The Bernas Connection with GMA: Niece-in-law Luli
Last Monday, Fr. Joaquin Bernas posited questions for the Senate to answer in connection with the impeachment of Chief Justice Renato Corona. Reading his questions closely, I realized that what he raised were, in reality, grounds why he believes the Senate should dismiss the Articles of Impeachment. It becomes imperative thus, for believers in the rule of law, to address each of the questions raised by the Jesuit.
Article 1 (on partiality and subservience to Gloria Macapagal Arroyo)
a. May the Senate review the Court’s decision (in De Castro v JBC)?
Answer: Yes, insofar as it may impact on the resolution of the chief justice’s fitness to remain in office for accepting an appointment which is contrary to the language and intent of the constitution and hence, immoral and unjust. This much Bernas has previously written: “Any person who accepted the post of Chief Justice from Mrs. Arroyo would open himself or herself to impeachment by the next Congress.”
b. Is it illegitimate to assume that the votes of Corona represented independent judgment?
Answer: Yes. Given his voting record in favor of Arroyo and his very close personal and professional relationship with her, it is indeed illegitimate to assume that his decisions represented independent judgment.
Article 2 (on the non-disclosure of the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth):
a. The command on making assets and liabilities public is qualified by the clause “in the manner provided by law.” Is there a law providing the manner and did Corona violate it?
Answer: Yes, the manner is provided in Republic Act 6713. The law provides: that it shall be “made available for inspection at reasonable hours” and “shall be made available for copying or reproduction after ten (10) working days from the time they are filed as required by law”. Corona, furthermore, had the duty as Chief Justice, to establish compliance procedures for the SALN requirement.
c. What evidence will be presented on the alleged illegally acquired property?
Answer: A picture of one such property was published in the newspapers.
Article 3 (on lack of competence, probity and integrity)
a. Is the flip-flopping of the Court in collegial decisions attributable to Corona alone or to a body struggling to arrive at justice? Did Corona himself flip-flop?
b. Is the Court prohibited from modifying prior decisions or doctrines?
Answer: The real question as stated in the House Reply is this: Did he do anything, as the constitutional and moral leader of the Supreme Court, to prevent or even discourage the never-ending change in the purportedly final decisions of the Supreme Court? No, the Court can change its prior decisions. But this requires changed circumstances -which were lacking in the cases of flip-flopping identified in the impeachment complaint.
c. When and by whom was Mrs. Corona appointed to John Hay Management Corporation? Is a husband obliged to compel his wife to turn down an appointment? Or did he try to dissuade her at all? Or was he overruled by the wife?
d. Can a husband be made answerable for acts of the wife?
Answer: Under the circumstances mentioned in the Complaint, the appointment of Mrs. Corona was inappropriate. Best proof of this was when she herself resigned after Corona became Chief Justice. Why should an appointment be appropriate when the spouse was an Associate Justice and why should it become inappropriate after he has become CJ? Truth is, it was inappropriate full stop. It was inappropriate because the appointment of a spouse of a Justice to a government-owned and -controlled corporation as a form of a political dole is wrong .
e. Will Justice Carpio be asked to testify about the alleged lobbying about pending cases?
Answer: I would hope to. Truth will set the nation free
Article 4 ( on the disregard for separation of powers in the Gutierrez case)
What can be made of the fact that the status quo ante order was a resolution of eight justices? How did Corona vote on the later reversal of the status quo ante order?
Article 5 (on wanton arbitrariness and disregard of the principle of res judicata)
a. Were not the League of Cities case and the Dinagat case collegial decisions upholding acts of Congress? Were the laws involved statutory responses of Congress to the people as “master” as against the greed of the League of Cities?
b. Was not the Fasap (Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines) decision also collegial?
Common Answer: Again, what is being impugned as betrayal of public trust are the individual actions of the Chief Justice in these cases. As emphasized in the Reply, it is, however, without prejudice to impeaching the other justices who disregarded the principle of res judicata.
c. Is the Supreme Court powerless to look into the activities of its members (e.g., plagiarism) especially if it involves things that might affect the reputation of the Court?
Answer: No, when the matter falls within the original jurisdiction of the Court such as bar and other administrative matters. It has, however, no jurisdiction to deal with impeachable offenses, such as plagiarism, and certainly not in a manner that would preclude Congress from exercising its powers to initiate and decide on impeachment cases.
d. Was not the creation of new districts in Camarines Sur done by Congress, the representative of the people?
Answer: Yes, but what is being questioned is the individual vote of the Chief Justice in the case which impugned precisely the constitutionality and legality of the law creating a new district to favor a presidential son.
e. Who decides the application of the principle of proportionality (or “one man, one vote”) in the size of districts?
Answer: It is law that defines proportionality. Aquino in his case argued that the legal requirements were not met.
Article 7 (on the temporary restraining order allowing Mrs. Arroyo and her husband Mike to escape prosecution)
a. The constitutionality of the restriction on the right to travel through a Department of Justice circular on hold-departure orders is pending before the Court, with the decision expected after New Year. Should the Senate preempt the Supreme Court decision?
Answer: The questioned TRO almost made the issue moot. It was hence the Arroyo Court itself that preempted its own decision on the merits when it issued the restraining order.
b. What is the import, if any, of the existence of a House bill and a Senate bill disempowering the DOJ?
Answer: None whatsoever. They are mere pending bills and have not become law
c. The continuing effectivity of the TRO has been affirmed by the Supreme Court. What power does the Senate have over it?
Answer: It is relevant on the issue of partiality of the Chief Justice in favor of Mrs. Arroyo. Certainly, the dissenting opinions of Justices Lourdes Sereno and Antonio Carpio prove anomalies and irregularities in the promulgation of the questioned restraining order.
Article 8 (on the refusal to account for the Judicial Development Fund).
a. Involved in this is the interpretation of the extent of fiscal autonomy of the Court. What is the jurisprudence on this? Will the Senate apply or depart from existing jurisprudence on the subject?
Answer: No branch or agency of government is immune from fiscal accountability. Fiscal accountability is not synonymous with impunity for malversation of public funds.
well what else is new. the newest addition to the gloria camp is of all people bernas. his recent commentaries favoring gloria and corona started only about august 2011 when pnoy started attacking corona. bernas opinion and comments before august 2011 where paragon of fairness and common sense even when it is known 2 years earlier that lulli was married to a bernas relative. blood indeed is thicker than water. I thought that only joker transferred to the dark side because he became a trapo but bernas? it is like seeing the betrayal of christ.
fr. bernas commentaries have basis but you comment has none. Yours are mere conclusions without any support.
Thank you po
Is reading the column of bernas since he became part of inquoirer (that is about 10 years plus) is not a basis which can translate into a conclusion for a particular subject not enough? I don’t begrudge bernas but the sudden change of his writing climate is too abrupt for his intellectual age.
Harry’s answers are a bit shorthand, but most are certainly valid. It’s Fr. Bernas’s commentaries that have no basis… since they’re not really comments. He simply raised questions. On another note: Corona’s main defense (that an attack against him is an attack against the institution) is a typical ‘Arroyo’ tactic. Notice how former ombudsman Gutierrez (“the president is attacking the office of the ombudsman”) and former AFP Chief of Staff Bangit (“the president is insulting the military”) used the exact same defense. Corona is now insisting that the judiciary is being attacked.
Yes sir Harry. The points you raised in response to Bernas are valid and are correct. Me thinks Bernas has lost touch with reality mixing his inteligence and brillianb constitutional mind with ulterior motives. Suddenly disciples of fortitude like Bernas has become a defender of the devil. With respect to CJ Corona, the Supreme Court is more into to the abyss of desecrating impunity to commit the wrong than the present term of CJ Corona. He afterall as the chief justice, must know what is correct, moral and legal. But he hides under cloak of collegiality of the Supreme Court to avoid detection when in truth and in fact, he is the mastermind of all these flipflopping decisions. In cahoots with his first division team mates del castillo, villarama et. al. On all grounds he is guilty as the head of the agency, he has allowed the Supreme Court to desecr5ate itself with seriously erroneous decision. In my case, the Corona Court voted that there is no right to privacy in my files i save in the computer, using Ortega and Simmons cases of 2000. And yet a 2010 decisio of U.S. Vs. Warshak ruled that there is priavacy over e-mails stored in the computer. This is mental dishonessty qand gross ignorance of the law.
U r simply brilliant, harry roque! May ur tribe increase! U bring honor to ur profession unlike others!
truly humbled po
how do i post a comment here?
leave it at the comment section
Just some points.
Does the phrase Rule of Law means that everybody has their own set of rules of what constitute a right or wrong? Does this mean that we should abandon the rules that the sovereign people chose to govern them? Should we arrogate upon ourselves the power to interpret what the Law should mean? better yet, can we be selective on what rules should be considered right or wrong? I think Atty. Roque should ponder on his definition of what a rule of law is before he can use such big word
a. May the Senate review the Court’s decision (in De Castro v JBC)?
As a lawyer, Atty. Roque knows fully well that the answer is no. An answer of yes would destroy the foundation of the separation of powers. It is suggestive of an encroachment of an independent power which is carefully placed to prevent exactly this kind of situation.
Who determines what is constitutional or not? The UP Law Professors who were threatened to held in contempt? Those people who thought they can never be wrong? The Senate? The House of Representatives? How about the Supreme Court whose task is specifically to interpret the law?
Putting aside the legalistic view, let us remember that Corona came from the ranks of the Supreme Court itself as an Associate Justice. Even if he was not the Chief Justice, he is still entitled to one vote which affects every decisions in the High Court. Being a Chief Justice does not mean that his decision is the decision of the Court.
b. Is it illegitimate to assume that the votes of Corona represented independent judgment?
Independence of judgment does not depend on a persons voting record. What determines independence of judgment is the ability to voice out one’s opinion based on the facts of the case and the law applicable regardless on how unpopular one’s decision would be. Judges, more so Justices are not politicians. They are not populists who based their judgments on what the greater number of people would say. This particular characteristic distinguishes them from common politicians. This is their strength.
c. When and by whom was Mrs. Corona appointed to John Hay Management Corporation? Is a husband obliged to compel his wife to turn down an appointment? Or did he try to dissuade her at all? Or was he overruled by the wife?
d. Can a husband be made answerable for acts of the wife?
Common Answer: This should not be considered as a political dole. Every man and woman may pursue their own career. Are we suggesting that the man dominates over his wife? Moreover, remember that in any court decision, the facts and legal bases are stated which minimize any abuse of authority. Unlike the common politicians who do not need to explain their course of action, Justices are constrained by it.
e. Will Justice Carpio be asked to testify about the alleged lobbying about pending cases?
I sure hope so also.
Article 5 (on wanton arbitrariness and disregard of the principle of res judicata)
a. Were not the League of Cities case and the Dinagat case collegial decisions upholding acts of Congress? Were the laws involved statutory responses of Congress to the people as “master” as against the greed of the League of Cities?
b. Was not the Fasap (Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines) decision also collegial?
Answer: Are we saying that Corona should only vote no? The common people are quick to pass on their judgments because they can only see one side of the story. The Justices, however, are different. A more complete picture is presented before them for their judgment. Independence of mind is most needed here because it requires a delicate weighing of the different factors involved.
Independence of mind means not being afraid to stand up for what you believe is right and Corona demonstrated this.
a. The constitutionality of the restriction on the right to travel through a Department of Justice circular on hold-departure orders is pending before the Court, with the decision expected after New Year. Should the Senate preempt the Supreme Court decision?
Answer: No. same answer as to the separation of powers.
a. Is the flip-flopping of the Court in collegial decisions attributable to Corona alone or to a body struggling to arrive at justice? Did Corona himself flip-flop?
b. Is the Court prohibited from modifying prior decisions or doctrines?
Answer: The office of the Chief Justice does not give the power to direct Associate Justices to decide in a particular manner. If the suggestion of Atty. Roque was followed then it would be the height of betrayal of public trust for it would contravene the mechanism of a judicial system to have 15 independent minds.
I will continue on this. so sleepy.
to mr.truth and ambition. your comments are truly correct if the supreme court is not pack with corona and his 8 clones. remember the fernando court where marcos pack it with his classmates? poor CJ Fernando although he only has one vote the vote of all marcos classmates becomes his immortalized burdem and shame. Whether you like it or not there are now to shameful immortalized Supreme Court periods- the Fernando Court of Marcos time and the Corona Court of Gloria’s time.
The executive, legislative and the judiciary….. they are just really old people. acting like BABIES.
=)
Grow up.
Article 1
a. Atty Roque’s answer is just his opinion and own interpretation of the constitution of which Fr. Bernas is likewise entitled being a member of the constitutional commission which drafted the constitution. Only Supreme Court can interpret the constitution and no more no less.
b. In the exercise of judicial power a justice is entitled in favor of one party as there are only two contending parties. What makes Corona’s decision illegitimate if he favors arroyo in many cases based on existing jurisprudence and law and as long as there cases of which He decided against Arroyo? Justice has been vested with an authority to decide and not the people on actual controversies brought to court.
Article 2
a. “as required by law” a phrase too general that may still be subject to implementing rules and regulations of which the Supreme Court, prior to the assumption of the Chief Justice, had further implemented the manner of compliance in a more detailed and responsive to the needs of public officials. As such, it is not upon us people to determine whether such circular of the Supreme Court is valid or not so as to entitle us to conclude that the Chief Justice has violated a law or not.
Article 3
a and b. Are we in a position to define what is the meaning of flip-flopping? No ordinary person can define the meaning, only legislative can make a law defining it, or in the absence of any law, rules or regulation, any existing research materials can be utilized. If there is no concrete definition then any party can make their own definition or interpretation. Is the changed in the decision of the Supreme Court considered flip-flopping upon which we can infer that the Chief Justice is supposed to be in moral of obligation to prevent such change? This is a matter left to the discretion of the person vested with authority to decide and not the people in general under the rule of law.
c. Timing of appointment is material in determining the appropriateness of the appointment.