Democracy in action

[av_one_full first min_height=” vertical_alignment=” space=” custom_margin=” margin=’0px’ padding=’0px’ border=” border_color=” radius=’0px’ background_color=” src=” background_position=’top left’ background_repeat=’no-repeat’ animation=”]

[av_heading heading=’Democracy in action’ tag=’h3′ style=’blockquote modern-quote’ size=’30’ subheading_active=’subheading_below’ subheading_size=’18’ padding=’10’ color=” custom_font=” av-medium-font-size-title=” av-small-font-size-title=” av-mini-font-size-title=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” admin_preview_bg=”]
BY NEIL HONEYMAN
[/av_heading]

[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” admin_preview_bg=”]
Tuesday, March 13, 2018
[/av_textblock]

[av_textblock size=’18’ font_color=” color=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” admin_preview_bg=”]
A MAJOR obstacle to the development of the Philippines as a vibrant democracy, is the propensity of many of our elected representatives to exhibit an odious sycophancy towards the president of the day.

In a real democracy, there is little hesitation amongst the president’s own party to speak out against presidential pronouncements if they believe circumstances warrant. It is good to have a vigorous debate on issues because alternatives are properly evaluated and better decisions may ensue.

For example, last week, US president Donald Trump announced the imposition of tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. Immediately, many Republican congressmen publicly criticized the decision. This results in the speedy introduction of modifications (no tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico). At the time of writing, the situation is still fluid with the Europeans muttering darkly about retaliatory tariffs against Harley-Davidson motorcycles, for example.

Another feature of a properly functioning democracy is that the decision-making processes are clear and unambiguous. It is disappointing, therefore, that Solicitor General Jose Calida has filed a quo warranto case against Chief Justice Sereno. This is an action requiring Sereno to show by what warrant she holds her position. So far Sereno, quite rightly in my opinion, has exhibited a disdainful silence towards Calida. And to her Supreme Court (SC) colleagues who seem to think she should reply.

Constitutionally, the position is clear. If one third of the House of Representatives believe Sereno should be impeached, then Senate has to conduct an impeachment trial. After the trial, if eight or more Senators (out of 23) vote to acquit Sereno, she retains her position as Chief Justice.

I salute Associate Justice Marvic Leonen who is the only dissenter among the SC who want Sereno to answer Calida’s petition. Whatever happened to the separation of powers?

***

SC’s current problems began on May 17, 2010 when CJ Puno reached his 70th birthday. Under Article VIII, Section II he retired. President Arroyo then appointed Renato Corona to be Chief Justice. She was not empowered to do this under the “midnight appointments” rule (Art VII Sec 15) where she cannot make appointments after April 30, 2010.

I suppose this irked incoming president Benigno Aquino. Eventually, Corona was impeached and 20 out of 23 senators voted for his dismissal.

Aquino then appointed Sereno who has not been a universally popular choice. I believe she walked into an unfriendly environment and has not established herself as popular. But life is not a popularity contest.

I believe Senate is the fairest way of dealing with this difficult situation./PN
[/av_textblock]

[/av_one_full]