MikeLigalig.com

I. Respondent betrayed the public trust through his track record marked by partiality and subservience in cases involving the Arroyo administration from the time of his appointment as Supreme Court justice, which continued to his dubious appointment as a Midnight Chief Justice and up to the present.

a. I too opposed the exercise of the appointing power during the two-month prohibited period.  But the Supreme Court decided otherwise.  May the Senate review the Court’s decision?

b. Is it illegitimate to assume that the votes of Corona represented independent judgment?

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=45804.0

III. Respondent committed culpable violations of the Constitution and betrayed the public trust by failing to meet and observe the stringent standards under Article VIII, Sec. 7 (3) of the Constitution, which provides that [a] member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence in allowing the Supreme Court to act on mere letters filed by a counsel which caused the issuance of flip-flopping decisions in final and executory cases; in creating an excessive entanglement with Mrs. Arroyo through her appointment of his wife to office; and in discussing with litigants regarding cases pending before the Supreme Court.

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?

c. When and by whom was Mrs. Corona appointed to John Hay Management Corp.?  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?

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

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=45804.0

V. Respondent committed culpable violations of the Constitution through wanton arbitrariness and partiality in consistently disregarding the principle of res judicata and in deciding in favor of gerry-mandering in the cases involving the 16 newly created cities, and the promotion of Dinagat Island into a province.

a. Were not the League of Cities case and the Dinagat case collegial decisions upholding acts of Congress?  Were the laws involved statutory responses of Congress to the people as “master” as against the greed of the League of Cities?

b. Was not the Fasap (Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines) decision also collegial?

c. Is the Supreme Court powerless to look into the activities of its members (e.g., plagiarism) especially if it involves things that might affect the reputation of the Court?

d. Was not the creation of new districts in Camarines Sur done by Congress, the representative of the people?

e. Who decides the application of the principle of proportionality (or “one man, one vote”) in the size of districts?

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=45804.0

VII. Respondent betrayed the public trust and/or committed graft and corruption when he failed and refused to account for the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF) and Special Allowance for the Judiciary (SAJ) collections.

a. Involved in this is the interpretation of the extent of fiscal autonomy of the Court.  What is the jurisprudence on this?  Will the Senate apply or depart from existing jurisprudence on the subject?

http://opinion.inquirer.net/column/sounding-board

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=45804.0