March 10

March 10, 2010 was an important day for me in several respects. First, it used to be the favorite “NKD” day of my good friend, Nido Petroleum president Jocot de Dios — at least until he got married. It was also supposed to be, according to feng shui master Charlie Chao, an auspicious day to start selling condominium units. So at 10 a.m. on March 10, Shang Properties soft launched One Shangri-La Place, a new mall and residential development in its Ortigas estate (pardon the plug). Lo and behold, Master Chao was right as the project sold 216 units on the first day alone! Was the success attributable to good timing, the quality of the development, or both? Regardless of the reason(s), the company is obviously very pleased with the result. Finally, and on a more national scope, March 10 marked the beginning of the appointment ban on the President (or so many of us thought) as provided in the 1987 Constitution. To recall, Article VII, section 15 provides: “Two months immediately before the next Presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a President or Acting President shall not make any appointments, except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety.”

To many lawyers, this provision was self explanatory — at least until the decision handed down a few days ago. Suffice it to say at the moment that an aggressive interpretation was provided by five justices to an otherwise benign provision of law. To use more colorful language, what constitutional law professors have deemed to be a fairly off-white provision was given a dark grey interpretation by the high court. Unless modified, I can foresee many law students giving perplexed looks and scratching their heads when they read this decision in the years to come. Indeed, while the Supreme Court is the court of last resort and has the final say of what the Constitution means, it should not forget that it remains accountable to the higher court of public opinion. I do not think that any justice would like to be remembered in Philippine history for writing a decision that will be equated to the Dred Scott ruling in the United States. But let me tackle the legalese in another column.

There were certain quarters who were hoping that Chief Justice Puno would do an “Abraham” by opting for early retirement and thus spare the court of another controversial ruling. That way, the legality of an appointment before March 10 would have been legally incontestable. But that is now water under the bridge and we are where we are. The country will continue to watch this legal, multi-media drama unfold.

For sure, a motion for reconsideration will be filed by the petitioners including the Philippine Bar Association and certain chapters of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. While judicial flip flops have occurred quite frequently the past few months, chances are that a majority will continue to uphold the controversial ruling. The battle will then move to the Judicial and Bar Council. While this Constitutional body is under the supervision of the Supreme Court, it has shown streaks of independence in the past. Chief Justice Puno heads the JBC and he has not clearly shown his legal card on where he stands on this issue. What if the JBC refuses or delays in sending out the list of nominees to the President?

Assuming that a list is submitted to the President, how sure are we that she will issue an appointment? People seem to think that an appointment is a done deal. An appointment can only be issued when a vacancy arises on May 17 and by that time, the winner of the May 2010 elections should be more or less established. With such a reality, it may be politically difficult for the President to make an appointment. (Although this is also one of the reasons being raised as to why a no-el scenario may be in the cards and a friendly Chief Justice needs to be in place). But then again what if she listens to well meaning allies and advisers including former defense secretary Gilbert Teodoro who has publicly stated that as a matter of delicadeza, she should leave the appointment to the next President?

And even if she makes an appointment, how sure are we that whoever is appointed will accept? Who knows, perhaps the latter will experience a “Road to Damascus” moment, consider the long term interests of the Court, exhibit judicial statesmanship and decline the appointment. So a lot can (and will) still happen. As the telenovela says, “abangan ang susunod na kabanata…”

* * *

Iconic public servant: Let me pay my four centavos of tribute to former Budget Secretary Emy Boncodin. She has been dubbed as an “icon of public service” and rightly so. But more than her not having a fancy car or her simple and unassuming way, her main assets as a government worker were that she always did her homework, focused on the important things and truly had the country’s best interests at heart. This, to my mind, truly makes her a public servant to emulate. In the same way that Meralco has established a Gawad Haydee Yorac award to recognize outstanding leaders from the private sector, government service, NGOs and other volunteer organizations who exhibit the same integrity, courage, excellence and professionalism that Commissioner Yorac had, I hope that a similarly minded entity will establish an award to honor Emy’s memory.

* * *

 “It is lucky to be smart,

But it is smarter to be lucky.”

— As recently told to me by former Secretary Carlos Dominguez

* * *

E-mail:[email protected]