‘SC ruling for GMA to name next chief justice alarming’

The decision of the Supreme Court allowing President Macapagal-Arroyo to appoint the next chief Justice after the retirement of Chief Justice Reynato Puno on May 17 has alarmed judges and lawyers in Cebu.

The court ruling in effect excluded the highest post in the judiciary from the election ban on government appointments.

Cebu Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judge Gabriel Ingles of branch 58 said he could not understand why the high court issued a ruling which goes against another established jurisprudence.

“I don't like what the Supreme Court has ruled upon. I did not expect it to be so,” said Ingles, spokesperson of the Palace of Justice.

Voting 9-1, with three abstentions and two justices saying the issue was premature, the Supreme Court yesterday ruled that the constitutional ban on government appointments 60 days before the elections and in the last 30 days of the President's term did not cover the post of the Supreme Court chief justice. (See related stories on page 9)

The three justices who abstained were Puno and leading contenders Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and Renato Coron. Justice Conchita Carpio Morales dissented.

Ingles said the ban on government appointments “two months immediately before the next presidential elections” as stipulated in Article VII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution covers not only the executive branch but also the judiciary.

In a previous ruling of the high court known as the “Valenzuela dictum,” it ruled that the prohibition covered even judicial appointments.

RTC Executive Judge Meinrado Paredes, who was likewise disappointed with the SC ruling, said he agreed with Ingles, but refused to comment further on the issue.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines - Cebu City chapter was likewise alarmed by the court’s ruling.

“The integrity and independence of the Supreme Court are now put into doubt with this recent decision,” said IBP - Cebu City chapter president Michael Yu in an interview.

But Yu said the IBP Cebu City chapter believes that under the Constitution, the President can not appoint anyone to the judiciary within 60 days before the election and until her term ends on June 30.

Former IBP-Cebu chapter president Democrito Barcenas said he and other lawyers were shocked by the court ruling.

“It is really a sad day for the Philippine judiciary. The people are now alarmed that the Supreme Court is now being used by Malacañang,” said Barcenas.

“A lot of lawyers are also equally alarmed because of perception that the SC has lost its independence,” he added.

Lawyer Israelito Torreon, immediate past president of IBP-Davao del Sur chapter said, “the blanket prohibition under the 1987 Constitution to the President to make appointments within the prohibitory period is very clear that it does not require an interpretation but an application."

In a statement sent to CEBU DAILY NEWS, Liberal Party senatorial candidate lawyer Alex Lacson said “this is a sad day for Philippine democracy.”

“The Supreme Court has already frowned on midnight appointments in previous cases,” he said.

“That the Supreme Court is making an exception in this significant case, involving one of its own, will only raise concerns among our people about the independence of our institutions,” said Lacson.

Even fisherfolks and environmentalists also criticized the ruling.

“GMA without shame, bastardized the justice institution through appointed allies in the Supreme Court to protect its interest,” said Vince Cinches, executive director of Central Visayas Fisherfolks Development Inc.

He said there was a pending environment case at the Supreme Court that was filed in 2007, seeking an injunction on the oil exploration activities of the Japan Petroleum Exploration Corp. on Tanon Strait Protected Seascape.

“If they will rule unfavorably, it will affect important reforms of (Chief Justice) Puno, such as green courts, etc. We can speculate that the move will affect the case but the noble intent of our case will not be defeated,” said Cinches.

Copyright 2012 INQUIRER.net and content partners. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.