GMA appointed new Chief Justice

**daimengrui** · May 17th, 2010 07:25 PM

Noynoy now is left with a Constitutional Crisis if he does not recognize the Corona. The sole power to interpret the law is bestowed to the Judiciary. While he can always say the SC justices are wrong. It is not up to him to decide. His constitutional function is actually execute the law. Therefore if the SC has decided on this, he must abide. Even if this would mean setting a wrong precedent.

Culpable Violation of the Constitution and Betrayal of Public trust are impeachable offense. And in this respect only the Legislative Department will decide whether or not the SC justices are right or wrong. The problem is -- will they even get impeached if the President that made the appointment they all ruled to allow, is also the House Speaker?

Sigh! In the end, you can always blame the legislative branch for poorly written vague laws.

**Monseratto** · May 17th, 2010 08:27 PM

The framers should have not place the President as the sole appointer in the 1st place.

**Rizal** · May 17th, 2010 11:21 PM

Originally Posted by daimengrui

Noynoy now is left with a Constitutional Crisis if he does not recognize the Corona. The sole power to interpret the law is bestowed to the Judiciary. While he can always say the SC justices are wrong. It is not up to him to decide. His constitutional function is actually execute the law. Therefore if the SC has decided on this, he must abide. Even if this would mean setting a wrong precedent.

Culpable Violation of the Constitution and Betrayal of Public trust are impeachable offense. And in this respect only the Legislative Department will decide whether or not the SC justices are right or wrong. The problem is -- will they even get impeached if the President that made the appointment they all ruled to allow, is also the House Speaker?

Sigh! In the end, you can always blame the legislative branch for poorly written vague laws.

Didnt Nonoy say that the reason he didnt make any laws is that he thinks that the current laws are all satisfactory.

**tidus1203** · May 17th, 2010 11:51 PM

^^Ano ba yan tapos na eleksyon panalo na si Noynoy, wag ng mag sourgrape at suportahan nalang ang bagong pangulo...

**shadow** · May 18th, 2010 06:35 AM

Originally Posted by Rizal

Didnt Nonoy say that the reason he didnt make any laws is that he thinks that the current laws are all satisfactory.

MOVE ON!!! mahirap mabuhay ng ganyan for the next 6 years baka mamatay ka sa sobrang lakas ng loob. :rofl:

**CVT** · May 18th, 2010 08:21 AM

Kung baga sa larong chess,- parang ito ay isang "Queen's Gambit"....

Ano kaya ang kasunod? "Accepted" or "Declined"....

9909:gotcha:

**daimengrui** · May 18th, 2010 10:34 AM

Now that Corona has been sworn in. The ball is now in Noynoy's court. I heard an interview with Corona this morning. He commented that the President-Elect may choose to be sworn in by a Baranggay Captain as there is nothing in the constitution that prohibits this.

**daimengrui** · May 18th, 2010 12:40 PM

Sen. Santiago weighs in on the Corona Appointment:

MANILA, Philippines – For Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, the controversy regarding the appointment of Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona was a “closed” matter.
The controversy had been “laid to rest under the doctrine of res judicata, meaning it can no longer be re-litigated in court, because it has already been decided with finality,” Santiago said on Monday.
“After the Supreme Court decision in De Castro versus Judicial and Bar Council last March, which settled the issue, any petition is now precluded, on the theory of so-called collateral estoppel,” the senator said in a statement.
Santiago was referring to the fact that the high court had decided twice that President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo could appoint a replacement for outgoing Chief Justice Reynato Puno, who retired Monday.
She also reminded critics on the need to obey the law, which she defined as “the doctrine that general constitutional principles are the result of judicial decisions determining the right of private individuals in the courts.”
“The problem with critics is that they mistake the law as it is with the law as it ought to be, according to their layman’s interpretation. A line has to be drawn between the rule of law and the dystopian concept of freewheeling ethics,” she said.
Santiago also said critics of Corona were guilty of “doctrinal confusion.”
She said it would be “naïve” for one to think that the appointment process was “not politicized,” citing the fact that American presidents “have emphasized partisan and political motivations, and have relied on personal relationships” in appointing justices in the US Supreme Court.
Santiago cited for instance the move taken by the late US President Franklin Roosevelt to alter the makeup of the high court then, which had blocked his New Deal policies.
“He [Roosevelt] justified the court packing as an effort to avoid overworked elderly jurists,” she said.

So therefore the issue is closed via a technicality. Such a decision cannot be reversed because it risks double jeopardy.

**Horsepower** · May 18th, 2010 07:53 PM

Ateneo Law School & Harvard Law School pala itong si Corona. Impressive.

**daimengrui** · May 18th, 2010 08:21 PM

Originally Posted by Horsepower

Ateneo Law School & Harvard Law School pala itong si Corona. Impressive.

School alone is not an indication of a Justice's quality. Instead, you look at his decisions, how he has come up with remedies to legal paradoxes. How he upholds the Constitution in every decision.

Unfortunately for him, his very appointment is already tainted. Accepting the appointment is therefore an indication how faithful Corona is to the law.

Personal ambition comes first before Country.