Corona draws the line vs high court detractors

Chief Justice Renato Corona yesterday warned detractors of the Supreme (SC) who he referred to as “politicians forcing the justices to play their game,” that they are subverting the democratic process.

Corona said critics in Congress are courting the end of democracy in waging open hostilities against the SC while stressing the tribunal will not bend to  pressure groups to rule on the basis of what is popular and politically expedient.

“It will be very dangerous if they force us to decide on the basis of what is popular. If these politicians force us to play their political game, then it will be the end of our democracy,” Corona said.

“Maybe someone really doesn’t want us here,” he said in recalling his being snubbed in the inauguration of President Aquino last year, the cut in the proposed judiciary budget this year and other issues, such as being called deaf and blind by Aquino.

Corona said the high court should be spared from politics and added that  the Constitution isolated the judiciary from the political processes of the executive and legislative branches.

“The Constitution has insulated the Supreme Court and the judiciary. That is why the Judicial and Bar Council was established in the first place (on selection of members of judiciary) so that members of the judiciary need not go to Congress and to take out the judiciary from the political process,” Corona told reporters.

The last time that mass resignations in the tribunal occurred was during the first Aquino administration which saw holdover magistrates from the

Marcos regime eased out with the Palace acceptance of “resignations” which the Marcos appointed justices did not file.

Ilocos Norte Rep. Rodolfo Fariñas is set to file impeachment complaint against the justices for supposedly voting for the issuance of the status quo order (SQA) order in Sept. last year without first reading the full text of Ombudsman’s petition, based on opinions of Associate Justices Antonio Carpio and Ma. Lourdes Sereno in the ruling of the court last month junking the petition of Gutierrez.

Fariñas, a lawyer who even placed eighth in the 1978 Bar exams, believes that voting for the SQA order without first reading the entire petition constitutes betrayal of public trust and could be basis for impeachment.

But Chief Justice Corona reminded the lawmaker of the internal rules of the SC, which provide that reading the entire petition is not required for a magistrate to vote on issuance of SQA order of temporary restraining order.

“Even the chief justice can issue that order for affirmation of the full court later on. You have to understand that a status quo ante order is not a decision. It was just issued precisely because we wanted to thoroughly assess the case.

“It’s not governed by rules on decisions. It is not like an actual decision that requires all justices to read each and every page of all pleadings, including the petition, comment and memorandums, to evaluate the evidence and go over all issues,” he explained.

Apart from the internal rules of SC, it was also learned that Rule 58, Section 5 of the Rules of Court provides that even a member of the SC may issue a restraining order.

In other words, the issue on failure of some justices to read the petition first before voting on the SQA order holds no water under court rules.

The chief justice said that should Rep. Fariñas insist on the impeachment complaint against the justices, then basis of that would be “according to his political interpretation.”

Corona attested to the explanation of SC spokesman Midas Marquez that the justices were provided with a synopsis of the petition prior to their full-court session on Sept.14 last year prepared by Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr., to whom the case was initially assigned until he inhibited due to membership of his son Lord Allan in the House committee on justice.

This disproves the report that Justice Velasco did not read the petition, which was based on reported claims of Carpio and Sereno that some of them received copies of the petition after the voting.

“What I can recall is that Justice Velasco provided each one of us with a one-page synopsis. It was distributed during (full-court) session… The fact that I called for a vote means and shows without any doubt that there was a discussion on the case and a heated one at that,” he recalled.

He said there was “thorough discussion of issues” during the deliberation that lasted for about 10 to 15 minutes.

The chief justice said Marquez gave the media an “accurate narration of what happened.”

The SC chief lamented why the controversy on SQA order came up almost six months after it was issued.

He further commented: “Assuming without conceding that justices did not read the petition, then that means those who dissented should also be at fault because they voted against the issuance of the SQA without first reading the petition in full themselves.”

Corona explained that the high court is a collegial body and had its own rules and processes in acting on cases.

“The concept of a collegial body is based on totality of the votes – not the individual opinion of justices. There is no such thing as decision of an individual justice because a decision is only when it is a decision of the Supreme Court,” he clarified.

The chief justice, who seldom talks to the media, gave a personal assurance that the SC is doing its job properly as mandated by the constitution and that

“Our conscience is clear we have always played by the rule we have always followed the Constitution and I stand by that. Everything we did we did according to the Constitution and rules. I stand by that,” he said.

He further believes that the allegations against the SC would in the end just strengthen the institution since they are untrue.

There have been claims that Marquez had pressured  three court employees into issuing a certification claiming they distributed copies of the Ombudsman’s petition to the justices before the full court session on Sept.14, 2010 when the SQA order was issued by vote of 8-3-4.

Marquez explained that SC Clerk of Court Enriqueta Vidal told him that the three unidentified employees earlier reported to her that they had placed copies of the petition to the tables of the justices in the conference room before the session on that day.

But it was learned that the three employees later changed their stories after purportedly talking to the chief of staff of Carpio.

Carpio wrote Marquez and asked him to correct media reports, which implied that he was lying. Justice Sereno, the most junior among the justices and lone appointee of President Aquino to the SC, also issued a statement against the SC spokesman yesterday.

The two justices said Marquez had implied that they were lying in his media statements.

It was clear, however, that the SC spokesman only said there was a deliberation on the issuance of SQA order and that copies of the petition were placed on the tables of the justices in the conference room before their full court session. He did not say all the justices were able to read the entire petition before they voted that day.

Carpio, Sereno and Associate Justice Conchita Carpio – Morales have been on the same side in voting on many recent cases, including the impeachment of Gutierrez and the legality of the cityhood laws.

Carpio was the most senior of the SC justices and was a candidate for chief justice, but his former law firm had a falling out with former President and now Pampanga Rep. Gloria Arroyo, who then appointed Corona as chief justice last year. –Benjamin B. Pulta, Daily Tribune