November 29, 2006 · Posted in: Governance, In the News
Profiling the Chief Justice candidates – 3
DECISIONS and positions on threats to civil, political and democratic rights under the Arroyo administration
All five senior justices vying for the Chief Justice position voted against Executive Order No. 464, allowing high-ranking government officials to testify before congressional inquiries so long as the purpose of the testimonies will be used in aid of legislation.
|
EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 464
|
||
|
SUPREME COURT RULING
|
IN FAVOR
|
AGAINST
|
|
In a unanimous decision last April 20, 2006, the Supreme Court declared E0 464 as constitutional insofar as it bans Cabinet officials from appearing before congressional inquiries without the consent of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. But the court also said that Congress can compel the appearance of these officials, so long as investigations are done in aid of legislation.
|
Puno (voted while on leave, his wife died on April 12, 2006)
Quisumbing
Ynares-Santiago
Sandoval-Gutierrez
Carpio
|
|
All five senior justices also voted against the Arroyo government’s Calibrated Pre-emptive Response (CPR) policy which was enforced to quell protest rallies to uphold the fundamental rights of the people, particularly the freedoms of expression and assembly.
|
CALIBRATED PRE-EMPTIVE RESPONSE (CPR) POLICY
|
||
|
SUPREME COURT RULING
|
IN FAVOR
|
AGAINST
|
|
In declaring the Arroyo government’s so-called Calibrated Pre-emptive Response policy as unconstitutional, the court said it has “no place in our legal firmament and must be struck down as a darkness that shrouds freedom.”
|
Puno (voted while on leave, his wife died on April 12, 2006) Quisumbing Ynares-Santiago Sandoval-Gutierrez Carpio |
|
Four of the senior justices, with the exception of Puno (who was on leave), voted against Arroyo’s Proclamation No. 1017 which placed the country under a state of national emergency on February 24, 2006, thereby preserving freedom of speech and of the press, and the right of the people to peaceably assemble.
|
PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION NO. 1017
|
||
|
SUPREME COURT RULING
|
IN FAVOR
|
AGAINST
|
|
The Court, in an 11-3 vote, upheld the President’s power to declare a state of emergency but said that acts committed by government authorities under Proclamation 1017 were illegal.
|
Quisumbing Ynares-Santiago Sandoval-Gutierrez (penned the decision) Carpio |
|
Three of the five senior justices voted against the people’s initiative waged by Sigaw ng Bayan to change the 1987 Constitution. Two wanted the initiative issue remanded to the Commission on Elections.
|
CHARTER CHANGE THROUGH PEOPLE’S INITIATIVE
|
||
|
SUPREME COURT RULING
|
IN FAVOR
|
AGAINST
|
|
Voting 8-7, the Court dismissed the Sigaw ng Bayan petition for being, first and foremost, void and unconstitutional as it “miserably failed to comply with the basic requirements of the Constitution for conducting a people’s initiative.” Noting how the Sigaw initiative gathered signatures without first showing to the people the full text of the proposed amendments, the Court said it “is most likely a deception, and can operate as a gigantic fraud on the people.”
|
Puno Quisumbing |
Ynares-Santiago
Sandoval-Gutierrez Carpio (penned the decision) |
Meanwhile, Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago’s positions on the said issues, as gleaned from her public pronouncements, are as follows:
On EO 464
- The issuance of the order is irregular and binding only on the executive branch, not the legislative branch.
- A shot must be fired every time Malacañang invokes the order.
On Proclamation 1017
- The Supreme Court could not review the factual basis of PP 1017 because the writ of habeas corpus had not been suspended. According to her, “The commander-in-chief provision of the Constitution — Article 7, Section 18 — gives the SC the power to review the factual basis only when the President proclaims Martial Law, or suspends the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
On Charter change
- The Supreme Court can uphold the holding of a constituent assembly (Con-Ass) to amend the 1987 Constitution by a three-fourths vote of all the members of Congress voting jointly, provided that any number of senators take part in the process.
4 Responses to Profiling the Chief Justice candidates – 3
atty-up-yours
November 30th, 2006 at 6:37 pm
all the sr. assoc. justices past decisions in these cases won’t be the deciding factor in the selection of the next chief justice. i believe that miriam is gma’s best choice for only one thing: the eventual release of erap from incarceration. keeping erap behind bars lets him ham it up before the masang-filipino as their beloved underdog who will eventually win in the end (a movie-role he has honed to perfection).
miriam once rallied the edsa3 rabble to the gates of malacanang to demand erap’s release; she might actually be able to pull it off somehow as the new chief justice. if the santiago-supreme court frees erap, gma can go scot-free because the blame won’t fall on GMA but on her appointee.
jr_lad
November 30th, 2006 at 9:18 pm
“The “ostensible reason for interviewing nominees is to find out how they intend to manage or administer the Judiciary,” but the assumption that the Chief Justice is the Chief Executive of the Judiciary is a “gross misconception.” Neither is the Chief Justice the Chief Executive of the SC. “
above statement was made by the associate justices. how can Miriam then rule over the other justices once she’s appointed as SC chief? i think her appointment in the SC is for Gloria to have an additional reliable ally in the SC (knowing Miriam). an added vote for her future schemes like cha-cha (remember the voting was only 8-7), EO464 and CPR. but I don’t think it has something to do with erap.
Ambuot Saimo
December 1st, 2006 at 3:01 am
Damn it!!! If the appointment of Mirriam is just for additional political posturing and manuevering to ensure Pang-gulong Gloria and her ilks’ reign then by all means let’s stop it.
Although I trust Mirriam’s ability and “independence” but the fact that she also avoided being “interviewed” citing flimsy excuse is troubling and may be an attempt to evade questions on how she will vote on important issues. Her above position that chacha-via-conAss-sans-senate is possible “if a number of senators take part” is not a good sign.
baycas
December 2nd, 2006 at 2:17 am
a political horse-trader may be dangerous to our judiciary. here‘s an example of miriam’s horse…