Arroyo’s Court of ‘Last Defense’

EDITORIAL

The Supreme Court’s 10-5 decision that ruled the Truth Commission unconstitutional did not come as a surprise. It was expected. The perception is that the seeds were sowed during the last few years of former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo when she appointed nine Supreme Court justices who were perceived to have been appointed based on their loyalty to Arroyo more than their judicial credentials.

By the time she stepped down from the presidency, fourteen of the justices – the 15th seat was vacant -- were all her appointees including Chief Justice Renato Corona whose controversial “midnight appointment,” pundits claimed, stained the high court’s integrity.

But what is strange is that the Supreme Court, through its spokesperson Gleo Guerra, announced that the high court had voted to nullify President Benigno Aquino III’s Executive Order No. 1 – which created the Truth Commission -- even before the ponencia was reportedly written by the ponente, Justice Jose Mendoza. “The majority, among others, held that EO 1 violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution in as much as it singles out for investigation the reports of graft and corruption in the previous administration,” Guerra said.

Guerra also said that Chief Justice Corona gave her a “quick briefing” on the outcome of the vote and the main points of the decision indicating that “violation of the equal protection clause was the common ground in the opinions of the majority.” So far, no dissenting opinions have yet been written; however, it is expected that there would be.

The 10 justices who voted with the majority decision were Chief Justice Renato Corona, Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, Arturo Brion, Presbiterio Velasco, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Mariano del Castillo, Martin Villarama, Jose Perez, and Jose Mendoza (ponente). The five who dissented were Antonio Nachura, Antonio Carpio, Conchita Carpio-Morales, Maria Lourdes Sereno, and Robert Abad.

Of those who voted with the majority in 10-5 ruling against the Truth Commission, eight of them also voted on the March 17, 2010 ruling allowing Arroyo to appoint the Chief Justice in spite of the constitutional ban on “midnight appointments.”

They were Leonardo-de Castro, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin (ponente), Del Castillo, Villarama, Perez, and Mendoza. Corona abstained and Velasco voted to dismiss the petition. Interestingly, Abad who voted for the appointment of a midnight chief justice this time voted with the dissenting minority bloc on the Truth Commission ponencia.

It is interesting to note that the eight justices who voted for appointing a “midnight chief justice” and declaring the Truth Commission unconstitutional were all appointed by Arroyo between December 2007 (Leonardo-de Castro) and January 2010 (Mendoza). They comprise the core of the “Arroyo bloc” led by Corona, according to pundits. Velasco (2006) and Abad (2009) are perceived as leaning to the “Arroyo bloc” but would occasionally vote with the minority bloc consisting of Carpio, Carpio-Morales, Nachura, and Sereno (the only Aquino appointee on the high court).

In addition to nullifying the Truth Commission, the SC on an 8-3 decision issued a “status quo ante order” last September stopping the House of Representatives from proceeding with the impeachment petition against Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez.

Those who voted with the majority were Chief Justice Corona and Associate Justices Velasco, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Abad, Villarama, and Perez. They are “noticeably,” pundits said, members of the “Arroyo bloc.” Associate Justices Carpio, Carpio-Morales, and Sereno dissented while Associate Justices Nachura, Leonardo-de Castro, Brion, and Mendoza were on official business.

The following month last October, Aquino suffered another setback. The SC issued a “status quo ante order” in the termination of National Commission on Muslim Filipinos commissioner and secretary Bai Omera Dianalan-Lucman. Dianalan-Lucman was one of more than 900 “midnight appointments” made by Arroyo. Aquino removed all of them by issuing Executive Order No. 2.

The question is: Will the Supreme Court eventually nullify Executive Order No. 2 reinstating all of the terminated midnight appointees? Jubilant over the “test case” on Dianalan-Lucman, the Arroyo camp urged other "midnight appointees" to petition the Supreme Court to revoke Executive Order No. 2.

In reaction, Aquino said, “The potential result of this will be chaos and paralysis in the Executive Branch of government, as the legitimacy of officials appointed to replace those already removed will be cast in doubt.”

With the Truth Commission nullified and the impeachment of Gutierrez in jeopardy, Aquino’s campaign promise to investigate all the allegations of corruption during the Arroyo regime seems like it’s going down the drain. The Aquino administration may yet ask the SC for a reconsideration or amend the EO, but the outcome remains to be seen.

If Congress fails to impeach Gutierrez, it will be hard for Aquino to investigate and prosecute Arroyo while Gutierrez remains as Ombudsman, whose term will run through Dec. 1, 2012.

But even if the Ombudsman were compelled to prosecute Arroyo, the final arbiter would be the SC. If Arroyo were convicted of any criminal act by the lower and appellate courts, the Supreme Court would be Arroyo’s last line of defense.

With only three justices – Carpio-Morales, Nachura, and Abad -- retiring before the ban on “midnight appointments” in 2016 elections, the perceived “Arroyo bloc” would still maintain a solid majority of nine votes. It would only be after Aquino’s successor took over in 2016 that three more members of the “Arroyo bloc” would retire; thus, losing their control of the high court.

With the Ombudsman as her line of “first defense” and the Supreme Court her line of “last defense,” observers say Arroyo is perceived as standing on solid footing safe from prosecution. She could be “untouchable.”

However, if Aquino were to exert his political influence and consolidate his forces in the House of Representatives to take a bolder approach in impeaching Gutierrez, they might find a way to proceed with the impeachment proceeding and break the impregnability of Arroyo’s Court of “Last Defense.”

This, considering that despite Corona’s insistence that the SC decides cases on their merits, he, along with the other SC justices appointed by Arroyo, has a problem with credibility. The clamor was for Corona to resign as SC Chief Justice out of delicadeza and for the good of the nation, but he has not done so.

Now is the time for Aquino to come down from his ivory tower and take the lead in bringing the corrupt to justice. He could start with the composition of his legal team.