SC upholds Estrada win

THE Manila Times story predicting that the Supreme Court (SC) will dismiss a disqualification case against Manila Mayor Joseph Estrada was right on target.

Voting 11-3, with one justice inhibiting, the SC en banc on Wednesday junked a petition seeking to reverse a Commission on Elections (Comelec) ruling that Estrada was qualified to run for mayor in the 2013 elections.

The High Court, through Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, dismissed the consolidated petitions filed by former Manila Mayor Alfredo Lim and his lawyer Alicia Risos-Vidal.

Estrada won in the mayoral race in 2013 with 349,770 votes, against Lim’s 307,291 votes.

De Castro is the same justice who convicted Estrada for the crime of plunder De Castro is the same justice who convicted Estrada for the crime of plunder at the Sandiganbayan on September 12, 2007.

Associate Justice Francis Jardeleza took no part in the case because he represented the Comelec during his stint as Solicitor General.

Voting with de Castro were Justices Presbitero Velasco Jr., Arturo Brion, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Mariano del Castillo, Martin Villarama Jr., Jose Perez, Jose Mendoza, Bienvenido Reyes and Estela Perlas-Bernabe.

Mendoza and Brion have issued separate concurring opinions.

The three SC justices who voted to oust Estrada were Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno, Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and Associate Justice Marvic Leonen.

Estrada was overjoyed upon learning of the SC decision.

“Masayang-masaya ako at gusto kong magpasalamat…Nagpapasalamat ako sa mga Supreme Court justices,” [I’m so happy and I want to thank the Supreme Court justices.],” he told reporters.

The former President said he immediately relayed the good news to family members.

Although he earlier announced that he will no longer run for mayor in 2016, Estrada said he may seek reelection if Vice Mayor Isko Moreno runs for higher office.

“I have palabra de honor (word of honor). I promised my vice mayor I won’t run. It all depends on Vice Mayor Isko Moreno. If he changes his mind, then I will run for reelection,” he explained.

“If the people will ask for it, then we can do nothing,” Estrada said.

According to him, Moreno is well equipped to succeed him as Manila mayor.

But the vice mayor had said he will not run against Estrada if the latter decides to seek another term. Moreno said he may run for senator or congressman instead.

When asked if he has a message to former mayor Alfredo Lim, Estrada said: “God bless him and may he be empowered in his retirement.”

City’s victory
Estrada’s children celebrated with their father, saying the SC decision is a victory not only for the Manila mayor but for the electorate of the city.

Sen. Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada, who is detained for plunder, expressed hope that the decision of the High Court will finally put all questions and uncertainties over the pardon given to his father and his eligibility to run for public office to rest.

“Now that this issue has been settled, let us focus on helping the local government of Manila to succeed in the next 18 months in restoring the glory and grandeur of our beloved capital city which were lost due to years of mismanagement and negligence,” the senator said.

Sen. Joseph Victor Ejercito also praised the SC for its decision.

“They (SC justices) respected the mandate that was given by the people to Mayor Estrada,” Ejercito said.

With Jaime R. Pilapil And Jefferson Antiporda

source:  Manila Times

May-December recess? We're deliberating, not holidaying, says SC

The Sereno Supreme Court may not be holding sessions for the full-month of May and the second half of December but it does not mean that the justices go on holiday during those stretches, said SC spokesman Theodore Te.

Te was reacting to a Monday item in this space noting that even Cory Aquino spokesman, former Senator Rene Saguisag, had joined the grumbling about the Sereno court's laid-back work schedule as "indolent."

Saguisag, now a law professor in San Beda College, also expressed dismay about the present Supreme Court's penchant to "stage presscons, speechify, travel abroad, socialize, accept accept."

Te also revealed that the Supreme Court has also set aside the whole month of November, in addition to May and the second-half of December, as "court recess" where the justices switch to the writing cycle.

The Supreme Court, by way of background, has two cycles -- the adjudication and the writing cycles, with the latter more commonly known in judicial circles as "recess."

The adjudication cycle goes on the whole year, except in the months of May, November and the second half of December as earlier noted, when the whole bench and its divisions do not meet to decide and deliberate on cases "but the justices continue to report for work in order to catch up on decision-writing and submission of drafts," Te said.

The only days last month that the Supreme Court did not work, aside from the national holidays, was on December 12 (Te actually said it was a "no transaction" day), when the justices held their Christmas party, on December 23 afternoon and on December 29, the latter having been declared by the Sereno court as a judicial holiday.

This January, the Supreme Court like all government offices will have lost six working days to holidays, including four to Catholic Church-related functions.

Asked why the current Supreme Court had resorted to the May and December recess when the previous SC administrations had deliberated and issued decisions for the whole month of May and even in the second half of the merry month of December, Te replied, "I cannot comment for lack of knowledge on the matter."

source:  Philippine Star Column of Victor Agustin

Support the Supreme Court and save our Republic

Last of two parts

Will the Supreme Court stand up against President Benigno Aquino 3rd and his administration’s violations of law and constitutional democratic institutions?

In fact, it has done so more than once — prompting Aquino to launch the first of his assaults on the law and democratic institutions. The magistrates ruled against Executive Order No. 1, issued on June 30, 2010, singling out the past government for investigation and thus violating equal protection under the law. Then in November 2011, the High Court voided Justice Secretary Leila de Lima’s travel ban on the former First Couple.

Within days of the travel ban voiding, Arroyo was under arrest without bail on rushed electoral sabotage charges. Two weeks later on December 7, Chief Justice Renato Corona was impeached by the House of Representatives, with little reading of the charges and lots of pork barrel disbursements.

From the foregoing episodes as well as the anger of Aquino and his allies over last year’s rulings against pork barrel and the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), the Supreme Court almost surely faces virulent excoriation and attack if it again rules against the administration.

Hence, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), and other national and sectoral institutions and groups advocating rule of law and republican democracy must even now make clear and tangible their support for the High Court in its duty of setting legal limits on government.

Without this unequivocal and unrelenting support, the justices are on their own, and some could falter under pressures from the Palace, its impeachment-brandishing allies, and pro-Aquino segments of maintstream media. Hence, the call on the Supreme Court to defend democracy and law, is also a trumpet blast for the IBP, the CBCP, and other advocates of justice and freedom to defend the Judiciary.

EDCA: Illegal and unfair?
Pressures will be aplenty when petitions questioning the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), the Bangsamoro Agreements and Basic Law, and the automated elections of 2010 come up for judgment. Already, there are moves to spare Aquino another unconstitutional ruling by just referring the defense deal to the Senate.

Last time we checked, the Supreme Court is supposed to rule on issues raised before it, such as whether EDCA was concluded in a constitutional way or not. Referring the deal to the Senate does not resolve the question of the legality of EDCA’s forging.

Plus: referring the deal to the Senate may usurp a presidential prerogative. Only the Executive can decide what to do with its treaties and agreements, including those ruled illegal, not the Judiciary. All the latter can and should do is affirm or void the pacts.

So bottom line: The Supreme Court should decide whether EDCA was forged in the manner laid out in the Constitution. That’s part of the separation of powers and checks and balances — the same paramount principle violated by pork barrel and DAP. And the Supreme Court must make doubly sure that this tenet is clearly affirmed and stressed in the EDCA ruling.

Sacrificing the law for ‘peace’
If the Aquino camp may go ballistic over decisions suspending suspect pork in the 2015 budget or voiding EDCA for lack of Senate ratification, expect multiple warheads raining down on the High Court if the Bangsamoro law and agreement as well as the 2010 automated elections are struck down.

The administration would blame the Supreme Court if fighting resumes in Mindanao over a voided Bangsamoro pact. Malacañang would also lambast as irresponsible and destabilizing a decision declaring the polls that elected Aquino null and void for failing to comply with key provisions of the Election Code governing them.

The argument that would sway many, if not most Filipinos is that the justices should allow some liberties with the law to avoid political conflict and instability. The very same thinking behind DAP: The end justifies the mincemeat that key statutes are reduced to.

Except that letting Bangsamoro and automated elections issues through without serious review would grind not just crucial provisions of the Constitution, but the Republic’s sovereignty, security and suffrage themselves — all foundations of our nationhood.

Dubious provisions in the Bangsamoro pact could give secessionist elements the door to breakaway and belligerency, especially the provision stripping the Armed Forces of the Philippines of its law enforcement function in the region and scaling the AFP down.

If the future regime declares independence, protected by its police, that would give separatists the belligerency and international recognition they crave. That would be a far greater security threat than even a resumption of hostilities with Muslim rebels.

As for elections, the Supreme Court must declare automated polls invalid if indispensable and legally mandated safeguards are voided. Otherwise, they would be set aside again and again, knowing that results would be affirmed for fear of disorder.

No, the justices must rule that dispensing with basic safeguards would void the polls, especially procedures absolutely necessary to ensure that only valid returns are counted and votes are correctly tabulated,.

Even the 2010 and 2013 elections? Sure. Those polls may be declared void, while allowing officials proclaimed in good faith to exercise full authority till the end of their terms. Much like the decision voiding DAP, but letting its ongoing projects continue.

That messy resolution is far better than allowing the voiding of election safeguards that are as fundamental as canvassing only verified tally sheets and tabulating votes as written in ballots in manual polls.

Backed by the IBP, the CBCP and other civil society, the Supreme Court must not allow potentially fatal blows against the body democratic, blackmailed by Palace and Congress warnings of war and instability.

Our forefathers braved those very threats to bequeath a free, democratic, constitutional Republic of the Philippines to us. We must protect our nation, our Constitution and our institutions — even if we must fight more battles. Especially against the abusive elites burdening our people since time immemorial.

(The first part was published two days ago.)

source:  Manila Times' Column of Ricardo Saludo

SC says it’s final: ‘Pork’ is dead

THE Supreme Court (SC) en banc has hammered the final nail on the coffin to officially declare the death of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) or pork barrel.

The PDAF being declared unconstitutional has become “final and executory,” according to a copy of a three-page entry of judgment obtained by The Manila Times.

The document, signed by Corazon delos Reyes, deputy Clerk of Court and chief of the Judicial Records Office, was subsequently recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgment.

The PDAF case ruling of the High Court on November 19, 2013 is now part of the Supreme Court Reports Annotated (SCRA) under the case Pedrito M. Nepomuceno vs. President Benigno Simeon C. Aquino 3rd ad Secretary Florencio Abad of the Department of Budget and Management.

Petitioners in the case included lawyer Samson Alcantara of the Social Justice Society, former Manila Councilor Greco Belgica and former congressman Augusto Syjuco.

The declaration has become final and executory since no motion for reconsideration of the November 19, 2013 ruling handed down by Associate Justice Estela Perlas-Bernabe was filed by Malacanang.

An SC source said no appeal was made by the Palace in order to save the presidential pork that was said to be funds under the controversial Disbursement Acceleration Program or DAP.

“The court hereby directs all prosecutorial organs of government to, within the bounds of reasonable dispatch, investigate and accordingly prosecute all government officials and/or private individuals for possible criminal offenses related to the irregular, improper and/or unlawful disbursement/utilization of all funds under the pork barrel system,” the tribunal said.

The justices voted 14-0, with one inhibition made by Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco since his wife, Lorna Velasco, was a party-list member of the House of Representatives and his son Lord Allan Velasco was a former representative of Marinduque province.

The SC en banc also declared unconstitutional:

“All legal provisions of past and present congressional pork barrel laws such as the previous PDAF and CDF (Countrywide Development Fund, later called PDAF) articles and various congressional insertions, which authorize/d legislators–whether individually or collectively organized into committees–to intervene, assume or participate in any of the various post-enactment stages of the budget execution, such as but not limited to the areas of project identification, modification and revision of project identification, fund release and /or fund realignment, unrelated to the power of congressional oversight;

“All legal provisions of past and present congressional pork barrel laws, such as the previous PDAF and CDF articles and the various congressional insertions, which confer/red personal, lump-sum allocations to legislators from which they are able to fund specific projects which they themselves determine;

“All informal practices of similar import and effect, which the court similarly deems to be acts of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of discretions; and

“The phrases “and for such other purposes as may be hereafter directed by the president under (Section) 8 of PD (Presidential Decree) 910 to finance the priority infrastructure (development) projects under (Section) 12 of PD 1869 as amended by PD 1993 , for both failing the sufficient standard test in violation of the principle of non-delegability of legislative powers.”

The 15-man tribunal has made permanent the temporary restraining order (TRO) it earlier issued against PDAF.

“Accordingly, the court’s temporary injunction dated September 10, 2013 is hereby declared to be permanent.”

“Thus, the disbursements/release of remaining PDAF funds allocated for year 2013, as well as for all previous years and the Malampaya funds under the phrase ‘And for such other purposes as may hereby directed by the (P)resident’ pursuant to Section 8 of PD 910 which are, at the time of this decision is promulgated, not covered by Notice of Cash Allocation but only by Special Allotment Release Orders, whether obligated or not, are hereby enjoined.”

In addition, the SC en banc “also enjoins the release of funds sourced from the Presidential Social Fund under the phrase ‘to finance the priority infrastructure development projects pursuant to Section 12 PD 1869 as amended by PD 1993.’ Said funds covered by this permanent injunction shall not be disbursed/released but instead returned to the general coffers of government except for the funds covered by the Malampaya funds and the Presidential Social Fund (that) shall remain therein to be utilized for their respective special purposes not otherwise declared unconstitutional.”

Meanwhile, the court junked a plea of the petitioners to summon the Commission on Audit, Malacanang, and Congress on the book of accounts pertaining to PDAF since it can be done via separate petition for mandamus or it can be obtained directly from the respective government agencies.

source:  Manila Times