Abusadong Supreme Court

KUNG minsan hindi natin masisisi itong si PNoy kung bakit madalas siyang nagmamarkulyo dahil sa pakikialam ng Supreme Court. Sadya naman kasing kapag minsan (hindi naman palagi) ay may mga bagay na nanghihimasok ang ating mga hukuman kahit wala na ito sa lugar.

Maliwanag po sa ating Saligang Batas na pantay-pantay o co-equal ang ating ehekutibo, ang ating hudikatura at ang ating lehislatura. Ngunit tila ang nangyayari ngayon ay pinakialaman na lahat ng Korte Suprema ang bawat aksyon at desisyon ng ehekutibo at ng lehislatura kahit hindi na ito itinatadhana ng kanilang kapangyarihan sa ilalim ng ating Saligang Batas.

Ang masaklap, tila wala namang kapangyarihan ang alinman sa dalawang sangay ng ating pamahalaan ang may kapangyarihang supilin ang anomang pang-aabuso ng ating mga hukom.

Isang napakagandang halimbawa itong electoral protest sa Marinduque na isinampa laban kay Congresswoman Regina Reyes na bagama’t ito ay isang isyung politikal ay pinanghihimasukan din ng hudikatura.

Ito’y kahit napakalinaw na may conflict of interest ang isa sa Senior Justices dahil anak nito ang tinalo ni Reyes. Hindi ba alam ito ni Supreme Court Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno?

Abah naman, Chief Justice, bakit mo naman pinapayagan na gamitin sa politika ang hudikatura at pinapayagan mong baluktutin ang buod at sustansya ng ating mga batas?

Isang magandang halimbawa itong kaso ni Reyes na ang isa sa kanyang mga naging katunggali sa nakalipas na halalan ay ang anak ni Senior Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco na si Lord Allan Jay Velasco.

Bagama’t ang pagtakbo ni Reyes ay pilit na hinarang ni Velasco gamit ang isyu sa kanyang citizenship ay inilampaso ni Reyes si Velasco.

Nagprotesta ang kampo ni Velasco na gumamit pa ng ibang tao upang harangin ang pag-upo ni Reyes subalit dahil tapos na ang halalan, malinaw na malinaw sa ating batas na ang responsibilidad ng pagpapasya sa mga election protest sa Mababang Kapulungan ay nakaatang sa balikat ng House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET).

Malinaw sa ating Saligang Batas sa ilalim ng Section 17, Article 6 na tanging ang HRET lamang ang may kapangyarihang magpasya sa anomang mga protesta na may kinalaman sa isang halal na kongresista. Sa kaso ng mga Senador, ito ay dadaan naman sa Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET).

In short, ang mga isyung gaya ng protesta laban kay Reyes ay maaari lamang desisyonan ng HRET. 

Ngunit tila hindi ito tanggap ng Korte Suprema at pilit na binabaliktad ang desisyon ng HRET. Ito naman ang hihimayin natin sa ikalawang bahagi ng isyung ito.

-------

Para sa inyong komento at suhestyon, mag-email lamang sa gil.bugaoisan@gmail.com.BIGWAS/GIL BUGAOISAN

Was SC justice partial in BCDA-SM Land issue?

Marites Dañguilan Vitug

Published 10:26 AM, Oct 31, 2014

Facing the Supreme Court are questions on a justice’s integrity, judicial overreach, and military modernization. Justice Presbitero Velasco is suspected of being biased and partial to SM Land Inc.

MANILA, Philippines – A multi-billion-peso prime property, stretching to 33 hectares in the upscale Bonifacio Global City, is at the center of a dispute before the Supreme Court. This case has raised issues far beyond the sprawling piece of real estate: a justice’s integrity, judicial overreach, and the modernization of the military.

At odds here are SM Land Inc and the Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA). The giant developer sued BCDA in January 2013 for supposedly changing the rules late in the day, from a competitive challenge to public bidding, when SM Land was already deep in negotiations with the government agency over its unsolicited proposal. SM Land cried foul, saying that the BCDA had violated a contract.

SM Land offered to pay P38,500 per square meter or a total of P12.7 billion.

In August 2014, the Supreme Court (SC) ruled in favor of SM Land. SC Justice Presbitero Velasco, chairman of the 3rd Division, penned the decision, arguing that SM Land “has the right to a completed competitive challenge…” citing joint venture guidelines of government and BCDA’s acceptance of SM Land’s unsolicited proposal. Three voted with Velasco – Justices Diosdado Peralta, Martin Villarama, Jose Mendoza – while one dissented, Justice Marvic Leonen.

SC Justice Presbitero Velasco issued 3 versions of a TRO stopping the BCDA from proceeding with the public bidding. All of these were dated on the same day, January 9, 2013, and received by the BCDA on 3 separate days.

Leonen found the majority’s decision narrow. He cast the spotlight on public interest, saying that government is not “contractually bound to complete the competitive challenge…In a situation where there can be many possible bidders where the first offer is lower than the potential floor for open competitive bidding may be disadvantageous to public interest.”

The BCDA claimed at the time that it could get a minimum bid of P40,000 per square meter, higher than that of SM Land’s, through public bidding.

The property up for privatization is occupied by the Bonifacio Naval Station and the Marines.

Red flag: 3 TROs

Something strange, however, happened on the way to this decision. Velasco issued 3 versions of a TRO stopping the BCDA from proceeding with the public bidding. All of these were dated on the same day, January 9, 2013, and received by the BCDA on 3 separate days. We obtained copies of these TROs.

The first version directed the BCDA to carry out the TRO…”until further orders from the Court.” BCDA received this on January 9, 2013.

The next day, another TRO was sent to BCDA, sounding more urgent. It added a new phrase, “effective immediately” and retaining “until further orders from this court.” This time, the process server asked the BCDA if he could pull out the documents he had given them the previous day. In its motion for reconsideration (MR), the BCDA narrated that it refused, finding the whole thing “curious.”

That was not the end of it. On January 11, 2013, a 3rd and final version of the TRO reached the BCDA. It was practically the same as the second version.

“The ruse attempted by the Process Server, coupled with the several variants of the same order, give Respondents cause for concern,” the BCDA said. “…the Process Server’s bid to recall the original order that was served is stealthy and highly irregular, a subterfuge unbecoming of such an august institution.”

We asked lawyers if the issuance of multiple versions of a TRO is common. They say this is unusual, a rarity in the annals of the Philippine Supreme Court.

Accountability

The BCDA filed a motion to inhibit, asking Velasco to recuse himself because they deemed him no longer impartial. Using strong language, the BCDA said, “…the haste and the reckless manner by which the TROs were served and re-served create an impression of bias and manifest partiality in the minds of the respondents and erode their faith in the Honorable Court.”

The Court denied this.

The BCDA pinned accountability solely on the head of the 3rd Division, who has the power to issue TROs. But it triggers questions about how the Court works.

Normally, majority in the Court, whether division or en banc, approve TROs. Was the decision to issue a TRO subjected to a discussion in the division? Could the issuance of incorrect TROs have been avoided?

The public will most likely not get answers to these questions because internal deliberations of the Court are kept confidential.

Judicial overreach

In its MR filed in September 2014, the BCDA broadened its case with a new argument: that the Court has encroached upon the powers of the executive. It built its case by showing that questions hounded the integrity of the previous process and that it was within the powers of the Office of the President to “exercise control” over all the executive departments – including changing the mode of disposition of government properties.

‘…the haste and the reckless manner by which the TROs were served and re-served create an impression of bias and manifest partiality in the minds of the respondents and erode their faith in the Honorable Court.’ – BCDA

When he took over, President Aquino suspended the privatization and development of the 33-hectare property via competitive challenge or “Swiss Challenge” as part of a wide-ranging policy review and due diligence process. Fort Bonifacio was not singled out; the Food Terminal Inc complex and the Subic-Clark-Tarlac Expressway were subjected to the same rigor.

In 2012, Aquino decided that the Bonifacio property should be opened to public bidding.

In its narration, the BCDA said that “a shadow was cast on the integrity of the process” because the previous board appeared to have rushed approval of the unsolicited proposal of SM Land days before the May 2010 elections.

“The undue haste by which the award was made was a cause for concern of the newly appointed directors and for President Aquino himself,” the BCDA wrote.

Moreover, the offer of SM Land was way below the market value of the land. The BCDA cited the recent appraisal by Cuervo Appraisers placing the cost of each square meter at P78,000. Besides, the BCDA pointed out, SM Land can participate anew, this time in a public bidding.

Fund for armed forces

Another factor that gives this case a sharp public-interest dimension is the beneficiary of the sale: the military. A substantial chunk of the billions of pesos that will be generated from the privatization will be used to modernize the Armed Forces. (50% of the income will go to the AFP and an equal amount to the BCDA.)

This issue gains more traction as the security situation in Southeast Asia remains volatile in the light of China flexing its muscles.

The Department of National Defense has asked the Court permission to intervene; this has yet to be acted upon.

In its “comment in intervention,” the DND said it will be “heavily injured” by SM Land’s petition. It asked the Court to lift the TRO.

En banc case?

With all these issues swirling over the case, the BCDA asked the 3rd Division to refer it to the en banc. In 2013, the 3rd Division denied the BCDA’s motion, but it persisted and filed an MR which remains unresolved to this day.

The BCDA said that the suit filed by SM Land involves the constitutionality of a presidential order and, as such, should be decided by the en banc, as the Constitution provides. The internal rules of the Court echo this.

In past practice, a vote of 3 out of 5 members of a Division is needed to elevate a case to the en banc. This rule is currently being reviewed by the Court.

In a separate move, BCDA CEO Arnel Casanova wrote all the justices early October requesting them to take up the case. “The peculiarities of the case, public interest, the Constitution and the Internal Rules of the Supreme Court allow this,” he wrote in an 8-page letter, copies of which were given to President Benigno Aquino III and Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin.

“SMLI [SM Land Inc] is effectively calling on the Honorable Court to diminish the President’s exercise of his power of control,” Casanova said. “There is no doubt that the issue under question here is the …validity of President Aquino’s order…to terminate the competitive challenge process and instead proceed with a public and transparent bidding…to best serve the interest of government.” –

Rappler.com

Editor's Note: Marites Vitug has written extensively on the Supreme Court, and has written 3 books on it. She obtained information on her own, independent of her spouse who is a part-time consultant with the BCDA.

President Benigno Aquino III sinagot ang issue tungkol sa kaso ni Congw. Regina Reyes

Sinagot ng ating Pangulong Benigno Aquino III ang lahat ng binato sa kanyang katanungan ng miyembro ng media sa katatapos pa lamang na Presidential Forum of the Foreign Correspondents Association of the Philippines sa Marco Polo Hotel, Ortigas City.

Nagbigay din ng commento ang ating Pangulo ukol sa kaso ng ating Congresswoman Regina O. Reyes.

Sa ika - 20m:18s ng video:

Jona Julagan: 

We're are we in the process of trying to amend the constitution and a year and half before the elections and do you think that there is anything do-able, you know given the time you have?

An then the second question is again in South China Sea, What efforts we are undertake during the ASEAN Meeting in Nipedo next month to push for the triple action plan of the Philippines and second question, could you update us what exactly is happening in West Philippine Sea or in South China Sea? Thank you!

President Benigno Aquino:

Yeah Let me try to answer all your three questions in sequence.

Well. you would want me to discuss my main issue with the Constitution is the concept of Judicial Over Reach? Its kinda invovle the discussion of if you want to hear it? Thats the first Priority for me.

Actually brought my old copy of the Constitution Case you also want to qouted, but bottomline is this. Judicial Overreach, let me give you a few examples. There was a case pending before the Reyes vs COMELEC, it was a petition for certurary.

The issue was a Congresswoman Reyes was disqualifed by COMELEC, primarily for lack of residency. So she went to Supreme Court, Now she was aready Proclaimed, she was a sitting member of Congress and under the Constitution, it is the House of Representative Eelectoral Tribunal that can decide on the questions with regards amongst other things, qualifications of thier respective members.

22:34

Supreme Court 1st resolution was an Outright Dismissal of Reyes petition of certiorari and affirmation of COMELEC's final decision.

The 2nd Supreme Court resolution is ... Motion of Reconsideration.

Now its our position, and although is a two separate branches of ours that out Constitution is very explicit that the HRET that can and is sole judge determining the contest. So the proper course of action should have been let the HRET finish his job and if there is grave abuse of discretion then that will be there opportunity time to SC to intervene.

But the HRET, i understand has not yet finish its job and already have ruling questioning the ruling ...

Another instance is before our term the court order the MMDA and various local government unit and the DENR to undertake the manila bay clean up that was in effect that the powers of the President has the general supervision over the executive branch that is told by out lawyers that is normally not done as the court what cannot order separate and district branch for performage function.

And of course about the DAP that's the other issue there is 116 instances where DAP was used and the SC is the trial of facts, and the facts have should be accereted by the lower courts.

So rendering the decision that there were no facts where being judge by the Supreme Court and yet we have this ruling on DAP, and then among the technicalities our lawyers are pointing out to the evidence that was presented to the Supreme Court consisted of parang material solicited from the internet which in violation of the rules.

Normally a fact to be establish has to be brought before a court where in the opposing council can crossed examine the expert and the witnesses. yung something driven from the in internet...

So again to direct answer your question is on going study what is precisely what to put in, in the propose Constitutional Amendment to strike a balance between the previous position of the Supreme Court during the martial law years to seemingly overreaching that is happening in this particular day time. There has to be a find balance between the two and that is still subject to the study. 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Noy wants judiciary powers clipped before term ends

MANILA, Philippines - President Aquino declared yesterday that the only thing that motivates him to push for amendments to the Constitution is to have the powers of the judiciary clipped, at least before he steps down in June 2016.

During the question and answer portion of the annual forum hosted by the Foreign Correspondents Association of the Philippines (Focap), Aquino repeated his plans of making the Supreme Court reminiscent to that of the late strongman Ferdinand Marcos.

“My main issue with the Constitution is the concept of judicial overreach. It’s kind of involved a discussion, if you want to hear it. That is the first priority for me,” the President said in answer to a question about his stand on Charter change.

“The direct answer to the question is there’s still an ongoing study precisely what to put in into the proposed constitutional amendment to strike a balance between the previous position of the Supreme Court during the martial law years,” Aquino added.

He said there has to be a “fine balance” between the powers of the executive and the judiciary which, according to him, is still subject of a study.

In late August, Aquino made it clear that he wants the judiciary’s review powers stopped.

He said there has to be a limit to the powers of the judiciary.

“The judicial reach, it should be subject to a review and limitations,” Aquino told veteran radio broadcaster Elmar Acol of Bombo Radyo Philippines during an interview in Malacañang.

Aquino, who has been very vocal about his displeasure over the high court’s unanimous decision striking down his Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP) for its patent illegality, said this should be the focus when amendments are introduced to the Constitution.

Although there was no direct statement, there was nonetheless an implied or subliminal message that he wanted a judiciary not too meddlesome in the affairs of state, particularly if these involve political questions.

“What is the definition of judicial reach? During the martial law years the same question was asked whether martial law was legal and this was asked before the Supreme Court. The court’s answer was ‘we cannot intervene, that is a political question’,” Aquino said in Filipino.

In yesterday’s Focap forum, Aquino again cited the DAP case where the SC voted unanimously in July to declare the stimulus fund scheme unconstitutional and several more cases where, he said, the SC should not have invoked jurisdiction.

Aquino then mentioned the case of Reyes versus Comelec (Commission on Elections) where the SC still took cognizance of the electoral protest case when the Constitution is very specific that only the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal has jurisdiction over such cases.

Incumbent Marinduque Rep. Regina Reyes belongs to the administration Liberal Party, and she is the sister of former Marinduque congressman Edmund Reyes, whom Aquino appointed as head of the Toll Regulatory Board.

Ms. Reyes’ victory is being questioned by her political rival, former Marinduque Rep. Lourd Allan Velasco, son of SC Senior Justice Presbitero Velasco.

“These are two separate and co-equal branches to ours – but the Constitution is very explicit. It’s the HRET that can or is the sole judge. Let the HRET finish its job, and if there was grave abuse of discretion, then that would be the time for the SC to intervene,” he said.

Courtesy of PhilStar

HRET Upholds its Jurisdiction, Rejects Encroachment by Supreme Court

            The House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal rejected the Supreme Court’s encroachment into its sole and exclusive prerogative and upheld its jurisdiction over the disqualification cases against Representative Regina O. Reyes of the lone Congressional District of Marinduque Province. In a Resolution dated September 11, 2014, the HRET dismissed the petition-in-intervention of Victor Vela Sioco insofar as it sought to dismiss the disqualification cases against Rep. Reyes and for the HRET to recognize the ruling of the Supreme Court in Reyes vs. COMELEC issued last June 25, 2013.

            Echoing Section 17, Article VI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution which it deems “clear and requires no further statutory construction,” the HRET said that the “power to decide over cases involving the election, returns and qualifications of Members of the House of Representatives solely belongs to this Tribunal.” It said that the petitioners in the quo warranto cases against Rep. Reyes questioning her eligibility recognized the jurisdiction of the Tribunal when they filed the petitions with the HRET.

            The Tribunal branded as “highly illogical” and “absurd” the ruling in Reyes vs. COMELEC requiring Rep. Reyes to file a quo warranto petition with the HRET against herself such that she could not have included in her Petition with the Supreme Court against the COMELEC the issue of the validity of her proclamation and the Supreme Court could not therefore have validly ruled on said issue. The HRET observed that the “Supreme Court was only tasked if the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion when it issued the aforementioned resolutions,” “it was never obligated, empowered or petitioned to decide on the eligibility of Respondent (Reyes),” it “never acquired jurisdiction over the eligibility of the Respondent” and “any resolution issued by the High Court involving the eligibility of the Respondent could not overrule or undermine the exclusive and original jurisdiction of this Tribunal.”

            It declared that the “proclamation of the candidate is the operative fact that serves as the demarcation line separating the jurisdiction of the Comelec and the HRET” and it is the proclamation that “vests exclusive and original jurisdiction to the HRET, to exclusion of judicial and quasi-judicial entities including the Supreme Court.” Such exclusive and original jurisdiction includes the determination of the validity or invalidity of the proclamation of a candidate for the position of Member of the House of Representatives.

            The Tribunal observed that it is undisputed that the May 14, 2013 Resolution of the Comelec was issued one (1) days after the election and Rep. Reyes was proclaimed on May 18, 2013 before the May 14, 2013 became final and executory. Citing the case of Gonzales vs. Comelec, the Tribunal said that such proclamation of “the winning candidate disvests the COMELEC of its jurisdiction over matters pending before it at the time of the proclamation. The party questioning his qualification should now present his case in a proper proceeding before the HRET, the constitutionally mandated tribunal to hear and decide a case involving a Member of the House of Representatives with respect to the latter’s election, returns and qualifications.”

            The HRET also added that due process demands that Rep. Reyes who garnered the highest number of the votes cast during the election should be given the full opportunity to present her evidence in a court of competent jurisdiction which is the HRET. It observed that due process demands a “greater onus” on the part of the accuser to produce “competent evidence,” not merely blog entries or photocopies of documents, before she is disqualified. Neither is it satisfied by a Supreme Court ruling that extends beyond the scope of the Petition filed by Rep. Reyes, especially one that was “issued with abject haste merely 15 days from the filing of her petition for certiorari.” The Tribunal concluded that both the petitioners and the respondent are entitled to have a “final resolution” on the issue of the eligibility of Rep. Reyes by the HRET which will not be obtained by a dismissal of the petitions for quo warranto as prayed for by the intervenor.

            To do otherwise would also result in the disenfranchisement of the majority of the electorate. The Tribunal concluded that “Rather than hastily dismissing the protests and abdicate the authority, awesome responsibility and the exclusive and original jurisdiction of this Tribunal to resolve the quo warranto petitions, it is prudent, legal and just to proceed with the hearing of the petitions filed against the respondent, especially since it would be unwise for this Tribunal to be callous and lackadaisical in its determination of the merits of the petitions, considering that the results of the elections in the Lone District of Marinduque reflect the sovereign will of the people.”

            Rep. Reyes won by almost four thousand (4,000) votes in the May 2013 Congressional elections for the lone district of Marinduque Province over her closest rival, Lord Allan Jay Q. Velasco, the son of Supreme Court Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr..

Utos ng SC na patalsikin si Reyes ‘di susundin ng HRET

From L to R: Justice Diosdado Peralta, Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr., Justice Lucas Bersamin,

Rep. Luzviminda Ilagan (Gabriela party-list), Rep. Franklin Bautista (Davao del Sur), Rep. Mark Enverga (Quezon City)

Rep. Joselito Mendoza (Bulacan), Rep. Jerry Treñas (Iloilo), Rep. Ma. Theresa Bonoan (Manila) 

PANALO NI ATE GINA REYES SA HRET, 

PANALO NG BAWAT MARINDUKENYO, 

PANALO NG BAWAT PILIPINO!

Noong nakaraang Biyernes, Pinagtibay ng botong 4-3 ang Desisyon ang House of Represenatatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) na Kongreso ang tagging sangay ng pamahalaan na nararapat na mag desisyon sa usapin ng halalan sa pagkakrongrsista na malinaw na naayon sa ating Saligang Batas. Taliwas ito sa mga pahayag at desisyon na pinalabas ng Korte Suprema na halatang pumabor sa talunang kandidato na si Allan Velasco na anak ng chairman ng HRET at isa sa pinakamataas na Mahistrado ng Korte Suprema na si Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco.

Itinuwid ng HRET ang baluktot na sistema na gustong pairaling ng mga nasa Korte Suprema upang mapagbigyan lamang ang anak ng kanilang kasamahan. Ito ay malinaw na pagtatama sa mga pagmamalabis at abuso sa kapangyarihan at dahil dito, hindi si lang si Ate Gina ang panalo at makakakamit ng tunay na hustisyang ipinagkait sa kanya kundi pati ang kapwa nating mga Marindukenyo at higit sa lahat, sa ating lahat na Pilipino na nagiging biktima ng mapanggipit at mapanupil na sistema ng katarungan.

Balita mula sa Philipino Star Ngayon

Utos ng SC na patalsikin si Reyes 

‘di susundin ng HRET

MANILA, Philippines - Hindi susundin ng House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal ang kautusan ng Korte Suprema na patalsikin na bilang kinatawan ng Marinduque sa Kamara si Congw. Regina Reyes.

Ayon kay Gabriel Rep. Luz Ilagan, miyembro ng HRET, 4-3 ang naging resulta ng botohan.

Ibig sabihin, pinagtitibay ng HRET ang kanilang kapangyarihan na sila lang ang may hurisdiksyon na humawak ng mga kasong may kaugnayan sa electoral case ng mga miyembro ng mababang kapulungan ng kongreso.

Dahil rito, ang susunod na proseso aniya ay ang pagtalakay sa merito ng kaso, ito ay kung American citizen ba si Reyes o hindi.

Dito aniya bibigyan ng pagkakataon si Reyes na maidepensa ang kanyang sarili laban sa mga akusas­yon. Pagkakataon na rin ito ni Reyes para ipakita ang mga ebidensiya niya at ipagpatunay na siya ay isang Filipino citizen. Matatandaang hindi nabigyan si Congw. Reyes ng mga pagkakataong ito sa Comelec o kahit sa Supreme Court.

Ang basehan lang ng pag-disqualify kay Reyes ng Comelec ay isang blog sa internet at isang xerox copy lang ng isang pirasong dokumento mula sa Bureau of Immigration, na certified true copy. Hindi rin daw pinatawag sa hearing ng Comelec ang nag-blog sa internet, o nakapirma sa BID document upang tumestigo at magpatunay na katotohanan nga ang kanilang mga ebidensiya. Sa kaniya ngang “Dissenting Opinion,’ mismong si Chairman Sixto Brillantes ay nagsabing ang mga ebidensiya ay “double hearsay” lang.

Nagpasalamat naman si Reyes sa mga miyembro ng HRET na bumoto na itaguyod ang karapatan ng HRET na duminig ng kaso niya, sa harap ng pagpupumilit ng SC na masunod ang nauna ng desisyon nilang idisqualify na si Reyes.Pinasasalamatan din niya ang buong Kongreso, lalo pa si House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte sa mga suporta nito.

Matatandaang nanalo si Reyes ng mga 4,000 votes laban sa katunggali nito na si Lord Alan Velasco, anak ng kasalukuyang HRET Chairperson Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco ng Supreme Court..

Mindoro solon seeks replacement of HRET justices

A senior administration lawmaker on Tuesday appealed to Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno to reconsider her decision to keep three associate justices on the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) despite potential conflicts of interest involving the three.

In a statement, Oriental Mindoro Rep. Reynaldo Umali, vice chair of the House committee on justice, referred to Associate Justices Presbitero Velasco, Diosdado Peralta and Lucas Bersamin, who all sit on the HRET with lawmakers.

Umali said the justices on the HRET should be replaced not only to ensure objectivity and fairness in resolving electoral protests but also to protect the independence of the House.

He cited the case of Marinduque Rep. Regina Reyes, whose disqualification is being sought by Velasco’s son, former Marinduque congressman Lord Allan Velasco.

Reyes defeated Velasco in the 2013 elections by around 4,000 votes but Velasco’s camp had protested at the Commission on Elections (Comelec) that Reyes was a US citizen. The Comelec found merit in the protest.

The case reached the Supreme Court, which upheld the Comelec ruling that Reyes is a US citizen. Reyes, however, countered that the decisions of both the Comelec and the high court were questionable as the evidence presented consisted of passages from a blog and an unverified photocopy of a document from the Bureau of Immigration.

Mababasa dito: Inquirer.net