Gay rights activists defends Corona over Wikipedia slur

GAY rights activists are seething in anger over homophobic cyberattacks that defaced the Wikipedia page of Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona in order to discredit the chief magistrate of the Supreme Court.

This was after the vandalized page which was hacked briefly on January 3, branded Corona the “Thief Justice” and portrayed him as having gay sex with court administrator Midas Marquez. The page has been restored four hours after the attack.

It was even stated in a passage from the posted attack which reads: “Rumors are circulating that the Supreme Court Administrator — “Midas Marquez” is having intimate relationship with the Chief Justice.”

In a statement of the Progressive Organization of Gays in the Philippines (ProGay), the slur is below the belt since the attacks was not only limited to Corona and Marquez, but also to the members of the third sex.

“We totally deplore this heinous way of using gay slurs for launching political attacks between the opposing sides in the impeachment trial,” declared Goya Candelario, spokesperson Pro Gay.

The ProGay leader said that the defacement proves that homophobia and discrimination are real social problems of Philippine society that make life for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) very dangerous.

A day before this incident, a heterosexual male youth was stabbed and mauled to death by an armed gang of hoodlums after the youth defended two gay passengers in a minibus from the gang’s taunts.

“We mourn the death of Fernando Mendoza who died defending gay rights and because of unchecked homophobia that is being stoked by religious zealots and machismo. All levels of our society should really address and correct homophobia, because both ordinary men who are not gay like Mendoza and powerful government officials such as Corona and Marquez are not safe from these stupid hate crimes,” Candelario said.

With this,  ProGay called on Congress to immediately pass the Antidiscrimination Bill with protections for sexual orientation and gender identity even as the impeachment trial of Justice Corona in the Senate weeks is set to dominate the attention and time of both House of Representatives and the Senate. (Mla. Times)

Reconsider position on sheriff’s expenses, PAO asks SC

By Ina Reformina, ABS-CBN News
MANILA, Philippines – The Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) has filed a motion for reconsideration(MR) with the Supreme Court(SC) today on the high tribunal’s resolution dated Nov. 22, 2011 denying PAO’s request for exemption of its clients from payment of sheriff’s expenses.

In their 20-page MR, PAO lawyers argued that their non-exemption from said fees is contrary to Section 11, Article III of the Bill of Rights of the 1987 Constitution which state that “[f]ree access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.”

Speaking to reporters at the Department of Justice(DOJ) today, PAO chief Percida Acosta said had they received their copy of the resolution prior to the filing of the impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Renato Corona, the issue would have been included in the Articles of Impeachment.

Acosta slammed Supreme Court Administrator Jose Midas Marquez’s recommendation to deny the PAO of its request, which served as the basis for the high tribunal’s action.

Acosta invoked Sec. 6(16-d) of Republic Act No. 9406(PAO Law) which state that “the clients of the PAO shall be exempt from payment of docket and other fees incidental to instituting an action in court and other quasi-judicial bodies, as an original proceeding or on appeal.”

In his letter-response to a clarification requested by the PAO on the issue last February, Marquez reiterated an Office of the Court Administrator(OCA) circular in 2009 which state that the fees mentioned in the law only pertain to docket fees, appeal fees, fees for issuance of provisional remedies, mediation fees, sheriff’s fees, stenographer’s fees, and commissioner’s fees.

Marquez pointed out, however, that sheriff fees and sheriff’s expenses “are not similar in character.”

“Sheriff fees are included in the term ‘legal fees’ which are payable to the government, while sheriff’s expenses refer to the amount paid by litigants to defray the travel expenses of the sheriff/process server in serving court processes issued in relation to their case,” he said. (ABS-CBN)

Don’t be presumptuous and arrogant, SC spokesman tells Palace on looking for Corona’s replacement

“Do not be too presumptuous and arrogant,” Supreme Court Spokesman Jose Midas Marquez said following Malacañang announcement that it is already looking for Chief Justice Renato Corona’s replacement.

“Let’s not be too presumptuous. Let’s not be too arrogant. We should exercise a degree of humility,” Marquez said.

Palace Spokesman Edwin Lacierda said President Aquino is looking for a potential replacement for Corona, one who is a proven person of integrity and probity such as Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno.

Lacierda said the President has asked his legal advisers to come up with a list of possible nominees for chief justice as Corona faces an impeachment trial by the Senate in January.

But Marquez pointed that the Chief Justice position is not yet vacant.

“The impeachment process is about to start only next month,” Marquez said adding that Malacañang has no authority to screen possible applicants to the Judiciary.

He said while the President has the power under the Constitution to appoint members of the Judiciary, it is the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) under the Constitution who has the authority to screen applicants to the Judiciary and the Ombudsman post.

“The authority to screen is with the JBC,” Marquez said.

Under Article 8 Section 8(5) of the Constitution, JBC “shall have the principal function of recommending appointees to the Judiciary.”

The same provision under Section 9 provides that “the Members of the Supreme Court and judges of the lower courts shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council for every vacancy. Such appointments need no confirmation.”

“Let us wait for the impeachment court to rule on the impeachment complaint,” Marquez said.

 

Being Carpio’s frat brods is merely incidental, ex-IBP presidents say

The five former Presidents of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) said being a fraternity brother of the most senior member of the Supreme Court is merely incidental to their stand of supporting the impeachment proceedings against Chief Justice Renato Corona.

Raoul Angangco (National President from 1995-1997), Jose Aguila Grapilon (1997-1999), Arthur Lim (1999-2001), Teofilo Pilando (2001-2003) and Solicitor-General Jose Anselmo Cadiz (2003-2006) are all members of the Sigma Rho fraternity where Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio is also affiliated.

Carpio became the strongest contender for the Chief Justice position after the retirement of Chief Justice Renato Puno and is likely to replace Corona should he be impeached.

“We, being Sigma Rhoans is merely incidental. We are also former national presidents of the IBP and our stand is for the Constitution to be followed,” Grapilon said.

They also pointed that the fact that some of them are government officials or founder of an influential law firm has no bearing on their stand, Cadiz is the head of the Office of the Solicitor-General while Pilando is Deputy Executive Secretary while Angangco is one of the founding members of the Carpio, Villaraza, Angangco Law office.

“We have a consistent stand and that is for the Constitution. Yes, Antonio Carpio is a sigma rhoan but we must also remember that it is the JBC (Judicial and Bar Council) who nominates. It may not even nominate Carpio and even if nominated, it is the President who will choose among 3, 4, 5 nominees,” Cadiz said.

 

Palace looking for new CJ is improper

Malacanang’s move of looking for a possible replacement for Chief Justice Renato Corona is “not a sound decision and improper,” Law professor and former president of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) said.

Lawyer Jose Aguila Grapilon said Malacanang should not conduct a search for Corona’s replacement because the Chief Justice position is not yet vacant.

“Masyado naman yatang pre-emptive yon. I do not think they should be doing that,” Grapilon told reporters.

Grapilon is one of the five former IBP Presidents who said that Corona’s impeachment is healthy for democracy.

However, Grapilon said looking for Corona’s replacement when the impeachment trial has not yet started is not proper.

“I don’t think its proper. It is the JBC (Judicial and Bar Council) who will conduct the interviews and they will do that only when there is a vacancy,” he added.

 

‘Corona should go on leave’

Former presidents of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) called on Chief Justice Renato Corona to go on leave while the impeachment process against him is ongoing.

“It is still the call of the Chief Justice whether he would go on leave or not but we believe that it would be best that he concentrate on his defense,” Solicitor-General Jose Anselmo Cadiz, IBP President from 2003 to 2006 said.

“He should do so (go on leave) to remove doubts on actions of the Court,” lawyer Jose Aguila Grapilon (IBP President from 1997 to 1999) said.

The five former IBP Presidents issued a manifesto saying the impeachment of the Chief Justice is healthy for democracy.

Aside from Cadiz and Grapilon, also joining the manifesto include lawyers Raoul Angangco (1995-1997), Arthur Lim (1999-2001) and Teofilo Pilando (2001-2003).

Corona’s impeachment trial is set to start on January 16.

Marquez: No ‘hakot’ crowd for Corona speech

By David Dizon, abs-cbnNEWS.com

Supreme Court spokesman Jose Midas Marquez did not order court employees and magistrates all over the country to declare a “court holiday” on Wednesday so they could hear Chief Justice Renato Corona denounce Malacañang’s attacks on the judiciary.

Instead, Marquez said he merely invited magistrates and court employees to listen to what he felt was a very important message from the Chief Justice.

“As a Court Administrator, I can [order them to go] but I did not do that. I didn’t want to dictate to them. If they wanted to be there, they can do so by their own volition. You can always see in their faces if they do not want to be there. Besides, those are judges. They are older than me so I can’t force them to do anything,” he said in Filipino.

“I invited them and my invitation was for them to go to the Supreme Court and listen to the speech of the Chief Justice and know what is on his mind. Maybe the judges and the court employees saw that it is a very important  message not just to them but the rest of the country,” he added.

Newspaper reports said more than 1,000 court employees trooped to the Supreme Court building on Taft Avenue to hear Corona’s speech. The court holiday resulted in the temporary suspension of proceedings in the Maguindanao massacre case.

For his part, Presidential Spokesman Edwin Lacierda said Marquez deliberately created confusion so he could deny ordering court employees to listen to Corona’s speech.

He said the instructions for the judiciary to go on work holiday came directly from Office of the Court Administrator.

He also noted that not all magistrates heeded Marquez’s call since the Sandiganbayan still continued to work.

Lacierda said he has spoken to some judges who said they feel “insulted that Corona is trying to present that the judiciary is under attack.”

“It is a case of accountability of Chief Justice Corona,” he said.

Meanwhile, Marquez said Corona was simply fed up when he accused the President of wanting him removed from office so that Malacañang could control the Supreme Court.

“Siguro talagang napuno na. Alam naman natin na matagal na siyang nagtitimpi at nagpipigil sa kanyang sarili pero wala pong humpay at walang tigil sa pagbatikos at pagpuna hindi lamang sa Punong Mahistrado pero pati sa buong Korte Suprema. At ito nga ay humantong sa mabilis na paghahain ng impeachment complaint sa kanya,” he said.

Marquez said Corona has already indicated that he will not resign his post but will answer all charges at the impeachment trial. He said many lawyers have offered their services to defend Corona before the Senate.

The SC spokesman said it is up to Corona if he will heed Malacañang’s call that he take a leave of absence while on trial. He said he expects the Chief Justice to take a leave only if he feels he cannot attend to his duties at the Supreme Court while focusing on the impeachment trial.

Summary of the impeachment complaint vs CJ Corona

I.          RESPONDENT BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST THROUGH HIS TRACK RECORD MARKED BY PARTIALITY AND SUBSERVIENCE IN CASES INVOLVING THE ARROYO ADMINISTRATION FROM THE TIME OF HIS APPOINTMENT AS SUPREME COURT JUSTICE WHICH CONTINUED TO HIS DUBIOUS APPOINTMENT AS A MIDNIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE AND UP TO THE PRESENT.  

• Midnight Appointments in violation against Sec. 15, Article VII of Constitution
• Arturo de Castro v. Judicial and Bar Council and President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, et. al., SC held that the prohibition does not apply to SC but only to executive department and other courts lower than SC.
• Indeed, Newsbreak report showed that “he has consistently sided with the (arroyo) administration in politically-significant cases”. Newsbreak further reported when it tracked the voting pattern of Supreme Court justices, “Corona lodged a high 78 percent in favor of Arroyo”
• A table shows that in 10 cases show respondent’s voting pattern in cases involving Arroyo government’s frontal assaults on constitutional rights prior to his appointment as Chief Justice.
• During his tenure as Chief Justice, Respondent also sided with Arroyo in the following 3 cases such as in (1) Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission of 2010, (2) Bai Omera D. Dianalan-Lucman v. Executive(revoking midnight appointments) and (3) Aquino vs. COMELEC (redefining districts of camsur)

II.         RESPONDENT COMMITTED CULPABLE VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND/OR BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST WHEN HE FAILED TO DISCLOSE TO THE PUBLIC HIS STATEMENT OF ASSETS, LIABILITIES, AND NET WORTH AS REQUIRED UNDERSEC. 17, ART. XI OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION.

• Respondent failed to disclose to the public his statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth as required by the Constitution.
• Some of the properties of Respondent are not included in his declaration of his assets, liabilities, and net worth, in violation of the anti-graft and corrupt practices act.
• Respondent is suspected of having accumulated ill-gotten wealth, acquiring assets of high values and keeping bank accounts with huge deposits (among others, a 300-sq. meter apartment in the Fort in Taguig).

III.        RESPONDENT COMMITTED CULPABLE VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION AND BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST BY FAILING TO MEET AND OBSERVE THE STRINGENT STANDARDS UNDER ART. VIII, SECTION 7 (3) OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT PROVIDES THAT “[A] MEMBER OF THE JUDICIARY MUST BE A PERSON OF PROVEN COMPETENCE, INTEGRITY, PROBITY, AND INDEPENDENCE” IN ALLOWING THE SUPREME COURT TO ACT ON MERE LETTERS FILED BY A COUNSEL WHICH CAUSED THE ISSUANCE OF FLIP-FLOPPING DECISIONS IN FINAL AND EXECUTORY CASES; IN CREATING AN EXCESSIVE ENTANGLEMENT WITH MRS. ARROYO THROUGH HER APPOINTMENT OF HIS WIFE TO OFFICE; AND IN DISCUSSING WITH LITIGANTS REGARDING CASES PENDING BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT. 

• Respondent previously served Arroyo as her chief of staff, spokesman when she was Vice-President, Presidential Chief-of-Staff, Presidential Spokesman, and Acting Executive Secretary.
  • Flip-flopping of the Corona Court on FASAP vs. PAL  on a mere letter from Philippine Airlines’ counsel Atty. Estelito Mendoza (and also in the flip-flopping case of League of Cities v. COMELEC)
• Respondent compromised his independence when his wife, Cristina Corona, accepted an appointment as on March 23, 2007 from President Arroyo to the Board of the John Hay Management Corporation (JHMC) in violation of Code of Judicial Conduct
  • serious complaints were filed against Mrs. Corona by her fellow Board members because of acts of misconduct and negligence. Instead, on acting on the complaint, the complainants were removed and Mrs. Corona promoted as OIC board chair
• Respondent has been reportedly using the judicial fund as his own personal expense account, charging to the Judiciary personal expenditures.
• Respondent Corona discussed with litigants (Lauro Vizconde and Dante Jimenez) regarding the Vizconde massacre case, which was then pending before the SC, and accused fellow Justice Carpio for loobying for acquittal, in violation of Code of Conduct and Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
• Respondent Corona irregularly dismissed the Inter-petal Recreational Corporation case under suspicious circumstances. 

IV.        RESPONDENT BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST AND/OR COMMITTED CULPABLE VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION WHEN IT BLATANTLY DISREGARDED THE PRINCIPLE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS BY ISSUING A “STATUS QUO ANTE” ORDER AGAINST THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN THE CASE CONCERNING THE IMPEACHMENT OF THEN OMBUDSMAN MERCEDITAS NAVARRO-GUTIERREZ.

• Respondent railroaded the proceedings in the Guttierez case in order to have a Status Quo AnteOrder issued in her favor.
  • Newsbreak showed that most of the justices received the Petition after the deliberations, while three (3) justices (Velasco, Bersamin and Perez) who voted to issue the Status Quo Ante Order received the petition a day after the status quo ante order was granted.
• Its issuance violated the principle of separation of powers since the Supreme Court prevented the House from initiating impeachment proceedings.

V.         RESPONDENT COMMITTED CULPABLE VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION THROUGH WANTON ARBITRARINESS AND PARTIALITY IN CONSISTENTLY DISREGARDING THE PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA AND IN DECIDING IN FAVOR OF GERRY-MANDERING IN THE CASES INVOLVING THE 16 NEWLY-CREATED CITIES, AND THE PROMOTION OF DINAGAT ISLAND INTO A PROVINCE. 

• Respondent violated the principle of the immutability of final judgments (“flip-flopping”) known to have been instigated through personal letters or ex-partecommunications addressed to the Respondent:
  • League of Cities v. COMELEC case involving the creation of 16 new cities,
  • Navarro v. Ermita which involved the promotion of Dinagat Island from municipality to province,
  • FASAP v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., et al.

VI.        Respondent Betrayed the Public Trust By Arrogating Unto Himself, And To A Committee He Created, The Authority And Jurisdiction To Improperly Investigate An Alleged Erring Member Of The Supreme Court For The Purpose Of Exculpating Him. Such Authority And Jurisdiction Is Properly Reposed By The Constitution In the House of Representatives via Impeachment.  

• Vinuya vs. Executive Secretary,it was alleged that rampant plagiarism was committed by the ponente, Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo
• It appears that, with a clear intent of exonerating a member of the Supreme Court, Respondent, in violation of the Constitution, formed an Ethics Committee thereby arrogating unto himself, and to a Committee he created, the authority and jurisdiction to investigate an alleged member of the Supreme Court.

VII.       RESPONDENT BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST THROUGH HIS PARTIALITY IN GRANTING A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (TRO) IN FAVOR OF FORMER PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO AND HER HUSBAND JOSE MIGUEL ARROYO IN ORDER TO GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO ESCAPE PROSECUTION AND TO FRUSTRATE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, AND IN DISTORTING THE SUPREME COURT DECISION ON THE EFFECTIVITY OF THE TRO IN VIEW OF A CLEAR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT’S OWN TRO.            

• The Supreme Court, under the Respondent, immediately acted upon the Petition and granted the TRO despite the fact that there are clear inconsistencies in former President Arroyo’s petition
• It appears from reports that the ponente to whom the petitions were raffled was an Associate Justice. Under the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court, a TRO can only be considered upon the recommendation of the ponente. In view of certain objections against the grant of the TRO, a holding of a hearing within the short period of five (5) days was recommended. Despite this recommendation, the Respondent engineered a majority of 8 votes (as against five dissenters) the immediate grant and issuance of the TRO in favour of former President Arroyo and her husband in blatant violation of their own internal rules.
• Despite the conditions laid by the SC for the issuance of the TRO, Respondent allowed the issuance of the TRO notwithstanding the fact there was non-compliance of an essential pre-condition
  • Due to the Arroyos’ abject failure to comply with Condition 2, the Supreme Court en banc in its November 18, 2011 deliberations, by a vote of7–6, found that there was no compliance with the second condition of the TRO. Consequently, for failure to comply with an essential condition for the TRO, the TRO is not effective. However, by a vote of 7-6, the Supreme Court decided there was no need to explicitly state the legal effect on the TRO of the noncompliance by petitioners with Condition Number 2 of the earlier Resolution.
  • However, the SC decided that the TRO was effective despite non-compliance with an essential condition of the TRO. It is notable that Respondent did not chastise Marquez for his outrightly false and public misrepresentation.
  • Worse, the Respondent did not correct the decision that was issued despite the fact that the decision did not reflect the agreement and decision made by the Supreme Court during their deliberations on November 18, 2011.

VIII.      RESPONDENT BETRAYED THE PUBLIC TRUST AND/OR COMMITTED GRAFT AND CORRUPTION WHEN HE FAILED AND REFUSED TO ACCOUNT FOR THE JUDICIARY DEVELOPMENT FUND (JDF) AND SPECIAL ALLOWANCE FOR THE JUDICIARY (SAJ) COLLECTIONS.

• Respondent has reportedly failed and refused to report on the status of the JDF Funds and the SAJ collections.
• There is likewise the reported failure of Respondent to account for funds released and spent for unfilled positions in the judiciary and from authorized and funded but not created courts.
  • In particular, the annual audit report of the Supreme Court of the Philippines contained the observation that unremitted funds to the Bureau of Treasury amounted to P5.38 Billion
  • the Special allowance for Judiciary along with the General Fund, Judiciary Development Fund in the amount of P559.5 Million were misstated resulting from delayed and/or non-preparation of bank reconciliation statements and non-recording /uncorrected reconciling items.

SC spokesman Marquez hits back at Pnoy admin, describes Corona impeachment as ‘dastardly’

Court Administrator Jose Midas Marquez, who is also the spokesman of the Supreme Court, reiterated before Manila judges on Tuesday that the “dastardly” impeachment of Chief Justice Renato Corona is an “assault to the entire judiciary.”

“Make no mistake, this is an assault not only to the person of Chief Justice Corona, not only on his office, not only on SC. This is an assault on the rights, power and privacy of the entire judiciary,” Marquez said in a speech at the Manila Regional Trial Court Judges’ Association oath-taking ceremony.

He added that with the impeachment, which he said was done in a “blitzkrieg fashion,” members of the judiciary branch “are being forced to surrender our constitutionally mandated powers and functions to the whim and caprice of political machinations.”

Without mentioning any names, Marquez, in his speech, said “perpetrators of this dastardly assault” on Corona and the judiciary are seeking to “intimidate and inspire fear amongst us with the loud clamoring of their ill-advised leadership.”

Marquez delivered the speech a day after the House of Representatives impeached Corona for alleged graft and corruption, culpable violation of the Constitution, and betrayal of public trust. A total of 188 lawmakers signed the complaint.

Corona is an appointee of embattled former President and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, who is now facing electoral sabotage charges in connection with the alleged irregularities in the 2007 elections.

Corona, who occupied various posts under Arroyo even when she was still vice president, had earlier said that he will not vacate his post despite the attacks on him.

Before being impeached, Corona was on the receiving end of criticisms from no less than President Benigno Aquino III, who had questioned his impartiality. — KBK, GMA News

SC saddened by impeach case vs del Castillo

MANILA, Philippines – Supreme Court spokesman Jose Midas Marquez  on Thursday said he is saddened that an impeachment case against SC Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo continues to prosper in the House of Representatives.

Marquez said he is saddened that lawmakers continue to hear the case against del Castillo despite his being cleared by the Supreme Court.

“Nakakalungkot dahil nagdesisyon na ang Kataas-taasang hukuman tungkol sa kasong iyan. Siyempre ibang sangay ng gobyerno yan. Sana tignan din nila ang naging desisyon ng SC,” he told radio dzMM.

He added: “Siyempre iba ang tinitignan nila diyan. Hindi ko pwedeng sabihing walang merito.”

Marquez said he is carefully choosing his words about the case since del Castillo could question the court proceedings before the SC. He said the SC magistrate could also choose to answer the charges and let the impeachment process continue.

Del Castillo is facing an impeachment complaint before the House of Representatives after allegedly plagiarizing parts of his decision on the case of “comfort women” during World War II. Last October 2010, the Supreme Court dismissed the plagiarism charge against del Castillo, saying that it was his researcher who accidentally deleted the footnotes in his decision.

On Thursday, 40 congressmen voted in favor while 7 voted against the sufficiency in substance of the impeachment complaint against del Castillo. The House justice committee earlier found the same complaint against del Castillo sufficient in form.

Speaking to ANC, Justice Committee chairman Niel Tupas Jr. said the vote was a bit surprising “because as you can remember last May 18, when we voted on the form, it was a close vote. It was 11 in favor, 10 against. The vote now is 40 against 7.”

He said the committee will now order del Castillo to answer the complaint within 10 days. He said that after the holiday break, the justice committee can vote if there is sufficient grounds and probable cause to impeach the magistrate.

Corona won’t resign, says SC spokesman

MANILA, Philippines – Chief Justice Renato Corona has no plans of resigning despite being lambasted publicly by no less than President Benigno Aquino III during a criminal justice summit on Monday.

In separate interviews, Supreme Court spokesman and Court Administrator Jose Midas Marquez said Corona has not mentioned anything about resigning his post after the President again raised the issue that he is a midnight appointee of former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.

“[Resignation] is not something he has mentioned. Hanggang 2018 pa siya,” he told ABS-CBN’s “Umagang Kay Ganda.”

Marquez noted that the SC majority had already voted to uphold the President’s power to appoint a chief justice despite a midnight appointments ban in 2010.

What is unfortunate, he said, is that Corona was appointed by an unpopular president such as Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.

“It is just unfortunate that the Chief Justice was appointed by someone that many do not like. Now they are attacking him. It’s not his fault. Why would he resign? Is it his fault that he passed through the constitutional process? He has been with the court 8 years. Why would he resign?” he asked in a Headstart review.

Marquez said Corona was blindsided by Aquino’s comments especially since the forum was organized by the Supreme Court with other stakeholders of the country’s judicial system. He said the forum was attended by various magistrates from the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan.

“It was quite disturbing. We went there in good faith. It was a criminal justice summit. We expected coordination and cooperation between and among the coordinators in the justice sector. That was really the intention and the goal of that summit. What are the problems in the criminal justice system? And then here comes this speech directly hitting the SC and the justices…” he said.

In his speech, Aquino questioned several of the recent Supreme Court rulings including striking down the legality of the Truth Commission and the issuance of a stay order on the travel restraint against former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.

The President questioned why the SC favored the redistricting of Camarines Sur, despite a constitutional provision that every district should at least have a population of 250,000. The SC decision would later allow Arroyo’s son, Dato, to run in the new district for Camarines Sur.

Aquino also warned against public servants who feel indebted to their “patron”, alluding to Corona who was appointed chief justice a week before the 2010 election.

‘Nothing personal vs Corona’

For his part, Communications Secretary Sonny Coloma defended Aquino’s comments, saying Malacañang has nothing personal against the Chief Justice.

“It was nothing personal. The President said in his speech that the Executive branch respects the other co-equal branches of government. Wala pong balak na saksakan o bastusin ang kredibilidad ng sinuman,” he told ABS-CBN.

Coloma said the President was addressing the Filipino people, not the justices and other stakeholders at the Manila Hotel, when he decided to expose the problems of a weak justice system.

Asked why the President chose that summit to criticize Corona while he was present, Coloma said: “I think the Filipino people appreciate candor and sincerity. Kung pwede naman sabiin ng kaharap, bakit pa sasabihin ng nakatalikod? Issue-based naman ang pagsasalita ng ating pangulo.”

Presidential Spokesman Edwin Lacierda said Aquino specifically chose the summit to talk about justice and accountability and remind everyone that government authority emanates from the people.

He said critiques against the Supreme Court are nothing new and that the only difference during Monday’s summit is that Corona was present.

He also noted that the Supreme Court has yet to explain why it even issued a temporary restraining order on the watchlist order for Arroyo. He said that, aside from the dissenting opinion of Associate Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno, the SC majority only noted that the TRO was issued because of Arroyo’s right to life.

“We already saw Arroyo’s condition is not life-threatening. If you look at the resolution for the TRO, majority of SC said right to life. There was no explanation. I am not saying Arroyo has no right to life. But Justice Sereno also asked: why the rush to issue a TRO? Why not let the government explain their side first before issuing a TRO?”

‘Judge Corona for his opinions’

SC spokesman Marquez reiterated that many people including justices from the Sandiganbayan, Court of Appeals, Court of Tax Appeals were disturbed by Aquino’s comments against the Supreme Court. This is why he issued a statement expressing the sentiments of the judiciary even without the instruction of Corona.

Marquez denied that Corona has consistently sided with Arroyo every time a case involving her reached the SC. At least 12 of the 15 Supreme Court magistrates including Corona were appointed by Arroyo.

“These are majority votes. Does this mean that the majority vote is wrong just because he happened to be in the majority view? That is the decision of the court. That is why we have 15 justices. It is a collegial body. They come from different backgrounds. They have respective philosophies and beliefs and at the end of the day, they vote,” he said.

The SC spokesman also warned against undermining the credibility of the courts, which is a co-equal branch of government along with the legislative and executive.

“That is why we have the rule of law…That is why we have our courts because we have to exercise these proper checks and balances no matter how popular one branch of government is. If one branch is not doing something in accordance with the constitution, then the other branch should check that particular branch,” he said.

IT’S FINAL: SUPREME COURT JUNKS TRUTH COMMISSION EO

The Supreme Court today (Tuesday, July 26) denied with finality the appeal seeking a reversal of its decision declaring as unconstitutional the creation of the Philippine Truth Commission (PTC) tasked investigate alleged corruption committed during the administration of former President and now Pampanga Representative Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

“The Court denies with finality the motion for reconsideration. No substantial arguments were raised in the MR,” high court spokesman Jose Midas Marquez said.

However, Marquez said the high court is not totally closing its door on the issue because the government can still file a motion for leave to allow them to file a second motion for reconsideration.

Last year, voting 10-5, voided for being unconstitutional the first executive order issued by President Benigno Aquino III creating the so-called “Philippine Truth Commission” mandated to investigate allegations of graft and corruption during the Arroyo administration.

Majority of the high court magistrates agreed with the ponencia of Associate
Justice Jose Mendoza that the EO No. 1 violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

In declaring as unconstitutional the EO No. 1, the Supreme Court stressed that the presidential issuance does not only violate the constitutional provision on “equal protection clause,” but it could also serve as a tool for “vindictiveness and selective retribution.”

The Mendoza ruling concurred by nine other magistrates led by Chief Justice Renato Corona said that the Palace should have included previous administrations under the coverage of the PTC which had originally been given a 29 month deadline to complete its fact finding mission exclusively on the Arroyo administration.

“Not to include past administrations similarly situated constitutes arbitrariness which the equal protection clause cannot sanction. Such discriminating differentiation clearly reverberates to label the commission as a vehicle for vindictiveness and selective retribution,” the majority opinion stressed. (inq.net)