Supreme Court sits 32 more party list solons

SC sits 32 more
party list solons
Says 20% mandated representation
by Charter must be followed

BY EVANGELINE DE VERA

THE Supreme Court yesterday allowed 32 more party list representatives to sit in the House of Representatives to comply with a constitutional requirement that 20 percent of House seats should be allotted to party list-groups.

In a 35-page decision penned by Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, the Court en banc struck down for being unconstitutional the 2 percent threshold in the distribution of additional seats in relation to the distribution of additional party list seats under R.A. 7941 (Party List System Law).The decision is immediately executory.

The 2 percent threshold presents an unwarranted obstacle to the full implementation of party list representation and prevents the attainment of "the broadest possible representation of party, sectoral or group interests in the House of Representatives," the SC said.

The high court, in its ruling, set the guidelines for parties running for the remaining party list slots in Congress.

The majority decision expands to 55 seats the number of allocated party list seats. At present, only 23 seats are filled from 17 winning party list groups.

The 17 qualified party list candidates, or the "two-percenters," are the party list candidates that are "entitled to one seat each," or a guaranteed seat in the first round of seat allocation.

The high court partially granted the petition filed by the Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency’s (BANAT) and set aside the ruling of the Commission on Elections en banc, sitting as the National Board of Canvassers, which was promulgated on Aug. 3, 2007.

The assailed Comelec resolution approved the recommendation of Alioden D. Dalaig, head of the National Board of Canvassers (NBC) Legal Group, to deny the petition of BANAT for being moot. BANAT filed before the Comelec en banc a petition to implement the constitutional provision.

Under the ruling, the SC decided to continue its earlier ruling disallowing major political parties from participating in the party list elections, directly or indirectly.

While the SC left the computation to the Comelec, the Court ruling entitles at least four parties which already have two seats to an additional seat, namely, Bayan Muna, Cibac, Gabriela and Apec.

Those who benefited from the SC ruling were party list groups FPJPM, Uni-Mad, ABS, Kakusa, Kabataan, Aba-ako, Alif, Senior Citizens, AT, Veterans’ Federation of the Philippines, Anad, BANAT, Ang Kasangga, Bantay, Abakada, 1-Utak and the TUCP.

Others that would have additional one seat from their lone representation at this time are A-Teacher, Alagad, Coop-Natcco, Butil, Batas, ARC, Anakpawis, Abono, Anak Mindanao, Agap and An Waray.

Under the new formula, the SC said that the percentage of votes garnered by each party list candidate is arrived at by dividing the number of votes garnered by each party by 15,950,900, the total number of votes cast for party list candidates.

The SC said there are two steps in the second round of seat allocation. First, the percentage is multiplied by the remaining available seats, 38, which is the difference between the 55 maximum seats reserved under the party list system and the 17 guaranteed seats of the "two-percenters."

"The whole integer of the product of the percentage and of the remaining available seats corresponds to a party’s share in the remaining available seats. Second, we assign one party list seat to each of the parties next in rank until all available seats are completely distributed. We distributed all of the remaining 38 seats in the second round of seat allocation," the SC said.

"Finally, we apply the three-seat cap to determine the number of seats each qualified party list candidate is entitled," the SC added.

Applying the procedure of seat allocation, there are 55 party list representatives from the 36 winning party list organizations, the Court ruled.

The SC, on the other hand, affirmed its previous ruling in Veterans Federation Party v. Comelec disallowing major political parties from participating in party list elections.

However, because the formula in Veterans has flaws in its mathematical interpretation of the term "proportional representation," the SC felt compelled to revisit the formula for the allocation of additional seats to party list organizations.

The Court noted that since the 14th Congress of the Philippines has 220 district representatives, there should be 55 seats available to party list representatives to comply with the constitutional requirement of 20 percent of the total number of House membership (district seats plus party list seats).

Under the party list law, and the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, major political parties may coalesce with certain sectors to be able to join in party list elections.

"However, by a vote of 8-7, the Court decided to continue the ruling in Veterans disallowing major political parties from participating in the party list elections, directly or indirectly.

Those who voted to continue disallowing major political parties from the party list elections joined Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno in his separate opinion.

"On the formula to allocate party list seats, the Court was unanimous in concurring with this ponencia," the Court said. MALAYA 04/21/2009

Justice is for sale : Supreme Court Chief Justice P20-Million bribe money

MANILA, Philippines – A litigant in the citizenship case of Negros Oriental Rep. Jocelyn Limkaichong accused Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynato Puno of receiving P20 million in bribe money to favor the incumbent lawmaker.

Businessman Louis Biraogo on Tuesday said he received an anonymous email dated March 13, 2009 saying that the SC would refer the case to the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) to delay the court’s proceedings on the matter.

“This perpetuates the suspicion of the people that justice is for sale in this country. In fact, Chief Justice Puno was given P20 million worth of reasons for pressuring the new ponente, Justice [Diosdado] Peralta to dismiss the Supreme Court cases and send it to HRET," a portion of the email read.

Biraogo provided the media with copies of the email in a press conference.

Asked for comment, SC spokesman Jose Midas Marquez, who is also Puno’s chief of staff, said they would like to see a copy of the anonymous letter first before making a statement to the media.

“I understand he distributed a letter to the media. Haven’t seen the letter yet," Marquez said in a text message to GMANews.TV.

It was Biraogo who had earlier accused Puno of sitting on the Limkaichong case, an allegation that triggered widespread rumors of alleged moves to oust the chief justice in January 2009.

In 2008, Biraogo obtained a leaked copy of the unpromulgated ruling on Limkaichong’s case. After an investigation, the SC ruled that retired Justice Ruben Reyes, the case’s former ponente, was responsible for the premature release of the confidential document.

Biraogo had earlier said “a concerned court employee" gave him the leaked copy of the draft ruling.

In Tuesday’s press conference, Biraogo said he believed in the credibility of the email’s anonymous sender, saying the copy of the ruling he obtained matched with the SC’s draft decision

The case against Limkaichong, who is accused of not being a natural-born Filipino citizen, remains pending at the SC.

In 2008, the SC deferred the promulgation on the ruling because nine of the 14 justices who signed the ruling concurred only “in the result." An “in the result" concurrence refers to agreeing to a decision on a case alone, and not on the arguments on which a decision was based on, thus, the ruling supposedly lacked doctrinal value. - with Carlo Lorenzo, GMANews.TV

How the Charter was violated 36 times in the MOA AD

The Supreme Court ruling should be included in the latest impeachment complaint against de facto President Gloria Arroyo.

How the Charter was violated 36 times in the MOA AD

BY AMADO P. MACASAET

THE Supreme Court vote was a tenuous 8-7 against the MOA AD. If one looked at the 36 violations of the Constitution seen by Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, one would have expected a unanimous ruling.

The seven dissenters led by Associate Justice Dante Tinga never saw it Carpio’s way. Yet the presumption is they did their job of opposing the majority ruling in defense of the Constitution, which as everyone knows is also in defense of President Arroyo’s propensity to violate the Fundamental Law.

The Supreme Court is almost always split over an issue. But when it becomes obvious that a ruling leaves the independence of the magistrates in doubt, democracy dies a bit. This was most clearly manifested in the 9-6 ruling in favor of the grant of executive privilege to the President.

The Court practically put on ice the controversial ZTE-broadband deal with that ruling. The Court prevented the President’s men, notably Romulo Neri, from telling the Senate the truth of what he knew.

In a separate concurring opinion on the MOA AD case, Carpio listed the 36 violations of the Constitution. If the Court had ruled in favor of the MOA-AD, the Constitution might not be worth the value of the paper it is written on.

The 36 violations of the Charter, listed by Carpio in his separate concurring opinion, are:

• Article 1 on the National Territory. During the oral arguments, Atty. Sedfrey Candelaria, principal counsel of the GRP panel, stated that this provision would have to be amended to conform to the MOA-AD.

• Section 3, Article II on the role of the Armed Forces of the Philippines as "protector of the people and the state." Under the MOA AD, the AFP’s role is only to defend the BJE (Bangsamoro Judicial Entity) against external aggression.

• Article III on the Bill of Rights. The MOA AD does not state that the Bill of Rights will apply to the BJE. The MOA AD refers only to the "internationally recognized human rights instruments" such as the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights, International Humanitarian Law, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. No reference is made to the Bill of Rights or even to the Constitution.

• Section 1, Article VI on the Legislative Department. Legislative power shall no longer be vested solely in the Congress of the Philippines. Under the MOA-AD, the BJE shall "build, develop and maintain its own institutions" like a legislature whose laws are not subordinate to laws passed by Congress.

• Section 1, Article VII on executive power. Executive power shall no longer be vested exclusively in the President of the Philippines. The BJE shall have its own Chief Executive who will not be under the supervision of the President.

• Section 16, Article VII on the President’s power to appoint certain officials, including military officers from the rank of colonel or naval captain, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments. All public officials in the BJE, including military officers of any rank in the BJE internal security force, will be appointed in accordance with the BJE’s own basic law or constitution.

• Section 17, Article VII on the President’s control over all executive departments. The President will not control executive bureaus or offices in the BJE, like foreign trade missions of the BJE.

• Section 18, Article VII on the President as "Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines." Under the MOA-AD, the President will not be the Commander-in-Chief of the BJE’s internal security force. The BJE’s internal security force will not be part of the AFP chain of command.

• Section 21, Article VII on the ratification of treaties and international agreements by the Senate. This will not apply to the BJE which, under the MOA-AD, has the power to enter into economic and trade treaties with other countries.

• Section 1, Article VIII on judicial power being vested in one Supreme Court. Since the BJE will have "its own x x x judicial system," the BJE will also have its own Supreme Court.

• Section 2, Article VIII on the power of Congress to define and apportion the jurisdiction of lower courts. Under the MOA-AD, Congress cannot prescribe the jurisdiction of BJE courts.

• Section 5(2), Article VIII on the power of the Supreme Court to review decisions of lower courts and to promulgate rules of pleadings and practice in all courts. Under the MOA-AD, the BJE will have its own judicial system. Decisions of BJE courts are not reviewable by the Supreme Court.

• Section 5(6), Article VII on the power of the Supreme Court to appoint all officials and employees to the Judiciary. This power will not apply to courts in the BJE.

• Section 6, Article VIII on the Supreme Court’s administrative supervision over all courts and their personnel. Under the MOA-AD, the Supreme Court will not exercise administrative supervision over BJE courts and their personnel.

• Section 9, Article VIII on the appointment by the President of all judges in the Judiciary from nominees recommended by the Judicial and Bar Council. This provision will not apply to courts in the BJE.

• Section 11, Article VIII on the power of the Supreme Court to discipline judges of all lower courts. This power will not apply to judges in the BJE.

• Section 1(1), Article IX-B on the power of the Civil Service Commission to administer the civil service. Under the MOA-AD, the BJE will have "its own x x x civil service." The Civil Service Commission will have no jurisdiction over the BJE’s Civil Service.

• Section 2(1), Article IX-C on the power of the Commission on Elections to enforce and administer all election laws. Under the MOA-AD, the BJE will have "its own x x x electoral system" The Commission on Elections will have no jurisdiction over the BJE’s electoral system.

• Section 2(1), Article IX-D on the power of the Commission on Audit to examine and audit all subdivisions, agencies, and instrumentalities of the Government. Under the MOA-AD, the BJE can "build, develop and maintain its own institutions" without limit. The BJE can create its own audit authority. The Commission on Audit will have no jurisdiction over the BJE or its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities.

• Section1, Article X on the political subdivisions of the Philippines. A new political subdivision for the BJE will have to be created.

• Section 4, Article X on the power of the President to exercise general supervision over all local governments. Under the MOA-AD, this provision will not apply to the BJE.

• Section 5, Article X subjecting the taxing power of local governments to limitations prescribed by Congress. Under the MOA-AD, the BJE shall have "its own x x x legislation." The BJE’s taxing power will not be subject to limitations imposed by national law.

• Section 6, Article X on the "just share" of local government units in national taxes. Since the BJE is in reality independent from the national government, this provision will have to be revised to reflect the independent status of the BJE and its component cities, municipalities and barangays vis-à-vis other local government units.

• Section 10, Article X on the alteration of boundaries of local government units, which requires a plebiscite "in the political units affected." Under paragraph 2(d) on Territory of the MOA-AD, the plebiscite is only in the barangays and municipalities identified as expansion areas of the BJE. There will be no plebiscite "in the political units affected," which should include all the barangays within a city, and all municipalities within a province.

· Section 15, Article X on the creation of autonomous regions within the framework of the Constitution, national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Philippines. This will have to be revised since under the MOA-AD the BJE has all the attributes of a state.

· Section 16, Article X on the President’s power to exercise general supervision over autonomous regions. This provision will not apply to the BJE, which is totally independent from the President’s supervision.

• Section 17, Article X which vests in the National Government residual powers, or those powers which are not granted by the Constitution or laws to autonomous regions. This will not apply to the BJE.

• Section 18, Article X which requires that personal, family and property laws of autonomous regions shall be consistent with the Constitution and national laws. This will not apply to the BJE which will have its own basic law or constitution.

• Section 20, Article X on the legislative powers of the autonomous regional assemblies whose laws are subject to the Constitution and national laws. This provision will not apply to the BJE.

• Section 21, Article X on the preservation of peace and order within autonomous regions by the local police as provided in national laws. Under the MOA-AD, the BJE shall have "its own x x x police" to preserve peace and order within the BJE.

• Section 2, Article XII on State ownership of all lands of the public domain and of all natural resources of the Philippines. Under paragraph 3 on Concepts and Principles of the MOA-AD, ancestral domain, which consists of ancestral lands and the natural resources in such lands, does not form part of the public domain. The ancestral domain of the Bangsamoro refers to land they or their ancestors continuously possessed since time immemorial, excluding the period that their possession was disrupted by conquest, war, civil disturbance, force majeure, other forms of usurpation or displacement by force, deceit or stealth, or as a consequence of government project, or any voluntary dealings by the government and private parties. Under paragraph 1 on Concepts and Principles of the MOA-AD, the Bangsamoro people are the Moros and all indigenous peoples of Mindanao, Sulu and Palawan. Thus, the ancestral domain of the Bangsamoro refers to the lands that all the peoples in Mindanao, Sulu and Palawan possessed before the arrival of the Spaniards in 1521. In short, the ancestral domain of the Bangsamoro refers to the entire Mindanao, Sulu and Palawan. This negates the Regalian doctrine in the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions.

• Section 9. Article XII on the establishment of an independent economic and planning agency headed by the President. This agency is the National Economic and Development Authority. Under the MOA-AD, the BJE will have its own economic planning agency.

• Section 20, Article XII on the establishment of an independent monetary authority, now the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. Under the MOA-AD, the BJE will have its own financial and banking authority.

• Section 4, Article XVI on the maintenance of "a regular force necessary for the security of the State." This provision means there shall only be one "Armed Forces of the Philippines" under the command and control of the President. This provision will not apply to the BJE since under the MOA-AD, the BJE shall have "its own x x x internal security force" which will not be under the command and control of the President.

• Section 5(6), Article XVI on the composition of the armed forces, whose officers and men must be recruited proportionately from all provinces and cities as far as practicable. This will not apply to the BJE’s internal security force whose personnel will come only from BJE areas.

• Section 6, Article XVI on the establishment of one police force which shall be national in scope under the administration and control of a national police commission. The BJE will have "its own x x x police" which is a regional police force not administered or controlled by the National Police Commission.

How the seven dissenting jurists interpreted the Constitution another way and failed to see these violations will be long remembered as one of the more malignant signs that have placed in doubt the independence of the Supreme Court.

The swing vote of Associate Justice Leonardo Quisumbing carried the day for the majority.

The concurrence of Quisumbing does not matter half as much as the fact that there are seven justices who supported the MOA AD. If the voting had gone the other way, the suspicion that the Court is losing its independence to the Executive Branch would have gained credibility.

The tenuous majority of one says a lot about the independence of the Court but the magistrates can always hide and protect themselves by claiming that dissension is part of due process.

As in all cases, rulings boil down to numbers. The majority wins. How long they can rule independently as in the 8-7 vote on the MOA AD is an omen. MALAYA

Dismissed justice: FG Miguel Arroyo behind my ouster

Dismissed justice: FG behind my ouster


By Aries Rufo, Newsbreak, abs-cbnNEWS.com | 09/16/2008 6:05 PM
For three hours, the mobile phone of Court of Appeals Justice Vicente Roxas kept on ringing but the magistrate was not in the mood to answer the call. It was the afternoon of May 30, and the corporate war between the Lopez group and the Government Insurance System had just reached the CA. A raffle held earlier in the day had picked Roxas as the ponente of the case.

The caller ID displayed the name of a ranking government official, who is known to Roxas. He then received a text message with clear instructions: for him to decide in favor of GSIS over the Meralco case. The instruction, the text said, was from the First Gentleman Miguel “Mike” Arroyo. The text said this was “for the Filipino people.

"I should have accepted the call,” Roxas said, with a tinge of regret and partly in jest.

We interviewed Roxas Monday afternoon and asked him to confirm a report we gathered that Mr. Arroyo tried to reach him when the Meralco case landed on his lap. He hedged at first, but related the attempts to reach him through his mobile phone.

Roxas said his refusal to take the call could have angered the powers-that-be and thus began the orchestrated drive to destroy his reputation. “You destroy the ponente, you destroy the (Meralco decision),” Roxas said.

The 8th division of the CA had ruled that the Securities and Exchange Commission has no jurisdiction over the Meralco row, as it nullified the SEC cease-and-desist order against Meralco from validating the proxy votes of the Lopez group during the May 27 stockholders’ meeting.

It was a scheme he was only able to make sense of after the SC dismissed him from office last week. The rest of this story

President Arroyo has not read MOA-AD - Devanadera to SC

Fools!

President Arroyo has not read MOA-AD - Devanadera to SC
08/29/2008
MANILA, Philippines — President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo has never read the controversial ancestral domain agreement between the government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), Solicitor-General Agnes Devanadera claimed on Friday.

The government lawyer made the statement during the resumption of the Supreme Court’s hearing on the petitions questioning the constitutionality of the memorandum of agreement on ancestral domain (MOA-AD).

“The panel conveyed to me that the MOA was not submitted to the Office of the President," Devanadera told the court. “She never saw it, she was never shown a copy."

Devanadera clarified, however, that this was the arrangement that was agreed upon.

“The process was the GRP will be submitting the MOA to the President after the signing," said Devanadera.

When President Arroyo mentioned in her State of the Nation Address last July 28 that issues regarding ancestral domain have been resolved, she was only relating what the government peace panel reported to her, added Devanedera.

‘Unbelievable’

Former Senate President Franklin Drilon, one of the petitioners, said he finds Devanadera’s statements unbelievable.

“I don’t believe that. I don’t believe at all. They are covering up from the weaknesses of the case. I cannot imagine that the whole August 5 ceremony will take place without the President’s clearance. I even had information that they discussed this in the Cabinet," said Drilon.

He added that if President Arroyo had indeed read the MOA, she could be impeached because she did not stop it even though it contained unconstitutional provisions.

“But the problem is they denied that the President saw the MOA and approved it," said Drilon.

The Supreme Court adjourned its hearing around 6:30 p.m.

Before adjourning, the High Court gave both parties 20 days to submit their memorandum – a summary of their positions – on the case.

The Justices also ordered Devanadera to submit the following on Monday: the official statement given to her by Malacañang certifying that the government will not sign the MOA, the travel authority granted by the government to the government panel to go to Malaysia for the supposed August 5 signing, and the final draft of the MOA.

Devanadera had earlier fumbled because there were different MOA draft copies circulated at the Court, with some not initialed and some containing names of towns that were not included in the final MOA draft.

The case may be considered for resolution once the opposing parties have submitted all the requirements.

Earlier during the day, Devanadera said a letter from Malacañang stated that the government will not sign the MOA even if the Supreme Court will rule favorably on it.

She said that when she clarified the government’s position with Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, he told her that the government will not sign the MOA “in its present form and in any other form."

The government position was criticized by Sen. Mar Roxas who raised three questions regarding Devanadera's revelations.

"Una, sinabi ng Solgen na hindi alam ng Pangulo ang laman nitong napakaimportanteng MOA na nagpa-partition sa ating bansa. This is outrageous. This is either untrue, or shows just how out of touch Malacañang is. It also makes us wonder what ulterior motives are involved here," he said.

"Pangalawa, inamin din na walang kapangyarihan ang mga negosyador na pirmahan ang MOA. E ano ang ginawa nila sa Kuala Lumpur? Bakit dumating ito sa hantungang ito kung wala pala silang kapangyarihan?" he said.

Roxas made the remarks hours after the high court ended its hearing on the MOA-AD.

The senator said that when the solgen said that the MOA won't be signed in its present or in other forms, it meant that government has abandoned the whole process.

"Super turnaround ito, at pinapakita na hindi nila sineryoso at hindi nila alam ang implikasyong ito," he said.

He criticized the government peace panel not just for disregarding the Philippine Constitution, but for not considering the effectivity of the agreement in accordance with international law.

"Malinaw na malinaw sa pagtanong ng mga hustisya na ayon sa international doctrine, kung anuman ang kasunduang ito, may implikasyon ito, at mapipilitan tayo na baguhin ang ating Saligang Batas, baguhin ang ating batas para mag-conform sa MOA,"he said.

"Ang ibig sabihin ay ang MOA ngayon ang siyang iiral na batayan para sa kung ano ang gagawin sa ating Saligang Batas," he added.- Amita Legaspi and Johanna Camille Sisante, GMANews.TV

SC hearing shows Palace's ‘grave abuse of discretion’ in ancestral agreement with MILF

SC rules ZTE suits moot; Dissenting justices warn of deal resurrection

SC rules ZTE suits moot; Dissenting justices warn of deal resurrection

By Benjamin B. Pulta

Daily Tribune 07/15/2008


Act of executive department, the Court must take judicial notice of such official act without need of evidence, the Court said.

The Court explained that under Section 1, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, it is mandatory for the Court to take judicial notice of the official acts of the President of the Philippines without instruction of evidence.

Pontificating on issues which no longer legitimately constitute an actual case or controversy will do more harm than good to the nation as a whole. Wise exercise of judicial discretion militates against resolving the academic issues, as petitioners want this court to do, the SC added.

The Court is...constrained to dismiss the petitions and deny them due course because of mootness and because their resolution requires reception of evidence which cannot be done in an original petition brought before the Supreme Court.

The tribunal's majority ruling also said, it would be too presumptuous on the part of the Court to summarily compel public respondents to comply with the pertinent provisions of law regarding procurement of government infrastructure projects without any factual basis,

For the Court to do so would amount to a breach of the norms of comity among co-equal branches of government. the SC said.

Of the 11 magistrates who sided with the majority ruling for the mootness of the ZTE-NBN deal, Justice Minita Chico Nazario was on leave.

Three justices dissented, while the at least three justices issued separate but concurring opinions, among whom are Chief Justice Reynato Puno, Senior Associate Justice Adolf Azcuna and now retired associate justice Consuelo Ynares.

In a 31page dissenting opinion by Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, the justice insisted that the ZTE deal is void and that it is capable of being repeated.

Justice Azcuna, who voted with the majority said: I find the points raised by Justice Carpio...arguably sound, correct and almost unassailable as an abstract treatise in law. Nevertheless, I am of the view that the desistance from the agreement in question renders the matter academic and moot, leaving no actual controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power.

Two justices, Alicia Austria-Martinez, and Conchita Carpio-Morales joined Carpio's dissent.

Carpio claimed the contract is void from the beginning for being contrary to the Constitution, the Administrative Code of 1987, the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines and the Government Procurement Reform Act. and that as such, the ZTE supply contract is legally non-existent.

He also said the Philippine government's decision not to continue with the ZTE project during the pendency of this case,even if deemed a cancellation of the ZTE supply contract , had no legal effect on the status of the contract, and did not moot the petition since not only are the legal issues in the case capable of repetition yet evading review, the ZTE supply contract is itself capable of being resurrected.

It is time to put an end to government procurement contracts amounting to tens of billions of pesos,exceeding even the annual budget of the judiciary,that are awarded and signed without an appropriation from Congress , and without the required public bidding.

This court must categorically declare the ZTE Supply Contract void from the beginning. the dissent pointed out.

Carpio stressed that the ZTE supply contract is not funded by an appropriation law and does not have a certificate of appropriation and fund availability but that it is not only void, but also void from the beginning under the Civil Code.

The magistrate also pointed out that even as the funding for the ZTE supply contract will come from a foreign loan, this does not negate the rationale for public bidding since Filipino taxpayers will still pay for the loan with interest.

He also underscored the need to safeguard public interest against anomalies existing in all government procurement contracts, regardless of the source of funding. Public bidding is the most effective means to prevent anomalies in the award of government contracts.

Public bidding promotes transparency and honesty in the expenditure of public funds. he said.

SC junks Trillanes' petition to perform Senate duties

What do we expect from Gloria Arroyo’s Supreme Court? Majority of the magistrates are GMA’s appointees. They have to protect their queen at all cost. The rule of law is prostituted under the corrupt Arroyo Regime.


SC junks Trillanes' petition to perform Senate duties

The Supreme Court (SC) on Friday junked Senator Antonio Trillanes' petition seeking that he be allowed to perform his duties as a Senator while still under detention.

In a 16-page decision written by Associate Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales, the SC dismissed for lack of merit Trillanes' petition, which seeks that he be allowed to attend Senate hearings and functions, set up office and be allowed to accept visitors in his detention cell.

The SC reminded Trillanes that "election to office does not obliterate a criminal charge", and that his electoral victory only signifies that when voters elected him, they were already fully aware of his limitations.

The high court did not find merit in Trillanes' position that his case is different from former representative Romeo Jalosjos, who also sought similar privileges before when he served as Zamboanga del Norte congressman even while in detention.

Quoting parts of the decision on Jalosjos, the court said that "allowing accused-appellant to attend congressional sessions and committe meetings five days or more a week will virtually make him a free man… Such an aberrant situation not only elevates accused appellant's status to that of a special class, it would be a mockery of the purposes of the correction system."

The SC also did not buy Trillanes' argument that he be given the same liberal treatment accorded to certain detention prisoners charged with non-bailable offenses, like former President Joseph Estrada and former Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) governor Nur Misuari, saying these emergency or temporary leaves are under the discretion of the authorities or the courts handling them.

The SC reminded Trillanes that he also benefited from these "temporary leaves" given by the courts when he was allowed to file his candidacy and attend his oath-taking as a senator before.

The SC also believes that there is a "slight risk" that Trillanes would escape once he is given the privileges he is asking, citing the Peninsula Manila incident last November.

Trillanes also failed to tell the court his new guards or handlers after the Peninsula incident.

Trillanes filed the petition back in 2007 when he was still under military custody in Fort Bonifacio, Taguig. -- Marieton Pacheco, ABS-CBN News

Philippine Supreme Court Legitimized Kleptocracy

Deviantart

Welcome to kleptocrat nation! The Philippine Supreme Court has legitimized Gloria Arroyo’s kleptocracy-the rule by looters and thieves. The Arroyo government is ruled by Mafia criminals and cronies. It’s lutong makaw! The majority of the magistrates are blind and bias. The Arroyo Supreme Court is a part of wholesale conspiracy of China’s ZTE scam and its clone’s cover-up. In fact, the Philippine Supreme Court legitimized the Arroyo presidency after the 2001 EDSA Dos coup. What national security? What diplomatic matters? The alleged Spratlys sell-out and wholesale conspiracy to commit fraud, bribery, and treachery are covered under Gloria’s executive privilege. Shame on them!

The rule of law is dead under corrupt Arroyo regime. Gloria Arroyo has the rubber stamp do-nothing House of the Representatives, the Supreme Court to justify her misdeeds, the Ombudsman and Department of Injustice to protect her Mafia cronies from prosecution, the military-police to suppress people’s civil liberties and the bishops for their prayers and all-out support. Anak ng jueteng! But no thanks to bribery! Tuloy ang ligaya!

SC Chief Justice Puno dissents
The limits of executive privilege
GMA’s justices uphold Neri’s silence, castrate Senate

CJ Puno: Palace claim of RP-China ties at risk not credible
By Benjamin B. Pulta
Daily Tribune 03/26/2008
The Senate, empowered by the Constitution with the mandate to investigate anomalies in government, and in the Executive branch in aid of legislation, has been effectively castrated by the high court with its ruling issued yesterday involving the invocation of executive privilege.
All of President Arroyo’s men and women in the Supreme Court (SC) appeared to have delivered to her what she wanted: The clipping of the Senate’s powers to investigate, in aid of legislation; to question witnesses and resource persons and demand answers from them; and to cite them in contempt, while upholding the Malacanang officials’ right to invoke executive privilege, and thus evade public accountability even in criminal matters.

The SC yesterday ruled to grant a petition filed by former National Economic Development Authority (Neda) secretary-general now chairman of the Commission on Higher Education Romulo Neri to stop the Senate from compelling him to testify in its investigation into the aborted $329-million national
broadband network project of the government with China’s ZTE Corp.
Voting nine-to-six,the majority of the high court in the decision written by Associate Justice Teresita De Castro agreed with Neri’s claim that the Senate cannot cite any person appearing before legislative inquiries before it in contempt until the upper house passes its rules.
As of 4:00 p.m. yesterday, no official copy of the main ruling was available since it was still being revised, SC spokesman Jose Midas Marquez said, adding that it runs to some 35 pages.

The main decisions said ,in this present search for truth, we should turn to the fundamental constitutional principles.
The SC said while the three department s of government are considered separate,co-equal,coordinate and supreme within their respective spheres they are imbued with a system of checks and balances to prevent unwarranted exercise of power.
Even the courts are repeatedly advised to exercise the power of contempt judiciously and sparingly with utmost self-restraint with the end in view of utilizing the same for correction and preservation of the dignity of the court, not for retaliation or vindication.

The majority added that the Senate committees should have exercised the same restraint adding that after all petitioner (Neri) is not even an ordinary witness. He holds a high position in a co-equal branch of government.
The SC also pointed out that only a minority of the members of the Senate Blue Ribbon Committee were present during the deliberation.
Clearly,the needed vote is a majority of all the members of the (Senate blue ribbon) Committee. Apparently, members who did not actually participate in the deliberation were made to sign the contempt order. Thus , there is a cloud of doubt as to the validity of the contempt order, the SC said.
The tribunal also cited that in letters made by Neri to the Senate, the former include(d) an expression of his willingness to testify again, provided he be furnished in advance copies of the questions.

The dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Reynato Puno was 120 pages long.
Despite the majority vote in favor of the administration in the Neri petition, magistrates of the high court who dissented said a virtual mouthful for the case.
In his separate opinion, the Chief Justice did not give credence to the claim of Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita that the country’s relationship with China may be put at risk if Neri is forced to answer the three questions which stem from a Neri allegation of bribery.
Puno said Ermita has no explanation on how diplomatic secrets will be exposed at the expense of national interest if petitioner answered the three disputed questions propounded by the respondent Senate committees.
Neri, Puno pointed out, also failed to explain during the oral argument on the case how diplomatic secrets will be compromised if the three questions are answered by him.

But even assuming arguendo that petitioner Neri can properly invoke the privilege covering national security and military affairs, still, the records will show that he failed to provide the Court knowledge of the circumstances with which the Court can determine whether there is reasonable danger that his answers to the three disputed questions would indeed divulge secrets that would compromise our national security, Puno noted.
The questions, Puno added, should be answered by Neri as these are pertinent to the subject matter of the legislative investigation being undertaken by the respondent Senate committees.

He noted that the questions to Neri have direct relation not only to the subject of the inquiry, but also to the bills pending before the Senate such as Senate Bill No. 1793 which intends to amend Republic Act No. 9184 or the Government Procurement Reform Act, Senate Bill No. 1794 or An Act Imposing Safeguards in Contracting Loans Classified as Official Development Assistance and Senate Bill No. 1317 or An Act Mandating Concurrence to International Agreements and Executive Agreements.
Puno further stressed that the strength of the executive privilege is weakened by the fact that the subject of the communication involves a contract with a foreign loan, which is not exclusively vested in the President, but is shared with the Monetary Board (Central Bank).

We also consider the chilling effect which may result from the disclosure of the information sought from petitioner Neri but the chilling effect is diminished by the nature of the information sought, which is narrow, limited as it is to the three assailed questions. We take judicial notice also of the fact that in a Senate inquiry, there are safeguards against an indiscriminate conduct of investigation, Puno added.

With all these considerations factored into the equation, we have to strike the balance in favor of the respondent Senate committees and compel petitioner Neri to answer the three disputed questions, he further said.

Spokesman Marquez, quoting the high court’s majority ruling said that since there are no published rules of the Senate’s rules for contempt no person can be penalized with contempt by the Senate until the guidelines are already published.
Marquez said the ban not only covers Neri but in effect also covers other witnesses appearing before the legislature.
It does not limit the power of the Senate but only defines executive privilege he added.

Dissenting from the majority opinion were Puno and Associate Justices Antonio Carpio, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Conchita Carpio-Morales and Adolfo Azcuna.
Carpio however joined the majority in ruling that the arrest warrant issued by the Senate against Neri was handed down in grave abuse of discretion.
The senators ordered Neri’s arrest following his failure to heed their subpoenas for him to appear the Senate inquiry.
The SC ruled that three crucial questions being asked of Neri during the senate proceedings are covered by the rule of executive privilege.
The majority decision said that these questions fall under executive privilege and that the conversations between Neri and the President must remain secret, despite the fact that an earlier SC ruling on EO 464 made it clear that executive privilege does not cover criminal activities.
It was claimed by the majority that for Neri to divulge his conversations with Mrs. Arroyo would put the diplomatic relations between China and the Philippines at serious risk.
Marquez clarified that the SC ruling does not prevent Neri from opting to change his mind and voluntarily testifying before the senate in executive session.
Aside from De Castro those who ruled to uphold the Palace position were Associate Leonardo Quisumbing, Renato Corona, Dante Tinga, Minita Chico-Nazario, Presbitero Velasco, Antonio Nachura, Ruben Reyes and Arturo Brion. All of whom are publicly perceived to toe the Malacanang line.
Brion who replaced Associate Justice Angelina Gutierrez was not yet with the court when the high court held oral arguments on the case last March 4. Marquez clarified that Brion wrote a separate opinion explaining his vote to concur with the majority.
Malacanang was pleased by the decision, saying that the ruling confirmed all along its belief that the Senate had been disrespectful toward the Executive department when it comes to its inquiries in aid of legislation.
What’s good about this ruling is that it emphasized what we have been saying all along that all these time we have been talking about respecting the independence of one another (executive and legislative branches) and (for the Senate) to accord respect to resource persons. In all of this, we have been proven correct. The only reason this Executive Order 464 was ever issued was due to the disrespect (of the Senate) to the Constitution, said Press Secretary and presidential spokesman Ignacio Bunye.
For his part, Deputy presidential spokesman Anthony Golez said they are now looking forward to the Senate and the executive to work out a mutually acceptable rules on appearances in the senate inquiries of witnesses, in aid of legislation.
With Sherwin C. Olaes and PNA

Maguindanao poll anomalies found in SET

The Supreme Court’s senate electoral tribunal panel has opened can of worms in the alleged election fraud committed by elections officials in Maguindanao and Shariff Kabunsuan. Sooner or later fugitive Lintang Bedol and his conspirators will reveal the real score what transpired during the fraudulent 2004 presidential election and 2007 midterm elections.

Pimentel set to unseat Zubiri with fraud proved in Maguindanao, Shariff Kabunsuan ballot boxes

Zubiri poll anomalies found in SET

By Charlie V. Manalo
01/12/2008
It may be just a matter of time before Genuine Opposition senatorial candidate Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III unseats Sen. Juan Miguel Zubiri, who is likely to lose his place in the Senate, and perhaps even in shame, with the discovery of the electoral tribunal panel of too many cases of blatant election anomalies.
And it won’t be long either for those involved in the massive election cheating committed against Pimentel, successfully depriving him of a Senate seat, to be brought to the halls of justice and eventually behind bars, by Pimentel himself.
The Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) has uncovered election irregularities in four municipalities of Maguindanao and a municipality in Shariff Kabunsuan, with the the number of votes involved reportedly enough for Pimentel to overtake Zubiri’s lead over him for 12th place in the 2007 senatorial elections.
In his protest, Pimentel contests the results of 2,658 precincts where votes had been manipulated to enable administration candidate Zubiri to dislodge him for the last Senate seat.
In an interview yesterday with Pimentel’s lawyer, Leila de Lima, she pointed out that she and her client are satisfied with the early results of the revision being conducted by the SET as the five municipalities alone are enough for Pimentel to unseat Zubiri.
“In the four municipalities of Maguindanao, namely the Ampatuan, Buluan, Paglap and Gindulungan, the number of votes involved is 25,000 which Mr. Zubiri got,” said De Lima. “However, upon opening of the ballot boxes, the SET found out that all election
except the ballots, were all missing.”
She added that upon review of the ballots, most of thesewere found to have been faked and manufactured as they did not bear any of the security features.
De Lima stressed that “the revisionists found out that everything written on the original ballots was done by only one person as can be attested by the same penmanship all throughout.”
It will be recalled that on election day, or a few days after the polls closed, reports were out that teachers who were tapped as election officers, were said to have been abducted and brought to an unnamed island, where they were told by armed men, said to belong to the military, to fill up the empty ballots, all in the name of administration senatorial candidates.
The teacher-whistleblowers came to Manila to face the Commission on Elections commissioners and testify to the fraud being perpetrated. The Comelec commissioners, however, refused to hear them out.
De Lima said what she found more interesting “is the Municipality of Sulatan Kudarat in the Province of Shariff Kabunsuan where Mr. Zubiri established a lead of 31,000 votes over Koko Pimentel. None of the ballot boxes opened by the SET yielded anything. They were totally empty.”
Pimentel’s lawyer explained: “while we may not be able to get a 100 percent nullification of the Zubiri votes in the four municipalities of Maguindanao as they would be subjected to strenuous investigation and revision, we can be assured of a 100 percent nullification of Zubiri’s 31,000 vote lead over Koko in Sultan Kudarat and that would be enough to overtake Zubiri’s lead of roughly 18,000 votes,” De Lima pointed out. Daily Tribune

Supreme Court junks rebellion raps vs militant solons

Why the Supreme Court only reprimanded Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez for abuse of power? He should be punished for injustices committed against the progressive legislators. The Batasan 6 should file disbarment case against Raul Gonzalez and his partisan-prostituted public prosecutors. They must be expelled and have no business in the Department of Justice. Teach them a lesson!


Supreme Court Justice Antonio Carpio even reprimanded Raul Gonzalez’ DOJ. He said, “We cannot emphasize too strongly that prosecutors should not allow, and should avoid giving the impression that their noble office is being used or prostituted, wittingly or unwittingly, for political ends, or their purposes alien to, or subversive of the basic and fundamental objective of observing the interest of justice evenhandedly, without fear or favor to any and all litigants alike, whether rich or poor, weak or strong, powerless or mighty.”


Beltran mullls filing raps vs Raul Gonzalez, others for his arrest

Detained Anakpawis Rep. Crispin Beltran on Friday threatened to file charges against Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez, government prosecutors and the policemen who arrested him last year on rebellion charges, Bandila reported.

Beltran’s statement came after the charges lodged against him and five other left-leaning lawmakers were thrown out by the Supreme Court Friday in what the opposition described as a defeat for President Arroyo’s administration.

"Maliwanag naman na I was unlawfully and illegally arrested at iyong aking detention ay arbitrary (It is clear I was unlawfully and illegally arrested and my detention was arbitrary)," Beltran said.

The lawmaker, who has been under hospital arrest at the Philippine Heart Center for more than a year now, said he is confident that he will now be freed despite a pending case before the Quezon City Regional Trial Court.

Police authorities have filed a new case against Beltran for the crime of inciting to sedition after his arrest last year. He said that since the offense is bailable he is planning to post bail on Monday to pave the way for his freedom.

Beltran said the dismissal of the rebellion charges was good news. "I am hoping that with the dismissal of the rebellion charges, the attacks against the progressive lawmakers will also come to an end. I am looking forward to my release from detention."

"It is to be hoped that the SC decision will not meet any more opposition from the Armed Forces of the Philippines and other forces who continue to discredit, criminalize and demonize us," the 74-year-old veteran labor leader added.

In a 23-page decision penned by Justice Antonio Carpio, the SC’s Second Division granted the consolidated petitions on the writs of prohibition and certiorari to stop the prosecution of the six lawmakers for rebellion.

The high court ruled that state prosecutors did not have probable cause to file charges against Beltran and the group dubbed as the "Batasan 5," who were accused of plotting a coup against President Arroyo last year along with military rebels and opposition politicians.

Bayan Muna Reps. Satur Ocampo, Teddy Casiño and Joel Virador, Gabriela Rep. Liza Maza and Anakpawis Rep. Rafael Mariano sought sanctuary at the House of Representatives and are effectively free while under the protective custody of the House.

The SC ordered the Makati Regional Trial Court Branch 150 to dismiss the criminal cases of rebellion against the six lawmakers.

The court said prosecutors failed to follow procedures for filing charges against the six.

It said haste in filing the charges "not only trivialized the investigation but also lent credence to petitioners’ claim that the entire proceeding was a sham."

The court also cited "the obvious involvement of political considerations" in the case.

All six are members of leftist party-list groups that the military has accused of being fronts for communist insurgents.

The SC also ordered the Makati RTC to dismiss the rebellion charges against private citizens Vicente Ladlad, Nathanael Santiago, Randall Echanis and Rey Claro Casambre.

The SC set aside the rulings of the Makati RTC dated May 31, 2006 and Aug. 29, 2006, which sustained the finding of probable cause against Beltran and upheld the DOJ orders dated March 22, 2006 and April 4, 2006 denying the petition of the "Batasan Five" for the inhibition of the prosecution panel for lack of impartiality and independence.

The SC also ruled that the inquest proceedings against Beltran were void because of the failure of the inquest prosecutors to comply with the rules of preliminary investigation in cases involving lawful warrantless arrests as provided by the Rules of Court.

The SC also found that the joint affidavit of the arresting officers stated that Beltran was arrested for the crime of inciting to sedition and not rebellion: "The inquest prosecutor could have only conducted – as he did conduct – an inquest for inciting to sedition and no other."

The SC said none of Beltran’s arresting officers saw him commit in their presence the crime of rebellion, nor did the arresting officers have personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances sufficient to form probable cause to believe that Beltran had committed rebellion.

"What these arresting officers allege in their affidavit is that they saw and heard Beltran make (an) allegedly seditious speech on Feb. 24, 2006," the SC said.

It added that there was no probable cause to indict Beltran for rebellion, as none of the affidavits presented as evidence before the prosecution panel that conducted the inquest stated that Beltran committed specific acts of rebellion.

"The allegations in these affidavits are far from the proof needed to indict Beltran for taking part in an armed public uprising against the government," the SC said. "What these documents prove at best is that Beltran was in Bucal, Padre Garcia, Batangas on Feb. 20, 2006 and that, 14 years earlier, he was present during the 1992 CPP (Communist Party of the Philippines) plenum. Beltran’s alleged presence during the 1992 plenum does not automatically make him a leader of a rebellion."

"None of the affidavits alleges that Beltran is promoting, maintaining or heading a rebellion," the SC said. "The information in fact merely charges Beltran for conspiring and confederating with others in forming a tactical alliance to commit rebellion. As worded, the information does not charge Beltran with rebellion but with conspiracy to commit rebellion, a bailable offense."

The SC also said the preliminary investigation conducted against the petitioners was tainted with irregularities and that the case prosecutors failed to comply with the rule that "the complaint be accompanied by affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses, subscribed and sworn before any prosecutor or government official authorized to administer oath, or, in their absence or unavailability, before a notary public," the SC said.

The SC also stressed "the obvious involvement of political considerations in the actuations of Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez and of the respondent prosecutors."

SC spokesman Midas Marquez said the SC decision is not an automatic order for Beltran’s release from detention. Marquez said the SC is ordering the Makati RTC to dismiss the rebellion case against Beltran: "The RTC, with the dismissal of the case, will then order his release from detention provided he is not being held for any other case."

Meanwhile, Gonzalez said he expected the SC decision on Beltran: "I expected that since the release on bail of Satur Ocampo. But I will disagree with the Supreme Court in saying that the DOJ neither has the capacity nor the authority to determine the existence of probable cause."

Gonzalez also said the SC statement that he let his office be used for political purposes is "an allegation based on surmises. Every prosecution will always be under the DOJ. Under the law, all investigations must be brought to the DOJ."

"It is a presumption that we are prostituting our office. All these issues must pass through the DOJ. All these cases must be filed with the Department of Justice. The Rules of Court are very clear," he added.

Meanwhile, Ocampo immediately pressed for Beltran’s release and hailed the SC for dismissing the rebellion case filed against him and his six co-accused: "We are vindicated. This is a triumph of truth and justice over the Arroyo government’s invented and unfair charge against duly-elected people’s representatives."

Ocampo said the SC decision affirmed their position that the charges filed against them "are all fabricated, based only on perjured testimonies, full of legal shortcuts and obviously politically-motivated."

"This is a slap on the faces of President Arroyo and her two repressive agencies – the Cabinet Oversight Committee on Internal Security led by Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita and the Inter-Agency Legal Action Group (IALAG) led by National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales – who have all conspired to demonize and persecute us because of our roles in the legal opposition and the mass movement," he said.

He added that Gonzalez "is just one of the players. Those who hatched this plot against us are in the Palace." With reports from The Philippine Star (Mike Frialde, Katherine Adraneda, Delon Porcalla) AFP

Supreme Court: 111 Special Courts For Poll Protests

SC forms 111 special courts for poll protests

To expedite resolution of poll-related cases in the local elections, the Supreme Court Friday designated 111 special election courts from among regional trial courts nationwide.

Chief Justice Reynato Puno signed Administrative Order No. 54-2007 directing these special courts to hear, try and decide election contests involving elective municipal
officers following the May 14 midterm elections.

All other election-related cases shall be raffled among the regular
courts in the station, the Supreme Court said.

"These special courts will ensure the expeditious resolution of election contests involving elective municipal officials. To reiterate, election cases enjoy high priority because what is involved here is nothing less than the sovereignty of the people, the very heart of a democratic government," Puno said.

Last April 20, Puno accepted the proposed Rules of Procedure for special election courts submitted by the high tribunal Sub-Committee on Election Rules, led by retired Supreme Court Justice and former Commission on Elections chairman Bernardo Pardo, saying this
marked "radical changes" in accelerating the resolution of poll-related cases. The Rules are effective May 15.

Under the Rules, the special courts are given 30 days from the date a case is submitted for decision to decide the election contest.

A case should be resolved within six months after its filing, unless the Supreme Court authorizes an extension in writing.

Failure to comply with such shall be considered a serious offense and shall be ground for disciplinary action against the judge.

Furthermore, after six months, the judge shall be placed under preventive suspension and relieved of all duties except to decide the election case.

An election contest may either be an election protest or a petition for quo warranto. An election protest refers to election contests relating to the election and returns of elective officials, grounded on fraud and irregularities in the conduct of elections, the counting of ballots and canvassing of votes.

On the other hand, a petition for quo warranto refers to election contest relating to the qualifications of an elective official, stemming from ineligibility or disloyalty to the Republic. The issue is whether respondent possesses all the qualifications and none of the qualifications prescribed by law.

The Comelec has jurisdiction in election contests involving elective regional, provincial, and city officials.

On the other hand, the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET), the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET), and the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET) have jurisdiction over election protests involving members of the House, members of the Senate, and President and Vice-President, respectively. GMA7 TV NEWS