MikeLigalig.com

Quick answers to Father Bernas



Last Monday, Fr. Joaquin Bernas posited questions for the Senate to answer in connection with the impeachment of Chief Justice Renato Corona.  Reading his questions closely, I realized that what he raised were, in reality, grounds why he believes the Senate should dismiss the Articles of Impeachment.  It becomes imperative thus, for believers in the rule of law, to address each of the questions raised by the Jesuit.

Article 1 (on partiality and subservience to Gloria Macapagal Arroyo)

a. May the Senate review the Court’s decision (in De Castro v JBC)?

Answer: Yes, insofar as it may impact on the resolution of the chief justice’s fitness to remain in office for accepting an appointment which is contrary to the language and intent of the constitution and hence, immoral and unjust.  This much Bernas has previously written: “Any person who accepted the post of Chief Justice from Mrs. Arroyo would open himself or herself to impeachment by the next Congress.”

b. Is it illegitimate to assume that the votes of Corona represented independent judgment?
 
Answer: Yes.  Given his voting record in favor of Arroyo and his very close personal and professional relationship with her, it is indeed illegitimate to assume that his decisions represented independent judgment.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=45839.0

Article 3 (on lack of competence, probity and integrity)

a. Is the flip-flopping of the Court in collegial decisions attributable to Corona alone or to a body struggling to arrive at justice? Did Corona himself flip-flop?

b. Is the Court prohibited from modifying prior decisions or doctrines?

Answer: The real question as stated in the House Reply is this: Did he do anything, as the constitutional and moral leader of the Supreme Court, to prevent or even discourage the never-ending change in the purportedly final decisions of the Supreme Court?  No, the Court can change its prior decisions.  But this requires changed circumstances -which were lacking in the cases of flip-flopping identified in the impeachment complaint.

c. When and by whom was Mrs. Corona appointed to John Hay Management Corporation?  Is a husband obliged to compel his wife to turn down an appointment?  Or did he try to dissuade her at all?  Or was he overruled by the wife?

d. Can a husband be made answerable for acts of the wife?

Answer: Under the circumstances mentioned in the Complaint, the appointment of Mrs. Corona was inappropriate.  Best proof of this was when she herself resigned after Corona became Chief Justice.  Why should an appointment be appropriate when the spouse was an Associate Justice and why should it become inappropriate after he has become CJ?  Truth is, it was inappropriate full stop.  It was inappropriate because  the appointment of a spouse of a Justice to a government-owned and -controlled corporation as a form of a political dole is wrong.

e. Will Justice Carpio be asked to testify about the alleged lobbying about pending cases?

Answer: I would hope to. Truth will set the nation free.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=45839.0

Article 7 (on the temporary restraining order allowing Mrs. Arroyo and her husband Mike to escape prosecution)

a. The constitutionality of the restriction on the right to travel through a Department of Justice circular on hold-departure orders is pending before the Court, with the decision expected after New Year.  Should the Senate preempt the Supreme Court decision?

Answer: The questioned TRO almost made the issue moot.  It was hence the Arroyo Court itself that preempted its own decision on the merits when it issued the restraining order.

b. What is the import, if any, of the existence of a House bill and a Senate bill disempowering the DOJ?

Answer: None whatsoever.  They are mere pending bills and have not become law.

c. The continuing effectivity of the TRO has been affirmed by the Supreme Court.  What power does the Senate have over it?

Answer: It is relevant on the issue of partiality of the Chief Justice in favor of Mrs. Arroyo.  Certainly, the dissenting opinions of Justices Lourdes Sereno and Antonio Carpio prove anomalies and irregularities in the promulgation of the questioned restraining order.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=45839.0

goodness gracious, i'm no lawyer myself but i can see that david needs a better slingshot when he tries to take on a goliath.  just what kind of an answer is this, attorney? 


Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=45839.0