The coconut levy funds have put the Supreme Court at the center of the coconut farmers’ watch. But since the Supreme Court’s January 2012 decision declaring the 24-percent CIIF-SMC shares as public funds—a sure victory for the poor coconut farmers and government—the status of the funds, amounting to some P71 billion in cash, is unfortunately still uncertain. And an entry of judgment has yet to be heard of.
An item titled “SC sacks judge for inefficiency” (Across the Nation, Inquirer, 3/28/13) reported that another lower court judge, this time of a Municipal Trial Court in Cebu City, was dismissed from the service by the Supreme Court “for failure to resolve cases on time” and for other infractions. The judge was found to have [...]
Because of the growing worldwide interest in our surging economy, retired Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna, a member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission and incumbent chancellor of the Philippine Judicial Academy, dissected four controversial decisions on the economic provisions of the Constitution during his recent lecture at the Ateneo Law School.
When Republic Act No. 7941 was enacted on March 3, 1995, hope for change and reforms sprang among well-meaning and good-intentioned members of society. Why not? RA 7941 (Party-List System) was envisioned to “promote proportional representation in the election of representatives to the House…” In its Declaration of Policy, this law states that the party-list system “(w)ill enable Filipino citizens belonging to the marginalized and underrepresented sectors, organizations and parties, and who lack well-defined political constituencies but who could contribute to the formulation and enactment of appropriate legislation that will benefit the nation as a whole, to become members of the House of Representatives.”
I am dead sure that the Supreme Court is within its authority to do it, but I still cannot understand why every time bar exam results reflect an exceptionally low passing rate, the customary (in fact, legally provided) passing grade of 75 percent is adjusted downward.
The controversial party-list cases have been remanded by the Supreme Court to the Commission on Elections for review. What the Comelec is required to do is to decide two related questions: (1) Which organizations may participate in the party-list system? (2) Who are qualified to represent the party-list organizations?
Question: Who is running the elections? Answer: The Commission on Elections. Wrong. It is the Supreme Court. At least that’s how it appears to us. The Constitution says election matters are the domain of the Comelec. It is supposed to be the expert in elections. But lately, the Supreme Court has been arrogating unto itself [...]
This refers to the column titled “The new party-list decision” (Inquirer, 4/15/13) of eminent Philippine Constitution framer Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J. As a layman, I saw Father Bernas’ explanation of the Supreme Court ruling slip into a case of “Catch 22.” Father Bernas explains that according to the ruling, the phrase “marginalized and underrepresented” refers only to those which by nature are economically marginalized; but then he justifies the inclusion of registered national, regional parties under “eiusdem generis,” but not necessarily in the sense of being economically disadvantaged.
The Chief Justice herself, Ma. Lourdes Sereno, was aghast. She and Associate Justice Bienvenido Reyes were the only two justices who voted against the Supreme Court ruling that party-list groups need not represent the poor and marginalized.
The party-list system should not be expanded, as the recent majority decision of the Supreme Court did in effect; it should be diminished and even abolished instead. As anybody with common sense can see, it is being abused. Trapo, or traditional politicians, like former Manila Mayor Lito Atienza are nominees of party-list groups. Election losers are resurrected or come back as nominees of party-list groups. Whole families are nominees of a single party list, as if the system were a family affair. Multimillionaires are nominees of supposedly underrepresented groups. Nonfarmers represent farmers’ groups.
If I approached the Supreme Court’s recent decision on the party-list system by way merely of a mechanical exercise in statutory construction, I might conclude that the Court has stripped the party-list system of its soul. The party-list system is not merely a restructuring of the membership of the House of Representatives. It is a peaceful revolutionary measure that introduces social justice into the structure of the House. The constitutional framers intended social justice to be the soul of the system and the latest decision has preserved that soul, although giving it a reading slightly differently from the way the earlier Ang Bagong Bayani decision read it.
April 2, 2013, is a sad day for the poor and powerless. On that day, our Supreme Court in Atong Paglaum vs Comelec decreed that the party-list system may now be invaded by the privileged and powerful. It is no longer the sacred domain of the marginalized and underrepresented.
