Definitely, the story about the shortcuts taken by the University of Santo Tomas (my college alma mater, by the way) in granting a doctorate in civil law summa cum laude to embattled Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona is linked to his coming impeachment trial.
But it isn’t just for political purposes, though of course politics plays a role in the story’s being given banner treatment in the Jan. 1 issue of this paper.
The story, written by Marites Danguilan-Vitug, a long-time observer and commentator on the Supreme Court and the Judiciary, is but another indicator of the Chief Justice’s penchant for taking the less-than-straight-and-narrow road to whatever position or honor he aspires after. This has to be exemplified by his decision to agree to be nominated and then accept the appointment as chief justice when the Constitution itself said the appointing power, former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, was no longer qualified to do so.
Of course, the Supreme Court at the time, composed of Arroyo appointees, voted to exempt the outgoing President and the Court from this rule. This, even if it was fairly obvious that Arroyo insisted on illegally exercising her prerogative to make sure she had a friendly Chief Justice presiding over the slew of cases that would surely follow in her wake. And without so much as batting an eyelash, the “Corona Court” proceeded to fulfill Arroyo’s wishes, batting away all efforts to bring her to account.
So what does obtaining a PhD in civil law, with the highest honors, under dubious circumstances, have to do with the Chief Justice’s impeachment case?
At the very least, it points to a history of tolerating—if not asking for—special treatment. Surely, Corona knew UST was making an exception for him. A rebuttal story makes clear that the Royal and Pontifical University changed its rules to accommodate the Chief Justice. That it did so cognizant that it could bring dishonor to its academic—if not moral—reputation on its quadricentennial year, no less, is something UST has yet to adequately explain to the community of students, faculty and alumni.
* * *
FROM MY point of view, the Corona case cheapens the value of any doctoral degree that UST confers from now on.
So the university banked on 400 years of history and educational accomplishment to justify its decision to ignore its own rules on granting graduate degrees. But did not its administrators and Corona’s professors consider that it was precisely because of the weight of history and tradition that the university was doubly obligated to stick to its rules particularly when granting a graduate degree to such a public figure?
And now the university even has the gumption to question the journalistic qualifications of Danguilan-Vitug, as well as the editorial judgment of this newspaper. True, she was writing the story on Corona’s PhD for an online magazine, Newsbreak. But before it came online, Newsbreak was a print institution, one that, moreover, “broke” many stories that changed the course of Philippine politics, including exposing the corruption that led to the impeachment of former President Joseph Estrada.
I think Marites can very well defend herself and her journalistic reputation. And I am sure that Inquirer editors, whose judgment I certainly respect, had good reason to use her story, and make it the banner story of the New Year at that. What I want to know is why UST thought it had to make exemptions for the Chief Justice who certainly didn’t need another degree to tuck under his robes, unless it was to earn more gravitas in a role he may have felt he didn’t deserve.
* * *
HOUSE members are said to be mulling over bills that would make it illegal to manufacture, market, sell and distribute pyrotechnics to the general public.
They don’t need any more justification than the statistics emerging from the last New Year’s Eve celebration: one nine-year-old boy dead and 739 (and counting?) injured. What makes the numbers even more alarming is that most of the victims were children below the age of 10, who accounted for 35 percent of the cases. The Department of Health also reported that 12 percent were 15 years old and above and “under the influence of alcohol.”
The last has become almost a cliché of the season: the drunken reveler who carelessly handles a firecracker, including lighting one with his cigarette, then bringing the lit mini-explosive to his mouth. When I hear an adult male victim being interviewed on radio, I can hardly bring myself to sympathize, instead I am tempted to sneer that the guy had it coming.
* * *
HOWEVER, stories of children losing fingers, hands, limbs or dying from explosions can only elicit anger. What were the parents thinking? Allowing a child to hold a lit firecracker, or letting the child play with pyrotechnics ominously called “Goodbye Philippines” or “Goodbye Gloria”?
Also alarming are stories of children falling ill after ingesting the ingredients of firecrackers, either from swallowing “watusi,” or inadvertently swallowing them after handling firecrackers.
And you don’t even have to come into contact with the firecrackers to fall ill. Environmentalists have listed the dangerous substances used to make pyrotechnics, and they claim that just releasing them into the atmosphere poses a threat to our health. It isn’t just infants, the elderly, asthmatics and the hypersensitive who need to be protected from smoke and smog.
So, yes, passing a law banning firecrackers makes eminent sense and deserves urgent passage. But more important is the political will to implement such a law if and when it is passed. We as a people need to learn how to celebrate the coming of the New Year in a quieter, safer way.