E·N·Q·U·I·R·Y
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL
DEMAREE J.B. RAVAL
Garcillano y Barcelona
Sunday, 02 29, 2004
A nationwide group of young lawyers, sporting a name that proclaims their idealism – Pro-Con(stitution) – has jumped the gun on those who would not dare challenge Malacañang’s propensity to violate the Constitution in this highly politically charge election period. The Pro-Con lawyers have filed a petition with the Supreme Court (SC) questioning the appointments of Comelec Commissioners Virgilio Garcillano and Manuel Barcelona Jr.
Avoiding any attempt at diluting with political color and validity of their arguments against the constitutionality of the appointments of Garcillano and Barcelona, Pro-Con made a mere passing mention of Garcillano’s colorful stint in Mindanao in the past elections or of Barcelona being a major contributor to then vice presidential candidate Gloria Arroyo. Pro-Con’s 29-page petition is a scholarly work on the nature of temporary appointments for constitutional officers, like commissioners of the Comelec.
Lawyer Agripino Baybay, the group’s spokesman, could not have put it better in perspective when he said the petition is designed to put an end to the use by President Arroyo of her appointing power to put in place election officers who will do anything at her bidding, to ensure her victory in the coming polls.
An ad interim appointment (which is what was extended to Garcillano and Barcelona) is, by its very nature, a temporary appointment. Garcillano and Barcelona, being temporary in their offices at Intramuros, would naturally be expected to make everything good for the appointing authority, in exchange for a permanent appointment. Pro-Con said in its petition: “The unprecedented filing by (them) of their respective position papers in the disqualification case of Fernando Poe Jr., even when they are not supposed to……exposed their servility to the appointing authority, upon whom their subsequent permanent status depends. (They) have no security of tenure. They are expected to toe the line written by the appointing authority.”
This matter did not escape the notice of Justice Reynato Puno during the oral arguments at the Supreme Court on the disqualification case against Poe. “Castigate” is a very mild term to describe Justice Puno’s tirade against the precipitate action of Garcillano and Barcelona in taking a stand contrary to the institutional position of the Comelec on a 5-0 voting. It betrays their dog-eared eagerness to please their appointing power, who is running for President no matter what the cost is to our constitutionalism and to the rule of law.
Baybay emphasized that Garcillano and Barcelona have no security of tenure; that they are not expected to be impartial; that they are in danger of being replaced anytime; and that they would do anything at the bidding of President Arroyo.
They are commissioners on an error-filled mission, as one observer noted, and no other truth can be as painful as this.
The Constitution is very clear: That in no case shall any member of the Comelec be appointed in a temporary or acting capacity. In other words, the three-step process of “nomination, consent and appointment” must be strictly observed. Yet, President Arroyo proceeded to do just the contrary: Extend ad interim (temporary) appointments to Garcillano and Barcelona, in order for them not to go through the crucible of the Commission on Appointments (CA) before they can start to wreak havoc on the electoral process. Borrowing the words of the SC in the case of Matibag vs Benipayo (2002), Baybay describes President Arroyo’s issuance of the questioned appointments as “render(ing) inutile the confirming power of the CA.”
Pro-Con cites the fact that President Arroyo issued the appointments the day immediately after the adjournment of Congress, when she could have very well made the appointments immediately after retirement of Commissioners Tangcangco and Lantion many days earlier. This would have given the CA enough time to exercise its checking function on the overly political appointing authority, and could scrutinize Garcillano and Barcelona before they could assume office.
The manner and timing of the issuance of the appointments of Garcillano and Barcelona were resorted to as a way of sidestepping the CA in the appointment process. Such a veiled attempt to circumvent the intent of the Constitution is deplorable, not only with the way it was engineered but also with the resultant effect of derogating the constitutional principle of checks and balances.
The temporary nature of the appointments of Garcillano and Barcelona gives them no more than a term of four months each, instead of the constitutionally mandated term of seven years. Without any confirmation by the CA, Garcillano and Barcelona will be out of office by June 11, 2004, which is the day that Congress will adjourn sine die. Unfortunately for Garcillano and Barcelona, President Arroyo would not be able to give them another appointment, because of the constitutional ban against the making of appointments two months before the presidential elections and up to the term of the sitting President.
Baybay, from Cavite, who was joined in the petition by lawyer Paulino Ungos III of Sorsogon was very emphatic when he said for the independence and fragile credibility of the Comelec not to be lost, and in order for that body to administer orderly, honest, credible and peaceful elections, the SC must nullify the appointments of Garcillano and Barcelona and prohibit them from ever discharging again the functions of a Comelec commissioner.
Sen. Nene Pimentel, who has opposed the appointments of Garcillano and Barcelona – and understandably most violently against Garcillano, for the reputation that precedes the latter borne out by Pimentel’s sad experience in the 1995 elections when he was cheated out of victory – could still get his sweet revenge with this petition of the Pro-Con.
For comments about this website:Webmaster@tribune.net.ph
No comments:
Post a Comment