News Opposition bloc wants Smartmatic out of 2019 polls By Maricel V. Cruz THE minority bloc at the House of Representatives on Thursday threatened to lobby for the rejection of the budget proposal of the Commission on Elections for 2019 if the poll body continues its services for the midterms elections. “If the Comelec insist on the services of the Smartmatic, we will move for the rejection of the Comelec budget for 2019,” House minority leader and Quezon Rep. Danilo Suarez said at a news forum Thursday. Suarez took note of the “glaring” lapses of Smartmatic in handling the automated elections in the past years. For his part, Buhay party-list Rep. Lito Atienza said the Comelec must consider tapping the services of a local provider to handle next year’s elections. He said the lapses committed by the Smartmatic have resulted in the ongoing vote recount at the Supreme Court, sitting as Presidential Electoral Tribunal, involving Vice President Leni Robredo and her opponent, former senator Ferdinand Marcos Jr. “The election protest involving Vice President Leni Robredo and former senator Marcos at the Presidential Electoral Tribunal should be sufficient basis for getting a local provider of our computerized system [of elections],” Atienza said. Atienza said the country does not need a foreign entity to handle the vote counting. Suarez said that the new technology provider should be chosen through a bidding. “Electoral reforms are necessary if we are to strengthen democracy,” Atienza said.
JBC grills competence of six nominated SC aspirants By Rey E. Requejo THE Judicial and Bar Council on Thursday grilled six of 12 candidates who were nominated for the position in the Supreme Court to be vacated by Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr. when he retires on August. During the interviews, Court of Appeals Justices Ramon Garcia, Oscar Badelles, Manuel Barrios and Amy Lazaro-Javier; Judge Carlos Espero RTC Davao City; and former Ateneo College of Law Dean Cesar Villanueva were asked by JBC members on various issues. The seven-member council vetted the SC aspirants by testing their opinions on various pressing issues including the ouster of Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno, the conflict with China in the West Philippine Sea, and the proposed legalization of divorce and samesex marriage in the country. Badelles was asked for his opinion on the WPS conflict, and he sees no active role of the judiciary on this issue. “Historically judiciary awaits cases to be filed. But basically the pursuit on West Philippine Sea
should be done by the executive branch. Judiciary does not have an active role on that,” he opined. Badelles was also quizzed on moves to allow same-sex marriage in the country, which the SC will hear in oral arguments on June 19. He said it cannot be allowed under the 1987 Constitution. “Freedom of religion is given preferred status over civil political rights, so if it’s between freedom of religion and freedom against discrimination, freedom of religion has higher preference under the Constitution,” he said. According to him, gay couples may be discriminated if marriage is prohibited, but explained that this is because “one right is superior than the other.” Barrios, for his part, was asked about Sereno’s ouster via quo warranto case and gave a more academic answer. “What is quo warranto and when it is applicable? It is a legal remedy to question the fitness and qualification or lack of qualification of a certain person to a government position or a government officer who reached the limit of his term but refuses to vacate office,” he stressed.
Morales a hypocrite—ex-VP spokesman JOEY Salgado, the spokesman of former vice president Jejomar Binay on Thursday slammed Ombudsman Conchita CarpioMorales, whom he accused of “no longer hiding her hypocrisy and double standard.” This was after the Office of the Ombudsman on Wednesday said its field identification office recommended graft charges against Binay after completing its probe of the P600-million sale of the property owned by the Boy Scouts of the Philippines on Malugay Street, Makati City during Binay’s tenure as BSP president. In a statement, Salgado said that only a few days ago, Morales had said that she would no longer pursue the cases against highprofile allies and personalities of the previous administration who benefited from the PDAF scam. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES Salgado added COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS that the Ombudsman justified this ANNOUNCEMENT President Ro dr igo Roa D uter te has submit ted to the C ommis sion by citing the alon A ppointment s (C. A .) for c onf ir mation the ad inter im appointment s leged absence of of the following senior of f ic ials in the D epar tment of Foreign A f fair s: evidence and lack M s . M a r i a A n d r e li t a Sac r a m en to Au st r i a – as C hief of M iss ion, C lass I; M r. L e sli e Juni o Ba j a – as C hief of of time, even if an M iss ion, C lass I; M r. Fr a n k Revil Ci m a f r a n c a – as Chief of M is sion, Clas s I; M s . M a . Th e r e sa D i zo n D e Ve g a - as affidavit has been C hief of M iss ion, C lass I; M s . C e li a A nn a M a ll a r i Fe r i a – as C hief of M iss ion, C lass I; M r. Raul Sa l ava r i a H e r n a n d e z signed by Janet – as C hief of M iss ion, C lass I; M r. M eyn a rd o Lo s Ba ño s M o n t eal e g r e – as C hief of M iss ion, C lass I; M s . I r en e Napoles naming Su sa n Ba r r ei ro N a t i vi d a d – as Chief of M is sion, Clas s I; M s . M a r i a Fe Ta n a b e Pa n gilin a n – as Chief of M is sion, these high-profile Clas s I; M r. M a r sh a ll Lo ui s M ac a b a l e A l f e r e z – as C hief of M iss ion, C lass I I; M r. Ed g a r Ba r r a i ro Ba d a jo s – as Chief allies and personof M is sion, Clas s II; M r. Ro b e sp i e r r e Li vel o Bo li va r – as Chief of M is sion, Clas s II; M r. Jo se V i c to r V ill a r ino Ch a n alities. G o n z ag a – as Chief of M is sion, Clas s II; M r. Pa t r i c k A n g Chu a soto – as Chief of M is sion, Clas s II; M r. N eil Fr a n k But Salgado R i ve r a Fe r r e r – as C hief of M iss ion, C lass I I; M r. En r ic o Tr ini d a d Fo s – as Chief of M is sion, Clas s II; M r. Pa t r i c k noted that MoJo hn Uy t i e p o Hil a d o – as Chief of M is sion, Clas s II; M s . rales still found A nn e Jal a n d o - o n Lo ui s – as Chief of M is sion, Clas s II; M r. M a rd o m el C el o D o min g o M eli c o r – as Chief of M is sion, time to pursue the Clas s II; M r. G i ova nni En d en c i a Pa l e c – as Chief of M is sion, Clas s II; M r. Z a l d y Baya nin Pa t ro n – as Chief case against the of M is sion, Clas s II; M r. G e r mini a V. Ag uil a r- Usu d a n – as Career M inister ; M r. M a r fo rd M o p e r a A n g e l e s – as former vice presiCareer M inister ; M r. Ch r i sto p h e r Pa t r i c k To p ac i o A ro – as Career M inister ; M r. Ed g a r To m a s Q uilino Au xili a n dent, even if the – as Career M inister ; M s. I n d hi r a Co n si g n a Ba ñ a r e s – as C ar eer M inis ter ; M r. Ro b e r to Teyl a n B e r n a rd o – as complaint lacked Career M inister ; M r. Fe lip e Fa b i a n Ca r iño I I I – as Career M inister ; M s . M a r i a A nn a Lili a Lu ag u e D e Ve r a – as basis in fact. C ar eer M inis ter ; M r. Ren a to N e r D u eñ a s, Jr. – as C ar eer M inis ter ; M r. G in e s Ja i m e R i c a rd o Dac a n ay G a ll ag a – as “Clearly, the Car eer M inis ter ; M r. J e su s En r i q u e G u a n zo n G a rc i a I I – as C ar eer M inis ter ; M r. M e l c ho r Pe r e z L a luni o, Jr. – as Ombudsman inC ar eer M inis ter ; M s. Ed n a M ay G r e c i a L a z a ro – as C ar eer M inis ter ; M s . A r l en e Tulli d M ag no – as Career M inister ; tends to spend M r. A n t ho ny Ac hill e s L a r in M a n d a p – as Career M inister ; M r. M e r so l e Ja l a M e ll e jo r – as Career M inister ; M r. her last days in M a r l owe Ag uil a r M i r a n d a – as Career M inister ; M r. N o e l office pursuing M a n g aoa n g Novi c i o – as Career M inister ; M s. K r i st in e L e il a ni Ro d r i g u e z a Sa ll e – as Career M inister ; and M r. her personal and G un t h e r E mil M ayo Sa l e s – as Career M inister. political agenda T he public may submit any infor mation, w r it ten repor t, or swor n / not ar ized c omplaint s or oppositions in thir t y t wo (32) c opies on the against former above appointment s to the CA Sec ret ar iat, 6 Flo or, PN B Financ ial C enter, D. M ac apagal B lvd., Pasay Cit y, M et ro M anila. VP Binay while For the sc hedule of the public hear ings and any other inquir y, being a true-blue c ont ac t the CA Sec ret ar iat through telephone number s 8 3 4 -2713, 8 311824, 8 31- 0 527, 8 32- 9 8 3 0, 8 3 4 -270 6 and 5 51-19 8 9. Yellow protector 14 J une 2018 . to the end. It’s selective justice, H ECTO R A . V I LL ACO RTA S e c r et a r y pure and simple,” said Salgado. th
(MS-JUNE 15, 2018)
A3
FRIDAY, JUNE 15, 2018 mst.daydesk@gmail.com
SolGen to SC: Affirm ouster of CJ Sereno T By Rey E. Requejo
HE Office of the Solicitor General has asked the Supreme Court to sustain its decision last month removing Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno from the top judicial post.
In a 75-page comment, Solicitor General Jose Calida sought the dismissal of the motion for reconsideration filed by Sereno for lack of merit. The chief state lawyer said that Sereno’s appeal should be denied for her failure to raise any new argument that would warrant reversal of the high court’s ruling, which disqualified her from the chief justice post and invalidated her appointment in 2012. Calida argued that the arguments raised by the ousted chief justice in her 205-page MR filed last May 30 were all rehashed of issues already resolved by the Court in its May 11 decision. “These issues had been resolved by the Court in its decision dated May 11, 2018. The scholarly concurring and dissenting opinions of the members of the Court show that beyond doubt,” Calida said, referring to Sereno’s claims on lack of jurisdiction and authority of the high court to remove her, violation of the one-year prescription period on quo warranto cases and lack of evidence on her lack of proven integrity. Calida described Sereno’s appeal as “pro forma” or a resurrection of issues previously raised by parties and were already resolved by the Court, which has “no other purpose than to delay or impede the smooth administration of justice.” Calida, who filed the quo warranto petition last March, said the SC ruling was
correct, contrary to the assertion of Sereno that she could only be removed through an impeachment process in Congress and that the SC overstepped its powers and violated the separation of powers as supported by the draft Senate resolution reportedly signed by 14 senators to support this position. “A dispassionate look at the present impeachment provision, Section 2 of Article XI, shows that it does not preclude the removal of impeachable officers through a quo warranto proceeding. Both the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions used the words shall and only; on the other hand, the 1987 Constitution uses the word may to qualify the modes of removal of such impeachable officials. The use of the term “may” in the provision is contours as permissive and operating to confer discretion. It cannot be construes as having a mandatory effect,” the Solicitor General said. He insisted that the quo warranto proceedings is “separate and distinct from impeachment.” Calida pointed out that the SC was correct in ruling that Sereno does not possess the eligibility of proven integrity to occupy the chief justice post through her failure to file her Statements of Assets, Liabilities and Net worth. “The Honorable Court correctly ruled that compliance with the Constitutional and statutory requirement of filing of SALN intimately relates to a person’s integrity. The Honorable Court correctly found that
respondent repeatedly failed to file her SALNs,” added the comment. The Solicitor General also disputed Sereno’s claim that the Court violated her constitutional right to due process. “The Court observed the right of the respondent to due process. Due process is satisfied when a person is notified of the charge against him and given an opportunity to explain or defend himself,” he said. Calida also defended the refusal of the six justices accused by Sereno of biases—Associate Justices Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Francis Jardeleza, Noel Tijam and Samuel Martires—to inhibit from the case. “There is no basis for the six members of the Court to voluntarily inhibit themselves. Mere imputation of bias and partiality is not enough. A voluntary inhibition must rest on arbitrary or prejudicial conduct,” he argued. “Respondent’s claim that she was not heard by an impartial tribunal is therefore based merely on speculation and surmise. She has no clear and convincing evidence to show bias on the part of some members of the Court,” he said. Lastly, Calida said the SC ruled correctly in exempting the government—particularly his office—from the one-year prescription period on quo warranto cases under Section 11, Rule 66 of the Rules of Court. With the submission of the OSG’s comment, the high court is expected to now decide on Sereno’s appeal and decide on the case with finality. Acting Chief Justice Antonio Carpio recently revealed that they intend to resolve the case within this month. An insider revealed that the justices have set their deliberations on Sereno’s appeal in their session on Tuesday next week, June 19.