Aquino and the Court: Turbulent years
PRESIDENT Benigno Aquino III’s relationship with the Judiciary has been rocky since he assumed office in 2010.
When he took his oath, he opted not to be sworn in by Chief Justice Renato Corona. It was his way of protesting Corona’s controversial appointment. Instead, he chose to be sworn in by then-Associate Justice and now Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales. With that choice, Aquino set the tone for how the Executive branch would treat the Judiciary.
In his first State of the Nation Address (SONA), though Aquino acknowledged the presence of Corona, he showed his combative demeanor and made an oblique remark about midnight appointments, maintaining that the Chief Justice was among those appointees.
“We cannot remove them from their positions quickly because they are among the midnight appointees of former President Arroyo. We are investigating all of these things. But if they have any shame left, they should voluntarily relinquish their positions,” Aquino said.
In his SONA, Aquino spoke of where changes and improvement would take place in the government. But not a word for the Judiciary.
First setback
In 2010, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional President Aquino’s Executive Order (EO) No. 1 creating the Philippine Truth Commission, saying it “violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution” for focusing on the administration of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
The Truth Commission is the body tasked to investigate the alleged corruption and cheating scandals that rocked the nine-year Arroyo administration. It was supposed to be headed by former Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr.
The Court ruled that the EO violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution because it singles out for investigation reports of graft and corrupt practices in the previous administration.
Malacañang slammed the high court’s decision, warning it would undermine the government’s effort to fight corruption.
Executive Order No. 2
That same year, the Supreme Court issued a status quo ante order against EO 2, which called for the dismissal from service of the so-called “midnight appointees” of Arroyo.
Aquino said the ruling set a bad precedent because it will embolden those who have already resigned or replaced to demand their reinstatement.
The EO was eventually declared constitutional in its entirety in a ruling issued in June 2015.
Maguindanao massacre media coverage
Also in 2010, Aquino, in a letter to the Supreme Court, asked for live media coverage of the Maguindanao massacre trial.
“You and I, and the respective independent branches of government we head, are duty-bound to uphold the Constitution and our laws. We are all bound to ensure that justice is done and her interests served. Furthermore, we need to make people aware of, and convinced that, justice is being done and her interest served. This can be done by making the trial of important and sensational cases such as the Maguindanao massacre case, public,” President Aquino said in the Nov. 22 letter to Corona.
The Supreme Court granted the request and allowed live media coverage of the trial on the condition that it will be “pro hac vice” (for this case only).
Proclamation No. 50
In the early part of 2011, the Supreme Court dismissed the plea of former Boac, Marinduque Mayor Pedrito Nepomuceno to nullify Proclamation No. 50, which grants amnesty to active and former military personnel who participated in the uprising against Arroyo.
Echoing the Palace pronouncement, Corona denied that there was a rift between the Judiciary and the Executive.
“When we decide a case, we do so in the exercise of [our] constitutional duty… It is never a favor to or to defeat one or the other party,” Corona said.
In his 2011 SONA, Aquino did not mention the Judiciary, except when he greeted the Supreme Court Justices who showed up in Congress to listen to his speech.
That same year, the Supreme Court denied with finality the appeal seeking a reversal of its decision declaring the creation of the Philippine Truth Commission unconstitutional.
The majority of the high court magistrates agreed with the ponencia of Associate Justice Jose Mendoza that EO No. 1 violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
In declaring EO No. 1 unconstitutional, the Supreme Court stressed that the presidential issuance does not only violate the constitutional provision on the “equal protection clause,” but it could also serve as a tool for “vindictiveness and selective retribution.”
Hacienda Luisita
In November 2011, the high court ordered the distribution of 4,915 hectares of Hacienda Luisita as shares of stock or land to farmers. Corona maintained that farmers should get their land.
Before the end of that year, Corona accused Aquino of trying to destroy the Judiciary.
“Never before has the entire Judiciary, even in the days of martial law, been subjected to so much disrespect and lack of civility from sectors we sincerely consider to be our partners in nation-building,” Corona lamented during the annual Philippine Judges’ Association (PJA) Convention.
Corona said the Judiciary’s independence was being undermined when it was forced to beg for funds already guaranteed by the Constitution.
Corona issued the statement after the Executive Branch moved to transfer close to P2-billion from the high court’s budget to the Miscellaneous Personnel Benefits Fund (MPBF).
Aquino launched tirades against Corona, again questioning his appointment as chief justice for being made during the prohibited period under the Constitution.
He also said that the high court was making it difficult for the Executive to pursue its graft and corruption measures against erring government officials, including those from the previous administration.
Corona, on the other hand, urged the Judiciary to be vigilant amid reports of plans to destabilize the Supreme Court and to oust him.
In his speech before Supreme Court employees entitled “We Stand Together,” the high court chief said that while he refused to give his side on the criticism directed at him by the President, “I have been quietly preparing and will be ready to take more determined steps in the coming days.”
By year’s end, Corona became the first Justice of the Supreme Court, and the first Chief Justice, to be impeached by the House of Representatives. (A total of 188 representatives voted to impeach him.)
Impeachment trial
The impeachment trial started on January 16, 2012. Corona pleaded not guilty to all charges including his alleged partiality toward the former President, Pampanga Representative Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
The trial ended in May with a total of 20 senator-judges finding Corona guilty of betraying the public trust and committing culpable violation of the Constitution.
Corona became the first magistrate to be removed from office by impeachment.
Transparency
After Corona’s impeachment, the most senior of the Associate Justices, Antonio Carpio, took over as acting Chief Justice.
Under his leadership, he made the high court more accessible to the public by posting on its website, at sc.judiciary.gov.ph, the Supreme Court’s monthly, quarterly, and annual reports on the budget of the judiciary, the Special Allowances for the Judiciary (SAJ), and the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF).
The JDF was created in 1984 under Ferdinand Marcos’ Presidential Decree 1949 as a special purpose fund for the benefit of members and personnel of the judiciary and help ensure the independence of the judiciary.
The SAJ was created under Republic Act 9227 of 2003 to give allowances to judges, justices and all other positions in the judiciary with the equivalent rank of justices of the Court of Appeals and judges of the regional trial courts.
The Supreme Court also issued guidelines for the release of the Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Networth (SALN) not only of Justices of the Supreme Court but justices and judges on other courts as well.
Before then, the release of the SALNs not only of justices and judges but court staff as well had been restricted “to shield them from acts that may endanger, diminish or destroy their independence and objectivity in the performance of their judicial functions.”
In his SONA in 2012, Aquino thanked all those who worked during the impeachment trial. He also reminded the next Chief Justice that “much will be demanded of you by our people.”
A ‘wounded court’
Retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Roberto Abad described the Supreme Court as a “wounded court” after the impeachment trial.
He said the impeachment had forced members of the court to examine their conscience.
“We will forgive the legislature and you will also forgive us,” Abad said in response to the queries of Iloilo Representative Niel Tupas Jr.
A month later, Aquino again broke tradition when he bypassed all the senior justices of the Supreme Court and appointed the most junior member of the Supreme Court—Associate Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, his first appointee to the high court—the new Chief Justice.
SONA 2013
In 2013, President Aquino announced that the Department of Agrarian Reform had completed the list of qualified beneficiaries for the land redistribution in Hacienda Luisita.
He said turnover of the lots would start in September of that year.
Then came DAP
In 2014, Aquino blamed the Supreme Court’s decision on DAP for stalled projects such the purchase of firearms for law enforcers to fight crime.
“These equipment purchases were supposed to be funded by DAP, but since they were not obligated before the Supreme Court made its decision, we now have to look for other sources of funds,” Aquino said.
Source of tension
The source of tension between the Executive and the Judiciary is the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review under Section 1, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, which President Aquino wanted to clip.
Aquino went to the point of pushing for an amendment to the Constitution to “strike a balance between the previous positions of the Supreme Court during the martial law years.”
Stayed within its bounds
Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno said the Supreme Court was not meddling with the affairs of its co-equal branch. She said, during the Foreign Correspondents Association of the Philippines (FOCAP) forum last year, that “we have to act on the petitions that are brought before us… The Supreme Court is the interpreter of the Constitution. In fact, it is the guardian of the Constitution.”
“Looking at the Constitution closely, it already specifies in some areas its philosophy on what the State should do sometimes in social justice questions, in economic policy questions, human rights questions, in accountability questions. If we do not interpret and implement the Constitution as it is drafted, then we will have a Court that is criticized for not stepping up and defending the rights of the people in accordance with existing Constitution,” Sereno said, adding that the 1987 Constitution is dynamic and its language clear.
She said, if one will tell the court not to proceed “because it can lead to more complications for other branches, I think that is not the way how a court should function.”
In her most recent interview, Sereno said President Aquino should include in his last SONA his assurance to the public that his government will pursue institutional strengthening.
“Our institutions have not experienced reform on a sustained basis,” Sereno said, saying that while there were reforms in some sections of the government, other sections were left out.
“Just imagine if we can sustain reforms in terms of institutional strengthening, I think the Filipino public will be assured that the necessary safeguards—checks and professional vetting and processes of consultation in decision making—have been regularly followed,” Sereno said. AC/JN
SOME OF THE MOST IMPORTANT CASES decided by the Supreme Court for or against the government:
Cybercrime Prevention Act
The Supreme Court declared unconstitutional several provisions of the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 10175) on February 18, 2014, ruling several provisions unconstitutional, but deciding that the provision on libel would be constitutional only “with respect to the original author.”
Declared unconstitutional were the law’s provisions on unsolicited commercial communications [Section 4(c)(3)], real-time collection of traffic data (Section 12), and blocking access to computer data found in violation of the Cybercrime Law (Section 19).
President Benigno Aquino III signed The Cybercrime Prevention Act into law on September 12, 2012; it took effect on October 3, 2012.
Sale of Angat Hydro Power Plant
The Supreme Court declared valid the government sale of the 246-megawatt Angat Hydro-Electric Power Plant (AHEPP) in Bulacan to Korea Water Resources Corporation (K-Water), saying it does not violate the 40-percent foreign ownership cap under the Constitution.
Prosecution of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo for electoral sabotage
With a vote of 13-2, the Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the Department of Justice-Commission on Elections (DOJ-Comelec) that Arroyo should be prosecuted for electoral sabotage.
Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF)
The Supreme Court declared unconstitutional past and present congressional pork barrel laws as it ordered the criminal prosecution of individuals who had benefited from the schemes over the past two decades.
The high court, voting 14-0-1, also struck down the discretionary provisions granted the President in the use of multibillion-peso oil revenues from the Malampaya Fund and the President’s Social Fund—the government’s share of revenues from the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corp. (Pagcor).
Reproductive Health (RH) Law
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 but nullified some of its provisions, including the government’s coercive power to force the public to use its prescribed birth control measure.
Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP)
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) was unconstitutional. But it relented on one point, allowing the augmentation of funds for specific projects given allocations under the General Appropriations Act (GAA).
The high court partially granted the government’s appeal to its July 1 decision against President Aquino’s stimulus program, citing how it “recognized the encouraging effects of the DAP on the country’s economy and acknowledged its laudable purposes.”
Clarifying the language of its earlier ruling, the court also said that only “authors” of the program, and not “proponents and implementors,” may be held liable in case legal action arises and is heard in “tribunals other than this court, which is not a trier of facts.”
Editors Note. This survey has been edited further, and its original title completely revised, after complaints about a misleading headline were received.
