Thanks for the emails

ENCOURAGING EMAILS: Over the past few weeks, I have received several emails which either kindly compliment, provocatively comment or intelligently ask questions. For example, regarding my two columns on “Who will appoint the next Chief Justice?”, reader Ana Celis asks: “Why can’t the President just appoint an acting Chief Justice and let the next President appoint the permanent one?”

Well Ana, the Constitution does not allow the President to appoint officials of the Judiciary and the Constitutional Commissions in an acting capacity. The rationale is to preserve the independence of these institutions as such officials may be tempted to curry the favor of the appointing power to obtain their permanent appointment. In 1990, with the appointment to the fact finding body on the 1989 coup attempts of then COMELEC Chairman Hilario Davide, Commissioner Haydee Yorac was appointed Acting Chairman by President Aquino. The Supreme Court nullified the appointment saying that only members of the concerned collegial body can designate the acting chair among themselves. Hence, if no one is appointed by the time Chief Justice Puno retires in May 2010, then the remaining justices will designate who the acting Chief Justice will be. But the practice in the Supreme Court is to let the Senior Associate Justice serve as acting Chief Justice until a permanent appointment is issued.

*      *      *      *

JUDICIAL APPOINTMENT?: Reader Rene Moral suggests that we should “Remove from the President, who represents the Executive Branch, the power to appoint Justices who belong to the Judicial Branch” because this violates the separation of powers doctrine. As many of us know, our system of government was patterned after that of the United States. While we adhere to the separation of powers, we also follow the principle of checks and balances where we try to ensure that no one branch of government becomes too powerful so as to control the others. Giving the appointing power to the President is a check on the Judiciary since the latter has the final say on whether the actions of the President are in accord with the Constitution. Indeed what the Constitution truly encourages is not independence but interdependence (and harmony) among the three branches.

Mr. Moral adds: “when the House of Representatives chooses its Speaker, it doesn’t consult the Judiciary. Neither does the Senate, when it chooses its President. Ditto when the President chooses a Cabinet Secretary. Why then must Congress, represented by a Senator and Congressman and the Executive Branch, represented by the Justice Secretary, be part of the JBC in screening and making recommendations to the Supreme Court?”

Rene, as briefly discussed above, the main reason is checks and balances. Through the power of judicial review, the Supreme Court can declare any law, treaty or executive order unconstitutional. A JBC composed of representatives from the political branches is one of the mechanisms used to counterbalance the authority of the Judiciary, the members of which who are not directly elected by the people.

*      *      *      *

PRESUMPTION OF GUILT?: Speaking of the JBC, bar topnotcher Anel Diaz asks: “Does the JBC’s practice of disqualifying potential nominees because of pending cases with the Office of the Ombudsman or other government offices violate that person’s presumption of innocence?” Atty. Diaz has a point as it is a basic legal principle that a case filed is not equivalent to guilt. In our litigious society, the filing of cases by losing bidders has become par for the course. In fact, a government official who does not have any cases against him is probably not doing his job well. My four centavos to the JBC is that a pending case should not mean outright disqualification but should just be taken into account by them when voting for a nominee.

*      *      *      *

AMBIDEXTROUS LAWYERS: Reader Delfin Quiambao Jr. writes that “lawyers are able to provide different interpretations to sections of the Constitution depending on which side they are in.”

Lawyers are obliged by their oath and the Canons of Professional Responsibility to defend their client’s case with zeal but at the same time ensure that justice is done. To me, this means that a lawyer should not accept an engagement whose merits he does not believe in. A lawyer who takes on a case “simply for the money” without believing in the justness of his client’s cause is prostituting the profession. And as Mr. Quiambao rightly observed, what is important in the end (which I hope that not only our lawyers but all our public officials will always adhere to) is that “we place the interest of the country over our own.”

*      *      *      *

AU REVOIR BECKINGHAMS: One centavo goes to outgoing British Ambassador Peter Beckingham not only for assisting in the government’s Mindanao Peace efforts and spearheading the construction of the new “James Bond” premises of the British Embassy but mainly for demystifying (i.e., debunking) traditional “upper lip British diplomacy” and spreading genuine warmth and cheer in the Philippines. One centavo goes as well to Peter’s ace, Jill Beckingham, who painstakingly devoted herself to several charities including the Philippine Christian Foundation and CRIBS. Good luck Jill and Peter in your new assignments — you leave the Philippines a better place!

*      *      *      *

GO JOHNNY GO!: Two centavos go to the timeless, “man for all seasons”, Johnny Litton, who celebrated his birthday recently at the Bellevue in Alabang, the premiere hotel south of Metro Manila. I dare say that his continuing success (and Shangri-La aura) is fueled by a genuine passion for his work and a “live for the now” attitude. And while this “Emcee of emcees” may be irreverent in public, he is actually very reverent in private. I am not sure if he is “all talk”, but he is certainly “all heart”. All the best Tito Johnny, may you continue to enthrall and “edu-tain” more audiences in the years to come!

*      *      *      *

“Never worry about numbers.

Help one person at a time,

and always start with the

person nearest you.” — Mother Teresa

*      *      *      *

Email: [email protected]