IBP chapter appeals Supreme Court ruling on new chief justice

MANILA, Philippines - Lawyers comprising the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) chapter in Davao City filed with the Supreme Court (SC) yesterday a motion for reconsideration of its decision allowing President Arroyo to appoint the next chief justice despite a constitutional ban during the election period.

IBP-Davao members led by its former president Israelito Torreon filed the motion for reconsideration urging the high court to review its ruling last week, maintaining the President is not allowed to make any appointments during the last few months of her term under Article VII Section 15 of the 1987 Constitution.

Torreon argued the ban on midnight appointments covers the judiciary since “government’s operation is one of inter-dependence, and not of mutual exclusion.”

“The powers of these branches of the government should not be enclosed too tight, by straining our interpretation of the Constitution, lest we run contrary to the framers’ intent of establishing a government with three co-equal branches therein,” the IBP said.

The IBP questioned the ruling that excluded the SC from the ban on appointments.

The lawyers also questioned why the SC found conflict and had to reconcile this provision on the appointment ban and Article VIII Section 4(1) of the Charter, which requires appointment of the chief justice within 90 days upon vacancy.

“The reason is not hard to fathom. Reading beyond the clear language of the law would run afoul of the expressed intent of the framers of the law because, in the first place, legislative intent can be readily gleaned from the written words therein. The ambiguity central to this whole controversy is rather on the mind of the petitioner,” the petitioners argued.

Even assuming that there is conflict between the two provisions in the Constitution, the IBP said this has long been resolved in the case of Judges Mateo Valenzuela and Placido Vallarta in 1998 where the High Court nullified their appointments made during the election period.

They stressed the Valenzuela-Vallarta case proves the ban “applies to appointments regardless of the branch of government.”

The IBP also questioned why the SC ordered the Judicial and Bar Council to submit its shortlist to Mrs. Arroyo on or before the retirement of Chief Justice Reynato Puno on May 17.

They insisted the JBC has discretion and should not be dictated on in its exclusive prerogative to screen, select and nominate appointees.

Lastly, the group also lamented why Associate Justice Lucas Bersamin, who wrote the decision as concurred by eight other justices, had concluded the framers abhor the idea of an acting chief justice in all cases. They said there is no evidence to support this.

“While it may be true that the appointment of a chief justice is never in an acting capacity, still there is no express prohibition in the 1987 Constitution against the devolution of the duties and powers of his office upon the associate justice who is first in precedence,” they explained.

The IBP Davao chapter was among the groups that intervened in the case and opposed the consolidated petitions of the Philippine Constitution Association (Philconsa) and lawyers Arturo de Castro and Estelito Mendoza whose argument that the President is still allowed by the Constitution to make the appointment was favored in the March 17 ruling by the SC.

Liberal Party (LP) presidential candidate Sen. Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III warned he would lead massive street protests against the SC ruling which, he said, would destroy the very foundations of the country’s democratic system.

Aquino warned President Arroyo could be held in contempt for precipitating a “constitutional disaster in the country.”

‘Beyond sanity’

Bangon Pilipinas presidential candidate Bro. Eddie Villanueva said President Arroyo should refrain from appointing the next chief justice and follow the SC decision.

He said Mrs. Arroyo’s appointing the next chief justice despite the election ban is “the most illegal, the most immoral and the most unconstitutional.”

If Mrs. Arroyo proceeds with the appointment, “she would be condemned by history.”

“A person can do many bad things but to do that thing, to me, is beyond sanity,” Villanueva said.

“If I were her, I would show to the people I already repented from my mistakes, if not sins, but this time, I will help the Philippines to experience a peaceful transition of power. I am renouncing all political powers after my term,” he added.

Villanueva said members of the judiciary appointed by the President should assert their independence from the appointing power.

Sen. Richard Gordon, presidential candidate of the Bagumbayan party, said he was dismayed by the SC ruling, “but I will have to follow, as a lawyer, because the Supreme Court has the capacity to make law.”

Gordon said he does not agree with the decision, but the SC should be respected as the interpreter of the law.

For this reason, he said utmost diligence must be taken in the selection of the justices who will serve in it.

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile also called on critics to respect the decision of the SC, particularly Aquino.

“The Supreme Court is the final arbiter and right or wrong, no one can question the validity of its ruling because it becomes part of the law of the land,” he said.

Enrile advised Aquino to get the sound advice of the best lawyers in the country.

“If Noynoy who is not yet president would defy the Supreme Court, then he is not going to be faithful to his oath of office which carries the mandate to support the Constitution. If that is so, he is not fit to be president,” he said.

Sen. Jinggoy Estrada also called on critics to respect the SC despite what he called “perceived lapses in judgment” by the magistrates.

“But since the SC has spoken, we have no choice but to respect it,” Estrada said. –Edu Punay, Evelyn Macairan, Mike Frialde, Manny Galvez