Justices, solons on collision course
JUSTICES VS LAWMAKERS. There’s no love lost between the two equal branches of government—the House of Representatives and the Supreme Court of the Philippines—over several celebrated cases. INQUIRER PHOTOS
The House of Representatives and the Supreme Court are on a collision course after 169 lawmakers signed a resolution seeking to defy the order of the high court to include a son of Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr. in the congressional rolls and replace Marinduque Rep. Regina Ongsioco Reyes.
Oriental Mindoro Rep. Rey Umali said the “robust support” for his resolution showed that the lawmakers were prepared to stand up to the “bullying” of the Supreme Court.
“I believe that our members have had enough of the Supreme Court’s bullying. This time, they have overstepped their jurisdiction. We will defy them and not honor their decision,” Umali said in a phone interview.
Fifty-eight percent of the 289 House members have supported House Resolution No. 597 “reiterating adherence to the time-honored principle on the exclusivity of jurisdiction of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) over all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of its members to preserve the integrity, dignity and reputation of the House of Representatives and its members.”
Respect coequals
Umali said it was “about time that these despots get down from their high chair and respect their coequals in government. This is a clear show of force on our part. Please, huwag ninyong ipilit (don’t force it).”
Last Dec. 3, Umali gave a privilege speech attacking the high court’s undue interference in election-related issues, specifically the Marinduque election standoff between Representative Reyes, daughter of Marinduque Gov. Carmencita Reyes, and former Rep. Lord Alan Velasco.
Velasco has formally requested Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. to eject Reyes after the Supreme Court rejected with finality on Dec. 3 her appeal for the reversal of its ruling on June 25 last year upholding the Commission on Election’s (Comelec) decision disqualifying her.
Citizenship, residency
The Comelec canceled Reyes’ certificate of candidacy because of questions about her citizenship and her lack of residency to run for the post.
Reyes defeated then Congressman Velasco in last year’s midterm elections by a margin of roughly 3,800 votes, paving the way for her proclamation as representative of Marinduque.
Rightful House member
House leaders led by Belmonte have stood by Reyes as the rightful House member pending the resolution of Velasco’s protest with the HRET, which they argued had the constitutional mandate to rule on electoral protests filed after a winner had been proclaimed.
The HRET is composed of three associate justices of the Supreme Court and nine House members.
Umali suggested that the magistrates just respect each other’s turf. “Anyway, the Supreme Court is well represented in the HRET, so it should allow that body to decide the case.”
Umali said the court decision on Reyes contrasted sharply with a similar case in Quezon province involving another Liberal Party member, Toby Tañada, against proclaimed Rep. Angelina Tan.
“The high court recognizes HRET jurisdiction in the case of Representative Tan but not in the case of Representative Reyes. Where lies the difference?” Umali said.
Flip-flopping
In his privilege speech, Umali railed against the tribunal’s flip-flopping on the pork barrel and made a veiled threat to impeach the magistrates.
He noted that the Supreme Court had long upheld the legality of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) but only to turn around last November and declare it unconstitutional.
He said the tribunal declared unconstitutional the PDAF largely because of the broad public opposition to the corruption-laced pork barrel system triggered by the exposé on the dubious nongovernment organizations set up by Janet Lim-Napoles, alleged mastermind of the P10-billion pork barrel scam.
Tens of thousands of people staged rallies across the country last year, the biggest of which was the “Million People March” in Rizal Park in Manila, to call for the scrapping of the PDAF.
Whistle-blowers claimed that lawmakers pocketed up to 50 percent of the projects funded by their PDAF allocation.
Before the court ruling, senators received P200 million each in annual PDAF while House members got P70 million each.
‘Playing to the crowd’
“The justices are obviously playing to the crowd to regain credibility after one of their own (former Chief Justice Renato Corona) was stripped of his robes last year,” Umali said.
The House impeached Corona and the Senate impeachment court found him guilty of one of the charges against him for not declaring his dollar holdings in his statement of assets liabilities and net worth.
“They are justices, their decision should be based on the law and not opinion polls. If they want to be popular, they should run for office first,” Umali said.
He said the recent decision of the Supreme Court to issue a temporary restraining order against the rate hike of Manila Electric Co. was another case of the magistrates’ tendency to “ride on” popular opinion.
“They are desperate to regain their credibility even at the expense of justice,” Umali said.
RELATED STORIES:
House asked to delist Ongsiako-Reyes as Marinduque lawmaker
SC justice says Reyes raps ‘baseless, malicious’
