Inside the SC: When loyalty comes before the law
A review of Shadow of Doubt, Marites Dañguilan Vitug's book-length investigation of the
Good journalists and judges have some things in common. They have to pore over mountains of evidence and interview dozens of people to write good stories and decisions. They have to be brave, as onion-skinned people who are affected by their actions may get back at them in sinister ways. They are not elected, but there are times when they do a better job in upholding the public interest than the politicians whom the voters (often unwisely) have chosen.
Marites Dañguilan Vitug is one such good journalist, and the subject of her latest book is not likely to be pleased with her work. This time around, in Shadow of Doubt, she takes aim at the hallowed halls of the Supreme Court, and finds that the institution has not escaped the corruption that has weakened the two other branches of government.
While the book goes into the workings of the Supreme Court, its narrative really focuses on the personalities that have filled its secretive confines in recent years. It is a depressing read, and if you’re already seeing the Philippines as a half-empty cup, this book just might
In great detail, the author shows how loyalty to former bosses, peers, the appointing authority, church, and family has clouded what are supposed to be impartial and independent decisions by the people who comprise our court of last resort. The book bolsters the widely held view that the rule of law is a pipe dream for the Philippines, where the culture of “personalan" is more highly valued than professionalism.
The book recounts the voting record of the most recent crop of Supreme Court justices, and traces their flip-flopping stance to various personal interests. Many of the unsavory parts are devoted to Supreme Court Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr., who has filed a libel case against Vitug for her series of articles based on her book and posted on the Newsbreak website.
The author also paints a particularly unflattering portrait of the current chief justice, who has gone on a high-profile campaign to create a “moral force" and highlight the problem of extrajudicial killings in the last three years. In damning prose, Vitug reminds the reader that in the not-too-distant past, Chief Justice Reynaldo Puno had strong ties to the martial law era. And despite his ascension to the highest position in the judiciary, it seems he has not been able to shake off his association with high-stakes lawyer Estelito Mendoza, particularly in handling the cases of Marcos crony Eduardo Cojuangco. More disturbingly, the author reports Puno’s involvement in shadowy talks for a transition government in the event of a failure of the May elections.
She is more forgiving of Puno’s predecessors, Artemio Panganiban and Hilario Davide, Jr. The independent stance of Panganiban during his brief tenure and Davide’s efforts to improve the facilities of the Supreme Court in keeping with its lofty position in society are some of the more positive sections of the book. Nonetheless, she also reveals Davide’s pivotal role in the rise to power of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, who is as much to blame for the scandals in the high court as the Justices themselves.
Towards the end of the book, there is a comparison of the two leading contenders for the position of Chief Justice when Puno retires, and here, the author’s bias slips out. If the president follows the tradition of seniority, which she says was observed for much of the Supreme Court’s history except during martial law, it should be the reform-minded Justice Antonio Carpio who will succeed Puno. Several pages are devoted to the sterling qualities of Carpio, practically making the case for his assumption of the exalted office. In contrast, little is said about palace favorite Justice Renato Corona, who is expected to be Arroyo’s choice if and when she takes the opportunity recently granted her by a controversial Supreme Court decision.
At times, the book reads like a lifestyle column: who didn’t show up at which reception, who omitted the all-important word “integrity" at whose
But such minor glitches would be quibbling really, in light of the daring and enterprise that it took to write the book. Those who are familiar with the author’s previous work will find the style of writing here a refreshing departure from her often inaccessible analytical pieces. This time, the tone is more breezy and conversational, without losing the authoritative tenor that prevails in most of the chapters.
While much of the book exposes scandalous demeanor among the supposedly esteemed members of the high court, it also reveals the unseen heroism of many hard-working Justices who have to grapple with heavy caseloads, write long decisions, and sit for long hours to listen to oral arguments during en banc hearings. A dose of sympathy will surely go out to the Justices who actually do their job, even as much scorn will likely be heaped on those who abused their positions.
As the country waits to see how the Chief Justice impasse is resolved, the members of the Supreme Court would do well to reflect on this quote from their retired colleague Justice Vicente Mendoza: “The real authority of a judge is moral, and the source of that authority is the character of the judge."
Add to that this concluding note from the author: “How the Supreme Court will push the need for deeper change will etch its imprint on the nation’s soul."
It is now up to the good Justices to decide if they want to right the wrongs of the recent past, or repeat the folly of the martial-law Supreme Court and lead the way to a dark future where Filipinos will once again be forced to take the law into their own hands.
(Yasmin D. Arquiza is managing editor of GMANews.TV)
|
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Inside the SC: When loyalty comes before the law_ (REFERENCE)
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
4.1.12 PANG LABINDALAWANG PANDARAYA ni ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ
DISBARMENT COMPLAINT AGAINST
ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ FILED DOCUMENT HERE
RA 7641 CIRCUMVENTED BY SHELL,
GUARDIANS OF LAW SHOULD BE DISCIPLINED
4.1.12 PANG LABINDALAWANG PANDARAYA:
HINDI PO TOTOO NA NOONG MGA
PANAHON NA TANGGALIN AKO AY
MAY "REDUNDANCY" NA
ITINAGUYOD NI ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ
Your Honor, nagsinungaling si
Atty. Raul Quiroz na noong panahon
na tanggalin ako sa trabaho ay may
"redundancy" na itinaguyod ni
Atty. Raul Quiroz . Sa totoo lang po,
wala pong "redundancy", siguradong
sigurado po ako noong panahong iyon.
Bakit ko nasabi yun? Ganire po yun :
Your Honor, please, masdan po natin
ang sulat sa akin ni G. Rico Bersamin
ang sulat sa akin ni G. Rico Bersamin
na may petsa 28th November 2002,
sinasabi po rito:
XXX
"Dear Mr. Buensuceso,
As already discussed with you, with the
restructuring of the Tabangao Refinery,
we have exhausted best endeavors to
find a suitable position for you but we
have been unsuccessful. Hence, to
conforme to normal legal requirements,
we would like to serve notice that we will
be constrained to terminate your
employment effective close of business
31st December 2002 with the redundancy
package described in the following
paragraph."xxx
PACKET 12 : LABEL 5.12.1 Complainant Position
Paper,
Annex "E"
28th November 2002
R. Bersamin letter 1st letter
Dito po ay pinabatid sa akin ni G. Rico
Bersamin na dahil sa restructuring ng
Tabangao Refinery ay nagawa na nilang
lahat para makakita ng "suitable position
"sa akin pero sila ay nabigo.Kaya, upang
makasunod sa panuntunan ng batas ay
ipinagbibigay alam nila sa akin na ang
aking pagtatrabaho sa SHELL ay hanggang
31st December 2002 na lang, na may
redundancy package na nakasaad sa
sunod na talata.
Mapapansin po natin ang apat na bagay :
1. Restructuring ng Tabangao Refinery
ay tapos na
2. Nagawa na nila ang lahat ngunit
nag-resulta sa walang suitable position,
di umano, para sa akin
3. At sinabing hanggang
31st December 2002 ang trabaho ko
4. At may redundancy package
na ibibigay sa akin
Your Honor, please, ibig pong sabihin ni
G. Rico Bersamin sa isang pangungusap
ay, na noong gawin niya ang sulat na ito
sa akin, kung papaniwalaan natin siya,
matapos ang Restructuring ng Tabangao
Refinery ay kalabisan na ako sa
kinakailangang operator sa planta,
kaya kailangan na niya akong tanggalin
epektibo sa 31st December 2002.
Tama po ba?
Ngunit, Your Honor, hindi kaya ninyo
pagdudahan ang kadalisayan ng mga
sinulat niya sa akin, hindi kaya ninyo siyang
sabihing nagsisinungaling kapag nabasa
ninyo ang pangalawang liham niya sa akin ,
na may petsang 17th December 2002?
Tunghayan po natin :
XXX
Dear Mr. Buensuceso,
Further to our letter dated 28th November 2002,
please be advised in view of the requirements
of the business, the effectivity of the cessation
of your employment for reasons of redundancy
shall be deferred from
31st December 2002 to 15th February 2003. xxx
PACKET 12 : LABEL 5.12.2 Complainant Position Paper,
Annex "F",
17th December 2012 R. Bersamin 2nd letter
Sinulat po sa akin ni G. Rico Bersamin, na
susog doon sa kanilang sulat sa akin na may
petsang 28th November 2002, Sabi niya ay
ganito : "please be advised in view of the
requirement of the business", ibig sabihin po ,
Sana ay unawain mo na dahilan sa
pangangailangan ng negosyo, ang
"effectivity" ng pagtanggal sa iyo sa trabaho
dahil sa "redundancy" ay ipinagpapaliban
mula sa 31st December 2002 patungo sa
15th February 2003.
Hindi po ba tamang isipin na nagsisinungaling
si G. Rico Bersamin sa pagsasabing may
redundancy, na ako ay kalabisan na sa
kinakailangan sa planta? Hindi po ba kung
tunay na ako ay kalabisan na sa kinakailangan,
sa totoo lang , eh kahit po ora mismo, ngayon din,
ay maaari na niya akong pakawalan? Sa
pangyayaring nagkaroon na sila ng plaso mula
28th November 2002 to 31st December 2002
ay humirit pa sila ng panahon hanggang
15 February 2003 bago ako tanggalin ,
kaya maliwanag na may pangangailangan
sa akin noong panahong iyon ; na si G. Rico
Bersamin mismo ang nagsabing kailangan
niya ako na manatili Siya po mismo ang nagsabi ..
Sa Ingles po ang sabi niya:XXX please be
advised in view of the requirements of
the business the effectivity of the cessation
of your employment for reasons of
redundancy shall be deferred from
31st December 2002 to February 15, 2003.xxx
Hindi po ba ninyo kaya naiisip na naghanap
muna si G. Rico Bersamin ng tao upang
ipanghalili sa akin at hindi tunay na may
"redundancy" na tulad ng sinasabi niya noong
panahong iyon ? Kung totoo pong kalabisan
na ako eh bakit hiniling pa niyang manatili ako
hanggang 15th February 2003?
Your Honor, please, kung totoong labis
kaming mga operator , eh tsugi na agad
sana ako sa buwan ng Disyembre pa lang,
tutal nasunod na naman ni G. Rico Bersamin
ang sinasabi niyang one month requirement
na "notice" di po ba? Bakit humingi pa sila sa
akin ng extension hanggang
15 February 2003?
Kaya po, Your Honor, wala pong kaduda
duda hindi maaring magsinungaling
ang dalawang sulat na ebidensya. Wala pong
"redundancy," maliwanag pong walang
kalabisan sa tao noong panahong iyon.
Si G. Rico Bersamin ay buking o bistado na
nagsisinungaling at ang pagsisinungaling
naman niya ay buong lakas at talino at husay
na itinaguyod ni Atty. Raul Quiroz. Kaya,
Your Honor, please, nararapat lamang at
dapat tiyakin ng lubusan na si
Atty. Raul Quiroz ay ma-disbar upang wala
nang mangahas pang siya ay pamarisan.
With all due respect, Your Honor, DISBARMENT
po ang karapat dapat sa isang abogadong
katulad ni Atty. Raul Quiroz.
DISBARMENT COMPLAINT AGAINST
ATTY. RAUL QUIROZ FILED DOCUMENT HERE
RA 7641 CIRCUMVENTED BY SHELL,
GUARDIANS OF LAW SHOULD BE DISCIPLINED
The TRUTH will set you FREE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
SYNDICATED ESTAFA
MY QUEST FOR SWINDLED
RETIREMENT PAY BY SHELL
 
SWINDLING ITO, SYNDICATED ESTAFA
HOT PURSUIT
DUTY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ENTITIES
SHELL SWINDLING OF RETIREMENT PAY 5TH YEAR
|
