THE popular biblical idiom (Hosea, 8:7), “Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind,” can be ascribed to the period between President Ferdinand E. Marcos’s constitutional regime and President Corazon Cojuangco Aquino’s revolutionary government and beyond that saw the contemptuous mockery of the country’s judicial system.
In contrast to President Marcos’s constitutional democracy and adherence to the rule of law in his time, Mrs. Aquino in 1986, only a few days in power, abolished the 1973 Constitution under which she took her oath of office, arrogated unbridled authority unto herself and arbitrarily ordered the wholesale removal of Supreme Court justices, appellate court justices, lower court judges, prosecutors and other career officials and employees of the then-Ministry of Justice.
Then she entrusted the reorganization of the two judicial bodies to a group of “volunteers” under Supreme Court Justice Claudio Teehankee and Justice Minister Neptali Gonzales.
Because of the Edsa euphoria, nobody questioned the illegal procedure: The civil service law was completely disregarded and the reentry and selection of justices, judges, prosecutors and other career employees depended only on the subtle and irresolute recommendations of the Aquino “volunteers.”
As a result, the Judiciary, whose image had been repeatedly criticized under the Marcos martial-law regime for its subservient inclination, plunged into a crisis of its own, as some of the justices chosen by the Aquino administration became the objects of an impeachment complaint by the Anti-Graft League of the Philippines Inc. (AGLPI) in Congress for corruption, extravagance and usurpation of powers, among other things.
Although the complaints reached the committee level, the impeachment subsequently died a natural death for lack of quorum. But the country’s judicial system was never the same again.
The AGLPI, in my book Greed & Betrayal, published by Amazon in 2000, said:
“…the Members of the Supreme Court, more particularly, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee or Teehankee Court, and under Chief Justice Pedro Yap, or Yap Court, namely: Chief Justice Pedro I. Yap, Associate Justices Marcelo B. Fernan, Andres R. Narvasa, Ameurfina A. Melencio-Herrera, Hugo E. Gutierrez Jr., Isagani A. Cruz, Edgardo L. Paras, Florentino P. Feliciano, Emilio A. Gancayco, Teodoro Padilla, Abdulwahid A. Bidin, Abraham Sarmiento, Irene R. Cortes and Carolina Grino-Aquino, have individually or collectively prostituted the administration of justice; made a mockery of the judicial processes; abused and used the Court to promote their personal interest; committed culpable violation of the Constitution; and have engaged in judicial legislation and encroached on the powers of Congress, as well as the exclusive power of the people to amend the Constitution.”
Specifically, the AGLPI charged the justices under Article XI of the 1987 Constitution with knowingly rendering a decision that was clearly wrong, manifestly unjust, obviously malicious, against public interests in a classic case of judicial legislation that constitutes a culpable violation of the Constitution.
The decision in question was the Zaldivar v. Honorable Raul Gonzalez, (GRL 80578) and Enrique Zaldivar v. Tanodbayan, (GRL 796-707).
In these cases, the incumbent justices (except then new Justice Leo Medialdea, the father of now Executive Secretary Salvador “Bingbong” Medialdea in President Duterte’s administration) stripped the Honorable Raul Gonzalez, as Chief Special Prosecutor, of the power to conduct preliminary investigation, file and prosecute criminal cases with the Sandiganbayan.
In its decision, the Supreme Court said the incumbent Tanodbayan (called Special Prosecutor under the 1987 Constitution) was clearly without authority to conduct preliminary investigation and to direct the filing of criminal cases with the Sandiganbayan, except upon orders of the Ombudsman. This right to do so was lost effective February 2, 1987.
“It was impossible to be mistaken unless it was done deliberately and maliciously,” said the AGLPI, adding that Section 7 of Article XI (Accountability of Public Officers) of the 1987 Constitution provides that “the existing Tanodbayan shall hereafter be known as the Office of the Special Prosecutor. It shall continue to function and exercise its powers as now or hereafter may be provided by law, except those conferred on the Office of the Ombudsman created under this Constitution.”
The AGLPI said it was quite clear that the title of the Office had just been changed from Tanodbayan to Special Prosecutor. “It was also very clear that said office shall continue to function and exercise its powers as now or hereafter may be provided by law, except those conferred on the Office of the Ombudsman created under the 1987 Constitution. It was just really a change of name (Constitutional Commission Journal 41 p. 29, July 28, 1986).”
According to the AGLPI, the change was only in the title of the office and not in the prosecutory powers and function, adding that Gonzalez was vested with powers to conduct preliminary investigations, file and prosecute criminal cases with the Sandiganbayan as then (February 2, 1987) provided by law.
From the enumeration of the powers of the Ombudsman, said the AGLPI, it was clear that the power to investigate by the Ombudsman referred only to administrative investigation and not to preliminary investigation for purposes of prosecution.
Fast-forward to 2012, another scenario of judicial impropriety took place when the Senate convicted, through impeachment, Chief Justice Renato Corona of the Supreme Court and this time, another one, Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, is also undergoing impeachment proceedings before the House of Representatives. Between them, in the lower courts, are scandals and scams of varying degrees that embarrassed the country.
The question is: Can President Duterte end the whirlwind?
To reach the writer, e-mail cecilio.arillo@gmail.com.