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