Tuesday, March 23, 2010

persons: benigno “noynoy” aquino III


saying that “ there would be a possible impeachment for SC justices who decided on the issue on MIDNIGHT APPOINTMENTS..”
hmmm…nice move towards JUDICIAL REFORMS!

to think that his father 'ninoy' bore the blunt of a SC that mis-postured during the 'marcos' is not at all unthinkable nor surprising for him to be declaring such statements... or having such an attitude...panahon na cguro...i cannot think of any other candidate who would give us even just a little bit of hope in order to implement the much needed JUDICIAL REFORMS!

SC decisions are not bound by DISSENTING nor SEPARATE opinions. we are told to watch out for them dissenting opinions as they tend to be controlling in a 'future' time.

notable on this aspect was the late CJ teehankee's consistent dissents..until 'people power' took over..a seated CJ was requested to resign.. of course,  but does it always take a revolution or an uprising to reward INTEGRITY?

the court 'en banc' quoted the OSG argument as follows:

  • 1. When Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee retired on April 18, 1988, Chief Justice Pedro Yap was appointed on the same day;
  • 2. When Chief Justice Yap retired on July 1, 1988, Chief Justice Marcelo Fernan was appointed on the same day; 
  • 3. When Chief Justice Fernan resigned on December 7, 1991, Chief Justice Andres Narvasa was appointed the following day, December 8, 1991;
  • 4. When Chief Justice Narvasa retired on November 29, 1998, Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr. was sworn into office the following early morning of November 30, 1998;
  • 5. When Chief Justice Davide retired on December 19, 2005, Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban was appointed the next day, December 20, 2005; and
  • 6. When Chief Justice Panganiban retired on December 6, 2006, Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno took his oath as Chief Justice at midnight of December 6, 2006.[85]
most proly 'leading' to a concept of precedents as if it was alright to appoint a new CJ soon as the seat is vacated...all in a day that is..
but it raises too many questions..
  • for one: were these dates within an impending 'PRESIDENTIAL' elections?
  • two: was there an on-going appointment ban in each of those moments?
"It is one thing to alter the law's direction of travel by a few degrees, quite another to set it off in a different direction."- Lord Bingham on 'The Rule of Law'

related readings: