Weakened presidency

To be sure our people would never again experience the horrors and torments of authoritarian rule, the 1987 Constitution fortified the legislature, empowered the judiciary, institutionalized people power, and weakened the presidency.

Constitutional authoritarianism. Ferdinand Marcos did not set aside the 1935 Constitution when he declared martial law and made himself dictator. Quite the contrary, he used its provisions to proclaim what he termed as “constitutional authoritarianism,” which is as much an oxymoron as a “constitutional coup d’etat.”

Marcos argued that under that Constitution, “in case of invasion, insurrection, or rebellion, or imminent danger thereof, when the public safety requires it, [the president] may … place the Philippines, or any part thereof, under martial law.”

That provision was short, bare and vague enough to allow Marcos to abolish Congress, subdue the Supreme Court, close the newspapers and radio-TV networks critical of him, and take absolute control of the military and the police.

To prevent another Marcos, the 1987 Constitution imposed several limitations on the martial law powers of the president, such as: (1) it allowed only two grounds—invasion or rebellion (and deleted insurrection and “imminent danger thereof”);

(2) the duration shall not exceed 60 days, after which it is automatically lifted; (3) within 48 hours after the proclamation of martial law, the president shall report his action to Congress, which must convene within 24 hours; (4) once convened, Congress may, by majority vote of all its members, voting jointly, revoke the proclamation, or by the same vote and manner, extend the proclamation for a period determined by Congress; (5) the action of the president and Congress shall be reviewed by the Supreme Court upon petition by any citizen; and (6) the Court must decide the challenge within 30 days from its filing.

Inspired by Ninoy. With such severe limitations, “constitutional authoritarianism” is no longer possible; the only way to impose dictatorship is to abolish or suspend the Constitution via a naked coup d’etat.

My limited space prevents me from discussing many other severe restrictions on the president’s powers. Suffice it to say now that:

• The limits on the power of augmentation (which P-Noy calls Disbursement Acceleration Program or DAP), especially the prohibition on cross-border transfers, was inspired by P-Noy’s father, the martyred former senator Benigno Aquino Jr., who wanted to bar Marcos (prior martial law) from transferring executive appropriations to Congress to augment the allowances and other benefits of legislators during election seasons.

• These severe restrictions on presidential prerogatives were used by P-Noy’s mother, President Corazon Aquino, in her campaign for the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, which our euphoric people overwhelmingly ratified.

Ways to regain strength. The weakening of the presidency by the 1987 Constitution led all post-Edsa 1 chief executives—Fidel V. Ramos, Joseph Ejercito Estrada, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and Benigno S. Aquino III—to find new ways to persuade Congress and the Supreme Court to support their programs.

On the legislative front, the weakened presidents formed grand coalitions, sometimes by using the various versions of the outlawed Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) and now the DAP, which, though not declared unconstitutional, was nonetheless constitutionally canalized by the Supreme Court.

Legislative coalitions became fashionable because the old two-party system was outpaced by the multiparty scheme and the confusing

party-list (a feature of parliamentary governments which our framers included in our presidential system as an “experiment”) instituted in the new Constitution.

The coalitions, particularly in the House of Representatives, are really alliances of convenience for new presidents to push their legislative agenda, and for the legislators to secure benefits for their constituents. For indeed, our people judge their legislators not so much for their law-making prowess as for their ability to dole milk and honey.

Unlike the old two-party system, these coalitions are fragile; they break up every election season, only to be reborn and to cuddle up to a new president who spreads more political grease than the last. Sadly, patronage and personalities have replaced principles and platforms as the weapons of political supremacy.

Conscious of the enormous powers conferred by the 1987 Constitution on the judiciary, every new president lusts to control the Supreme Court, through (1) the power of appointment, which the Charter also restricted by allowing the president to select only from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the Judicial and Bar Council (which is chaired by the chief justice); (2) the power to initiate the judicial budget (which Congress cannot increase); and (3) the stick of impeachment wielded by a cooperative Congress.

Finally, every president must cope with public opinion energized by TV-radio networks, newspapers, and social media. Truly, the 1987 Constitution often frustrates well-meaning chief executives from moving the country speedily forward.

But I believe this is the democratic path our people have chosen. Constitutionality, accountability, transparency and collegiality, our officials must learn to live and work with to attain freedom and food, justice and jobs, peace and progress, democracy and development, liberty and prosperity.

* * *

Comments to chiefjusticepanganiban@hotmail.com

source:  Philippine Daily Inquirer by Artemio Panganiban

SC: Our SALNs no secret

Yes, we disclose our income reports. You’ll see on Monday.

That, in effect, is the Supreme Court’s answer to President Benigno Aquino III, who demanded in a television interview on Friday that the justices, in the spirit of transparency, should disclose their wealth.

Supreme Court spokesperson Theodore Te on Saturday said the justices observed transparency and gave copies of their statements of assets, liabilities and net worth (SALN) to those who met the requirements.

To prove it, Te said in a statement, the court would release a list of people who had been given copies of the justices’ financial disclosures on Monday.

“Contrary to what has been reported, the Supreme Court justices have not only been complying with the requirements on the SALN, but have made these available upon compliance with the reasonable administrative requirements imposed by the court,” Te said.

Among those who have gotten copies of the justices’ SALN are journalists and civil society groups, he said.

How to get copies

Te did not say, however, whether the justices would send copies of their financial disclosures to Malacañang or publish them in newspapers of general circulation.

But any Filipino citizen who want to see the justices’ financial statements for justifiable reasons can go to the Supreme Court and file a request by filling out a standard form and submitting a photocopy of a government-issued identification card.

With any luck, the request will reach a session of the full court, which, if satisfied, will grant it.

As simple as that.

There are guidelines for obtaining copies of the justices’ financial disclosures and Te said that the point of mentioning them and the experience of journalists who have been given copies of the SALN is that “there is no lack of transparency on the Supreme Court’s part.”

In the third part of his interview with TV5 on Friday, President Aquino said the Constitution requires the Supreme Court justices to file SALN, and offered to find the provision for the Supremes.

It was another dig at the Supreme Court, which angered the President when it struck down on July 1 his economic stimulus plan, the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), which he claimed had helped so many poor people.

BIR request denied

Mr. Aquino’s transparency demand stemmed from the Supreme Court’s denying on June 17 a request of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) for copies of the financial of the justices from 2003 to 2012.

BIR Commissioner Kim Henares said the request was part of her commission’s investigation into the activities of someone in the judiciary known only as Ma’am Arlene who reportedly fixed wealthy clients’ cases.

Henares said that by denying her request, the Supreme Court justices were “creating an exception for themselves.”

The Supreme Court said its rejection of Henares’ request “must be contextualized, based on the reasons she has given in her request.”

“Please note that the Supreme Court has never said they are exempt from the SALN requirement nor that they are creating a new rule for themselves. That members of the media and civil society, including law students, have been able to obtain copies of various SALNs of the justices is proof enough that the [Supreme Court] justices are not hiding anything,” Te said at the time in response to Henares’ complaint.

Henares filed her request on Dec. 9, 2013, but it was unnotarized and missing page 2 of the standard request form, where the requesting party is required to write the reason for the request.

The application also did not include the required photocopy of a government-issued identification card.

Henares refiled the application on Feb. 10, 2014, this time notarizing it and clearly stating the intent of her request: “For tax investigation purposes pursuant to Section 5(B) of the National Internal Revenue Code of 1997 and in relation to the Ma’am Arlene controversy in the judiciary.”

Both requests also contained a disclosure that the BIR “may have pending cases with some of the divisions of the Court of Appeals,” which is under the Supreme Court.

Henares appealed the court’s June 17 denial of her request. The court has yet to take up the appeal.

Submit to Ombudsman

Backing President Aquino, Sen. Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III on Saturday proposed that the Supremes submit copies of their SALN to the Ombudsman for transparency’s sake.

That way, Pimentel said, the public could access the justices’ financial disclosures.

He also proposed that the Senate Secretariat transmit the senators’ SALN to the Ombudsman for the same reason.

“Let the Ombudsman be the default custodian of the SALNs. If the law isn’t clear where you will give a copy of the SALN, then you should reproduce the SALN as filed, and give it to the Ombudsman,” Pimentel said in a telephone interview. “My understanding of the law is you don’t keep it to yourself.”

Meanwhile, judiciary employees will continue silently protesting the President’s continuing attacks on the judiciary on Monday.

“We were hoping that the situation would sober up, but it seems he (President Aquino) won’t,” said Jojo Guerrero, president of the Judiciary Employees Association of the Philippines (Judea).

“There is a rule that you cannot just get copies of the SALNs without a purpose… Why is he targetting the justices?” he said.  With a report from TJ Burgonio

source:  Philippine Daily Inquirer