Filipinos from all walks of life came out despite the rain and howling winds to pay their last tribute to Cory Aquino as her remains were interred beside her husband in Manila Memorial Park. I caught the funeral procession on Roxas Boulevard and it brought back memories of Ninoy’s mammoth funeral in August 1983. Yesterday’s burst of yellow was an incredible sight, as all kinds of people braved the weather, flashing the Laban sign. Along the route, people hung anything yellow from their windows. I chuckled when I saw leftist groups marching behind the cortege, remembering that some years back they were denouncing the Cojuangco family on account of Hacienda Luisita. The army of cyclists and motorcyclists that came out for her was simply stunning. Watching the huge throng, I couldn’t think of anyone else for whom the multitudes would come out like yesterday.
After Cory Aquino exited from power in 1992, she assumed a low-profile role, busying herself with NGO work. When she campaigned for a presidential candidate who lagged far behind in the elections, the media asked if “Cory Magic” was gone. Then came her call for President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s resignation, which split Cory’s yellow army down the middle. But during the months when she was suffering from cancer, she came back to the people’s consciousness and they remembered how they had always loved her purity of soul, the very thing that drew them to her at EDSA 23 years ago. In death she loomed large once again, and in the following weeks, pundits will be analyzing how the renewed Cory Magic will impact the coming elections.
* * *
That the Judicial and Bar Council seeks to insulate the judiciary from politics is commendable, especially in the light of past events that showed members of the judiciary kowtowing to the powers that be. But the JBC decision to turn down the request of the President for additional nominees to the two vacant positions seems to be a political decision too. Recall that the JBC submitted to the Palace a list of six nominees for the two positions. Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita returned it with the request for a “wider array of nominees,” stressing that the President “cannot be too careful about the selection and appointment” especially since two justices are being appointed. The six-member JBC, through Chief Justice Reynato Puno, doubtless reacting to intense pressure from various politicians and lawyers’ groups, said it “cannot acquiesce,” since the decision to include three or more names “exclusively belongs to the JBC” and the nominees had been carefully vetted.
* * *
The JBC members received hearty pats, but it should be noted that the Constitution recognizes that the nominees’ list can be expanded. Sec. 9 of Art. VIII of the Constitution states that “members of the Supreme Court and judges of the lower courts shall be appointed by the President from a list of at least three nominees prepared by the (JBC) for every vacancy.” The phrase “at least” clearly allows an expanded list. Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J. stressed this in last Monday’s column, when he recounted the interpellation in the 1971 Constitutional Commission deliberations by delegate Francisco Rodrigo of former Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion, chair of the judiciary committee. Rodrigo inquired whether the president could ask the JBC to submit another list of nominees and Concepcion said, “Yes, definitely.” “And if he does not want these three new nominees,” Rodrigo went on, “the Council could still submit another three?” Concepcion again affirmed this. Bernas noted that Concepcion’s intent was to insulate the appointing process from the politics in the Commission on Appointments, but “his reply ironically accords to the most political authority of them all the power to dictate the outcome.” Stressing that he did not adhere to Concepcion’s position, Bernas suggested that the power to vet justices be returned to the Commission on Appointments. This new issue merits separate analysis.
* * *
In judicial circles, it is well known that the JBC has in the past submitted more than the three required names per nominee. In fact there were times when, while voting for five or six candidates, three ended up in a tie and the JBC submit all five or six vetted names. The President has also sent back the list of nominees in the past. That the JBC now seeks to redeem itself is good, but it should also be pointed out that in this instance it is apparently acting out of fear that GMA would appoint two more friendly justices to ensure a majority in the Court (a fear that may be unfounded since a number of her appointees, in fact, have turned against her, including a chief justice who appears to be intent on pleasing the opposition).
* * *
Politics again seems to be the basis of much of the objection to the selection of Cecile Guidote Alvarez as National Artist for Theater. Some critics say it violated delicadeza since she is the presidential assistant for culture and the arts and she holds the position of executive director of the National Commission on Culture and the Arts, one of two entities (the other is the Cultural Center of the Philippines) that vet candidates for the National Artist award and therefore, she shouldn’t have been considered for it. It should be pointed out that Cecile’s name was not included in the first stage of deliberations, so she didn’t vote for herself. Rather, it was the Honors Committee of the Palace which decided to add the names of four artists proposed directly to the President by various institutions, and the President wholeheartedly agreed to include them. The more pertinent question is: Do the awardees deserve the award? More on this next time.
