Breaking the law justified—Noynoy

SPOKESMAN: ‘WHAT IS LEGAL IS NOT ALWAYS NECESSARILY RIGHT’

President Aquino is completely justified in disobeying the law, because he knows what are the right laws and the wrong laws, even if already decided by the highest court in the land, despite the fact that it is the Supreme Court (SC) that is mandated by the Constitution to be the sole interpreter of the law.

This justification holds, as far as Malacañang is concerned, whose spokesman insisted that there is justification for anyone, especially President Aquino, to go against the country’s laws for as long as he believes it is the right thing to do.

Justifying President Aquino’s ranting against SC Chief Justice Renato Corona and Aquino’s refusal to abide by the high court’s decisions, presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda said that the President did what he believes is the right thing to do.

“The President is clear on the separation ofpowers; he is very, mindful of what this tripartite system of government is. So those who are concerned about the criticisms are only concerned about the form and not the substance. The President knows what is right, what is wrong even if he is not a lawyer. What is legal is not always necessarily right,” stressed Lacierda, a lawyer who should know that the law is what the Court says and should be followed if the Philippines is still a government of laws and not of men.

But this was what Lacierda said in defending Aquino’s blatant disregard for the time-honored separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judiciary.

Although he did not directly mention the Supreme Court, Aquino broadly hinted that he is “taking some risks” just to achieve certain “strategic goals.”

“We all know the challenges facing the global economy at this time. Your continued confidence in my country signifies a shared mindset: stability does not simply mean letting things be. When something doesn’t work, you have to move to fix it—even if it means ruffling a few feathers, and even if it means taking some risks. Otherwise, strategic goals will never be met. The strength of any corporation, any institution, any government, lies in the integrity upon which its ideals too are upheld. Passivity means erosion. By expressing their confidence in my country, EPPI has shown that they recognize this—that they believe our principles in governance will have concrete, long-term benefits for our country,” Aquino said in his speech during the inauguration rites of the new factory of Epson Precision Philippines in Lipa, Batangas.

Asked if these statements of Aquino are all en route toward a Malacañang-backed impeachment case against Corona, Lacierda said that the President is closely “keeping his cards to his chest” as far as his planned actions (against) the Supreme Court are concerned.

“He (Aquino) merely wanted to remind everyone including the judiciary that we are accountable to the Filipino people. As to the measures that the President will be taking, that is something that he has not disclosed and we are not in a position to comment further on that,” said Lacierda.

“It’s not that we do not have any plan of action. The President has not chosen to disclose his plan of action. As to what they are, again, it i the President who is keeping it close to his chest so I cannot say anything further other than what the President has already mentioned previously,” he added.

Lacierda also downplayed the claim of SC administrator Midas Marquez that there is hardly any basis for any impeachment case against Corona.

“That is his (Marquez) own opinion. He is free to express his assessment on the impeachment case. So far, there has been no impeachment filed yet against Chief Justice Corona so we cannot comment any further than that. Again, this is an initiative that will be coming from the legislature,” he said.

Lacierda maintained that Aquino’s attacks against Corona and the Supreme Court in general are based on legitimate concerns but denied that it has something to do with the tribunal’s decision to distribute Hacienda Luisita.

He said that the trigger point of Aquino’s rage toward the SC was its decision to issue a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on the watchlist order (WLO) issued by Justice Secretary Leila de Lima.

Lacierda said that Aquino only raised questions on some decisions of the SC “for us to think about, to mull about” adding that Aquino recognizes the fact that Chief Justice Corona is already the sitting Chief Justice despite his midnight appointment.

Lacierda added that Aquino’s attacks against the SC should not be linked to the Hacienda Luisita issue because it was actually that government which petitioned the High Tribunal to reject the stock option being offered by the president’s relatives to the farmers and push for land distribution.

Lacierda claimed that even when the SC decided to finally rule in favor of land distribution, Aquino did not bother to ask government lawyers to register objection to the decision.

“That’s a complete disinformation. If you recall, the first decision issued by the Supreme Court was for the legalization of the SDO, they found the SDO constitutional. Subsequent to that, several organizations filed a motion for reconsideration and, lest we forget, the Department of Agrarian Reform through the Office of the Solicitor General also filed a motion for reconsideration on that point,” Lacierda explained.

“I think the trigger point really was the TRO (that) really compelled us to think why the government is being prevented from presenting its side even before the TRO was issued. I think, for me, we feel and the President felt that—and basing from the statement of Justice Lourdes Serreno—that the government should have been given the opportunity to be heard, “ he added.

Aquino’s ally, Sen. Franklin Drilon yesterday doused cold water on the conciliation talks to put an end to the escalating tension between Aquino and SC Chief Justice Renato Corona, saying there is no resolution in the offing because the high tribunal will never admit it has been biased in the past.

“If I were the mediator, I would find it extremely difficult where to start because these are not differences where a middle ground can be crafted or proposed. It’s a basic question of differences in interpretation, and unfortunately, the President does not believe that the interpretation of the Supreme Court of the Constitution is based purely on unbiased and impartial reading of the law. So, tell me where would you start if you are the mediator?

“The SC will never admit that its decisions are biased. It will insist that its decisions are based on law,” said Drilon to reporters.

The senator, a strong political ally of the Chief Executive, said that while it is a welcome development to hear of the President indicating that he is open to a dialog, Drilon emphasized that the difficulty in the situation lies in the high court as it insists that its decisions are in accordance with the law.

“So if I am the mediator, I do not know where I will start.

Remember, we are not talking here about political bodies where certain compromises can be achieved. You are talking here about decisions of the SC which President Noynoy perceives to be very partial and influenced by the ties of the Chief Justice with former President Gloria Arroyo,” he said.

“The President has very clearly articulated what are in the minds of many people, that this is an Arroyo Court, which will always be in favor of the former President. So, I do not know where to start if I were the mediator, that’s all I am saying.

“On that premise, it is extremely difficult to look for a middle ground. This is not a case of two political bodies. This is a case of the Supreme Court which is tasked to rule on disputes, to arbitrate on cases with impartiality. Unfortunately, there were circumstances that the impartiality is put to doubt because of the circumstances that attends the composition of the Court, the appointment of the chief justice, etc.,” he added.

The offer made by the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) for some church leaders to act as mediators, as they pressed for a truce between Aquino and Corona, would prove to be a difficult task to accomplish, Drilon said.

“I do not really know if they can succeed. The dispute does not arise from a difference in policy where you can mediate. The differences arose from the perception that the SC is not up to its task of being an impartial arbiter of disputes. I cannot see how you can mediate this dispute between the SC and Malacañang.

“Unfortunately, the perception and position of the President is that the SC has become a bias arbiter of disputes involving the Constitution. The SC in this case, will always insist that its decisions are in accordance with the reading of the Constitution. So, where do you begin as a mediator? I don’t really see how you can mediate this dispute.

“Even if somebody mediates, assuming I am a bishop, where do I start because it is not a question of policy? It is a question of the Court saying ‘this is our decision in accordance with the law and the Constitution’ and the President saying, ‘No, you’re baised, in favor of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.’ It’s not a question of policy where you can find a middle ground.

“Let us see how it unfolds. We have not seen a similar episode in the past which we can set as an example. This is the first time,” he said. –Virgilio J. Bugaoisan and Angie M. Rosales, Daily Tribune