Norman Bordadora and Nikko Dizon
Philippine Daily Inquirer
October 15, 2010

Warns SC ruling could lead to gov’t chaos

MANILA, Philippines — Stung by the Supreme Court order stopping his removal of a “midnight appointee” of his predecessor, President Benigno Aquino III Thursday accused the tribunal of blocking his program of reform.

Mr. Aquino used strong words in assailing the high court for granting the petition of Bai Omera Dianalan-Lucman of the National Commission on Muslim Filipinos (NCMF), which sought a stop to the implementation of his Executive Order No. 2 rescinding the last-minute appointments of then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

“This order will embolden hundreds of similarly situated appointees of the past administration who had already been replaced, resigned or recalled, to demand that they be reinstated or retained. And having returned to their obtained posts, what can we expect from people who accepted illegal appointments?” he added.

Mr. Aquino said the status quo ante (SQA) order issued by the high court on Wednesday “could precipitate a clash with another separate, coequal branch of government.”

“The potential result of this [order] will be chaos and paralysis in the executive branch of government, as the legitimacy of officials appointed to replace those already removed will be cast in doubt,” he said, reading from a prepared statement at a briefing in Malacañang.

Covers only 1 petition

In response, Jose Midas Marquez, spokesperson of the high court, said it remained an institution governed by law and “not by passing emotions and daily polls.”

“The fact that it covers only the Lucman petition shows that it is a class of its own and it cannot be invoked as a blanket remedy for all the so-called midnight appointees,” he said.

Marquez, who is also the court administrator, defended the SQA order on Lucman’s petition.

“Judicial review, which includes the power to issue TROs (temporary restraining orders) and SQA orders, is not a privilege but a duty imposed by the Constitution on the court. It cannot shirk this duty,” he said in a text message.

Marquez said the SQA order was issued “after a judicious review” of the Lucman case.

Marquez further said, “Rest assured that we have a [Supreme Court] which is not governed by passing emotions and daily polls, but by the rule of law, serving not the special interest of the few, but the best interest of all, committed not to self-preservation but to the preservation of those great constitutional principles bequeathed by history.”

5th case filed

The President said the removal of Arroyo’s purported midnight appointees had allowed for the appointment of new officials who helped uncover the previous administration’s questionable deals.

“I call upon the Supreme Court to exercise judicial prudence at a time when the Filipino people deserve confidence-building measures from all our institutions rather than actions that might diminish this confidence,” he said.

As though on cue, Quezon City Prosecutor Dindo Venturanza filed Thursday afternoon a 50-page petition against EO 2 with the Supreme Court.

Venturanza is the fifth purported midnight appointee to seek a TRO on Mr. Aquino’s order.

The others with similar petitions are Cheloy Velicaria-Garafil, counsel at the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG); Eddie Tamondong, director of the Subic Bay Metropolitan Administration; and Jose Arturo de Castro, assistant justice secretary.

Named as respondents in Venturanza’s petition were Mr. Aquino, Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa, Justice Secretary Leila de Lima, Prosecutor General Claro Arellano and Assistant State Prosecutor Richard Anthony Fadullon.

Apart from a TRO, Venturanza sought an SQA order on EO 2, as well as the conduct of oral arguments on its validity.

He questioned De Lima’s order replacing him and appointing Fadullon as the officer in charge of the Quezon City Prosecutor’s Office on the strength of EO 2.

Urgent motion by OSG

Speaking with reporters after Mr. Aquino’s briefing, De Lima said the OSG was preparing an urgent motion to lift the high court’s order on Lucman’s petition.

“The view of the executive is that the reform agenda of this administration might be derailed if there is such an action from a coequal branch,” De Lima said.

Asked about the legal basis of Malacañang’s position, Mr. Aquino said his administration had sufficient evidence that those covered by EO 2 were appointed in violation of the constitutional ban on presidential appointments two months before a presidential election and until the end of the incumbent’s term.

He also said the high court should examine the effects of its order on Lucman’s petition.

“Our democracy was built on the constitutional principle of the separation of powers; hence, there are three branches of government. We therefore appeal, as a coequal branch of government, for the Supreme Court to consider the implications of its order,” he said.

The President said the Supreme Court’s order stopping the House of Representatives from continuing with its impeachment proceedings against Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez tested “the limits of its constitutional authority.”

“We kept our silence” on that issue, he said, but warned that the SQA order on Lucman’s petition “could precipitate a clash with another separate, coequal branch of government.”

Asked if the fact that almost all the members of the high court were Arroyo appointees could have been a factor in its decision on Lucman’s case, Mr. Aquino said: “I’d rather maintain the view that I hold them with respect and I expect them to do what is right for the people.”

Another case pending before the high court is the validity of Mr. Aquino’s creation of a truth commission that will look into the alleged corruption of the Arroyo administration.

Contrary to tradition, the President was sworn into office by Senior Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales.

He had contested Arroyo’s May 17 appointment of Chief Justice Renato Corona, arguing that it was made within the prohibitive period.

The Supreme Court has upheld Corona’s appointment as Chief Justice, and Mr. Aquino has since recognized him as such.

‘Judicial blackmail’?

The last time the executive and judicial branches appeared at loggerheads was when Marquez expressed the judiciary’s disappointment after the budget department rejected the magistrates’ proposed P27.1-billion budget for 2011, or nearly double the P14.3 billion allocated by Malacañang.

But Sen. Francis Escudero Thursday dismissed talk that the high court was engaging in “judicial blackmail.”

“It is difficult to make such an accusation as it would undermine the rule of law and the legal fabric that binds our country and people together. That is how they interpret the law whether we agree or not,” Escudero said.

Still, Sen. Francis Pangilinan said the high court was waging war on two fronts.

Waging war on 2 fronts

“First it went against Congress. Now it is going against the executive department. History has taught us that to wage war on two fronts can only lead to defeat. The Supreme Court will do well to learn from the lessons of history and rethink its current positioning,” Pangilinan said in a text message.

He decried what he called the high court’s “newfound propensity to step beyond its jurisdiction.”

Pangilinan said it was unfortunate that the magistrates would accommodate a petitioner questioning the President’s prerogative to revoke midnight appointments.

“[The move] creates widespread uncertainty in the bureaucracy especially since the official acts of these individuals remain of doubtful legality until the matter is resolved. … The uncertainty harms the government’s efforts to deliver its services to the public,” the senator said.

But he added that he saw no connection between the budget cut and the decision on Lucman’s case. With a report from Gil C. Cabacungan Jr.

View original post on Inquirer.net