Solon assails SC’s decision on PDAF

Manila, Philippines – A senior administration congressman is dangling an impeachment threat against Supreme Court justices following the issuance of two recent rulings that allegedly reversed its previous decisions on the same legal controversies.

In a privilege speech delivered Tuesday, Mindoro Oriental Rep. Reynaldo Umali provided the lone voice in the wilderness in assailing the unanimous Supreme Court ruling on the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF).

Umali also chided the High Court for its ruling on the election protest against Marinduque Rep. Regina Ongsioco Reyes who is being ordered to vacate her post in favor of rival, former Rep. Lord Alan Velasco, son of SC Associate Presbitero Velasco.

‘Instances Of Despotism’

A close associate and Liberal Party colleague of President Benigno S. Aquino III, Umali recounted various “instances of despotism” allegedly demonstrated by the High Court in issuing controversial rulings.

“We must not let these magistrates sit on their iron thrones for a minute longer. They must know where they stand and if they will continue to lord over the foundations of our great Republic, then they only deserve to be impeached,” Umali told his colleagues.

He added: “Let us not allow a co-equal branch of government to emasculate.”

The Mindoro solon said he decided to take the floor to “defend the fundamental law of the land against judicial despots,” referring to the members of the High Court.

Umali’s protest was clearly the first to be registered against the High Court’s decision on PDAF, which has earned strong public support.

Flip-Flopping

Umali, a member of the powerful Commission on Appointments, assailed the tribunal for its alleged flip-flopping decisions on the PDAF and Reyes-Velasco case that disrespected Congress as a co-equal branch.

Umali recounted various “instances of despotism” allegedly demonstrated by the High Tribunal. Among them are the walkout of former Chief Justice Renato Corona during the impeachment hearings in the Senate and the “hastily issued” Temporary Restraining Order preventing the Lower House from inviting former Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez who was then under impeachment probe.

“Not contented with its despotic tendencies, the Supreme Court strikes again by undermining its counterpart branches of government this time, both the legislative and the executive in flip-flopping fashion,” he said.

Umali said the High Court flip-flopped in its 12-0 ruling against the constitutionality of the PDAF.

“This is quite perplexing because, about a year earlier, the same Supreme Court, in the case of Lawyers Against Monopoly and Poverty (LAMP) vs Department of Budget and Management with (G.R. No. 164987) promulgated on April 24, 2012, declared the Priority Development Assistance Fund as constitutional,” he pointed out.

“Now I ask – why the flip-flop?” asked Umali. “Whatever happened to the doctrine of stare decisis or ‘adherence to precedents when just a year ago the same court ruled the PDAF is constitutional?”

He said, “Mr. Speaker, if this is not despotic behavior, I don t know what is!”

Independent Powers

Umali also chided the High Court for disqualifying Reyes as elected congresswoman of Marinduque.

“Accordingly, Representative Reyes now sits as member of this August Chamber, but some magistrates resolved to disqualify her on technical grounds, again in utter disregard of the doctrine of stare decisis and disrespect to the separate and independent powers of the House of Representatives, again in flip-flopping fashion,” he said.

Citing the case Jalosjos Jr. vs Comelec, Umali said the High Court settled the question of jurisdiction over post congressional electoral protest which rightfully belongs to the House of Representatives Electoral 

Tribunal.

“The proclamation of a congressional candidate following the election divests Comelec of jurisdiction over disputes relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the proclaimed Representative in favor of the HRET,” he pointed out.

The administration lawmaker also recalled the electoral protest filed by fellow LP member, Quezon congressional candidate Toby Tañada against proclaimed Rep. Angelina Tan, in which the SC ruled that the protest should be resolved by the HRET.

“The High Court recognizes HRET jurisdiction in the case of Representative Tan but not in the case of Representative Reyes. Where lies the difference?” stated Umali.

He added: “What moved the Supreme Court to railroad a decision which negates established jurisprudence, in flip-flopping fashion at that and perceived to benefit the son of a sitting magistrate as noted by a colleague in the Supreme Court is beyond comprehension.”

Basahin dito:http://www.mb.com.ph/solon-assails-scs-decision-on-pdaf/