Business Circuit

The Charter is for the people

In criminal cases, the complainant is always People of the Philippines. I suppose this is so because the offense committed by a suspect is not just against his victim. It is against the people.

The Supreme Court is composed of men and women who are presumed to have sharp minds, are erudite and familiar with the Constitution. However, familiarity with the Charter and interpreting it for the people or public welfare are worlds apart.

In the recent case of Romulo Neri vs. the Senate, the Court interpreted the Constitution in favor of the President, not for the benefit of the People.

The Senate has filed a memorandum for reconsideration.

I cannot accept the proposition that allows the President to hide the truth and conceal a crime by invoking executive privilege. What is good for the politics or personal ambition of the President is almost always against public welfare or interest of the people. The President is not the People, specially not in the case of President Arroyo who practically admitted cheating in 2004 by claiming that her wiretapped conversation with Garci was a "lapse of judgment."

This lapse allowed a leader to be corrupt and dysfunctional to say the kindest but true words. The cheating is irrelevant to the case of Neri vs. Senate.

However, the Supreme Court gave a President without a mandate the right to hide the truth and conceal a crime by granting her executive privilege.

I always presume that the magistrates of the Court make decisions in their best lights and in defense of the Constitution. "Best lights" in defense of the Charter is best manifested when the ruling benefits the people instead of opening them up to more abuses by the President.

It is in this sense that I dare say that while the majority of nine who upheld executive privilege combined their minds in defense of the Constitution, they earned at the same time the reputation that they are subservient to the President, either by succumbing to pressure or showing the President the extent of their gratitude for being appointed to the Court.

The "Magic Nine" did not seem to consider that they owe their loyalty not to the President who appointed them but only to the Constitution, the bedrock of our civilized and democratic society.

Our suspicion that the nine are subservient to the President – I would not say lapdogs – tarnished forever the reputation and integrity of the Court.

That, by the way, is the main reason Chief Justice Reynato Puno, one of the six dissenters, has been heard and in fact reportedly told a recently retired jurist that he wanted to take early retirement. He does not want to preside over a Supreme Court that obeys the orders of Malacanang.

He denied wanting to retire. We are happy about that. If he had retired, he would have earned the reputation of leading the surrender of the Court to Malacanang. We plain folks will long remember the steadfast conviction of the Chief Justice that the Constitution cannot be compromised for anybody except the people for whom it was drawn up,

The Charter was not drawn up for the President. Not if its interpretation by the Supreme Court is against the people and for the Chief Executive.

The Philippines may have the valid but unenviable record of having the most bloated bureaucracy in the world. There is no question that the Arroyo government has long earned the reputation of being the most corrupt, the most inefficient, maybe the most dysfunctional.

Consider that President Macapagal Arroyo has 27 cabinet-rank officials. Her government has 38 offices under her.

As if this were not enough, she had to appoint a coterie of advisers and special assistants for whose jobs overlap those of the cabinet secretaries.

Why, for example, should the government have a special adviser on revenue enhancement? Doesn’t that duplicate the functions of the Bureau of Customs and the Bureau of Internal Revenue? It does to me.

But if the adviser can lay a valid claim that he has been able to enhance tax collections, keep him on the job. In fact, he should replace either the BIR or the customs commissioner. But if revenues have not been enhanced, the President should get rid of him along with the rest of the advisers.

The title of "presidential adviser" on this or that is mostly honorific. They go in and out of Malacanang without being a security check.

The President never thought of the fact that assistants or advisers can also abuse an honorific title.

If the bloated democracy is not dysfunctional, how did we earn the reputation of being the most corrupt country in this part of the world with the most corrupt president?

The bureaucracy is not lean. But it is definitely mean.

On the surface the three criminal cases filed against former Justice Secretary Hernando B. Perez are just that: allegations of wrong doing. There is much more beneath the surface. In fact it involves conjugal conflict or we might say domestic problems.

One spouse wants Perez rotting in jail. The other wants him off the hook. But why should a couple have a dispute over a man who was President Arroyo’s first secretary of justice?

The dispute has no nothing to do with how Perez failed or succeeded in his job.

Biblically it is a case of "let him without sin cast the first stone." By this I mean, one of the spouses possessed with powers might have committed some indiscretions with Perez.

But the other spouse is not as clean as Caesar’s wife either. He had his own indiscretions and, according to reports, went as far as begetting children with a kept woman.

Perez is a victim of his own indiscretions with money. But somebody wants him jailed for the indiscretions of his wife allegedly with Perez.

Vengeance is the operative word here. "Vengeance is mine," said the Lord. But this man probably does not believe in the Lord. Look at his record.

Where is the money?

The records of Philcomsat Holdings show that P2 million was given to lawyer Luis K. Lokin as representation expenses in seeking an injunction from the Supreme Court.

Immediately, the suggestion is that a public relations approach is necessary for a lawyer to get what he wants from the Court. But the Court did not issue the injunction.

It turned out that a check covering the amount was deposited in a branch of a bank in Tondo. Even more surprising is the allegation that the money is or was in the name of a Chinese-Filipino.

Will Lokin, a Chinese Filipino, name the jurists he gave the money to for an injunction order he did not get? I do not think he will. After all, he did not spend for cup of coffee with any magistrate.

So, where is the money? Ask Lokin. Who is Veronica Nepomuceno who has an address in Dimasalang, Manila? Does she exist? The Court should ask Lokin and present her person to the magistrates.

In their name, they were had for a measly P2 million and the writ of preliminary injunction was not issued. Poor Court. Sometimes, its magistrates soil their own names. Sometimes, lawyers use their names to get money.