Senate confident of SC reversal

April 8, 2008

Senators are confident that they will eventually win the case in the Supreme Court (SC) on the matter of the invocation of executive privilege by Commission on Higher Education (Ched) Chairman Romulo Neri, owing to the constitutionally-guaranteed provision on the separation of powers and their mandate to ensure check and balance in the government.

Senators Alan Peter Cayetano and Francis Escudero are banking on the reversal of the SC’s ruling on the Neri case, saying this will set a precedent case for Malacañang in evading inquiries involving alleged irregularities in government transactions.

“Our emphasis in filing our motion for reconsideration (MR) is that No. 1, we’re saying that the burden is on Malacañang and on President Arroyo in proving the policy on executive privilege, not the (policy of) anomaly or covering up the embarrassing political situation,” Cayetano, blue ribbon chairman, said, adding the Senate has prepared strong arguments to win the reversal.

“If there will be no reversal of the ruling, all the scandals involving the government, all the questionable foreign loans that will be invoked by the Executive as being covered by the so-called executive privilege or carry diplomatic concerns can no longer be investigated or examined,” he said.

“We also showed that in their (SC) previous decisions, they refrained from interfering in the rules of the Senate and Congress and also on the manner in which we vote on certain issues,” Cayetano noted.“We are showing the SC and the Filipino people the bigger picture and the bigger picture is what kind of government do we want. A government full of secrets where you cannot question deals or a government that is transparent and accountable.

“I have full confidence in our justices but they also have to reconsider that their own decisions, previous decisions, they gave credence to what is not only fair but the perception of being fair. They themselves know if there is a ground (for a reversal of their decision),” he added.

Senators Francis Escudero and Sen. Manuel “Mar” Roxas II are backing Cayetano on the filing of the motion for reconsideration.

But Escudero thumbed down the proposal of some of their colleagues to move for the inhibition of some justices perceived to be partial to Malacañang.

“I think this can best be left to the Senate’s lawyers without need of a formal resolution. This is not something that should be put to a vote where majority wins. This is something that the Senate, collectively as an institution, should undertake and pursue,”he said.

Roxas, despite his dissent to the decision of his colleagues to thumb down the proposed compromise agreement offered by the high court, threw his support behind the filing of the MR.

Senate President Manny Villar, for his part yesterday said the Senate, through its MR has asked the high court to take a second circumspect look at the Neri decision.

Villar urged the magistrates who voted with the majority decision to “show that the High Court remains a fair court; that like the blindfolded Lady of Justice (Justitia), the SC represents justice, fair justice to all and unfairness to none.”

Villar pointed to an urgent need for an independent SC in a democratic country like the Philippines whose decisions form part of the law of the land.

“Even if it seems that the Senate is the ‘last man standing’ in a pile of institutions falling down like dominoes, we are here to show that there remains an institution that is prepared and ready to defend the ideals of the Constitution,” Villar said.

Cayetano and Sen. Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino Jr., led a group of marchers from Adamson University up to SC in their “Walk for Truth” yesterday.

Present at the march were, former Vice President Teofisto Guingona, Adel Tamano UNO spokesmen, Makati Mayor Jejomar Binay, priest , nuns, workers and students from different schools, among others.

The Senate yesterday filed its MR, and one of the arguments presented in the motion was that contrary to the court’s decision, “there can be no presumption that the information withheld in the instant case is privileged.” And even if the information withheld was privileged, the motion stressed that “the constitutional right of the people to information and the constitutional policies on public accountability and transparency outweigh the claim of executive privilege.”

The motion also argued that upholding the claim of executive privilege in the case “would seriously impair the respondents’ (senators) performance of their primary function to enact laws.”

“In upholding the claim of executive privilege to shield the President against what was perceived to be undue encroachment by respondents, the majority opinion effectively rendered the Senate and its Committees inutile to inquire into actions of the President which are clearly relevant to issues of profound national concern and which are evidently necessary to craft much-needed legislation to address such issues,” the motion said.

By Angie M. Rosales With Pat Santos and Ariane Karlo F. Sacamos

Bookmark to: