The following are some of the (loose) notes I gathered from the talk. Part One HERE.
Next, Atty. Mendoza
discussed whether the 1987 Constitution strengthened the judiciary and gave the
Supreme Court a higher degree of independence from politics. He first discussed
that in the 1935 Constitution, the members of the Supreme Court were appointed
by the President, with the consent of the Commission of Appointments (1 Chief
Justice, 10 Associate Justices). In the 1973 Constitution, they were appointed
by the President alone (1 Chief Justice, 14 Associate Justices). In the 1987
Constitution, they are appointed by the President based on 3 nominees prepared
by the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC). The question is, who are the members of
the JBC, he said. This change in the 1987 Constitution, he thinks, made the
power to make the appointments in the JBC and in turn, the SC, vested in the “number
1 pulitiko in the country” – the President. Hence, is the SC really independent
from politics? He thinks that at least in the manner provided by the 1935
Constitution, there will be a sort of compromise (given the requirement for
Comm.on Appointment’s approval). He thinks that many of the provisions in the new
constitution were “written out of reality”, and did not think of them “in
practical and realistic terms”. Theoretically, the justices in the Supreme
Court, when appointed, should not think of themselves as “appointees”.
Answer: I cannot say I am
a product of the Marcos period. I learned to be a better advocate - that is the
legacy I obtained from Marcos. [He had] some fatal mistakes he committed at the
end of his term. But he was a brilliant leader. I want to emphasize this - when
Marcos appoints people, the first consideration is their competence for the
position. The fact that they were allies is not [primary].When he appointed me,
it was only a coincidence that he’s my fraternity brother. Ninoy is our
fraternity brother. Capability and confidence [is what he’s looking for]. I
believe the Marcos cabinet is the best compared to the other cabinets.
9th UP Law Centennial Lecture
"The 1987 Constitution: A Marcos Legacy?"
by Atty. Estelito Mendoza UP Law cum laude '52, Harvard LLM '54, member of the UP Law Centennial Commission
Part Two:
Atty. Mendoza continued
his lecture on whether judicial power, in relation to the doctrine of
separation of powers, is indeed the weakest (compared to the plenary power of
the legislative and the executive). In the case of judicial power, emphasis is
placed on the definition of jurisdiction of the courts in the constitution –
everything starts in “ALL CASES””. So if there is no case or petition, then it
is beyond the scope of judicial power, he said. The exercise of judicial power
cannot be on their (court’s) own volition, it needs to be triggered by a case.
However, by virtue of the second par. in Sec. 3, Art. VIII of the 1987
Constitution, the presence of a case whenever any instrumentality of the government
commits grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction,
the limits on judicial power has been obfuscated and blurred by the Supreme
Court. He said, whether the plaintiff is a real party in interest is hardly
given relevance these days by the SC. Even when the Court has explicitly
conceded the inadequacy of the legal standing of a petitioner, the SC
nonetheless exercises its power and gives cognizance to the petition – an
example of which is the petition to declare the Baselines Act unconstitutional
(on a personal note: I was one of the
petitioners in this case, our class in Public International Law under Prof.
Harry Roque helped draft and file this petition). Another example which
Atty. Mendoza gave is the petition to nullify the impeachment complaint against
Chief Justice Davide, wherein there were 18 cases filed by 103 petitioners,
none of which include the real party-in-interest: Chief Justice Davide. He said
that he was an amicus curiae in this case, and he thought that some of the
justices who did not take part in deciding the case exercised a “better act of
prudence”.
He added that the 1987
Constitution expanded the scope of judicial power and it enabled just about anybody
to trigger a case (I guess on the relaxed
rules on standing). He said that in the 1935 and the 1973 Constitution,
government can invoke the political question doctrine and the SC will not act
on the petition. He said that “it is my view that the judiciary, particularly
the
SC, has become the
ombudsman of the government, esp. on acts amounting to GADALEJ. They are
certainly not the weakest department of the government”. (DITTO)
He also discussed about
the perceived function of the Supreme Court. He thinks that the SC’s primordial
function is the enforcement of the Bill of Rights. The irony is, the Supreme
Court as protector of the Bill of the Rights in a democracy, the members of
which are not elected by the people.
On whether former Pres
Estrada has resigned or ceased to become the President, he thinks that the SC
has engaged in a political question in that case. He personally did not believe
that Erap has resigned, the way he was ousted from office during EDSA Dos. When
Chief Justice Davide took former Pres. GMA’s oath at EDSA, he thinks that it is
the “worst thing that the SC has done”, creating the perception that the SC has
become political.
He also cited the case of
Javellana v. Executive Secretary, where as SolGen he took on the political
question defense. He said that it was the most difficult case, but the most
memorable case he has handled – they had oral arguments in the Supreme Court
for 5 straight days, he said. Then he said this – “if we lost that case, what
would have happened?”
Atty. Mendoza also
discussed that the power of judicial review was drastically changed in the 1987
Constitution by virtue of the provision that SC cases will be decided by the “concurrence
of majority of members who actually took part in the deliberations” without
explicitly providing the number required. Thus, there are situations when the
constitutionality of a law is decided by a single vote [difference], he said.
Then he exclaimed, “why should a constitutionality of a law be decided by a
single vote? A law is the most vital function of the legislative dept and this should
not be taken lightly.”
Atty. Mendoza made some
suggestions at the end of his lecture. But, he said, in considering his
suggestions, one must note that he has never been a judge but he has been an
advocate and litigator for almost 60 years. First, he suggested that the
Supreme Court should only be en banc, with only 11 members including the Chief
Justice. The members of the Supreme Court should also deliberate before they
vote because in deliberation, the justices will have all the necessary documents
and study the cases in order to ask intelligent questions during oral
arguments. "Very frankly", he said, “I do
not think this is happening simply because of the number of cases the SC has.” "This
is unpardonable", he said. The bigger problem, he adds, is that while the SC
realizes this, he does “not see any perceptible move on the part of the SC to
solve this problem.” An example – the Webb case. Hubert Webb was detained for
15 years, and most of that time was spent while the case was pending in the
Supreme Court. He added that the Webb case is not an isolated case. He said
that there must be a solution, even if it is drastic and radical. He goes on to
explain the experience and practice in the Supreme Court of the United States. He
narrates that the US SC receives around 10,000 petitions every year, around the
same number or even greater than our SC. What do they do, he said. “They weed
out all petitions, keep around a 100 or a little more and hear all the
remaining in oral arguments.” He said that maybe the SC
could put more faith and trust in the CA, and the former must only address the
more important cases. The US SC, he said, meets in conference and vote in the
result and only after a vote will a decision be penned. He adds, “Personally, i
envy those whose cases are argued there. When a case is argued, then you are
assured that all the members of the court know the case. They will prepare,
listen and ask questions. The problem in the Philippines, he said, is that only
prominent cases are heard and argued en banc."
He ended his lecture by
quoting the famous lines by Oliver Wendell Holmes posted at the UP Law lobby,
and saying that he is proud to be a lawyer, an attorney, a graduate of the
college.
"Thank you UP Law,
happy birthday" – Atty. Estelito Mendoza.
=======================
Q & A portion –
This was really difficult, since the questions were
written on a piece of paper and it wasn’t read aloud before it was given to
Atty. Mendoza. It’s like the show Jeopardy- what’s the question to this answer? So bear with me on this.
Answer: When I appear for
this [prominent] people, I do not charge them. I appeared for Erap in the
impeachment court - no fee. I appeared for FPJ - no fee. I appeared for Mrs.
Marcos - no fee.I am now appearing for Pres. Arroyo. They are all out of power
now. (Laughter) I do not particularly
choose them. When I became a lawyer for Mr Cojuangco and Mr. Tan, they were the
targets of the government then. It just happens that they become privileged
after I win the case (more laughter).
Answer: If I could have
been a justice - he [Pres. Marcos] did not appoint me unless I suggest a
replacement as SolGen. I did not particularly aspire to be a member of the SC.
Question: What happened
during martial law?
Answer: Well, that is a long
story (A lot of laughter).Pres.
Marcos declared martial law after a careful and long assessment…assessed carefully
the pulse of the people. That is why when he arrested leaders of the
opposition, there was no uprising. There was acceptance immediately after the
declaration.
Q: What case is most
painful to you?
A: I have not lost any
significant case. (chuckles)
Answer: To me, the
solution is to institute a system, a former President to be tried by a special
body created for that purpose. In the US, there’s an independent [council/counsel],
not appointed by the President. We must think of a way, insofar as problems like
the PGMA issue, now. For example, notwithstanding the conviction of Erap, you
still have the corruption problem. There is
a perception that the conviction is not fair and trial is not according to
facts and law. For lessons to be learned from the conviction of a past Pres- it
must be perceived as being renderd justly.
Answer: So far as my
perception, i did not know about all these money and graft of Pres. Marcos
until after EDSA. But I’m convinced that he declared martial law not to obtain
money.
I think he honestly
intended to establish a new society.
=========
Other quotable quotes that
day –
I will not say that age is
catching up with me. I have grown older, but not necessarily old.
Litigation is like tennis,
you have two win 2 consecutive points.
=======
Disclaimer: These are just loose notes from the lecture that I got. I certainly did not get everything Atty. Mendoza said. I hope that I got some good parts though, and I REALLY hope I quoted him correctly. I am posting this for those who were not able to attend but would love to know what the lecture was about.Yay to academic freedom! Haha! Please don't quote this post. I don't want to get sued on this, if ever there's something worth suing about (which I don't think exists). Hehe. thanks!
No comments:
Post a Comment