All gloves are off, brass knuckles on at Supreme Court

38

Attack on constitutional govt
UNLESS the ruling penned by Supreme Court Associate Justice Jose Perez and joined by Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno and seven other Justices, on Grace Llamanzares’s petition for certiorari against the Commission on Elections is overturned, “it will wreak havoc on our constitutional system of government,” warns Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo-de Castro in the opening paragraph of her dissent. My honest fear is that it already has.

It would have the effect of amending the 1935 Constitution to add foundlings of no known parentage, which is the admitted status of Mrs. Llamanzares, to the enumeration of natural-born citizens, De Castro points out. It would also amend, (in my view), the 1987 Constitution which defines natural-born citizens as those who are citizens from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their citizenship.

Brion’s fiery dissent
Justice Arturo Brion’s trenchant and merciless dissent of 144 pages blasts the “outstanding errors” of the Perez ponencia like a super storm. He writes, as he says, with “utmost frankness,” mincing no words, “so that everyone may know what really happened within the Court’s veiled chambers.” I don’t believe he reveals all, though, for there is no reference to the loose talk about the P50 million to P100 million which Mrs. Llamanzares’ powerful financiers were supposed to have used on individual Justices to get past the watch of St. Michael the Archangel.

But the gloves are off, and the Justices are wearing brass knuckles. Never before have I seen the disagreements in Court rise to this level. Where De Castro dismisses as ridiculous and absurd the ponencia’s use of Mrs. Llamanzares’ statistical analysis to show her alleged filiation to a Filipino father, Brion sneers at the ponencia’s holding that Mrs. Llamanzares is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines “by circumstantial evidence, by presumption, and by implication from the silence of the (1935) Constitution.” He accuses the ponente of crossing the forbidden threshold of judicial legislation, by playing around even with “the express wordings of the Constitution.”


All for one expatriate
The ponencia “dishonors our Constitution through its slanted reading that allows one who does not qualify to serve as President, to be a candidate for the office,” says Brion. “Shorn of the glamor and puffery that paid advertisements and media can provide, this case is about an expatriate —-a popular one—-who now wants to run for the presidency after her return to the country.” Brion likens her to the subject of a scathing piece written by the late Justice Isagani Cruz entitled, “The Return of the Renegade.”

He stops short of saying that the ponencia was tailored precisely to allow Mrs. Llamanzares to run for President, for reasons having nothing to do with the Constitution, the rule of law or her “qualifications.” But the exact meaning is clear. It leaves no space in the ground for Justice Perez to hide his head as seabirds do during a raging storm; it leaves not a single reed of an argument in favor of Mrs. Llamanzares standing.

Our people —-not just the judges, lawyers and readers of this paper—-deserve to read this piece and make it part of the education of their children. They would have missed an important part of their lives, if they didn’t.

Comelec, diseased?
The Perez ponencia calls the Comelec rulings “diseased from roots to fruits,” without showing the basis for this angry and pejorative statement. The Comelec rulings disqualified Mrs. Llamanzares as a presidential candidate and cancelled her Certificate of Candidacy for President, for falsely representing herself as a natural-born Filipino and a resident of the country for 10 years and 11 months counted backwards from the day before the May 9 elections, based on the Constitution, the law and the evidence presented during the hearings.

Private petitioners Estrella Elamparo, Antonio Contreras, Antonio Contreras and this writer Francisco Tatad were the first ones to point out that she was born a foundling of no known blood parents; that her first and last known and undisputed citizenship was that of a naturalized American; and that her continuous residence in the country from the time she abandoned her US domicile is less than 10 years. The Comelec First and Second Divisions separately heard the four petitions, and, upon appeal of the respondent, the Comelec En Banc affirmed the rulings.

No basis for alleged abuse
Nothing happened during the proceedings that could possibly support any claim of grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. But the pro-Llamanzares justices embraced her outlandish claim that the Comelec does not have the authority of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, which judges post-election cases, to pass upon the qualifications or lack of qualifications of presidential candidates (before the election). Thus, the Comelec committed a grave abuse of discretion when it ruled upon her citizenship and residency status, in relation to her false representations on these two issues.

Perez’s self-contradictions
Brion was unforgiving in pointing out that the Court in so many instances had confirmed and reconfirmed Comelec’s authority to pass upon the qualifications and disqualifications of candidates. In fact, some of the recent Court decisions were even penned by the same Justice Jose Perez, who now holds the exact opposite. These include Ongsiako Reyes vs Comelec (June 25, 2013) and Cerafica vs. Comelec (Dec. 2, 2014). Whatever happened to this “home-grown” Justice? What strange and irresistible illumination compelled him to reverse himself?

Neither Brion nor De Castro asked this question; some other people, myself included, are asking it.

Can SC rule where Comelec can’t?
If despite existing jurisprudence, the Comelec no longer has the authority to pass upon the qualifications of candidates before an election, what would be the authority of even the highest Court to pass upon the same issues without a post-election protest? What would be the basis of the ponencia’s dispositive paragraph “declaring Mary Grace Natividad Sonora Poe Llamanzares qualified to be a candidate in the May 9, 2016 elections”?

What the ponencia is saying is that the Comelec does not have the authority to declare whether Mrs. Llamanzares can run or not. So it has stopped the Comelec from saying that. What now gives the pro-Llamanzares justices the authority or the power to say she can run, despite her constitutional disabilities?

No majority vote
When the citizenship issue was put to a vote, seven of the 15 justices —less than the required majority of eight—voted in favor of Mrs. Llamanzares’s claim that she is a natural-born citizen; five voted against, and three did not vote. When the residency issue was put to a vote, seven accepted her claim that she is a resident of the country for 11 months in excess of the 10 years required of presidential candidates; six voted against, and two did not vote. As Justice Antonio Carpio pointed out, there was no majority vote.

Egregious mistake
But nine Justices held egregiously, (to borrow Brion’s word) that whatever material misrepresentations she may have committed about her citizenship and residency status, she did not intend to deceive, and the Comelec failed to prove any such intent. The plainest meaning of this is that if anyone has been deceived by her “series of falsities” (Brion) about her citizenship and residency status, it was not because she had intended to deceive them, but only because they were naturally inclined to deceive themselves.

This suggests that certain lies can rise to the same level as Truth, provided there are credentialed Justices willing to say so. Even the father of lies will most likely dispute this thesis. Herr Himmler used to caress his revolver to thwart the distinction between truth and lies, between reason and madness; in our time, big money, big media, and false propaganda surveys could easily create an avalanche of lies to replace or supersede the truth. This is the tragedy that has befallen the Sereno Court.

Justices without just men
In my book, Nation on Fire, reproduced in Power Without Authority (Icon Press, 2003), I wrote, “Injustice, not poverty, is the gravest social evil. Too many laws, but not enough justice. Too many justices, but not enough just men. We have become a lawless people.” It pains me to have to repeat this today. But there is such a hunger and thirst for justice, aggravated beyond all measure by the present case. The nation could be near the point of moral death, except that many of the guardians of our morality do not seem to know it. In this Lenten season, we need more than prayers.

In thanksgiving
His Eminence Ricardo Cardinal Vidal, Archbishop Emeritus of Cebu, and Bishop Jose C. Sorra, Bishop Emeritus of Legazpi, two genuinely well-loved pastors and princes of the Catholic Church, will be celebrating the 60th anniversary of their priesthood tomorrow. We join them in thanksgiving and prayers for continued good health.

The Cardinal has been bishop for 45 years, cardinal for 31, and is vibrant at 85. At 10 am, he will be presiding at a solemn High Mass at the International Eucharistic Congress Chapel in Cebu City, together with Archbishop Jose Palma, his auxiliary bishops, some visiting bishops and the archdiocesan clergy. A simple reception will follow.

In Legazpi , Bishop Sorra, who is 87, and on his 42nd year as Bishop, will be presiding at a solemn High Mass at the St. Gregory the Great Cathedral at 5 pm. Concelebrating will be Bishop Joel Baylon, bishop of Legazpi, who is also celebrating his 38th year as a priest and 18th year as bishop; Bishop Lucilo B. Quiambao, auxiliary bishop emeritus of Legazpi, on his 56th year as a priest and 34th year as a bishop; Bishop Nestor Cariño, bishop emeritus of Pasig and longtime Secretary-General of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, on his 55th year as a priest and 38th year as a bishop; other visiting bishops and priests, and 24 diocesan priests, 18 priests originally from Legazpi but incardinated in other dioceses, and four on foreign missions, who are also celebrating their 60th, 50th, 40th, 30th and 25th sacerdotal anniversaries.

A fraternal meal with the poor will follow at the Provincial Astrodome.

Honors
The World Youth Alliance celebrated its 17th anniversary in New York this week by, among other things, conferring the Kathryn Hoomkwap Award for Extraordinary Service in Defense of the Dignity of the Human Person on Ms. Maria Erika Victoria Cantero Tatad, WYA’s first Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific, and recent recipient of the WYA Freedom for Excellence Award.

WYA was founded in 1999 at the United Nations by the young Canadian scholar Anna Halpine as the youth’s spirited response to the challenges of the modern world. More than one million young people under 30 in six continents have signed the WYA Charter to join the World Youth. WYA is now present in 167 countries.

For many years, I sat on WYA’s international board, while my daughter Erika ran the WYA Asia Pacific headquarters in Manila. She had spent a year-long internship at WYA New York after doing political science at Ateneo and international business and marketing at Berkeley, before establishing the WYA HQ in Manila. She has since been involved in helping social enterprises incubate and reach sustainability at the shortest possible time.

The Hoomkwap Award is named for the highly respected Nigerian leader who sat with us at the WYA international board from 2005 to 2008, the year she died. She was the first woman president of the Christian Health Association of Nigeria, official delegate to the 1994 UN Conference on Population and Development in Cairo, and delegate of the Holy See to international conferences in Beijing, Istanbul, New York and Rome. She left many friends and pleasant memories at the UN and in the international pro-life and pro-family circuit.

fstatad@gmail.com

Share.
.
Loading...

Please follow our commenting guidelines.

38 Comments

  1. I am Engr. Dante Valencia, the No. 8 declared Presidential Candidate by the Comelec but was unduly removed from the final list of Presidental Candidates and also did not include my name in the ballot, the Comelec having cancelled my Certifcate of Candidacy for being a nuisance candidate as I have no capacity to mount a nationwide campaign. I filed a Petition for Certiorari to the Supreme Court (SC) like Presidential Candidate Sen, Poe on the same ground of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Comelec. While both cases deal with constitutional issue, that of the Senator – on natural born citizenship and residency issues which are basic qualifications of a Presidential Candidate, mine is on being alleged to be a Nuisance Candidate but having all the basic qualifications of a Presidential Candidate. At the SC, Sen. Poe’s Petition was given due course and the requested TROs were issued by the SC so fast preventing the Comelec from implementing the EN Banc Resolution and removing her name from the list of Presidential Candidates and in the ballot to be printed while the case is pending. Her case was given special attention by the people, media, legal and constitution experts, the Comelec and the SC. In fact, the SC set oral arguments for how many weeks to accommodate the position of all contending parties before making the Decision as the result will have great impact on our Laws and the Constitution. In my case, my Petition was outright dismissed with a Minute Resolution like the other Nuisance Presidential Candidates earlier declared as such without considering the merit of the case and so TRO was not issued thus Comelec removed my name from the list and even in the ballot now being printed. Of all the alleged Nuisance Candidates, I was the only one included in the list and now being removed despite no finality yet of the Petition. Pending at the SC is the Decision of my Motion for Reconsideration praying to set aside/reverse the questioned Resolutions of the Comelec and the Resolution of the SC, and to declare me as a bonafide Presidential Candidate possessing all the basic qualifications as provided in our Constitution and not a nuisance candidate. My legal position is securely anchored on the equal protection clause and principle of social justice enshrined in our Constitution and based on jurisprudence that requirement of posting a surety bond to be a qualified candidate is like property qualifications or millions of pesos required by Comelec now to mount a nationwide campaign that was prohibited by the SC in a 1965 landmark decision in Maquerra vs. Borra declaring R.A 4421 as unconstitutional. This decision is still not over ruled and and not reversed until now contrary to the legal basis of the Comelec Resolutions in declaring me as a Nuisance Candidate thus not a bonafide candidate for President of the Republic of the Philippines. My case should not be ignored or taken for granted by the legal luminaries, constitutional expert, Comelec, the media and the SC as its resolution is of equal importance as that of the case of Sen. Poe considering that it pertains and I am now representing the right of every qualified Filipino Citizen to be a candidate and be elected as a President of the Philippines. The law should be applied equally to all whether you are rich or poor. The sovereign will still resides on the people and all powers emanate from them. They should not be denied of their right to choose or elect the President of their choice following the discriminatory resolutions of the Comelec limiting the candidates to favored ones. And here is another problem of the Comelec. The Comelec, at the same time that it will be implementing the requirement for voters receipt, it will also remedy the situation where the printing of the ballots will be disrupted if my name will be finally ordered by the SC to be included in the ballot as required by the Constitution.

  2. We should not vote for GRACE POE LLAMANZARES. I hope GP Llamanzares lose in this presidential election. She better go back where she came from.

  3. When all constitution bodies are weakened by corruption, the only action that will change these whole country is through a bloody revolution to remove these corrupted officials including the justices.

  4. PERA PERA na lang talaga ang labanan sa Pinas. Ang nakakatakot ayaw na ring patulan ito ng mga mamamayan sa kadahilanang PAGOD at MANHID na sila. So asahan nyo patuloy na mabababoy ang ating pamahalaan. Everybody is FOR SALE the only difference among them is the TAG price that hang on their neck.

  5. Calling the attention of PHILCONSA, INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES and BAYAN KO take necessary action for this kind of situation done by our SC Justices. Is there a way we can remove these 9 SC Justices aside from impeachment? They are the one who must uphold and protect out Constitution, but now what they have done. They can’t fool people for their wrong decision. So better wake calling the attention of PHILCONSA, INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES AND BAYAN KO do necessary action so that these 9 SC Justices will reprimand.

    • PHILCONSA is useless in this situation. It won’t give a non-biased opinion since the the only 2 platinum members are San Miguel Corporation and Petron who are supporters of Poe. I’d like to know the IBP’s position on this along with the legal luminaries and law professors.

  6. What do we expect from a prostituted Supreme Court? This is the result of PNoy’s term. An adulterous government and morally bankrupt society. HELL is in Philippines!

  7. Danny Cascolan on

    XMy Pov,

    To make apparent the flaw erroneous logic that Poe got majority vote of the en banc let us say there are 100 members en banc, then 2 decided that Poe is natural born ( easy with appointed political allies ), and 1 went against and dissented against Poe, and the 97 members for a reason that it was not enough time for them to weigh carefully the facts and factors so decided to abstain from making a yes or no decision, so that what was left was a plurality of vote 2-1 with two votes for Poe to one against Poe, but then since 97 abstained is it not the absurdity of logic to say that 2 pro Poe votes won the majority of the 100 members en banc? of course that is a fallacy.

    Now reduce the total number en banc to 15 members with 7 for Poe, 5 against Poe and 3 abstained on the decision whether to make Poe natural born citizen ( this is not even legitimate amending the Constitution on citizenship just to accomodate Poe )
    now you can see that 7 has plurality of vote but in essence is a minority vote in the en banc. That is the fallacy of the ruling.

    all the magistrates have been present in the deliberations and interpellations, 15 members of the en banc submitted legal opinions that none is left as a vacant or absentee in cast vote. So therefore, there was no room for simple or effective majority scenario but only an absolute majority stand on the issues(di ba merun nga 9-6 vs comelec meaning kumpleto un en banc?), to abstain therefore is still a cast vote but not a vote of yes or no, to abstain means there is a vote of no confidence to the issue and must be counted as a no confidence vote. A no confidence vote on the issue is a negative vote with same effect as Not voting for yes because of No Confidence.


    Escudero should explain why votes of no confidence are excluded and ignored.


    plurality is not majority if the rule of law is asking for the majority as the decisive factor.

    all the magistrates have been present in the deliberations and interpellations, 15 members of the en banc submitted legal opinions that none is left as a vacant or absentee in cast vote. So therefore, there was no room for simple or effective majority scenario but only an absolute majority stand on the issues(di ba merun nga 9-6 vs comelec meaning kumpleto un en banc?), to abstain therefore is still a cast vote but not a vote of yes or no, to abstain means there is a vote of no confidence to the issue and must be counted as a no confidence vote. A no confidence vote on the issue is a negative vote with same effect as Not voting for yes because of No Confidence.
    Escudero should explain why votes of no confidence are excluded and ignored.

    I used the parliamentary motion vote of no confidence to describe the concept of loss of confidence, for an issue the vote of no confidence is stronger in metaphor in this case and grasped easily for the meaning of the words than if I were to say a plain loss of confidence in judgement to cast a definitive yes or no vote, but still it is a negative vote owing to the fact that it is not affirmative.

  8. Amnata Pundit on

    This is not about Grace but the circumstances are related. Hubert Webb only got 7 votes too, but his conviction was reversed despite the vote being one short of majority. Lauro Vizconde accused Carpio of lobbying for Webb, and today this same Justice is complaining that Grace only got 7 votes, just like Hubert Webb. These justices may be guilty of so many things but consistency is not one of them.

    • Sorry, but you should read this Hubert case fully before commenting as your statements are rather misleading. Only eleven judges heard this case because four of them inhibited or disqualified themselves for one reason or another before the case was heard or tried. One of them was Associate Justice A. Carpio who had been a defense witness for the accused Hubert Webb in the trial court. Like the others who played “no part” in the majority decision, he did not “sit” or participate in the hearing, and thus did not vote.

      Seven justices voted to acquit, and four dissented. The majority, where you have only 11 justices voting, is 50% plus 1 = 6. Thus, there is no question, that seven votes comprised a majority.

      In the current case of Grace Poe Llamanzares, the vote is 7-5-3 in respect of the citizenship issue. All fifteen justices participated in the deliberations and were present during the voting. The majority required for 15 judges is 8, not 7, even though the three votes maybe considered to be uncommitted in respect of the issue.

    • Amnata Pundit on

      Is there a difference between inhibiting and abstaining? Just read Danny Cascolan’s comments above. BTW, two maids and a driver-bodyguard of the Webbs testified that Hubert was in town when the Vizconde massacre happened. One of them even said Hubert came home that night with a bloody shirt. The girlfriend of the cop who was also convicted with Webb for destroying the evidence testified that he, the cop, got a call that night and that he had to leave her to fix a problem for the Webbs. All these testimonies were disregarded by that awful SC decision thanks to the lobbying of Carpio.

    • Are you even fully informed on the Hubert case?

      In the Llamanzares case, 15 justices “participated” in the deliberations and were present during the voting. Why were the 3 justices ignored?

    • Nothing will happen, because majority of Filipinos are too dumb and stupid to even care,

  9. The conclusion of one of the justice of using probability and likely physical attributes (eg. ‘looks like a Filipino’) to determine a ‘natural-norn’ citizen is really absurd. Consider the following analogy:
    If Superman by any chance fell from heaven to anywhere in the Philippines, have a Malay-looking features then adopted by pious Filipino couples, and gave him a name like one of those Filipino-sounding names, are we to conclude then that Superman is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines following the SC Justice’s leap of logic?

  10. jaime o.de vera on

    The 9 SC Justices’ decision dismissing Comelec’s DQ case against Senator Llamanzares “for committing a grave abuse of discretion” deliberately decided based on MISPLACED & TWISTED emotions & presumptions without addressing squarely the core legal issues whether she is a natural-born citizen Filipino & short of 10-year residency prior to May 2016 election. The decision is tantamount to making a mockery of our electoral process, thus, making us act as puppets. These 9 Justices who debased our constitution & masquerading as “honorable magistrates” are actually HOODLUMS IN ROBES.

    • We’ll 50 million is 50 million …the moral of the story is that the senaTONGS and the TONGgressmen cannot have their cakes and eat it because we too have our own cakes to eat also..so by ourselves we just amended our constitution… all those not in favor can sue us anytime..hehe…heh..heh…

  11. Franck Frego on

    Well Perez looks old and fat… so maybe he is near retirement and needs better retirement conditions?

    • Why wait when it’s ready and available from any bank fund transfer… with just a simple in agreement decision in favour of so and so supported by his/her original signature……

  12. More than anybody else, Associate Justice A. Carpio – experienced, knowledgeable, and intellectually honest and agile – knows what a majority vote entails (50% plus 1 = 8 out of 15 voting members). It is CJ M.L. Sereno – less experienced, less knowledgeable, less intelligent in respect of the law – who now deigns to rule what is meant by the word “majority” (7 out of 12 voting members, the other three who decided not to vote were excluded). The issue which, after all, involves nothing more than simple math or even plain arithmetic that a high school student can easily figure out (if you have 15 voters or 15 members present at a meeting, what is the “majority”?). Apart from the constitutional text defining “majority”, even “Roberts Rules of Order” which serves as a guide for conducting meetings and decisions of groups, 50% plus 1 is the “majority”. Those present, but who chose not to vote are considered to be negative votes. That is why a motion is lost when you have a vote like 6-6-1 where only 12 people voted even though 13 were present to vote (6 yea, 6 nay, and one abstained) because the majority = 7 was not reached. There are a number of SC legal precedence for this. Maybe CJ Sereno should do a bit more reading before she replies to this “majority” controversy in any Motion for Reconsideration that will be filed by the petitioners. She should cite or provide references to justify her number of 7 out of 12 as the majority when, in fact, 15 justices deliberated on the issues of the citizenship and residency of candidate Grace Poe Llamanzares

    As for Associate Justice Perez who wrote the “ponencia”, his inconsistency with his previous decisions only proves that he either does not write his own judgements or decisions, that his staff does the writing for him, and he forgets what was supposed to be his previous pronouncements. The inconsistencies and discrepancies between his previous and current decisions should be pointed out in the petitioners’
    “Motion for Reconsideration”. This current Supreme Court has been known to change its mind. Concerned citizens should not lose hope even if the process would take a long time to finish.

    I am glad that the dissenting opinions of Associate Justices Carpio, Brion, and de Castro are being discussed by politically savvy voters. By word of mouth, by social media, by online commentaries, the message is: un-elected, and unaccountable CJ Sereno and cohorts ruled extra-judicially and trashed the Constitution of the Philippines. The people need to be vigilant and on guard: “Who will watch the watchers”?

    • A classic example of “ignorance of the law excuses no one”….. so the 7 justices should answer for their crimes for mutilating the constitution…

  13. Leodegardo Pruna on

    Congratulations Kit for having a great daughter carrying your name and philosophy. While we are plagued with untruth,, we seek justice knowing that justice is based on truth. For now, we pray and solemnly ask GOD to SAVE THE PHILIPPINES.

  14. It pains my heart to see the SC-7 guardians of Constitution turned against the Constitution, Not for the love of God but for the love of money. The Constitution is moral wisdom of Filipino people. How it will be for a nation when SC-7 justices become immoral justices desecrating the Constitution with out logical reason acceptable to simple Filipino mind? It is immoral dictatorship by money from the rich Oligarchy. Are we suppose to worship money than to stand firm in human moral conviction for truth?
    Natural is 100% natural NOT 99.99999% only !!!

  15. Mark Laperal on

    Bravo for Kit Tatad for his intelligent opinion. And vote for either Duterte or Binay and of course, Marcos for vice president.

  16. The Supreme is in ruins, just because of these 9 justices. Nakakahiya sila! They should all resign. That’s the only way to redeem the tarnished image of the Supreme Court. Forget about themselves now, but think about the institution. In this way, they also redeem themselves.

    • No.no.no.no.no…. there’s still more monies to harvest in this gov’t….I should have been appointed long long time ago….. let’s see my list —-1 brand new Porsche and maybe a good ol’ Bentley , I just needed a safari tour, i’ll start constructing a vacation house in new York, LA and Florida, time to splurge in las vegas for those loose change, bring the family in the Bahamas this summer, enjoy my Barkara frolicking in palawan ..baka sabihin Naman nila di ko pinapatronize local tourism, then maybe a tour of the world during our work vacation, then going to Switzerland and Cayman islands to deposit, secure and protect my dirty money..who knows baka makasuhan Tayo Para insured ako for the rest of my life …this is living in style bebe… this is the life… you don’t have to be rich and famous to enjoy…basta join the “matuwid Na daan gang” and that’s it……..

  17. PNoy have destroyed everything about the Philippine government. We thought that appointing the new justices he will stop there and let them be, but it is now very clead that like the Legislative branch which he bastardized and prostituted at his say fit, he has now done the same to the Supreme Court. What a pathetic country the Philippines have become because only one man, Benigno Simeon C. Aquino III. Ninoy and Corazon, what have the people of the Philippines done to you which deserves the misery your son have done to us.

  18. Mariano Patalinjug on

    Yonkers,New York
    15 March 2016

    The Supreme Court’s recent decision allowing JUAN PONCE ENRILE, who is charged with the NON-BAILABLE crime of Plunder, to post BAiL, on–get this!–“humanitarian grounds,” was one in which the Court arrogantly and irresponsibly acted “with grave abuse of discretion.”

    But was one which foreshadowed this highly irregular and anomalous decision of the Court–with only 7 justices “sold” as a Majority–allowing Grace Poe Llamanzares to be a candidate for President.

    If the Court thinks that it can fool the people once–in its decision on Juan Ponce Enrile–it is wrong to believe that it can fool the people the second time around with this pathetic decision on Grace :Poe Llamanzares.

    I have said it once already, that this decision of the Court “stinks” to high heaven. I have to say it here again: It “stinks!”

    The Supreme Court has already self-destructed–and could be because of 50 million or 100 million reasons?

    If a serious investigation into whether or not those “reasons” are behind that screwy decision, a case could be made for impeachment proceedings against the justices who will be identified by such an investigation.

    MARIANO PATALINJUG
    patalinjugmar@gmail.com

    • Hey bud, who said 100 million… the signing bonus was for 50 mils…oopps ayoko Ng ganyan…nagkakaungguyan yata ah… are you sure about your info… time to call malacanang…di pwede yan kasabihan nag Sa batas is “there should be equality in our law”…. meaning those who have less in life should have more in MONEY….nakalamang Na Nyman yata Si CJ ah……

  19. What a SAD DAY it is that the Supreme Court has allowed the twisting of facts in allowing Poe to run for the presidency.

    I don’t understand when the SC says that the Comelec can rule on the qualification of candidates AFTER THE ELECTION AND NOT BEFORE THE ELECTION? What kind of stupidity is this? Is this what they learned in law school?

    So now what gov’t agency can rule on the qualifications of a candidate if not the Comelec?

    The Supreme Court justices don’t deserve to be RESPECTED. They should be IMPEACHED!

  20. The majority opined that the Comelec committed a grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying GP’s presidential candidacy by giving due course to the assailed Petitions disguised as “quo warranto” before a candidate is declared winner. This is because GP is not among those disqualified under Sec. 12 and 18 of the Election Code.
    Sec. 12 enumerates those who are disqualified as to wit: “Any person who has been declared incompetent or sentenced by final judgment for subversion, insurrection, etc.” In addition, Art. IX of the Constitution limited the power of the Comelec. Thus, Sec. 2, (2) Art.IX states: The Comelec shall “exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the elections, returns, and QUALIFICATIONS of all elective regional, provincial and city officials… etc.”
    It is clear that the Comelec has no jurisdiction over the qualifications of president, vice pres., senators and congressmen because this power was given exclusively to the PET for pres. and V.P; SET for senators; and HRET for congressmen by the Constitution.
    In other words, the Petition is dismissed because it is in reality a premature quo warranto petition because GP is not yet elected president. The fact that there may be a petition in the future in the PET should GP is elected president is irrelevant/immaterial or not ripe for discussion in this case and Carpio as a legal luminary should have been aware of this legal maxim and it is not among those things “that is capable of repetition yet avoiding judicial review” because there is nothing to ‘review’ inasmuch as it is expressly provided for in the Constitution.

    In other words Mr.Tatad, you filed a wrong petition and in a wrong place and the SC has no other recourse but to dismiss.

    • adonis b. rocha on

      Sam you are putting the cart before the horses mouth. The issue is clear cut in the constitution itself of who are qualified and who are not to run for the highest post in the land the presidency. It is implicit in language, substance and form… WRITTEN IN PLAIN ENGLISH that even a primary three can interpret.
      You are diverting by obfuscation the issue to the qualification of the Comelec…purely absurd. If your so-called legal twistinga nd thoughtrs has any basis, the SC will dismiss the case outright on the grounds you mentioned. As there is none, yours is just a whishful thingking. Go back to your law books.

  21. Truly the SC bastardized the Constitution just for the caprices of POE and big time businessman? Lawyers and legal luminaries should hold an emergency EDSA like demo in front of the SC showing their solidarity that the SC showed their complete ignorance of the law by twisting beyond legalities…bowing to the wishes of their master Abnoy…..shame on those who qualified POE to run.They should be kicked out…especially that Sereno…an accomplished idiot knowing that she won’t last her reign once the opposition wins.

  22. Simply put, SC says its fine to falsify public documents and u may even run as president. They went on to falsify their decisions. So its not that bad to falsify. One is not violating anything when falsifying. As we allow legislators to steal, In effect, we now allow/encourage everybody to falsify public documents wantonly with the justices as role models and setting the precedent. If I were those justices, I should continuously throw up and wrangle my fingers, arms and body as i look at myself in the mirror…

  23. I really do think a big storm is brewing in the political arena. I don’t know how we can proceed with this bastardization of our Philippines Constitution considering the epic failure of the SC to interpret the law. Their decision is based on pure probabilities and political influence. I would like to see the position of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines on this matter. I don’t have trust from the Philippines Constitution Association (PHILCONSA) since the only 2 major platinum members here are Petron and San Miguel Corporation of which Llamanzares is being backed in her presidential candidacy. Any legal options left by the 4 petitioners at this point? If not, then I’d say, the electorates who are in the legal arena should join together hand in hand in order to restore back the integrity of our Constitution. It is now up to the voters to really think twice of whether we should allow the framework of our country to crumble due to utter corruption of which this country has endure in so many decades. One big obstacle in this election are the class D and E voters. They have no resources to turn into for a well-informed choice. They’re being bought by money and once again, Philippines will be ruled by the oppressors in the next 6 years unless a miracle will happen.

  24. adonis b. rocha on

    What recourse do we have now Kit Tatad to prevent this rapacious acts of “hoodlums in robe” thwarting the spirit and letter of our constitution? This is clearly a sell out to the vested interests backing this egoistic greed and selfishness of this novato Grace Llamanzares and her equally super ambitious escrewdero.

    There is nothing to respect in the truncated decision of this SC Court of “Sereno and the Eight Thieves”. No lessons in any law school all over the world teaches this type of polluted decisions that has no basis that is only fit for the rubbish bin.

    The next Congress must expeditiously act on the impeachment complaints that will flood Congress to throw out these “Sereno and the 8 Thieves” for their rapacious acts on our Constitution.

    No right thinking Pinoys must be conned by these tricksters in GP Lamanzares and Escrewdero. A vote for these two is a kiss of death to democratic Philippines that will guarantee our sinking deeper in cow dang deep shit.

  25. It is sad, very sad now that the Sereno (Supreme) Court has been prostituted by Poe’s case facilitated by the crook supreme court justices headed by Ms. Sereno. SHAME ON HER. I remember also that the photo bomb building poisoning the view of Dr. Jose Rizal’s monument was through her and her husband’s doing why the developer got away with it. Nobody even bothers to mention that issue anymore. Where will our country head to now? One should have P50-100M to get justice. The so called “rule of law” is just for the poor. The rich and powerful can kick the ass of whoever block their wishes. For them, the rule of the law is only for show. IT IS MONEY THAT PREVAILS.