Clarification

MANILA, Philippines - May I humbly respond to the letter of Mr. Michael Minay entitled “Subject to recognition?” which appeared in your 19 May 2010 issue.

Mr. Minay claims that in my radio program on DZMM, I said that President Arroyo’s exercise of executive prerogative to appoint Chief Justice Puno’s replacement is subject to Noynoy Aquino’s “recognition”.

I deny having made such statement and I assume he shares with me the notion that the same is an incorrect legal principle.

The issue discussed with the listeners on my radio program in DZMM last May 15, 2010 was the propriety of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo appointing a new Chief Justice and Justice Renato Corona’s acceptance of the said appointment. It was clear from the response of the audience that President GMA must refrain from making the appointment and allow the elected president to exercise his mandate.

I also believe that the Supreme Court decision which sustained Mrs. Arroyo’s power to appoint a Chief Justice during the ban violated the letter and spirit of the constitutional provision against midnight appointments. If the decision can be likened to a “poisonous tree”, then the appointment can be labelled as “the fruit of a poisonous tree”. Be that as it may, it is still part of the law of the land until revisited and reversed.

I hope that Mr. Minay and the rest of your readers can correct his impression or understanding about what I said in the program.