'The JPEPA ruling strains the
Court's credibility and impartiality.'
Malacañang has a standard
retort to accusations of thievery: File a complaint with the Ombudsman. With
Merceditas Gutierrez, the classmate of Mike Arroyo, at the helm of the
anti-graft body, accusers rightly let the Palace challenge pass. A complaint is
likely to sleep the sleep of the dead, unless, of course, the grafters in
question are inconsequential clerks or minor officials without close links to
the bigger thieves.
Now Malacañang has come up with a new line when it comes to
constitutionally questionable actions: Bring the case before the Supreme Court.
At issue is the "Katas ng VAT" dole-outs. Former budget
secretary Ben Diokno said President Arroyo is violating the Constitution because
the spending should have authorization from Congress.
"Ang Constitution ay maliwanag. Ang presidente magpro-propose,
ang Kongreso ang mag-a-approve," Diokno said. The proper way to do it is to ask
Congress to pass a supplemental budget.
That's Diokno's opinion, the Palace said. If he wants to
press his case, then he should go to the highest tribunal.
The Palace has reason to be confident the Supreme Court would
rule on its favor. It is on a roll. The Supreme Court the other day upheld
Gloria Arroyo's claim of executive privilege on the negotiations on the proposed
Japan-Philippines Economic Partnership Agreement. This followed the earlier
ruling of the Supreme Court upholding the claim of executive privilege by former
planning secretary Romulo Neri on Arroyo's role in the award of the $329 million
national broadband deal to the Chinese electronic company ZTE.
On these cases, the votes ranged from 10-4 (with one
abstaining) to 9-6 in favor of Malacañang, mostly on the strength of the votes
of newly appointed Supreme Court members. There now appears to be a clear
majority of members with a judicial philosophy congruent with that of the
Palace.
That - congruence of judicial philosophy - is the charitable
way of describing the newly emerged pro-Gloria leaning of the tribunal. Some,
however, may say it is plain "bayad utang" on the part of the new appointees.
Sen. Rodolfo Biazon said Senate ratification of a treaty
requires public discussion. There can be no debate where information is withheld
from the public. The JPEPA ruling strains the Court's credibility and
impartiality.
There lies the danger. The Supreme Court cannot afford a loss
of credibility and impartiality at this time when it is the only institution
standing in the way of an Executive bent on accumulating more and more power at
the expense of other co-equal branches.
God help this country if the time comes when the Supreme Court, in the eyes
of the public, becomes as complaint to Malacañang's wishes as Gutierrez'
Ombudsman.
