Some breach of "delicadeza", if not illegal

With the controversy spawned by the Supreme Court ruling that Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution exempts the Chief Justice position from the appointment ban, the SC spokesman clarified that the skewed interpretation applies to no other post. Of course, such clarification further muddled the issue inasmuch as the expressed exemption only covers temporary executive positions whose continued vacancies will prejudice public interest or endanger public safety.

But wisely skirting the two months ban, PGMA allegedly dated the 200 or so "midnight" appointments - mostly not temporary in nature - at least one day before the prohibition, or on March 9, 2010 or earlier.

Nonetheless, it appears that President-elect Noynoy Aquino has seen through the ploy. His pronouncements consistently convey that he is bent on revoking them as "midnight" appointments, pursuant to Section 14, Article VII of the Constitution. In fact, the incoming administration has repeatedly called on the appointees concerned to give up their positions voluntarily to avoid embarrassment.

So far, only Anita Carpon, purportedly GMA's "manicurist", has the "delicadeza" to have declined her appointment to the PAG-IBIG Board of Trustees. For such gesture of propriety, the media have extolled Carpon as a "breath of fresh air from the cutthroat world of Philippine politics".

Even the caretaker of the Luneta Park whom critics dubbed as a Luneta "gardener" has not been heard to follow Carpon's "delicadeza". Other "midnight" beneficiaries haven't as yet reacted. Should President Noynoy make good the revocation threat, either of the two probabilities may ensue, thus: 1) some perhaps would give up the ghost and resign; or, the rest would bring their cases to court.

Indeed, with the present political milieu now embedded in Philippine culture wherein propriety or decency - or "delicadeza" - is relative and loose, the inevitable bone of conflict would be the first baptism of fire of President Noynoy.

Perhaps among the early litigation could be that of PAGCOR chairman Efraim Genuino simultaneously with the other four PAGCOR directorate appointments. In fact, President-elect Noynoy Aquino has vowed to review their PGMA reappointments.

In reference to the Genuino case, the core of Noynoy's transition team has this to say: "This administration is forcing his appointment when it should have given the incoming administration a free hand" to do so. But we have options vested in the Constitution and we will review his appointment".

But all these litigious PAGCOR and other mid-level positions certainly pale from that involving the Supreme Court majority justices voting for the appointment of Chief Justice Renato Corona; provided that, former Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo as president of the Philippine Bar Association would make good the PBA consensus to file impeachment proceedings against the voting justices, for culpable violation of the Constitution, no less.

Should the PBA legal move of impeachment come to a head, that would be the first of its kind - a novel and crucial eventuality - that may lead to a constitutional crisis. Necessarily, as envisioned in Article XI of the 1987 Constitution, it is basically a justiciable cause of action without judicial intervention as the verified complaint has to be filed at the House and, thereafter tried and decided by the Senate only on the issue of the dismissal or acquittal of the respondents.

* * *

Email: [email protected]