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.

House urged to ask SC to replace 3 justices in HRET

HRET JUSTICES (LtoR:) Justice Diosdado Peralta, Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr., Justice Lucas Bersamin

MANILA, Philippines - Marinduque Rep. Regina Reyes yesterday urged the leadership of the House of Representatives to ask Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno to replace the three Supreme Court justices sitting in the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) to protect the independence of the chamber.

Reyes made the call in her privilege speech after the SC junked her petition to disqualify Associate Justices Presbitero Velasco Jr., Diosdado Peralta and Lucas Bersamin from sitting as members of the HRET, where a disqualification complaint was lodged against her.

Velasco chairs the HRET.

The complaint alleges that Reyes is a US citizen and therefore ineligible to run for public office.

The complainant is reportedly close to Velasco’s son, former Marinduque congressman Lord Allan Velasco, who was defeated by around 4,000 votes in the 2013 congressional elections.

Reyes said she received a copy of a draft resolution on her disqualification case penned by one of the justices in the HRET that effectively unseats her and installs the younger Velasco in her place as Marinduque representative.

 “The attendant collateral damage of this ruling is its encroachment on the commencement of the terms of office of the members of Congress to the fourth Monday of July or when the Speaker administers the oath of office in open session,” she said.

The draft HRET resolution makes it possible for the Commission on Elections and the SC to retroactively annul the terms of office of members of Congress during the three-year term.

“These Supreme Court justices sitting in the HRET do not only not represent the interest of the Supreme Court, they represent far worse,” Reyes said. “The justices are castrating the powers of HRET.”

She said Velasco claims to have inhibited himself from the case involving his son.

“The chairman of the HRET who, as he steps out of the hearing chambers, reminds all the other members of the HRET that the case before them involves his very own son. Being a member of a political family involved in congressional elections as his wife is also a congresswoman, Justice Velasco’s mere chairmanship of the HRET is a conflict of interest,” Reyes noted.

She also said Bersamin not only comes from a political family in Abra, but also voted against her petition in the SC where a disqualification case was filed against her, and thus has “effectively prejudged my case, continues to sit in the HRET cases against me.”

She added that while an election case against her was pending in the SC, Peralta did not act on them. But when the House leadership appeared to be siding with her, Peralta “revived” the case against her in the HRET.

Mababasa dito. (PhilStar)

Marinduque lawmaker hits attempts to oust her

MANILA, Philippines - Marinduque Rep. Regina Reyes on Friday denounced what she described as attempts to influence members of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) to unseat her over a pending poll protest.

In a statement, Reyes said the HRET would hear her case on Aug. 28, but a draft decision is allegedly circulating among HRET members disqualifying her in favor of her rival, former congressman Lord Allan Velasco.

Velasco is the son of Supreme Court Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco, who chairs the HRET.

Reyes did not give details on how the purported draft was circulated, but claimed it was penned by an SC justice with the HRET.

Other members of the HRET are SC Associate Justices Diosdado Peralta and Lucas Bersamin, and Reps. Franklin Bautista, Joselito Andrew Mendoza, Wilfrido Mark Enverga, Luzviminda Ilagan, Ma. Theresa Bonoan and Jerry Treñas.

Reyes said a copy of the draft was given to her by a member of the House whom she refused to identify.

“This incident comes on the heels of a rumor that says a few members of the HRET were wined and dined in New York by a close relative of the Velascos,” she said.

A statement from the Philippine Consul General’s office said the HRET members visited the New York State board of elections and the Schenectady County in Albany to learn about their election rules and procedures in an automated system.

Reyes urged HRET members not to be swayed by what she described as “immoral moves of her rivals and their cohorts.”

She appealed to the HRET to allow her to testify and present evidence to prove she accomplished all requirements needed in the Marinduque congressional race.

The case against Reyes stemmed from a complaint alleging she is a US citizen.

To read more: PhilStar

Justices, solons on collision course

JUSTICES VS LAWMAKERS. There’s no love lost between the two equal branches of government—the House of Representatives and the Supreme Court of the Philippines—over several celebrated cases. INQUIRER PHOTOS

The House of Representatives and the Supreme Court are on a collision course after 169 lawmakers signed a resolution seeking to defy the order of the high court to include a son of Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr. in the congressional rolls and replace Marinduque Rep. Regina Ongsioco Reyes.

Oriental Mindoro Rep. Rey Umali said the “robust support” for his resolution showed that the lawmakers were prepared to stand up to the “bullying” of the Supreme Court.

“I believe that our members have had enough of the Supreme Court’s bullying. This time, they have overstepped their jurisdiction. We will defy them and not honor their decision,” Umali said in a phone interview.

Fifty-eight percent of the 289 House members have supported House Resolution No. 597 “reiterating adherence to the time-honored principle on the exclusivity of jurisdiction of the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) over all contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of its members to preserve the integrity, dignity and reputation of the House of Representatives and its members.”

Respect coequals

Umali said it was “about time that these despots get down from their high chair and respect their coequals in government. This is a clear show of force on our part. Please, huwag ninyong ipilit (don’t force it).”

Last Dec. 3, Umali gave a privilege speech attacking the high court’s undue interference in election-related issues, specifically the Marinduque election standoff between Representative Reyes, daughter of Marinduque Gov. Carmencita Reyes, and former Rep. Lord Alan Velasco.

Velasco has formally requested Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. to eject Reyes after the Supreme Court rejected with finality on Dec. 3 her appeal for the reversal of its ruling on June 25 last year upholding the Commission on Election’s (Comelec) decision disqualifying her.

Citizenship, residency

The Comelec canceled Reyes’ certificate of candidacy because of questions about her citizenship and her lack of residency to run for the post.

Reyes defeated then Congressman Velasco in last year’s midterm elections by a margin of roughly 3,800 votes, paving the way for her proclamation as representative of Marinduque.

Rightful House member

House leaders led by Belmonte have stood by Reyes as the rightful House member pending the resolution of Velasco’s protest with the HRET, which they argued had the constitutional mandate to rule on electoral protests filed after a winner had been proclaimed.

The HRET is composed of three associate justices of the Supreme Court and nine House members.

Umali suggested that the magistrates just respect each other’s turf. “Anyway, the Supreme Court is well represented in the HRET, so it should allow that body to decide the case.”

Umali said the court decision on Reyes contrasted sharply with a similar case in Quezon province involving another Liberal Party member, Toby Tañada, against proclaimed Rep. Angelina Tan.

“The high court recognizes HRET jurisdiction in the case of Representative Tan but not in the case of Representative Reyes. Where lies the difference?” Umali said.

Flip-flopping

In his privilege speech, Umali railed against the tribunal’s flip-flopping on the pork barrel and made a veiled threat to impeach the magistrates.

He noted that the Supreme Court had long upheld the legality of the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) but only to turn around last November and declare it unconstitutional.

He said the tribunal declared unconstitutional the PDAF largely because of the broad public opposition to the corruption-laced pork barrel system triggered by the exposé on the dubious nongovernment organizations set up by Janet Lim-Napoles, alleged mastermind of the P10-billion pork barrel scam.

Tens of thousands of people staged rallies across the country last year, the biggest of which was the “Million People March” in Rizal Park in Manila, to call for the scrapping of the PDAF.

Whistle-blowers claimed that lawmakers pocketed up to 50 percent of the projects funded by their PDAF allocation.

Before the court ruling, senators received P200 million each in annual PDAF while House members got P70 million each.

‘Playing to the crowd’

“The justices are obviously playing to the crowd to regain credibility after one of their own (former Chief Justice Renato Corona) was stripped of his robes last year,” Umali said.

The House impeached Corona and the Senate impeachment court found him guilty of one of the charges against him for not declaring his dollar holdings in his statement of assets liabilities and net worth.

“They are justices, their decision should be based on the law and not opinion polls. If they want to be popular, they should run for office first,” Umali said.

He said the recent decision of the Supreme Court to issue a temporary restraining order against the rate hike of Manila Electric Co. was another case of the magistrates’ tendency to “ride on” popular opinion.

“They are desperate to regain their credibility even at the expense of justice,” Umali said.

Read More: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/559787/justices-solons-on-collision-course#ixzz2pm63Szm6

Double flip - flop by high court

The justices of the Supreme Court have been drowning in cases. As of 2004, the last year they gave us information through the Philippine Statistical Yearbook, their case backlog (defined as case load minus case outflow) was 6,882 cases. Divide that by 15 justices, and that means an average of 458 cases each that the justices haven’t disposed of yet.

Meanwhile, new cases are coming in. Has this backlog been reduced? Not if we go by the high court’s case disposition rate (ratio of total cases decided/resolved in a year, over the total cases filed), which in 2003 and 2004 was 0.97.  For the mathematically challenged, that means the backlog is growing.

All this is by way of introduction. Each justice has so many to take charge of that he/she usually doesn’t want to get involved with someone else’s case by way of giving a dissenting or concurring opinion, unless it is of great moment. Just take a look at the decisions handed down each month (sc.judiciary.gov.ph) to see how few and far between those are.

That is why the decision in the case involving Regina O. Reyes vs. Comelec and Joseph Socorro B. Tan (GR 207264) caught my eye.  There were three dissenting opinions and two separate concurring opinions. That’s like the pork barrel case, for heaven’s sake. Not only that. What made me sit up and take notice were the names of the dissenters: Arturo Brion, Antonio Carpio, and Marvic Leonen, who I consider to be three of the high court’s intellectual heavyweights.

That was enough for me to read all the case material.

Here’s the case in a nutshell: Regina O. Reyes filed her candidacy as representative of the lone district of Marinduque in the last elections. Her candidacy was questioned by Tan, a voter and resident of the district. On what grounds? Essentially, that she lied about her civil status, her birthday, her residence, and her citizenship. He brought the case to the Commission on Elections. The Comelec found that she was a US citizen, and had not renounced her US citizenship. Therefore, the Comelec cancelled her certificate of candidacy (which means, among other things, that she is not a valid candidate, and that all the votes in her favor are “stray” votes).

Her motion for reconsideration failing in the Comelec, Reyes then filed her case in the Supreme Court, which decided in favor of the Comelec (there was no grave abuse of discretion on its part) and Tan.

Everything looks on the up and up, right?  Well, there is a glaring error. Would you believe that the Comelec decided that she was an American citizen on the basis of a blog? I kid you not. Justice Brion was brutal: “Common sense and the minimum sense of fairness dictate that an article in the Internet cannot simply  be taken to be evidence of the truth of what it says, nor can photocopies of documents not shown to be genuine be taken as proof of the ‘truth.’ To accept these materials as statements of ‘truth’ is to be partisan and to deny the petitioner her right to both procedural and substantive due process. Again, at the very least, further inquiry should have been made before there was the judgment.” Comelec Chair Sixto Brillantes had similar thoughts in his dissent.

Then there is the matter of “undue haste” on the part of the Supreme Court in making its decision (it dismissed the Reyes petition outright) on the case. Reyes filed the case against the Comelec and Tan on June 7, 2013.  The decision was handed down barely three weeks later, on June 25. The high court did not even ask the Comelec, and Tan, for their answer (as presumably is the usual procedure). Justice Brion calls the majority approach “unusual,” and their rulings “strained,” which is why he could not allow it to stand without comments. And he calls them “comments” rather than “refutations” because the latter “implies a consideration on the merits of properly submitted and debated issues, which did not happen in this case.”

Why was there this “rush to judgment” by the majority? There’s the rub. The ruling would favor the son of a member of the high court, which is why, failing all else, the high court should “at least hear and consider both sides before making the ruling,” which it did not do.

Reyes’ opponent in the Marinduque elections was Lord Allan Velasco, son of Justice Presbitero Velasco. This apparently was discussed in the deliberations of the high court, but was not mentioned in any opinion except Justice Brion’s. That has to explain the high court’s seeming imprudence.

But the story does not end there. According to Justice Carpio, the high court’s ruling is a “double flip-flop.” It reverses the “well-settled” doctrines that the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal acquires sole jurisdiction over any contest relating to the “election, returns and qualifications” of House members, and that any question on the validity of the proclamation falls under the sole jurisdiction of the HRET. Reyes was proclaimed, so the high court should have stepped back. Why didn’t it? My guess: If the HRET determines that Reyes is disqualified, Lord Allan Velasco will have no advantage, and special elections will have to be held. Whereas if the high court’s position was that the Comelec still has the power to stop her proclamation, the votes for her will be regarded as stray, and her opponent (Velasco) will win.

In other words, the high court’s decision has the effect of disenfranchising 52,209 voters who voted for Reyes, and allowing Velasco to win the elections with his 48,236 votes.

Lesson: 48,000 wins over 52,000 if the Supreme Court is on your side.

Read more: http://opinion.inquirer.net/66885/double-flip-flop-by-high-court#ixzz2mrX4kkFq 

Pakiki-alam ng Supreme Court sa talunang anak ni Justice Velasco?

Muli nanamang naglabasan sa ating mga pahayagan ang di umanoy pagkakadiskwalipika ng nag-iisang Representante ng ating lalawigan na si Congresswoman Regina Ongsiako Reyes.

Halos kada linggo nalang ay may lumalabas na bagong balita na ang natalong si Congressman Lord Allan Velasco ang uupo sa kongreso.

Ngunit hanggang kailan kaya maglalabas ang kampo ng dating Congressman ng mga mapanira at mapanlinlang na artikulo ukol dito.

Hindi na rin kasi natutuwa ang mga mamamayang Marinduqueño sa kanyang pagpilit na maka-upo para sa ika-16th Kongreso.

Maliwanag sa kanila na nanalo at mas pinili nila si Congresswoman Reyes dahil lumamang siya ng halos Apat na Libong boto noong nakaraang halalalan.

Hindi na rin lingid sa kanilang ka-alaman na ginagamit ng Pamilyang Velasco ang kanilang impluwensya upang mabaliktad ang katotohanan.

Sawang sawa narin sila sa mga balita na lumalabas sa pahayagan na nagkaroon na ng pinal na desisyon ang Korte Supreme. Alam nila na ginagamit lamang ng Pamilyang Velasco ang media upang malito ang taong bayan.

Naninindigan silang House Representative Electoral Tribunal (HRET) na ang hahawak ng kaso ng mga na-iproklama at nanalong kongresista dahil ito ay naayon sa Sanligang Batas at wala nang saysay kung anu man ang nilalabas ng Korte Suprema.

 

 

Dalawang magka-ibang desisyon ng Korte Suprema - Binatikos!

Naglabas kahapon ng desisyon ang Korte Suprema sa pangunguna ni Justice Estrela Perlas-Bernab ukol sa petisyon na isinumite ni Wigberto Tañada Jr., laban kay John Alvin Tañada at naproklamang kadidatong ng lalawigan ng Quezon na si Representative Angelina Tan.

Ayon sa Korte Suprema, ang mga kaso at reklamo tungkol sa mga nanalo at naiproklamang kongresista at hurisdiksyon na ng HRET o House of Representative Electoral Tribunal, dahil ito ang nakalagay sa ating Sanligang Batas.

mababasa dito ang buong kwento.

Ngunit kasalungat ito sa desisyon na kanilang inilabas noong nakaraang buwan na sinasabing diskwalipikado ang nanalo at proklamadong Representante ng ating lalawigan na si Congw. Regina Ongsiako Reyes dahil sa reklamong dual-citizenship.

mababasa dito ang buong kwento

Lumamang ng halos 4,000 boto noong nakaraang halalan si Congw. Reyes laban sa kanyang katungaling si Allan Jay Velasco. Prinoklama ng Comelec at sumumpa sa opisina ni House Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. 

Inakusahan noon ni Congw. Reyes si Justice Presbitero Velasco na iniimpluwesyanahan nito ang iba pang mga hukom sa Korte Suprema upang pumabor ang mga desisyon sa kanyang anak.

Kung totoo ang sinabi ni Justice Estrela Perlas - Bernab na ayon sa ating Sanligang Batas, na ang mga nanalo at proklamadong kongresista ay hurisdiksyon na ng HRET. 

Baket hindi nalang nila hayaan na ang HRET ang magpasya tungkol sa kaso ni Congw. Reyes at ni Allan Jay Velasco? Baket hindi mabitaw-bitawan ng Korte Suprema ang kasong ito?

Marahil ay nagkakaroon na rin ng linaw ang totoong impluwensya ni Justice Presbitero Velasco sa usaping ito.

Legal fireworks at the Batasan?

 

It seems to be a “constitutional crisis” of its own making. By voting to uphold a ruling of the Commission on Elections annulling the proclamation of Regina Ongsiako Reyes as representative of Marinduque, the Supreme Court has placed itself and the poll body in a direct confrontation with the legislature, specifically the House of Representatives.

Indeed, reports have it that the House leadership has decided to let Reyes attend tomorrow’s opening of Congress as the sole and “official” representative of Marinduque’s lone congressional district.

Quezon City Rep. Feliciano “Sonny” Belmonte, widely presumed to retain the post of Speaker, and presumed deputy speaker Neptali Gonzales II, so news reports say, have called on both the Supreme Court and the Comelec to “back off” from Reyes’ case. Since Reyes had already been proclaimed the winner of the congressional contest, and indeed had taken her oath of office as congresswoman, the position of the House is that it is now up to the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) to hear and decide the case.

Reyes’ opponent was former Rep. Lord Allan Jay Velasco, son of a Supreme Court justice.

Based on the complaint of a certain Joseph Tan, the Comelec en banc ruled that Reyes should be unseated because it had been “proven” that she had renounced her Filipino citizenship and had not established residence in Marinduque. When Reyes raised the issue to the Supreme Court, the tribunal ruled in the Comelec’s favor, although with four justices dissenting.

Reyes appeared before the media earlier this week brandishing proof of her citizenship: a genuine and legitimate passport and documents attesting that she had renounced her dual American citizenship. In fact, says Reyes’ camp, the newly elected congresswoman had not even been given the chance to refute the charges about her citizenship, charges based on a blog, with little proof offered.

As Comelec Chair Sixto Brillantes stated in his earlier dissenting opinion (he later changed his mind): “…[T]he issue of the candidate’s qualification—particularly his residence and citizenship—requires exhaustive presentation and examination of evidence, which issues are best heard in a full-blown quo warranto proceeding and not in a summary proceeding as in the instant case.”

* * *

And now, because of the Comelec ruling and the decision of the Supreme Court, three branches of government are facing a head-on confrontation over which body has the ultimate right to decide on electoral contests.

In a statement, Reyes said that she “stood for the truth” (in a previous press conference) because “Congress deserves no less.” “To take a stand against the interference directed at a coequal branch of government is a duty particularly of ALL elected members of Congress. If members of the House cannot defend a literal commitment to their institution, no other branch of government will.”

It’s a political and constitutional crisis, all right, and at this point one wonders which of the three institutions will give way and give up its prerogatives. One wonders, too, if the justices will be able to set aside their collegial feelings (Justice Presbitero Velasco, Lord Allan’s father, recused himself from voting) and remain faithful to the law and its wise interpretation. Reyes has filed a motion for reconsideration, and we should know soon which among the three bodies will “blink” and save the legal infrastructure from imminent collapse.

So it seems there will be more to look forward to beyond P-Noy’s Sona and the stylish gowns and barong worn by lawmakers walking down the red carpet at the Batasan tomorrow afternoon.

We might yet see fireworks of a legal sort.


Para sa buong detalye, Basahin dito