Impeachment and poker

Day 6 of the Impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona, the Senate Impeachment Court allowed the presentation of the documents from the Bureau of Internal Revenue and the prosecution are harping that indeed there were discrepancies between the statement of assets and liabilities and networth of the Chief Justice and his wife and the documents from the BIR.

Yes, there probably were discrepancies  at first glance especially upon hearing that whopping amount of P11 million. It will definitely keep the public on their toes. But instead of pushing the panic button, why, of all days the defense opted not to object? Instead, they did not only stipulated but admitted ALL the evidence presented by the prosecution?

This may sound so off but think about the game of Poker when you try to keep your best cards in secret and then boom!!!

I guess this one will be like poker.

Happy Chinese New Year!

May all of you dance to the beat of happiness and prosperity. Gong Xi Fa Cai!!!

Reflection of you

In closing, the message of the House, as the representatives of the people, is the same as that given by Oliver Cromwell when he dismissedEngland’s Long Parliament on April 20 of 1653. Before God and country, we say: “It is high time for us to put an end to you sitting in that place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice, you are an enemy to good government, as you have sold your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas Escariot betrayed your God for a few pieces of gold. Depart I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!”

- - “In the name of God, go!” Opening statement for the Prosecution by Rep. Niel C. Tupas Jr.

 

Well, actually, Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus Christ for 3O pieces of SILVER NOT GOLD. Read the books well. If one made a mistake for this simple, common information, what more those that require research.

Is this a reflection of the prosecution team’s unpreparedness?

 

 

Searching=fishing

Let me be clear: We are not here to indict the Supreme Court as an institution, or to do battle with the judicial branch. We are here to search for the truth so as to restore the strength and independence of the judiciary.  We are here because one man – Chief Justice Renato Corona — has bartered away for the pot of porridge the effectiveness, the independence, and the honor of the Supreme Court.

- “In the name of God, go!” Opening statement for the Prosecution by Rep. Niel C. Tupas Jr

 

In ordinary proceedings, a respondent is only indicted if there is probable cause. Probable Cause is the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted. In this case, I wonder what is the basis for indicting the Chief Justice and taking to the Senate for trial?

He said so himself “searching for the truth.” I think they should have searched first before they took it to the Senate. In ordinary proceedings, searching is only fact finding.

I think, his speech would have been way too much better if he said “we are here to show you the truth-the truth that he has kept from us.” At least there is certainty and probably, probable cause.

 

       

My humble view of the impeachment

I am not an expert nor rooting for Chief Justice Renato Corona. However, I am for what is right. This is but my humble opinion, a product of my tiny knowledge. Chief Justice Renato Corona was impeached by 188 solons on eight grounds (those marked in red are the grounds while those in black are my observations):

1.  Corona allegedly 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 and until his dubious appointment as a “midnight” chief justice to the present.

Voted in favor of the Arroyo administration out of how many cases? To be fair, there should be a statistics on how many cases he has decided involving the previous administration and this government and a comparison of the votes. If let us say he voted for 19 cases in favor of the Arroyos, are these the only Arroyo-related cases that went to the Supreme Court?

2.  Corona allegedly 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 under Sec. 17, Article XI of the 1987 Constitution.

Section 17 Article XI of the Constitution provides that “a public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities and net worth. In the case o f the President, Vice President, the members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Commission and other constitutional offices and officers of the armed forces…the declaration shall be disclosed to the public in the manner provided by law.”

The Court has provided for guidelines on the release of SALN of members of the Judiciary to protect members of the Judiciary from all forms of harassment. Disclosure is allowed but upon request and compliance with the requirements set forth by the Supreme Court. Besides, the Constitution itself stated that “disclosure to the public in the manner provided by law.” In my humble view, it gave the Supreme Court a leeway to promulgate rules on the disclosure of their SALN, in the same manner that members of the Executive and Legislative have their own set of rules to be followed. For further understanding, click this link

Is Chief Justice Corona the only justice who failed to disclose their SALN? Can you please tell me who are the justices who have disclosed their SALN? The non-disclosure of SALN started during the time of Chief Justice Andres Narvasa. How many Chief Justices and Associate Justice have come and go at the Supreme Court, none has disclosed their SALN but they were not impeached.

3.  Corona allegedly committed culpable violations of the Constitution and betrayed the public trust by failing to meet and observe the stringent standards under Article 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.”

Why?  What is their idea of a person “of proven competence, integrity, probity and independence”? They will remove the Arroyo appointed justices and replace them of their own. Hmmm…someone with competence, integrity, probity and independence because they will support the anti-corruption drive of the government…oo nga naman :p

4.  Corona supposedly 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.

Please check the records straight-8 justices voted in favor of the issuance of the Status Quo Ante Order therefore, if there is a violation of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution, 8 Justices have committed it. Remember, the Chief Justice is NOT the Supreme Court. He does not decide alone.

The principle of the separation of powers does not mean that one branch of government is independent of the other or that there is certain exclusivity. This principle is included in our laws to prevent each branch from trespassing and seizing the power vested to others.

Also, under Article VIII Section 1 (2) of the Constitution states that “Judicial Power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable and to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government. This allows for the so called  checks and balances and of course, the power of judicial review.

Judicial power is the power of the court to decide and pronounce a judgment and to carry it into effect between persons and parties who bring a case before it for decision (Nolledo, 1987).

Judicial review, on the other hand, has been defined as the power granted to the Supreme Court “to decide the validity of acts” of the other two branches of the government – namely, executive and legislative (Grolier Encyclopedia).

Thus, through the power of judicial review, decisions and acts of both the executive and the legislative branches of the government can be overruled by the Supreme Court if it does not conform with the law or the Constitution. So, if the Supreme Court acted against an act of Congress or the Executive for that matter, there is no culpable violation of separation of powers because the Constitution itself has given the Judiciary the power to check the acts of its co-equal branch.

5.  Corona allegedly 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.

Again, Chief Justice Corona is NOT the Supreme Court decisions are decided by the Court en banc (15 justices). Check your facts, the vote for deciding in favor of the constitutionality of the law creating Dinagat Islands is 9-6 while in the League of Cities case, the vote was 7-6. So, why only the Chief Justice? Or are we going to expect more impeachment complaints against the other justices soon using the same grounds?

6. Corona supposedly betrayed the public trust by arrogating unto himself, and to a committee he created, the authority and jurisdiction to improperly investigate a justice 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.

Please check the 1987 Constitution particularly Articles VI and XI, nothing in those provisions gave Congress the authority to discipline Supreme Court justices for non-impeachable offenses. Under Article XI, the grounds for impeachment are 1. culpable violation of the Constitution; 2. Treason; 3. Bribery; 4. Graft and Corruption; 5. other high crimes and 6. betrayal of public trust. So, where does PLAGIARISM fall under any of these six?

Retired Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban in his column dated Aug. 22, 2010 (click here to read to complete column) said “notably, other than the aforesaid six offenses, which do not include “plagiarism,” the Constitution has not expressly authorized Congress or any other agency to discipline Supreme Court justices. And the only penalty Congress can impose is “removal from office.” No government office has been expressly granted the power to penalize Supreme Court members for wrongdoings that are punishable by lesser penalties like suspension, fine or censure.

In the absence of a law authorizing any office to discipline high court justices for non-impeachable offenses, and for which the penalty is lighter than removal from office, the Supreme Court itself assumed such responsibility. Thus, for the first time in its 100 years of history,on March 22, 2000, it censured one of its own for “failing to disclose on time his relationship to (a bar) examinee and for breach of duty and confidence.” It also “forfeited fifty percent of the fees due him as former Chairman of the 1999 Bar Examinations Committee (Bar Matter No. 979, In Re: 1999 Bar Examinations).”

Claiming that they do have the power to discipline justices for non-impeachable offenses, then they are no more different than those they are trying to impeach for arrogating unto itself such power.

7. Corona supposedly betrayed the public trust through his partiality in granting a temporary restraining order 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.

Again, Chief Justice Corona is NOT the Supreme Court. The vote was 8-5. Those who signed the impeachment should have looked at the basis for the allegation that the TRO was issued to give the Arroyos the opportunity to escape.

8. Corona allegedly 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.

If they are referring to Corona’s refusal to turn over the JDF to the Treasury, Presidential Decree 1949 provides that the amounts accruing to the funds shall be  ”deposited by the Chief Justice of his duly authorized representative in an authorized government depository bank or private bank owned or controlled by the Government (not the treasury) and the income or interest earned shall likewise form part of the Fund.”

The use of the JDF and the Special allowance is provided under Republic Act 9227 and Presidential Decree 1949.

Will they impeach the 10 other Arroyo appointed justices since the impeachment against Corona and Justice Mariano Del Castillo have started? One thing is sure, people in power will use the law to the point of twisting it to support what they wanted.

These are interesting times. We are probably following a “tuwid na daan” but is that the right way? In the end, I hope what is right will prevail.

Curbing the Court

(This is a statement issued by Court Administrator Jose Midas Marquez)

I am not sure if the President’s refusal to meet with the Legislative and the Judiciary officials on the budget of the Judiciary is really coming from the President himself.  (We have seen conflicting reports coming from the Palace many times in the past)  If that is so, that is fine, but unfortunate.  With who to meet is the President’s prerogative.  I just wish that the President has been fully informed of the issues, and was not given just a sanitized summary regarding the matter.  After all, what we are all after is continuing judicial reforms which I understand is high on the President’s agenda.

The issue of fiscal autonomy is far from settled, contrary to what Lacierda and Valte say.  Maybe settled among themselves, yes.  But certainly not with the Judiciary and the Constitutional Commissions whose respective budgets they continue to play with.  They have supposedly settled the issue by subjecting the Judiciary and the constitutional commissions to certain conditions on the use of the questioned funds, among them, “exclusively used to fill up the unfilled items,” and “if not used, the funds revert to the Bureau of Treasury.”

This is an express violation of the constitutional provisions on fiscal autonomy!

I have already pointed out Sec. 3, Art. VIII of the Constitution with regards the Judiciary (and Sec. 5, Art. IX A, for the Constitutional Commissions) which is as clear as a sunny day.  If that is not still clear to them, let me remind them what a two decade-old jurisprudence teaches us, which lawyers Lacierda and Valte should have known, had they been doing their assignment –

“What is fiscal autonomy?

As envisioned in the Constitution, the fiscal autonomy enjoyed by the Judiciary, the Civil Service Commission, the Commission on Audit, the Commission on Elections, and the Office of the Ombudsman contemplates a guarantee of full flexibility to allocate and utilize their resources with the wisdom and dispatch that their needs require.  It recognizes the power and authority to levy, assess and collect fees, fix rates of compensation not exceeding the highest rates authorized by law for compensation and pay plans of the government and allocate and disburse such sums as may be provided by law or prescribed by them in the course of the discharge of their functions.

Fiscal autonomy means freedom from outside control…

The Judiciary, the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman must have independence and flexibility needed in the discharge of their constitutional duties.  The imposition of restrictions and constraints on the manner the independent constitutional offices allocate and utilize the funds appropriated for their operations is anathema to fiscal autonomy and violative not only of the express mandate of the Constitution but especially as regards the Supreme Court, of the independence and separation of powers upon which the entire fabric of our constitutional system is based.  In the interest of comity and cooperation, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Commissions, and the Ombudsman have so far limited their objections to constant reminders.  We now agree… that this grant of autonomy should cease to be a meaningless provision.

…Pursuant to the constitutional mandate, the Judiciary must enjoy freedom in the disposition of the funds allocated to it in the appropriations law.  It knows its priorities just as it is aware of the fiscal restraints.  The Chief Justice must be given a free hand on how to augment appropriations where augmentation is needed.”[1]

Now, are not the imposed conditions “exclusively used to fill up the unfilled items,” and “if not used, the funds revert to the Bureau of Treasury” violative of fiscal autonomy?

This decision was promulgated by the Supreme Court way back in 1992, long before Chief Justice Corona became an Associate Justice of the Court.  Are we going to allow the Executive and Legislative Departments to change this now – just because PNoy is President and Corona whom they do not like as Chief Justice is Chief Justice?  Has the Supreme Court ceased to be the final interpreter of the Constitution?  Don’t you think it is time to move on, and for the three branches of government to work together for national development?

The present constitutional structure holds the Judiciary and the Constitutional Commissions always accountable within the legal system and to the broader political spectrum.  Transparency and accountability have always reigned as guaranteed by constitutional safeguards through the Commission on Audit, at the very least, as all government agencies have regularly reported their expenditures to the Commission on Audit, pursuant the usual auditing and accounting rules.  The imposition of new conditions thus is nothing but an insidious attempt to control and undermine the independence of these agencies.

Basic constitutional law teaches us that under the principle of separation of powers, neither the Congress, the President, nor the Judiciary can impinge on fields allocated to the other branches of government.[2]  While the allocation of the State’s resources belongs to Congress, subject to the limitations imposed by the Constitution, the allocation of constitutional boundaries belongs to the Court.  The Court will never shirk the duty the Constitution has conferred to it.

There is so much wisdom to the constitutional delineation of powers among the three branches of government with a system of proper checks and balances, and where no one department has an overruling influence over the other, regardless of how popular one branch is at a period of time.  As Montesquieu wisely counseled, the accumulation of all powers in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether appointed or elected, may justly be pronounced as the very definition of tyranny.  We do not have to look far back in our history where executive usurpations led to autocracy.

I do not think that we in the Judiciary are being over sensitive.  We have been in government long enough to know how to address issues, like we in a separate co-equal branch of government know when to comment and when not to comment on issues raised against another branch of government within their territory.  We just want to let them know that their persistent uncalled for and baseless comments, including devious plans to distort the Constitution are not unnoticed and will be addressed at the appropriate time.

Perhaps Lacierda, Valte, and others who speak out of turn, with all due respect to them, should learn as well a lesson or two in inter-branch comity and courtesy.

---

[1]  Bengzon v. Drilon, G.R. No. 103524, 15 April 1992.

[2]  Ibid.

NOTE: Such a strongly worded statement but I do agree. The Legislative and Executive should learn to respect the separation of powers.

Kisses

 

 

 

 

 

Happy faces while squeezing the kisses in the basin…yeah…kisses always bring smiles on faces

Crazy Stupid Love

by Niths Torres-Ramos (my sister )

I really enjoyed the movie Crazy, Stupid, Love. I can say that no romantic-comedy flick has ever touched me more than this one. Here are my Top Five reasons why this is an instant favorite:

5. Emma Stone’s perfect locks. Despite being drenched to the bones her hair still looks amazing!

4. Classic sexiness…thanks to Kevin Bacon! 

3. Ryan Gosling’s “photoshopped” abs!

2. It’s refreshing to see Steve Carrell in a role that is quite far from his usual character types.  

1. The story…that made me laughed…cried…laughed and cried at the same time..and of course the lesson that goes with it. ~ to never give up when you know that you have found your soul mate. 

Below are some of my favorite quotes from the movie:

When I told you when I had to work late? I really went to go see the new Twilight movie by myself, and it was so bad.  ~ Emily

  

I’m so mad at you. I’m really mad at you for what you did. But I’m mad at myself too. Because I should not have jumped out of that car – I should have fought for you. Because you fight for your soul mates. ~ Cal

My latest JOY list ^__^

While I still have this headache from a visit to my dentist this afternoon, I have decided to again cheer myself up and determine the simple things that brings me happiness…

Here goes, my Joy list in random order:

1. Surpassing my quota of readings to finish for the day;

2. Seven to 8 hours of sleep;

3. Good morning and good night messages from my honey <3 ;

4. Cuddling my Chuchay;

5. My mom’s ridiculous dance moves;

6. Hair treatments;

7. Manicures and pedicures;

8. Of course, foot spa;

9. Whole body massage

9. The wee hours where all I can hear is the sound of the electric fan …brrrrrrrrr…good time to study;

10. Finishing my readings early;

11. Sound of the waves splashing (I can appreciate even if the sound is coming from my ipod);

12. I love the rain at night.Puts me to sleep like a baby;

13. I love weekends especially Saturdays ;

14. The smell of the leaves and the grass after the rain;

15. A baby’s laughter  

16. My mom, tucking me in after a very tiring day;

17. Banana and milk before going to bed;

18. How my chuchay tries to get my attention in the morning sneezing in my ears and giving me a small nip on my nose;

19. The feeling of being in love  

20. Holding his hand

21. My Doraemon stuff toy;

…And many more. Gosh, I never expected I could arrive at such great number. Indeed, there are a lot of things I could be thankful for. The small things that gives me big joy and a lighter heart…

Taking a leap…falling and flying

January 5, 2010, the alarm went off. I opened my eyes and its 5:15 am. Tempted to hit the snooze button, wanting to sleep more, I have no choice but to drag my ass out of bed. I have an important schedule, not familiar with the route so, I can’t take a cab.

I only know how to get to my destination via the metro train and then walk my way from there. January 5, 2010 was the first day of the trial of a celebrated case. From then on, it became a regular coverage for me. I curse Tuesdays and Wednesdays because those days are that part of the week where I am forced to work my butt off-covering a whole day court proceeding.

Surprisingly, though the work is toxic, I got to meet other people from my line of work. I got to know those people who, I have been hobnobbing for years, yet, I do not know their names until that fateful day.

Once upon a time a train wreck, I buried myself with work and school stuff, begging off and avoiding those potential love that come my way.  I know I am “the general rule,” not “the exception.” I have to be cautious. I was once so focused on my happy ending that I failed to read the signs, thus, I don’t want to make the same mistake again. So, as i enter my destination, my work, my weekly hateful routine, I found myself looking forward to seeing that friendly face who never fails to give me a smile, who never fails to say hi, who has become my good  friend.

He made work lighter. His presence changed my view about working to forget but that I should work and be happy regardless of whether I am alone or with someone.

Fate was probably playing tricks on me, testing me or God has something in mind that I have to work on to figure out. I am again torn from being cautious to taking another leap of faith. To love is to risk, right? I do not want to live a life asking a lot of “what ifs”? And so I leaped. Took another risk.

Am I the exception this time, not the general rule? I do not know and I do not care because that is what risk is all about.

Whatever the future holds, I leave it all up to HIM. Right now, I thank God I found love. I thank God that He has given me this special person, that He let that person find me and I thank God for these moments that never fail to take my breath away.

I remember a quote from the movie “Hitch” where the main character boldly jumped on top of a running vehicle to stop his girl from speeding away. He fell, the girl went out of the car, asked why he did that he said “because thats what people do… they leap and hope to God they can fly! Because otherwise, we just drop like a rock… wondering the whole way down…”why in the hell did I jump?” But here I am falling. And there’s only one person that makes me feel like I can fly… That’s you.”