TRIVIA 0031: WHO IS THE SC SPOKESPERSON MIDAS P. MARQUEZ?

Midas Touch: Supreme Court Spokesperson Midas P. Marquez

My duty, first and foremost, is to protect and defend the institution, the Supreme Court.

By RACHEL C. BARAWID, ANGELO G. GARCIA, RONALD S. LIM, JASER A. MARASIGAN

January 29, 2011, 7:16pm

PAPER TRAIL — Supreme Court spokesperson and court administrator Midas Marquez is often awash with court documents needing his attention. Photo by PINGGOT ZULUETA

MANILA,Philippines— It’s tough being Jose Midas Marquez.

Apart from having to face a battalion of persistent reporters daily, and defend controversial decisions, the Supreme Court administrator and spokesperson also supervises about 2,000 judges and 25,000 court personnel all over the country. His office at the SC is partly buried in paper works — from SC decisions to administrative cases of erring judges that he has to review. On top of this, he has to go around the country to visit prisoners through the SC’s Justice on Wheels program and be able to monitor happenings at the main office.

His 7 a.m.-to-10 p.m. schedule at work isn’t enough that he brings work home, even as he juggles his time between work and his family. On Saturdays, he turns into Professor Midas, teaching Legal Writing to law students ofCentroEscolarUniversity.

Yet despite his many tasks, Midas doesn’t seem to mind at all. Actually, he is even enjoying his job.

“It’s hard work. I never expected it. It was an on-the-job training. But I’d like to believe that I’ve gotten the hang of it, considering that I’ve been doing this for almost four years. It’s not really very easy but then again, tinanggap mo eh, so panindigan mo,” admits the 43-year-old lawyer.

For him, the job becomes tougher whenever he has to explain to the media a highly technical decision of the Court in such a short period of time.

“Kasi ang media, ang lakas ng tenga niyan eh ‘pag labas pa lang ng desisyon nakakarinig na ‘yan. Ikaw naman, kahahawak mo pa lang ng desisyon, hind mo pa nababasa. But you have to be prepared to answer any question regarding that particular decision. You cannot lie to reporters because they are always researching on the news and asking different sources to validate whatever you’re saying. Kapag maymalikang sinabi o nalaman nila na you have this habit of hiding some facts, twisting facts, or not being candid, they will lose their respect,” explains the Ateneo law graduate.

Midas began his career at the SC as a law clerk for several justices in 1991. Last year, he was about to retire, alongside his mentor and boss, former Chief Justice Reynato Puno. But the latter convinced him to stay longer and apply for a higher position. When the office of the Court Administrator became vacant, Midas, then a deputy court administrator, applied and eventually became the youngest person to get the post.

His job may be challenging and tiring but Midas says all becomes worth it when people he doesn’t even know send him letters or suddenly come up to him and praise him for a job well done.

“Natutuwa ako kasi I get letters from people I don’t know, saying that you’re doing a good job, you explained this decision very well. Kung minsan naglalakad ako sa mall, someone will approach me and say, “Ikaw ba si Atty. Midas? Ang galing galing mong mag explain,’ those little things,” he reveals.

In this 60 Minutes interview, Midas shares more of his challenges at the SC, those carefree days as a student and action-packed years as a basketball player, and his bonsai-making hobby which helps him relax at the end of a long, eventful and tiring day. (Rachel C. Barawid)

STUDENTS AND CAMPUSES BULLETIN (SCB): What is it like being the face of the Supreme Court? What goes with it?
MIDAS P. MARQUEZ (MPM): Hard work. I did not have any formal training on media when I took on the job. It’s not very easy considering that I also happen to be the court administrator, and I have supervision over around 2,000 judges and some 25,000 court personnel. You go around the country, at the same time you monitor what is happening in the Supreme Court for big decisions and events or programs that you have to relay to the media and to the public.

SCB: What was your first big press conference?

MPM: Hindi ko na maalala (laughs)! I’ve always been as truthful as I can be. You cannot lie to media because the reporters are always researching and validating whatever you’re saying.

SCB: Have you ever been caught off-guard by a question?
MPM: In the sense that I was just not expecting that question. But I’ve been with the Court for almost two decades. Kung tungkol lang sa Supreme Court ang itatanong mo sa akin, palagay ko naman I can give you an answer that will satisfy you.

Whenever we announce a decision of the Court, naka-focus lang ako sa desisyon na iyon. You have to be prepared to answer any question regarding that particular decision.

Pero minsan, mga reporters, hindi nila nabasa ‘yung decision na ‘yun, sometimes they ask question na somewhat related to the decision pero hindi talaga part nung decision. Let’s say, it’s a principle of law, as a credible and qualified lawyer, dapat alam mo ‘yun. Not all lawyers may be able to answer questions about the law. Pero ikaw, spokesman ka ng Supreme Court, dapat alam mo lahat. Medyo nagulat lang ako na ‘yung tanong is not about the decision. You have to search for answers while the cameras are focused on you.

SCB: During the announcement of the decision on the Vizconde case, you were shown to say that “the decision doesn’t mean they’re not guilty….’’

MPM: It’s a principle in law that when you’re acquitted on reasonable doubt, it does not mean na hindi ikaw ang gumawa ng krimen na ‘yun. Ang nakakaalam lang nun, ikaw, kasi wala namang ibang nakakita.

Witness Jessica Alfaro was found to be incredible. You do away with the testimony of the supposed eyewitness, ikaw na lang ‘yun saka ‘yung biktima. Kaya ka na-acquit kasi there was no sufficient evidence na ikaw talaga ang gumawa. But it does not necessarily mean that you are innocent. Pero meron din tayong presumption of innocence until you are proven guilty. At ‘yun ang sinasabi ng Webb camp, that they are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Since they were not proven guilty, they should be considered innocent.

‘Yun ang sinasabi ko. Wala ‘yun doon sa decision. If you walk into a press briefing, lahat ng reporters nandoon, all the newspapers, television and radio networks, hindi naman puwedeng sabihin mo kapag tinanong ng isang reporter “Ang ibig sabihin ba ng desisyon ng Korte Suprema, hindi nila ginawa ‘yun krimen?” Anong sasabihin mo? Wala sa desisyon ‘yun, hindi ako puwede mag-comment? Siguro in the first instance, the reporters will let that go. Kapag tatlo o apat na beses na ganon, baka batuhin ka na ng mga reporter! (laughs) Ano ba ginagawa mo diyan! You have to answer as much as possible. Trabaho mo ‘yan eh. The last thing you want to happen is for a reporter to write something about the decision of the Supreme Court which is not very accurate.

SCB: Do you think being young works to your advantage?

MPM: The only disadvantage of being a young Court Administrator is that there are judges and court officials who are 20 years older than me (laughs)! But you just have to show them respect, and show that what I am doing is right and I am setting an example. Kasi ‘yung mga personal agenda, hidden agenda, kitang-kita ‘yan eh. That’s what I learned in my long years here sa court.

SCB: Do you get to read all these papers on your table?

 
MPM: I have to because I have to sign all those. Hindi naman puwedeng pipirmahan ko na hindi ko babasahin. Kaya sa gabi minsan aalis ka dito at 9 or 10 p.m. may dala ka pang trabaho, even on weekends. It’s not really very easy but then again, tinanggap mo eh, so panindigan mo.

SCB: Is there a fulfillment from all these?

MPM: Minsan, I get letters from people I don’t know, saying that you’re doing a good job, you explained this decision very well. O kaya minsan may lalapit sa’yo, hihingi ng tulong, isang litigante, kapag pinakinggan mo ‘yung problema niya, wala namangmali, in fact dehado nga siya. So you extend help.

Whenever I have free time, I take my lunches sa mall, then someone will approach you “Ikaw ba si Atty. Midas? Ang galing galing mong mag explain.” Nakakatuwa, okay na ako dun.

SCB: So possible pa kayong magpunta sa mall? Wala bang threat sa safety mo?

MPM: Wala naman akong maling ginagawa eh (laughs). Wala naman akong kaaway eh. Some would say “Yan ang akala mo na wala kang kaaway eh maraming luko-loko diyan.” But I’ve always done this all my life and I don’t think I have to change my lifestyle just because I’m in a higher position, position of more consequences.

Changes in the Bar exam

SCB: What was it like here in the Supreme Court when the Bar exam blast occurred?

MPM: Nakakalungkot talaga ‘yun eh. I think I was the first court official to visit the victims. Ako ‘yung unang humarap sa mga magulang nila. Siyempre hindi mo maalis sa kanila na magalit sa Supreme Court pero kung titignan mo, talagang ang hirap i-control.

Unang una it was outside the perimeter, the controlled area of the Court. At saka mayroon kaming nakuhang video from our videographer, in that area sobrang gulo, sobrang festive ng mga tao nag che-cheering, singing, dancing. Others were holding bouquets of flowers to give to female barristers. Talagang hindi mo akalaing mangyayari ‘yun. And it would be next to impossible to search all of them for grenades. Dun sa video, three minutes before it exploded, may dalawang pulis na dumaan. Five meters away sumabog.

SCB: Are you changing anything with the way you conduct the Bar exams?

MPM: Yes, I think we are seriously considering the Salubong. Pero kasi sayang eh. Ang ganda, ganda. I experienced that eh, natuwa ako kasi Bar exams is one of the most difficult, if not the most difficult government exam. For the whole month of September, hindi ka mapakali, talagang nakatutok ka lang diyan sa pag-aaral mo kaya after the last exam, parang woohoo! Tapos may gagawa pa ng ganun. Hindi mo talaga maisip bakit may mga taong makakagawa ng ganun eh.

SCB: Aside from reconsidering the Salubong, what else do you plan to do with the next Bar exams in UST?

MPM: Ang UST mas malaki ‘yun at mas maraming exits and entrances. Mas dispersed siguro ‘yung mga tao, hindi katulad dito kasi Taft Avenue lang kaya dun lang sa dalawang parts ng Taft nag kumpulan. Atsaka ‘yung grounds ng UST, malaki so siguro puwede mo na iscreen lahat ng papasok ng UST, pagkatapos papasok ka na dun sa confined area where the Bar exams will be held. I hope we can have more tightened security measures.

SCB: Did you rank at the Bar exams during your time?

MPM: Ako hindi. Number 11 ako. Di ba hanggang top 10 lang. Tapos lahat kami no. 11 na (laughs)! Seriously, medyo na-disappoint ako because I was expecting. At that time I was already working here as a law clerk when I took the Bar, so I felt I had an advantage.

SCB: Last year, the government had a plan to crack down on non-performing law schools. What’s your take on that?

MPM: That has to be studied carefully, hindi madali ang law school at hindi rin madali magturo ng law. You have to get a core of professors who really know their law and can impart their knowledge to students. I hope it is not considered as a money-making venture kasi pangit naman. Kung talagang for the longest time walang pumapasa from those schools, palagay ko puwede silang bigyan sila ng probation period. ‘Pag wala pa rin, cancel their license.

SCB: To your knowledge, are there many of these non-performing schools?

MPM: I don’t have the data pero maraming eskuwelahan na talagang ang performance sa Bar (exams) napakahina. Marami naman kasing law students na hindi nag-aambisyong maging abugado, ang gusto lang nila, mag graduate ng law so they can get promoted. But if you want to be a lawyer, pass the Bar and practice law. I think we have to be more strict with our law schools.

All in a day’s work

SCB: What would you consider your most difficult day on the job? Would the Bar exams blast count as one?

MPM: Well, dalawa ‘yun trabaho ko. Siguro the most difficult day for me as a spokesperson would be a release of the decision of the court which is highly technical and you have to explain that in layman’s language to the media in a short period of time.

Ang media ang lakas ng tenga niyan. Paglabas pa lang ng desisyon, nakakarining na ‘yan, sir granted na raw, sir denied daw, talo daw si ganito. Ikaw naman, kakahawak mo pa lang ng desisyon, minsan ang main opinion nasa 50 pages, may dissenting opinion ka na 70 pages. Meron ka pang tatlong concurring opinion at separate opinions na 30 to 40 pages. Ang dami nun! Paano mo babasahin ‘yun? Tapos ‘yung cellphone mo, kung hindi nagri-ring, nagte-text. Sir presscon, sir what time, sir interview. Teka lang (laughs)! So how can you read that decision tapos highly technical pa and explain to media in like 30 minutes or one hour. Kasi kapag lumagpas ka ng one hour, two hours, ayaw ka na kausapin ng media, galit na sa’yo.

SCB: Because they have a deadline to meet…

MPM: I understand. That’s why you have to balance all these. ‘Yun ang pinakamahirap para sa akin.

SCB: What about the Vizconde decision?

MPM: Hindi masyadong mahirap kasi it’s a simple principle of law. Criminal law lang ‘yan. Naging mabigat
lang because of the personalities involved. Pero those on privilege communication, undue delegation of power, mga constitutional law, or tax, mga SLEX, increases ng toll rates, naku medyo kailangan basahin ng mabuti ‘yun! Tapos tatanungin ka ng media, SLEX ‘yan, kasama ba diyan ‘yung NLEX, ‘yung Star Toll, di ba? Kapag nakaharap na sa camera hindi mo naman puwedeng sabihin, ay hindi ko alam, sorry. You have to give an answer.

SCB: What about the hardest part of being court administrator?

MPM: I hope you’ve heard about the Justice on Wheels. It’s a bus wherein we have two courts inside the bus. Umiikot ‘yang bus sa iba’t-ibang probinsiya. We started with three, now we have eight. Kasama si Justice Puno diyan at that time. Maraming components — jail decongestion, which means ‘yung mga inmates mare-release kasi ‘yung mga kaso nila made-desisyunan right there and then.

There’s case decongestion, which means ‘yung mga civil cases will be mediated, matatapos na rin right there and then. There’s dialogue with the justice sector, which means dialogue with the court justice tapos ako ‘yung court administrator, ako ‘yung one down niya. Ako dapat ang nakakaalam ng court administration. Ang kasama sa dialogue na ‘yun, chief justice with the court administrator, on the other side would be the judges, court personnel, lawyers, IBP, prosecutors, jail wardens, NGOs, lahat sila. And they can ask anything and everything under the sun about the justice system.  After awhile it gets taxing, it affects you.

SCB: Part of your task is to review the anomalies involving judges?

MPM: That’s right. Eto puro mga admin cases lahat ‘yan (points to a massive pile of papers)!

SCB: Do criticisms of the Supreme Court affect you?

MPM: Not really. We accept criticisms. It makes us better because we hear that, if it’s valid, we address it. Kapag hindi valid, it comes from a polluted source. It’s as simple as that. All these remind us that we have to do our job better. We have to be more efficient, we have to be more effective.
It’s a constant reminder, which to me is good.

SCB: Do you always agree with every decision of the Supreme Court?

MPM: With every decision, di ba may dissenting opinion. But it doesn’t necessarily mean that the dissenting opinion is wrong, it just means that these are fairly reasonable views coming from different individuals who are learned in the law. They’re not wrong except that they have difference in opinions, and we will have to respect all these opinions. I may not totally agree with it a hundred percent but because I see the reasonableness, I can justify it.

Many are fast to criticize the decisions of the Court, but have they read the decision? Pupusta ako, hindi! Kasi konti lang ang nagbabasa ng desisyon ng Supreme Court eh di ba. Ang dami dami, even high government officials they are quick to criticize decisions of the Court but in their criticisms, it shows obviously that they have not read it. As a spokesperson, ayoko naman patulan ‘yun, ayoko naman upakan ‘yun na binasa mo ba. Because I speak for the institution, my duty first and foremost is to protect and defend the institution, not to malign other people, government officials. Sa akin basta nadepensahan ko na yung institusyon okay na ako.

Of bonsais and Coke bottles

SCB: Have you always wanted to get into law?

MPM: Not really. I wanted to take up Business Administration but my father was a lawyer. We were five children, I’m the middle child. The first two before me did not go to law school, ‘yung dalawang sumunod sa akin palagay ko hindi rin. So ako na lang ‘yung last chance ng father ko. True enough, when I went to law school parang nakita ko na tuwang-tuwa ang tatay ko eh. At the time, my father wanted me to go to UP but I wanted Ateneo. Sabi ko pinagbigyan na kita that I would enter law school, pagbigyan mo naman ako sa law school na gusto ko (laughs).

SCB: How do you balance your job here in SC with teaching?

MPM: I have been teaching Legal Writing in CEU (CentroEscolarUniversity) every Saturday for the past two years. It is a subject that I know by heart because before I became Court Administrator and spokesperson, I was law clerk for more than a decade, talagang sulat lahat ‘yun.

SCB: How do you relax?

MPM: Ang dami kong bonsai. Kapag weekends, I maintain them. Kapag pinu-prune mo it’s therapeutic.

SCB: How did your bonsai hobby start?

MPM: I was reviewing for the Bar, tapos I was supposed to exchange notes with a classmate sa Cartimar, saPasay. I went to the plant area, sa nurseries, I saw a bonsai, I bought it for P300. I ended up looking at it at home the whole afternoon. Simula nun, ‘yun na ang naging relaxation ko.

SCB: Since you’re always on TV, you’ve become some sort of a celebrity. Do people approach you for autograph/s?

MPM: (Laughs) May nagpapa-picture pa! Kasi ang pino-protektahan ko hindi naman ang image ko, kundi image ng Supreme Court. Kapag sinungitan ko ‘yun, baka sabihin ang sungit naman ng taga Supreme Court na ‘yun. So kailangan nakangiti ka dun. Minsan nagma-mall ako naka-shorts, t-shirt.Sanahindi nila ako makilala (laughs).

SCB: Do you pick your own clothes?

MPM: Wala naman akong stylist (laughs). Hindi namin kaya ‘yun.

SCB: Do you still have time to unwind?

MPM: Pag hindi ko na kaya, tutulog na lang ako, kaya wala akong sleeping problems eh (laughs).

SCB: You collect Coca-Cola items? (Referring to the extensive collection in his office)

MPM: ‘Yan na lang ang mga little escapes ko. On foreign trips, when I see a cute one, I buy.

SCB: How do you spend time with your family?

MPM: Nakita naman nila how I work. My kids are still in high school so siguro nakikita naman nila na para sa bayan ito. They accept it.

SCB: Do you have plans of seeking higher office?

MPM: I’m very much at peace with my present work.

SCB: Kahit tambak ang trabaho niyo?

MPM: (Laughs) Tinanggap ko eh di ba. Kailangan panindigan ‘yan eh. I’ve learned to enjoy it and I can serve my career in my present position.

SCB: Do you still find time for other things, like reading?

MPM: Ako ‘yung type na hindi masyado nag-aaral nung bata eh. I always find myself in the gym, in the basketball court, in the quadrangle, nakikipagsosyalan sa mga tao dun and in the cafeteria kumakain. I never imagined that I would be taking on this job or be a law clerk in the SC na makakapagsulat ng libro. Eh kahit ‘yung mga term paper ko nung college kung kani-kanino ako nagpapatulong (laughs). During my free time, I get to read books na dati hindi ko ma imagine na ginagawa. Ngayon ako pa nagsasabi sa mga justices kung nabasa na nila ganung libro. It’s about the legal stuff, books on the justice systems sa iba’t ibang lugar. More of mga non-fiction.

SCB: Do you watch UAAP games?

MPM: Yung mga UAAP games ng Ateneo as much as possible I try to watch (laughs). ‘Yun na lang ‘yung libangan ko. Nung high school kasi I also played for Ateneo, sa juniors. ‘Yung PBA Commissioner ngayon kasabay ko nung college eh. Nung naging commissioner na siya tumawag siya sa akin sabi niya ‘O Midas, anytime gusto mo manood ng game tawagan mo lang ako, irereserve ko upuan mo katabi ko!’ Hanggang ngayon hindi pa ko nakakanood, matatapos na championship.

SCB: What’s the story behind your necklace?

MPM: Ah eto this is the second or third already. Sabi nila nakaka-increase daw ng blood circulation. ‘Yung unang ganito ko binigay sa akin ng wife ko, so for domestic peace dapat isuot (laughs).

TRIVIA 0030: SOME  VIEWS ON THE PRESIDENT’S SPEECH AT THE JUSTICE  SUMMIT, 05 DECEMBER 2011.

========================

JUST AN OBSERVATION:

Many, mostly lawyers, lambasted the President for the things he said during the Justice Summit. But it appears that the common people  rejoice. Of course they would not dare to criticize  or attack the Supreme Court for pain of contempt. But one can easily observe that deep in them they have this pent-up, boiling  anger and contempt towards the Supreme Court. When President Noynoy spoke at the Justice Summit, they seem to savor a great relief. As if they found their spokesman who can give vent to their boiling anger without fear of being cited in contempt.  In his face and voice as he spoke,  trembling words cascaded as clear peals of   anger  and contempt which the common man also feels but just keeps to himself.   

IT IS TIME TO REFLECT.

When we tell the common man “do not criticize or attack the Supreme Court otherwise there would be no more rule of law”, he would ask: “why no more rule of law?”. He cannot understand because his concept of “rule of law” is just simple.   To him there is no rule of law when a government official  steals millions from pcso funds and get away with it; or uses fertilizer funds as campaign money and get away with it; or steals votes and win elections and get away with it; or uses his  office or powers to amass wealth, waste government resources, coerce, maim, kill and get away with it. And there is no rule of law when those whose work is to implement the law or interpret the law help those who broke the law “to get away with it.” That is why during the saga at the airport, the common man was quite worried. To him  had GMA been allowed to leave then most likely “she would have gotten away with it” and no more rule of law as far as GMA is concerned. This explains the thundering applause Secretary De Lima  and President Aquino reap up to now. Because to the common man, the DOJ Secretary and the President saw to it that there is rule of law.  But now Secretary De Lima  faces contempt. And President Aquino  might face impeachment. The common man is puzzled and asks: “why? Is it not that they made certain that the rule of law prevails by doing what they did?” Perhaps you, reader, know the answers.

BELOW ARE SOME POSITIVE VIEWS ON THE SPEECH TO BALANCE THE NEGATIVE VIEWS OF THE “LEGAL EXPERTS”.

When the President criticizes the Supreme Court

By: Randy David
Philippine Daily Inquirer

11:09 pm | Wednesday, December 7th, 2011

  37share 1273  1226

In a political system like ours where governmental power is exercised by three co-equal and autonomous branches, disagreements are to be expected. That is how the system works.  Each branch of government functions as a check on the others. But the manner in which this check is to be carried out varies from one branch to the other.

The legislature can impeach a president or a justice of the Supreme Court. In turn, the Supreme Court can restrain any action of the legislature or the executive. Wielding the power of the purse, the executive can trim the budgets of the other branches, or delay the release of allocations. But, again, actions of the executive can be questioned by the legislature or before the courts.

In many instances, we may hear a president criticize Congress for not acting fast enough on priority measures like the budget. But, it is not often that we hear a president publicly criticize Supreme Court justices. I suppose this is because we put magistrates, especially of the highest court, on a pedestal, as an expression of our commitment to the rule of law. In return, we expect justices to stay above politics and to manifest virtue in their personal lives.

Staying above politics, however, has not been easy, particularly for the justices of our Supreme Court.  Each one of them is appointed by the president based on a list submitted by the Judicial and Bar Council.  In a society like ours, debt of gratitude to the appointing authority cannot be ignored. Often, it outweighs professional considerations. This is even more so when the appointing authority handpicks choices for sensitive positions with an explicit eye for their proven personal loyalty.

In modern societies like the United States, Supreme Court justices are chosen not only for their sterling professional qualifications but also for their perceived ideological leaning. Although the latter is neither officially avowed nor required, people do take it into account when they assess the suitability of a nominee.  We don’t do that here. For us the main concern is always the capacity of an appointee to rise above personal gratitude and affinities. This reflects an acute awareness of the persistent dangers posed by personalistic norms to modern institutions.

At no other time in our nation’s history, except perhaps in the period of martial law, were our institutions more engulfed by politics than during the presidency of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. This stemmed from her dubious accession to the presidency in 2001 after the ouster of the duly-elected president, Joseph Ejercito Estrada. The Supreme Court found a way of legalizing the removal of Estrada, but Arroyo continued to be beleaguered by challenges to her legitimacy. Instead of putting these challenges to rest, the massive fraud that attended her reelection in 2004 only further weakened her claims to the presidency. As a result, throughout her term, she became preoccupied with political survival and acceptance.

Wielding her appointing powers and her broad control of the budget as tools of patronage, GMA generously rewarded political lackeys and apologists with cushy positions in government corporations. She named individuals who had been loyal to her to high offices, including the Supreme Court. She controlled the military by naming favorite generals to senior positions in the armed forces, and by packing the Cabinet with retired military personnel. She dispensed public money like largesse to favorite local government officials. She coddled provincial warlords like the Ampatuans who complied with her every whim by manipulating electoral outcomes. She did not care that what she was creating in the process was a bonfire of the nation’s institutions.

She has much to account for now that she no longer enjoys immunity from criminal prosecution. But having anticipated a moment like this, she had made sure she would be fully covered. She stepped down from the presidency, but retained political power as a member of Congress. People who benefited from her patronage are everywhere, quick to come to her defense. But, in the middle of all her legal troubles, she now finds herself turning as a last resort to the magistrates she appointed to the Supreme Court, most of all, Chief Justice Renato Corona.

Corona’s midnight appointment by Arroyo was an incredible act of political brazenness. No one believed she would press it. The Constitution barred her from making any appointments, except temporary ones in the executive branch, two months before the next presidential elections until the end of her term as president. The seat of the chief justice would not be vacant until May 17, 2010, or six days after the election, when the new president would have already been known. But Corona’s patroness went ahead and appointed him anyway, defying the letter and spirit of the law and going against all the norms of courtesy and delicadeza. Not surprisingly, the rest of the Arroyo court sustained her.

It is in the nature of our culture that we bristle at personal slights, but seldom take offense at the systematic damage done to our institutions. P-Noy took a different route the other day. At the great risk of appearing discourteous, he gave vent to his deep frustration with Arroyo’s magistrates in the presence of Corona himself.  It is an encouraging sign that the public seems to side with President Aquino, whose shaking voice betrayed not only anger but a certain discomfort at having to tell people to their faces that they ought to be ashamed of themselves.

public.lives@gmail.com

=======================================

==============================================

==============================================

There’s The Rub

Face of tyranny

By: Conrado de Quiros
Philippine Daily Inquirer

11:11 pm | Wednesday, December 7th, 2011

The justices, says Midas (In Reverse) Marquez, almost walked off the stage when P-Noy was delivering a stinging rebuke of them at the Justice Summit. But they judiciously held their peace. “It’s not very difficult to do that (rise in protest), but then we don’t want the people to suffer.”

Later, though, the justices issued their own rebuke of P-Noy. While it is the prerogative of the President to speak his mind, they said, “we find it quite disturbing (that he should do so) at an event that was meant to foster cooperation and coordination. It is not at all unusual for the executive branch to disagree with the judicial branch. But what is considerably unusual is for the Chief Executive to look down on members of the judiciary in public … and to their faces denounce the court’s independent actions.”

Marquez added the Court’s favorite mantra: While the Aquino administration was popular, “no one branch of government has an overruling influence over the other. The accumulation of all the powers in the same hands, whether one, a few or many, and whether appointed or elected, may justly be the very definition of tyranny.”

Well, to begin with, if they had walked out of P-Noy’s speech, the people would not have suffered, the justices would. The people would have cheered lustily—not their gesture of protest but their disappearance from their sight. Which they probably knew anyway, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s justices, in particular. They are not liked, they are not wanted. They may show their faces before the public only at the public’s sufferance, not at their pleasure. You truly wish they had done as they had plotted. Then would they have known exactly in what esteem they are held by us.

But of course a branch of government that arrogates all the powers of government poses a tyranny. But Marquez misses his target by a mile. That is not true of P-Noy, that is true of Renato Corona. That is not true of Malacañang, that is true of the Supreme Court.

At the very least that is so because there is no institution in society today, let alone branch of government, that is utterly without accountability more than the Supreme Court. Or at least utterly without accountability to the people, Arroyo’s justices are perfectly accountable to her, being the hand that anointed them, being the hand that feeds them. P-Noy is an elected official, one who won the elections in ways that were not unlike the people exercising People Power all over again. Corona is a midnight appointee, one who got to where he is by imitating his appointer’s capacity for shamelessly, and illegitimately, clinging to power. Between the two of them, who has the right to wield power to begin with?

When government issues a patently unjust decree, the people may challenge it and bring the case to court. When the Supreme Court makes a patently unjust ruling, what can anyone do about it? What can the flight attendants do after the Supreme Court decided to reopen a case it had ruled upon with finality three times in their favor because of a letter from Estelito Mendoza importuning it to do so? Legally at least, the flight attendants know that the resolution of their case—if it ever comes to that—rests on the same Court that has been screwing them.

Indeed, when the president issues an unjust decree, the justices may rebuke him by decreeing it unconstitutional. When the Supreme Court makes an unjust ruling, what can the president do about it? Ultimately he has to bring it before the court of last resort, the Supreme Court, which is the same Court that has been screwing everyone. It’s a Catch-22. Or a Gordian knot, a puzzle seemingly without a solution. Well, Alexander showed us how to solve a Gordian knot: slice it with a sword.

And P-Noy shows us how to deal with Arroyo’s justices: insult them to their faces. They complain that they have been humiliated before the public because of their independent actions? There is nothing independent about their actions. Being berated like truant schoolboys is the least they deserve.

But far more than that, the Supreme Court hasn’t just banished accountability from its office, it has banished fallibility from its utterances. The Supreme Court is the new priesthood, a near-mirror-image of the religious one.

Until Martin Luther came along, the Church saw itself as the ultimate diviner of God’s will, the sole interpreter of God’s word, as contained in the Bible. Its divinations and interpretations were beyond question. Those divinations and interpretations might little reflect the way people normally saw right and wrong and justice, but it didn’t matter. The Church officials themselves might be corrupt to the core, but it didn’t matter. Their word was, quite literally, law.

Until P-Noy came along, the Supreme Court saw itself as the ultimate diviner of the people’s will, the sole interpreter of the people’s word, as contained in the Constitution. Its divinations and interpretations were beyond question. Those divinations and interpretations might little reflect the way people normally saw right and wrong and justice—which was the case during Arroyo’s time, and which is the case up to this time, decreeing as they did the justness of executive privilege and the unreality of Edsa. But it didn’t matter. Arroyo’s justices themselves might be corrupt to the marrow of their bones—which was the case then and which is the case now, the poisoned tree bears poisonous fruits. But it didn’t matter. Their word was, quite literally, law.

But of course a branch of government that arrogates all the powers of government practices tyranny. But of course a cabal that usurps the powers of heaven and earth mounts tyranny.  Look at Renato Corona’s Supreme Court, and know:

That is the face of it.

========================================

========================================

========================================

As I See It

Faulty decisions encourage corruption

By: Neal H. Cruz
Philippine Daily Inquirer

9:57 pm | Thursday, December 8th, 2011

I don’t agree with those castigating President Aquino as “rude” when he criticized Chief Justice Renato Corona and members of the Supreme Court in his speech at the Justice Summit. He should not have done that, they said, because the objects of his criticism were present. But when else, when their backs are turned? Wouldn’t that be cowardly?

Perhaps they were shocked from their comfort zones because nobody has done it before. The Supreme Court has so scared people that nobody dares criticize it to its face. Even law practitioners railing against “unfair” decisions of the high court do it before their colleagues but not before the Court itself. Some lawyers who did that were disbarred, like Ateneo law professor Alan Paguia.

But Supreme Court justices are not infallible like the Pope. They have feet of clay like the rest of us who make mistakes. The Court has indeed made contradictory and confusing decisions, as the President said.

What did P-Noy say in his speech? It is this: Recent decisions of the Court, such as declaring unconstitutional the creation of the Truth Commission and the quick issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the watch-list order (WLO) of the Department of Justice against former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, to cite just two cases, have substantially hindered current anti-corruption efforts.

To put it more succinctly, within the context of the current tussle between the executive branch and the judiciary, faulty dispensation of justice is itself an injustice. In effect, it not only tolerates but actually causes corruption because it sends the message that crime does pay.

The trouble with these critics is that they have the misguided belief that politeness should always have primacy over candor. Perhaps in some instances, such as social gatherings, this ought to be observed. However in this instance when the issue is stamping out corruption and holding accountable those who have betrayed public trust, declaring obvious truths and being straightforward in expressing valid criticism are certainly justifiable.

Was P-Noy justified in his decision to publicly criticize the high tribunal? Definitely. Because he, as head of a co-equal branch of government, had the duty to do so.

Criticisms are healthy. It lets the object of the criticism know that he is doing something wrong so that he can correct it. That is democracy in action. That is when you know the checks and balances among the three branches of government are working. As dean Amado Valdez of the University of the East College of Law said, the President’s action was in accordance with the principle of checks and balances between two co-equal branches of government.

Can you imagine what will happen if Congress and the judiciary always agree with the chief executive and vice versa? That is how dictators are born. That was how Ferdinand Marcos became a dictator; the members of Congress were his allies and the Supreme Court supported him all the way.

That was what happened to Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. The members of Congress were her lackeys and the Supreme Court twisted the law to make her actions legitimate. When she ousted President Joseph Estrada from the presidency, there was no constitutional justification for it, so the Supreme Court came out with a decision that Erap had resigned, although there was no letter of resignation in existence. Neither did he resign orally.

But the tribunal headed by Chief Justice Hilario Davide, in a unanimous vote, declared that Erap had resigned on the basis of the diary of an official, which was never presented to the Senate or to the Court. The ponente of that decision, Reynato Puno, was rewarded by GMA with an appointment as chief justice. Davide was rewarded with an appointment as ambassador to the United Nations after he retired from the high court.

That started the culture of impunity in the GMA administration, resulting in the massive cheating during elections and the many cases of graft and culminating in the Maguindanao massacre. Because there was neither a Congress nor a Supreme Court that checked the abuses of the executive branch.

Going back to Valdez, he said, “I think this (the President’s criticism of the Supreme Court) will strengthen our system of checks and balances. The President has to do what he has to do. He has to articulate the sentiments of the people.”

Although Valdez acknowledged that while the judiciary is independent from the Executive, the Court’s decisions “must still reflect the sentiments of the Filipino people.”

He added: “The Supreme Court has the responsibility to reflect the collective intuition of the people. The Supreme Court is not just a decision-making body, it has to capture the conscience of the people.”

Those who still believe that P-Noy was wrong in criticizing the high court in the manner he did should not complain when grafters in government—past, present and future—are able to get away with their loot.

I would rather have a leader who can sometimes be perceived as “rude” for being straightforward, than one who is gracious and polite but who robs the people blind or stands in the way of efforts to rid this country of its most serious malaise: rampant corruption, which has kept many of our people in abject poverty.

TRIVIA 0029: PRESIDENT AQUINO’S SPEECH AT THE JUSTICE  SUMMIT, 05 DECEMBER 2011

=================

President Aquino’s speech at the justice summit

Philippine Daily Inquirer

2:44 am | Tuesday, December 6th, 2011

 [Delivered at Centennial Hall, Manila Hotel on Dec. 5, 2011]

Our gathering this morning is an opportunity to further assess the strengths and weaknesses of the present criminal justice system, and to come up with new and timely initiatives concerning the delivery of justice. We say timely, because of recent headlines in newspapers and on television, in which the entire country has witnessed the complexities of the duties of our clerks of court, our lawyers and our judges. There is no doubt as to the gravity of your task. Your decisions and the steps you take have implications integral to our democracy. Because of this, it is important to reflect on Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution: Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them. I remind you of this now because there was a point in our history when it seems we have forgotten this. During martial law, justice was not directed toward the welfare of the people, but rather to cater to the whims of a single person: the late President Ferdinand Marcos. My own family was a victim of this: My father was court martialed, but the verdict had already been set even before the trial commenced. With a court made up of magistrates, lawyers, prosecutors, and witnesses all appointed by the accuser—Mr. Marcos—the dictatorship exerted all efforts to skew justice and run roughshod over my father’s human rights. He did no wrong, and yet he languished for seven years and seven months in jail, while those in power feasted on the national coffers. They took away justice’s blindfold, and tilted its scales toward their own interests.

Now, as President of this country, I have a sworn duty: Preserve and defend its Constitution, execute its laws, do justice to every man, and consecrate myself to the service of the nation. And part of my mandate is making certain that what transpired during martial law does not happen again, and ensuring that anyone who so much as attempts to repeat the same offenses is held accountable.

This is why, from the moment I assumed office, we have been laying the groundwork to get to the bottom of the allegations of corruption against the past administration: From the fertilizer scam, which ended up fattening only the pockets of a few officials, to the ZTE deal, which allegedly resulted in the abduction of witness Jun Lozada; from the allegations of fraud in the 2004 and 2007 elections, to the many other acts of corruption that we want to shed light upon.

We started by creating the Truth Commission, which was supposed to look into the alleged widespread acts of corruption during the past administration, and to hold those responsible for them to account. We had no other purpose for this than to address past wrongdoings as quickly as possible. But we all know what happened: The Supreme Court said that the formation of the Truth Commission was unconstitutional. From the onset, obstacles had already been put in our path.

It is within the Comelec’s duties to make certain that our elections remain fair. So it is but natural that they ask for the assistance of the DOJ in investigating the allegations of cheating back in 2007. The formation of such panels is not uncommon, and yet once again the Supreme Court is questioning it. They are also questioning the legality of the warrant of arrest issued by the Pasay Regional Trial Court to Mrs. Arroyo.

Also, note this: The Supreme Court handed down the TRO together with certain conditions. But not long after that, they themselves admitted that the conditions need not be met for the TRO to be in effect. How baffling of them to include conditions they had no plans of seeing fulfilled. We have been following all the right processes, and still we are being accused of picking a fight. May I ask: Who in their right mind would not be suspicious of their true intent?

This is not the first time we were perplexed by a ruling of the Supreme Court. According to Article 7, Section 15 of the Constitution, “Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a President or Acting President shall not make appointments, except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety.” But we all know how Mrs. Arroyo insisted on appointing the Chief Justice. He was appointed, not two months before the election, but a week after. According to the law and one of their previous decisions, the Supreme Court ruled that the President could not appoint any official two months before an election, except for temporary appointments to the executive position. But they turned their back on their pronouncements when Mrs. Arroyo appointed the Honorable Chief Justice Renato Corona—in a position that was not in the executive branch, but of the judiciary. The question now is: Is the Supreme Court in violation of the Constitution?

Another decision we have trouble accepting concerns the creation of districts in Congress: Article 6, Section 5 of the Constitution states that every district must have a population of more than 250,000. The problem was, there were areas that could not achieve this number—such as Camarines Sur, which has a population of about 176,000. When I was still in the Senate, as Chairman of the committee on local government, I questioned the creation of this district, though the Supreme Court only junked the inquiry. The question now is: If the establishment of a district no longer relies on population, on what basis, then, will lawmakers rely? Does this mean that we continue to have rules on the creation of cities, but we have none for provinces or districts in provinces? I commiserate with the new Chairman of the Senate committee on local government, Sen. Bongbong Marcos: I wish you good luck in resolving this problem; I tried my best to do so in my time.

We remain respectful of the separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive branches. We have no intention of encroaching on their duties, disregarding their rights, or tarnishing anyone’s reputation. But we need to remind ourselves of the bedrock principles of our democracy. We in public service owe it all to our Boss, the Filipino people. We are here only to serve the people, and to serve our fellow Filipinos with utmost industry and integrity.

Now, if there is one public servant who thinks he does not owe his countrymen—who, after all, is the wellspring of our power—but a patron who had snuck him into position, can we reasonably expect him to look after the interests of our people?

I do not have a degree in law. But I was brought up with a clear view of what is right and what is wrong; of what is just, and what is corrupt. I stand firm in my belief that justice cannot be steered toward the whims of magistrates. Not even lawyers and judges can treat the law as a toy to be fiddled with or juggled according to what they desire.

Allow me to reiterate what I had mentioned earlier: The power of the Supreme Court, the President, and Congress all emanate from their single Boss: The people. Therefore, we should only favor and fight for the people’s interests. I swore to preserve and defend the Constitution, execute its laws, do justice to every man, and consecrate myself to the service of the Nation. I have no intention of violating my sworn oath; I have no intention of failing the Filipino people.

It is my obligation—it is everyone’s obligation—to remain focused on a single direction, under one unifying aspiration: To serve and uphold the interests of the nation. To all those who stand shoulder to shoulder with us along this straight and righteous path, have faith: So long as we are on the side of what is right, we will not back down from any fight. And so long as the people are behind us, we will triumph. Let us not let them down.

Thank you.