In the days leading to January 16, 2012, the start of the Senate proceedings on the historical impeachment of a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the pages of newspapers and the airwaves of the radio and television were overwhelmed by the pros and cons anent the various ramifications inherent in this democratic exercise. To this non-lawyer bystander, I could not help being immensely confused at the pompous and overly legalistic posturings of the Corona camp. I find it difficult to accept that many reputable lawyers have chosen to defend the cause of SC CJ Corona based on their contention that the independence of the Supreme Court and the judiciary is imperilled by the impeachment initiated by the House of the Representatives at the behest of the executive.
This Blogger strongly believes that the Supreme Court's independence and integrity have been compromised by CJ Corona when he accepted his midnight appointment by the outgoing President Arroyo in blatant violation of the constitutional prohibition on such appointments. Even its ratification by the eight SC appointees of the outgoing president, to this non-lawyer, will never correct the inherent constitutional infirmity but, instead confirm public perception that the CJ Corona-led Supreme Court intends to protect the interests of the Arroyos.
The Supreme Court, where the Arroyo appointees wield a commanding majority, lived to its billing as the Arroyo protector when its issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) without hearing the government's side. Said TRO would have allowed the former president, now congresswoman, Gloria M. Arroyo, and her husband, to depart for abroad purportedly to seek medical treatment for her life-threatening illness. Fortunately, the Department of Justice (DOJ) was audacious enough to defy said TRO and ordered the immigration to prevent the Arroyos' departure. Of course, succeeding events proved the fallacy of the Arroyos' claim thus the country's interests vis-a-vis numerous cases of corruption and abuses during the Arroyo regime remained protected.
The Supreme Court, where the Arroyo appointees wield a commanding majority, lived to its billing as the Arroyo protector when its issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) without hearing the government's side. Said TRO would have allowed the former president, now congresswoman, Gloria M. Arroyo, and her husband, to depart for abroad purportedly to seek medical treatment for her life-threatening illness. Fortunately, the Department of Justice (DOJ) was audacious enough to defy said TRO and ordered the immigration to prevent the Arroyos' departure. Of course, succeeding events proved the fallacy of the Arroyos' claim thus the country's interests vis-a-vis numerous cases of corruption and abuses during the Arroyo regime remained protected.
Whatever the outcome of the ongoing impeachment proceedings, whether CJ Corona is found guilty or acquitted, the most critical exigency is the restoration of integrity, independence and cold neutrality to the Supreme Court which is now hobbled by the public perception that it is overly protective of the interest of the former president. The fact that the majority of the SC justices are Arroyo appointees only the removal of CJ Corona may bring about the start of the painful cleansing process of the tarnished image of the Supreme Court and the judiciary.
0 comments:
Post a Comment