|
Thursday, July 10, 2003
SC denies Estrada plea, warns of sanction
By Benjamin B. Pulta
MANILA -- A request by President Joseph E. Estrada's lawyer Alan Paguia for members of the Supreme Court (SC) to answer a 12-page questionnaire in connection with the legitimacy of the Arroyo presidency has been rejected.
In a resolution, the SC en banc said it resolved to deny the request for the High Court magistrates to answer the questionnaire "for (the) reason that (it) improperly requests admissions or calls for the rendering of an advisory opinion."
The SC, through Clerk of Court Luzviminda Puno, said the letter asks for answers to an issue that has been brought before the Sandiganbayan.
"It is a disguised form of forum shopping. Furthermore, it inappropriately seeks to open to review the legality of the assumption of the Presidency, a matter that has been settled by this Court nearly two and a half years ago, which cannot be reopened by means of this letter," the SC added.
The SC also added in a strong warning for Paguia.
"Atty. Alan F. Paguia is thus strongly warned, on pain of contempt and disciplinary sanction, to desist from sending, directly or indirectly, the same or other such submissions to this Court or to its members."
Paguia, as an officer of the court, "knows or ought to know this fundamental and elementary principle and is bound by his oath and his honor to respect and observe it," added the SC.
Two members of the Tribunal, Associate Justices Leonardo Quisumbing and Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, are on official leave and did not take part in the proceedings.
Sources in the High Court who requested anonymity say the matter has been assigned to Associate Justice Adolf Azcuna for study and for recommendations.
The sources, quoting a magistrate present during the en banc session, said at least a handful of the incumbent SC justices want to impose sanctions on Paguia similar to the "indefinite suspension" imposed on former Tanodbayan Raul Gonzales for disrespect to high court.
Azcuna used to be former President Corazon C. Aquino's chief presidential legal counsel from 1987 to 1990. He was also a member of the Constitutional Commission from 1986 to 1987.
Like Paguia, Azcuna, who placed fourth in the 1962 bar examinations, is a professor at the Ateneo Law School. He held the position of chairman of Philippine National Bank in 1991 and director of the Development Bank of the Philippines in 1990.
Paguia earlier threatened to file administrative and criminal charges against the High Court justices, following up this threat with a formal letter written to the Supreme Court (SC) and demanding answers to 12 questions that are at the heart of the legitimacy issue of President Arroyo's government.
The letter, which contains 12 questions that are all answerable by a simple yes or no, are the same queries raised by Estrada's counsel before the Sandiganbayan Special Division, where he filed an omnibus motion invoking Estrada's immunity from charges on the strength of his being the true and legal president.
Paguia said the letter was not meant to pressure or harass the chief justice and the other justices of the High Tribunal and neither was this action taken to harass the anti-graft court, which is now required to resolve the omnibus motion he filed last May.
The motion, which also questions the Sandiganbayan Special Division's jurisdiction over Estrada while invoking his immunity from charges, holds the same questions.
The questions in the letter sent by Paguia to the High Court justices are:
* Is it true that the law strictly prohibits judges or justices from participating in partisan political activities?
* Is it true that your honors participated in a partisan political activity during Vice President Gloria Arroyo's oath-taking at Edsa on Jan. 20, 2001?
* Is it true that your honors attended and authorized the Arroyo oath-taking in your honors' official capacity as judicial officers?
* Is it true that the basic law involved in the Estrada v. Arroyo controversy is Article VII, Section 8 of the Constitution (In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of the President, the Vice President shall become the President to serve the unexpired term)?
* Is it true that the sole Constitutional ground invoked by Vice President Arroyo for her oath taking as President was permanent disability?
* Is it true that your honors authorized the oath taking by Vice President Arroyo at Edsa on that same ground of permanent disability?
* Is it true that Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. administered the said oath taking at Edsa on that same ground of permanent disability?
* Is it true that your honors unquestioningly accepted Vice President Arroyo's allegation of permanent disability on the part of President Joseph Estrada?
* It is true that the administrative matter of administering the oath taking at Edsa by the chief justice involved the performance of an official duty, which ought to be consistent with the Constitution?
* Is it true that there was never any proof of compliance with the constitutional requirements regarding the said permanent disability? (Written declaration" by the President or majority of his Cabinet members)
* Is it true that your honors, as well as the other justices, later rejected that ground of permanent disability and replaced it with resignation, even as President Estrada never wrote any resignation letter?
* Is it true that due process of law absolutely requires the cold neutrality of an impartial judge both in appearance and in substance, without which the proceedings are rendered void or without effect from the beginning?
(July 10, 2003 issue)
Want Sun.Star news on your mobile phone? Click here.
Write letter to the editor. Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board. Click here. |
|
|
|
 |
| click
to comment on this article or discuss it with other readers |
[return to top]
[home]
|
|
Robbery suspect slain in shootout