|
Judicial Lessons for the Philippines |
|
Written by Marites Dañguilan Vitug
|
|
Wednesday, 10 March 2010 |
 Arroyo seeks security through a midnight Supreme Court appointment
What has happened in two countries recently must be giving Philippine
President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo the chills. In January, Pakistan's
Supreme Court ordered the government to reopen cases against President
Asif Ali Zardari, citing Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos and
other heads of state who were taken to court to answer corruption
charges. The Supreme Court asked the government to account for US$600
million in Zardari's bank accounts in Switzerland.
The Court
also threw out an amnesty that shielded hundreds of powerful Pakistanis
from prosecution. What is remarkable about Pakistan is that the court
is going after a sitting president and other powerful officials.
In another part of the world, a Peruvian Supreme Court three-member
panel in April 2009 sentenced former President Alberto Fujimori to 25
years in prison for his involvement in a military death squad during a
conflict with guerrillas in the 1990s. The verdict came after more than
a year of trial that was broadcast on national television.
"Justice was finally delivered—by one of our own courts," wrote Maria
McFarland Sanchez-Moreno of Human Rights Watch. "This suggests that
next time Peruvians may be able to put their trust in democratic
institutions."
Segue to the Philippines, where President Gloria
Macapagal Arroyo is seeking to appoint a successor to Chief Justice
Reynato Puno, who is to step down on May 17 –seven days after Arroyo's
successor is elected to office in national polls. There is a
constitutional ban on appointments 60 days before elections. Her term
officially ends on June 30. The law is meant to avoid vote-buying and
seeking favors through appointments.
In the light of the
actions in Pakistan and Peru, it is easy to see why President Arroyo
insists on appointing the next chief justice. The favor is to herself.
On
Monday, former government officials and members of reformist groups,
along with law students, joined what was called a "solidarity march" to
urge the sitting court not to grant a petition that would allow Arroyo
the power to appoint the next chief justice. The protesters included a
chapter of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, the National Union of
People's Lawyers, Akbayan and staff of the University of the
Philippines Collegian as well as a flock of other groups.
It is
now up to the Supreme Court, which Arroyo has already packed with her
appointees, to decide this issue. People who know Mrs. Arroyo say it's
really all about fear. On two grounds—human rights violations and
corruption— Arroyo may find herself vulnerable. Arroyo's presidency has
been mired with corruption scandals. It was also during her term that
the number of extra-judicial killing of activists increased.
In
particular, a long series of scandals have been laid directly at
Arroyo's doorstep. In one, the government was forced to abandon the
US$330 million National Broadband Project to connect all government
agencies across the country after testimony emerged that top officials
close to Arroyo – including her husband, Mike, had accepted millions of
pesos in bribes from ZTE Corp. to build the network. In another,
millions of pesos were allegedly diverted from the country's fertilizer
fund to help farmers into Arroyo's 2006 election campaign.
As
to human rights violations, rights groups alleged as many as 800
leftist sympathizers were assassinated during her presidency when she
set out to crack down on the New People's Army and other leftist
groups. Some 51 were assassinated in the first half of 2006 alone. The
murders were condemned in a strongly worded report by Amnesty
International.
In neither case – corruption or the human
rights violations – have the courts brought members of Arroyo's
government to book or charged her directly. In the ZTE scandal, the
Supreme Court refused to hear three petitions dealing with the matter.
The
experiences of Pakistan and Peru should be helpful for human rights and
public-interest law groups that plan to file suits versus the president
and her family soon after she steps down – should they get the chance.
Personalities
on the Court matter a lot as well. It has been the tradition to appoint
the most senior as chief justice. That would be the feisty Antonio
Carpio, who has shown his independence in various decisions, especially
when he thwarted President Arroyo's allies' move to amend the
Constitution and extend their terms and that of Mrs. Arroyo.
However,
Arroyo's most likely choice for chief justice is Renato Corona, the
next most senior member of the court – and also her former chief of
staff and spokesman. He is obviously a loyal ally. His voting record on
the Court speaks for itself; he shares top billing with a couple of
other justices when it comes to voting to defend Arroyo.
Chief
Justice Reynato Puno, for his part, is far from Pakistan's Chief
Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. Puno has not taken a position on
this raging controversy. Compare this to Chaudhry, who, just a few
weeks ago, clashed with President Zardari over the appointment of a
Supreme Court member. Zardari backed down, withdrew his choice and
submitted a candidate whom Chaudhry did not oppose.
Still,
what has happened in Pakistan and Peru has hit close to home. These
countries' experiences are telling us that our own legal systems—led by
the Supreme Court—could take on the powerful, provided they get the
chance and provided that Arroyo is not allowed to make a midnight
appointment of the new chief justice.
The author is a journalist. Her most recent book is "Shadow of Doubt: Probing the Supreme Court."
 |
Politics 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Show/Hide comments
Show/Hide comment form
The grim truth of war remains: hearts and minds are lost in the campaign to get the enemy by the balls
Reflecting on an unlikely leader's quiet rise in a troubled country
