Election case wake-up call for Supreme Court
By Marites Danguilan Vitug, abs-cbnNEWS.com/Newsbreak | 01/11/2009 2:46 PM
Printer-friendly version | 
Send to friend | 
Share your views
The Supreme Court is cleaning up the mess left by recently retired Justice Ruben Reyes amid attacks on its integrity from a litigant.
In the process, it has shown what can happen as a result of a highly politicized appointment to the Supreme Court, in the case of Reyes, as well as weaknesses in internal court deliberations: justices concurred with a decision despite their lack of preparation on the case.
Moreover, this contentious election case underscores the basic fact that the core of the Supreme Court’s work is its decisions. The 2008 year-end report of the Supreme Court under the leadership of Chief Justice Reynato Puno, published in the Philippine Star, makes no mention of major decisions of the highest court in the land but delves extensively into its civic action projects.
Paras vs Limkaichong
The story begins with a bitter election race in Negros Oriental in 2007. Losing Congressional candidate Olivia Paras, wife of former Rep. Jacinto Paras, and allies filed cases with the Supreme Court to oust Jocelyn Limkaichong. She won by more than 7,000 votes over Olivia; the other loser was Jerome Paras, brother of Jacinto. The feuding Paras brothers were unable to patch up their differences and unite behind one candidate.
Related Stories
The key issue raised by Olivia Paras and Louis Biraogo, another petitioner who is close to Jacinto Paras, is Limkaichong’s citizenship. They argue that Limkaichong is not a natural-born Filipino, a requirement for public office. They cite a Commission on Elections ruling to that effect.
Still, Limkaichong was declared winner in May 2007 because of a Comelec rule that says pending cases are not an obstacle to proclamation. She has since reported for work in Congress.
In the Supreme Court, the Limkaichong case (the various cases were consolidated into one) fell on Justice Reyes’s lap. Reyes, the newest justice to join the Court, had merely a year and four months to work on hundreds of cases, including this one.
We reported earlier that Reyes lobbied hard to get appointed to the Supreme Court when he was presiding justice of the Court of Appeals, using connections to the Palace. He is not well regarded by the SC justices; only three (out of 15) voted for him when he applied to the Court.
The trouble began months before Reyes was about to retire. He officially left the Court in early January but his retirement ceremony was held before the holidays in December. An unpromulgated decision which he penned in favor of Olivia Paras was leaked to one of the litigants, Biraogo.
In turn, Biraogo called a press conference in early December to distribute copies of the decision.
In-the-result concurrences
Biraogo claims that he received in his Binan, Laguna home in October, by courier, a copy of the unpromulgated decision, dated July 15, 2008 which nullifies the proclamation of Limkaichong. Fourteen justices concurred with Reyes, seven of whom did only “in the result.” This means that they only agreed with the conclusion and not with the arguments of Reyes.
The seven justices are: Consuelo Ynares Santiago, Antonio Carpio, Ma. Alicia Austria Martinez, Renato Corona, Conchita Carpio Morales, Adolf Azcuna, and Dante Tinga.
The chief justice, who is usually the last to sign a decision, had not yet signed it as he noticed the number of those who agreed only in the result. Based on the SC’s account, because of the preponderance of in-the-result concurrences (two other justices later informed Puno that they, too, were joining the seven—Minita Chico Nazario and Teresita de Castro), the justices “unanimously decided to withhold the promulgation of the ponencia of Justice Reyes.”
The SC, in its resolution, said that a decision would have no “doctrinal value” if majority agreed only in the result. “More importantly, any decision ousting a sitting member of the House of Representatives should spell out clearly the legal basis relied upon by the majority for such an extreme measure.”
This draft decision of Reyes was in the en banc agenda a number of times because of questions by some justices. We learned that the justices had an open discussion on the case but, because of the volume of work (the SC receives about 2,000 cases a year and each justice is saddled with hundreds of cases), they relied on the ponente to present the facts correctly.
In the July 15, 2008 en banc meeting, after the half-hearted concurrences, Carpio offered to take a second look and write his Reflections. (Reflections are normal part of court deliberations, described as a former SC justice as “soft opinions meant to show tentative positions on difficult issues.”)
Oral argument
Carpio’s Reflections critiqued Reyes’s decision. He then presented two options: that the Court settle the question of Limkaichong’s citizenship; or the petitioners question Limkaichong’s citizenship before the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal or HRET which has jurisdiction over candidates’ qualifications.
This led to the Supreme Court decision to hold oral arguments on the case, to get the full picture. This eventually took place in August 2008.
The Reflections was attached to the unpromulgated decision leaked to Biraogo plus copies of the following documents: a letter of a “concerned employee” of the SC revealing “irregularities” in the case; a June 17, 2008 revised draft of the decision which Reyes circulated for comments. (We obtained copies of all these documents.)
It was during the oral arguments that the justices realized that Reyes’s unpromulgated decision missed out on key facts. The Office of the Solicitor General cited a Comelec rule that showed Limkaichong’s proclamation valid. Reyes could not dispute it.
The Comelec rule stunned the justices, a source privy to the deliberations told us, and they wondered why Reyes did not include it in his decision.
To this day, the case remains undecided. We learned that the case will be passed on to the new justice who will replace Reyes. In the meantime, the thinking of the Court is: Limkaichong’s proclamation is valid and her citizenship should be questioned by the parties in the HRET.
‘Írregularities’
Biraogo narrates, in his comment to the Supreme Court, what led him to make the unpromulgated decision public. He was responding to the SC which asked him, in a resolution, to explain why he shouldn’t be cited for contempt.
Biraogo, reflecting Jacinto Paras’s views, questioned why Chief Justice Puno “appears to be delaying the promulgation of the decision by his refusal to affix his signature” despite the concurrence of 14 justices.
Biraogo also raises questions on the SC process of arriving at decisions: “It is presumed that a Justice of the Supreme Court is a legal scholar and a person of integrity so that whenever he/she affixes his/her signature on a decision, that Justice vouches for the legal soundness of such decision. In addition, when the Justices of the Supreme Court have already affixed their respective signatures on a decision, the same means that all of them already deliberated on the issues of the case/s before them and that all of them have arrived at a final vote on the matter.”
Biraogo points out other issues but these are based on unconfirmed information from the anonymous SC employee’s letter.
He also writes that it was Dean Pacifico Agabin who appeared as counsel for Limkaichong during the oral arguments. Agabin is a fraternity brother of Puno.
Looming impeachment battle?
Time is running out on Olivia Paras as Limkaichong continues to sit in Congress till her term ends in May 2010. Justice Reyes has not yet been replaced thus no decision is expected soon.
Jacinto Paras, a former congressman and husband of Olivia, is determined to make a lot of noise about this case. We learned that he is mulling filing an impeachment complaint versus Puno. It is unclear what will be the basis of the complaint.
Court observers say that this move aligns with the Palace’s desire to have a full sweep of the SC. Here’s why: Puno is scheduled to retire in May 2010. By that time, the most senior justice will be Carpio who will most likely succeed Puno. President Arroyo will not be able to appoint a new chief justice because of an appointments ban during the election period.
Carpio, known for his independent stance and strong anti-GMA position, is expected to block any design of the Palace to hold sway over the Court even after the President steps down in May 2010.
Earlier, we reported that Puno was considering retiring early. This raised fears among Court watchers that President Arroyo will pick a new chief justice loyal to her.
