 |
 |
| ON THE OTHER HAND |
| Supreme Court Liberalism By Antonio C. Abaya Written April 25, 2006 For the Standard Today, April 27 issue Recent Supreme Court decisions have established, without doubt, the cautious but liberal credentials of the Panganiban Court. It ruled as constitutional Executive Order no. 420, which had called for a non-compulsory unified identification system. The Court decision recognized that more than 100 countries around the world have compulsory national ID cards, a fact which rankles both liberals and communists here, but it went ahead and allowed the Arroyo government�s unified ID card, presumably because it is non-compulsory. Is this a triumph for liberalism, or what? Similarly, in its decision on Executive Order no. 464, the Supreme Court acknowledged the right of the Chief Executive to bar her lieutenants in the executive department from testifying before congressional inquiries, on the grounds of the �rule of confidentiality� and the �separation of powers under the Constitution.�. But the Court allows those same government executives to appear before congressional bodies �in aid of legislation.� It acknowledged that �Congress undoubtedly has a right of information from the executive branch whenever it is sought in aid of legislation.� Is this Solomonic wisdom, or what? If there is a conflict, as there undoubtedly will be, between �separation of powers� and �the right of (or �to�) information from the executive branch in aid of legislation,� which concept or right prevails? For example, in the Hello, Garci tape controversy, which was one of the issues that raised the matter to the Supreme Court, Comelec commissioner Virgilio Garcillano claims that he never left the Philippines in July 2005. But the Singapore Government, in its official communication to our Department of Foreign Affairs, informed the DFA that someone named Virgilio Garcillano arrived in Singapore on July 14 aboard a private Learjet and left the next day for London aboard a commercial jetliner. And presumably Singapore has documents and photographs to substantiate that information. So, who was lying? Garcillano or the Singapore Government? Why would the Singapore Government lie, in the first place? So the burden of proof is with Garci, who has the motivation to lie, since he is trying to wiggle out of a tight corner. And what proof did Garci present to prove that he did not go to Singapore in July 2005? A passport that had no Singapore (or other) entries in it. A passport which the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, the sole printer of passports in the country, says has several flaws, including size and stitching. In other words, most likely a fake passport. So, under the Supreme Court ruling, the Senate has all the right in the world to summon and grill Garcillano to get to the bottom of this mystery, so that legislation can be written to prevent or discourage senior government officials like him from behaving as he did. If the Senate were to request from the Singapore Government the documents and photographs of the person who transited through Singapore on July 14-15 using the name of Virgilio Garcillano, then the guilt or innocence of Garci, as far as that is concerned, could be quickly established. But that would not be the end of it. If it was not Garci, then who was it who used his name, and why? And if it was indeed Garci, then he has committed perjury and has to suffer the consequences. But whether or not it was Garci, there would be corollary angles that would have to be looked into, such as the possible participation of the Bureau of Immigration, the Air Transportation Office, the owner or pilot of the Learjet, and the source of the possibly fake passport. From where I sit, these are valid angles that the Senate can and should investigate in aid of legislation. If Malacanang objects or places stumbling blocks to it, then it would be showing its hand as the most likely mastermind and chief beneficiary of Garci�s caper. As with Garci, so also with Joc Joc Bolante. Under the Supreme Court ruling, the Senate has the right to summon and grill Bolante, in aid of legislation, regarding the P728 million fertilizer anomaly in the Department of Agriculture, in which the money was allegedly distributed to local officials just before the May 2004 elections, including in places which obviously had no agriculture to use fertilizer in, such as the concrete jungle of Makati City. The imputation is that the money was used, nor for fertilizer, but for electioneering purposes. The Senate and the public have the right to get to the bottom of this so that legislation can be drafted to prevent its recurrence in the future. And if, during the inquiry into the anomaly, criminal machinations become apparent and incontrovertible, well, tough! Those who claim that they are the best persons to lead this country and that they had been placed in their positions by no less than God himself/herself/itself should better check with God and ask if moral ambiguity and deliberate moral evasiveness are integral parts of the Divine Mandate. As I finish this column, word has also reached me that the Supreme Court has declared, by a 13-0 decision, that �the so-called calibrated pre-emptive response (CPR) policy has no place in our legal firmament and must be struck down as a darkness that shrouds freedom.� Another resounding victory for liberalism. The good justices do not need a reminder from a non-lawyer like me that in the unique Philippine context, there is a thin, almost invisible, line between liberalism and anarchy, and that avowed enemies of the Philippine state do not hide their intention to establish a Maoist dictatorship, in which learned justices and their liberalism would be among the first to be consigned to the garbage heap. ***** Reactions to [email protected]. Other articles in www.tapatt.org OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Reactions to �Supreme Court Liberalism� Sir Tony, If I may comment on your below comment - "As I finish this column, word has also reached me that the Supreme Court has declared, by a 13-0 decision, that "the so-called calibrated preemptive response policy has no place in our legal firmament and must be struck down as a darkness that shrouds freedom." Another resounding victory for liberalism." Perhaps the last laugh will be by GMA. In our vernacular, pinadama lang sila. Those decisions are peanuts. Abangan natin ang mga susunod na decisions. It would left the commies with their mouth agaped. More power to your column! Trosp Sortijas, [email protected] April 28, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Bravo!! David de Padua, [email protected] April 28, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww You hit it, man! That has always been my position, sir. Wala ako pake sa oposisiyon. However, GMA and his cohorts are wasting precious taxpayers' money for their own good. Mahal na kita, sir! Mike Delgado, [email protected] April 28, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Without a doubt, the Supreme Court, with its decision on 464, has brought some ray of hope that Democracy still is alive in the Philippines. Mga idol!!!! Rafael Santos II, [email protected] Roxas City, April 30, 2006 wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww Reaction to �Alexander the Greatest� (Dec. 08 2004) Dear Tony, I really enjoyed reading your article on Alexander.. Thank you for writing it. Memorably yours, Michael Van Masters, [email protected] "The Memory Master" 818-996-0080, May 03, 2006 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO |