resolution. The resolution shall be calendared
for consideration by the House within ten session days from receipt thereof.
(3) A vote of at least one-third of all the Members of the House shall be
necessary either to affirm a favorable resolution with the Articles of
Impeachment of the Committee, or override its contrary resolution. The vote of
each Member shall be recorded.
(4) In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by
at least one-third of all the Members of the House, the same shall constitute
the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.
(5) No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official
more than once within a period of one year.
(6) The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of
impeachment. When sitting for that purpose, the Senators shall be on oath or
affirmation. When the President of the Philippines is on trial, the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside, but shall not vote. No person shall
be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the
Senate.
(7) Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than removal
from office and disqualification to hold any office under the Republic of the
Philippines, but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to
prosecution, trial, and punishment, according to law.
(8) The Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment to effectively
carry out the purpose of this section.
Posted By: Dean Jorge Bocobo Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to
Facebook On Thursday, January 26, 2012 0 Insightful Comments
TO BE CONTINUED
Dean Jorge Bocobo
@SagadaSun Philippines
"The heart has reasons
that Reason knows nothing of. "
http://philippinecommentary.blogspot.com
POSTINGS FROM THE BLOG OF DEAN JORGE BOCOBO
Dean Jorge Bocobo owns and
operates this blog under terms and conditions imposed by Google and Blogger.
Email: rizalist@gmail.com
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/
