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
