Seares: Demonizing Corona and High Court

Thursday, December 8, 2011

HOW could President Noynoy Aquino cite incidents in which the Supreme Court wasn't actually obstructionist or abusive? What law are Palace lawyers telling the President?

Look at the two major litigations PNoy mentioned in lambasting SC Chief Justice Renato Corona in his face at the First National Summit of Criminal Justice in Manila Hotel Monday--

Have something to report? Tell us in text, photos or videos.

[] The executive order creating the Truth Commission: Its scope was limited to irregularities of the Arroyo administration, a violation of equal protection clause of the Constitution. A re-phrasing to expand the inquiry to other scandals in the past could've corrected the fatal flaw but the Palace didn't.

[] The travel ban on Arroyos: Palace lawyers are aware of the constitutional guarantee on freedom of abode and travel and the illegality of watch-lists. DOJ could've used much earlier the warrant of arrest if it had been ready with a criminal complaint. The constitutionally offensive ban was what prompted the SC intervention.

Caution

Maybe the President was given the right law but PNoy insisted and the lawyers kissed ass instead. What could they lose but their job? One such president, not PNoy, once chided his lawyers: "I tell you what I want. You find the law to support it."

Still, other than a legal briefing, PNoy should've been cautioned against teetering on the edge of a major crisis: a collision of two powerful departments of the government isn't a video game.

Stoically, Corona bore the humiliation of the public scolding. But how long could he stand the bullying and the judiciary's foundation could stay strong?

(paseares@sunstar.com.ph or @gmail.com)