In defense of the Supreme
Court
I should have better things to do than comment on the
impeachment complaint filed by Ely Pamatong. Any person who files a suit against
Cardinal Gaudencio G. Rosales and the Pope himself probably needs psychological
or psychiatric help.
Therefore, it is a waste of time saying anything about an
impeachment complaint filed by Pamatong against the whole Supreme Court. We all
know that the complaint will not prosper.
But since the object of Pamatong’s ire is the Highest
Tribunal, I feel I should come to its defense even as I know that the charges
may not prosper at all.
I guard the reputation of the Court rather zealously because
it is right even when it is wrong. But being wrong is open to challenge through
a memorandum for reconsideration. If the motion is denied, the decision becomes
part of the law of the land.
Court decisions, whether regarded as right or wrong, are
presumed to have been made in the best lights of the jurists. They are not
offenses punishable by any law. Neither can they be ground for impeachment as
Pamatong might have claimed.
We suffer the mistakes of the Court. But it is the only
interpreter of the Constitution and the laws. No other agency of government is
allowed to do that.
It is in this regard that I feel I should make known to
everyone, particularly the members of the House of Representatives, that where
moral turpitude is not an issue, impeaching the members of the Court is a bigger
threat to the Constitution than the mistakes the jurists make in interpreting
the Charter.
The Court is presumed to be lily white until the contrary is
proven.
There are better men
I have often mentioned here that the President could have
appointed better lawyers to the Supreme Court. But once an appointment is made
and accepted, the presumption of probity, integrity, and erudition must remain.
The Court is not safe from the criticisms of media. But it
should be safe from impeachment complaints filed by the likes of Pamatong whose
credibility is held in doubt. Let the SWS and Pulse Asia make a survey. If it
turns out that the entire Court must be impeached on the complaints of a man who
sues a cardinal and the Holy Father himself, I will campaign for the
impeachment.
But frankly there is no need to determine how people feel
about the members of the Court. It is in the interest of democracy and a free
society that the Court be presumed to have an unsullied reputation
That perception cannot be destroyed by an impeachment
complaint filed by someone of doubtful credibility. How does Pamatong propose to
prove what he is saying?
What many of us forget is no member of the Supreme Court or
the whole Court may be charged with culpable violation of the Constitution.
They are the men who interpret and defend the Constitution.
Mistakes in interpretation are not a ground for impeachment.
My question is how else are we going to take the mistakes as
part of the law of the land, a defense of the Constitution, except to damn them.
The Court does not explain its decision precisely because of the presumption
that they are made in defense of the Constitution.
Identity of Veronica
Nepomuceno
If there is one person who can give the lie to my claim that
Veronica Nepomuceno does exist, it is no other than Joy Rodriguez, branch
manager of the Bank of the Philippine Islands.
She was introduced to Rodriguez in a letter from the
Phicomsat Holdings in 2006. Based on what has transpired, it is entirely
possible that the BPI official was introduced by PHC to facilitate the
withdrawal of large sums of money.
The records of the PHC show that Veronica Nepomuceno withdrew
P3.5 million from the BPI branch run by Rodriguez under the so-called Maxi-One
account.
Rodriguez should recognize anybody who withdraws that kind of
money. Did Rodriguez rely mainly on the letter of introduction sent by PHC? If
so, she probably did not require Veronica Rodriguez to produce a document, like
a passport or any valid ID, that she was the person mentioned in the letter.
In any case, I would assume that the panel investigating
lawyer Luis K. Lokin for claiming an expenditure of P2 million for public
relations with the Supreme Court, would require that Veronica Nepomuceno appear
before it. The P2 million claimed to be representation expenses by Lokin was
deposited in her account with another bank branch in Binondo.
This is a very sticky issue that the Supreme Court must
resolve with firmness. The names of the magistrates have been dragged in what is
presented as bribery.
San Mig IPO
I am not exactly upbeat on the report that stockbrokers have
taken up 50 percent of the initial public offering of San Mig, a company now
independent from the former biggest food and giant beverage company in Southeast
Asia, the San Miguel Corp.
I had thought that the IPO would be oversubscribed by at
least 50 percent considering the reputation of San Miguel and the fact that its
beer product was or still is its biggest money maker.
The attitude of the market is lukewarm. The IPO has been
repriced three times. That alone tells a lot about the spun- off San Mig.
We remember that Ernst and Jones, major partner of SMC based
in New York, refused to issue a "comfort letter" to SMC for its proposed $300
million borrowing.
It was eventually scrapped precisely because of the change of
heart. Which could mean that without the comfort letter, SMC may not find
lenders for the $300 million loan or issue.
SMC has used a very large portion of the retirement fund on a
buying binge. There are no reports that these new purchases of many companies
using retirement money are producing profits.
The decimation of the retirement fund contributed by the
company for its employees may have helped in tarnishing the image of the
company. The spinoff of the brewery operation may not have helped any.
San Miguel beer brings it a lot of money. But why is the
attitude of the market lukewarm to its IPO? I cannot find the answer.
Petron and Meralco
The best thing that happened to Petron is the lack of
appropriation to exercise its right of first refusal to buy the 40 percent held
by Aramco.
The Arabian company sold its stake to a British fund manager
for $550 million. If Petron is to exercise its rights, it would have to match
the offer of Ashmore.
The more important consideration here is a buyback (it would
have happened if Petron had the money) is a complete turn-around of the
government’s privatization policy.
The exercise of the rights means the government is getting
back and competing with private business. Having failed in this attempt the
Arroyo government is now focused on Meralco.
The demand of President Arroyo for Meralco to cut down its
rates 50 percent simply because the electricity it buys from Napocor has been
ordered reduced to the same extent is an unveiled threat for a government
takeover.
Little has been said about how much electricity Meralco’s own
generating plants produced. I would not suspect that the Meralco would accept
the dictation of reducing the price of the electricity its own plants generate.
There is a brewing war between the Arroyo government and
Meralco.
The business climate is somehow tarnished by this feud. The
signal is clear. The government is prepared to legislate Napocor to huge losses
just to bring Meralco to its knees.
The announced plan is for the benefit of the consumers, as
declared by Mrs. Arroyo. But the plan has an inner motive. Let us watch how the
two sides will take their battle positions.
