Second of three parts

In the judiciary, it is generally acknowledged that magistrates undergo the “first year syndrome”--a situation “where new appointees rarely go against the appointing power, in the first two or three major cases,” as a former justice puts it.

We were able to validate this observation by examining how the justices voted on key cases involving the administration shortly after being appointed.

President Arroyo’s first appointee in the SC, Justice Antonio Carpio (appointed Oct. 26, 2001) did not take part in the plunder case of former President Estrada, (promulgated less than a month after Carpio was named to the High Court), as he was one of the complainants before the Ombudsman. However, he was among 10 magistrates who voted in favor of government in the Balikatan exercises case, decided on April 2002. The SC rejected the petition of former Integrated Bar of the Philippines president Arthur Lim to stop the deployment of US troops to Mindanao.

Her second pick, Renato Corona (April 9, 2002), voted against former Manila Rep. Mark Jimenez in connection with his extradition proceedings. Jimenez, who was one of Estrada’s fair-haired advisers, questioned the justice department’s refusal to provide him documents related to his extradition case. The SC voted 9-6 in Sept. 2002 to deny his petition.

Arroyo’s third appointee, Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez (April 12, 2002) voted against Senator Panfilo Lacson in connection with the Kuratong Baleleng case (promulgated May 28, 2002). In this unanimous ruling, the SC remanded the case to the lower court to proceed with the trial.

Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales, Arroyo’s fourth appointee (Sept. 3, 2002) also voted against Jimenez in his extradition case. The case was decided three weeks after her appointment to the SC.

Her sixth appointee, Justice Adolfo Azcuna (Oct.24, 2002), was among the 10 justices who dismissed the petition on of lawyer Edward Serapio to quash the plunder charge against him in connection with the Erap Muslim Youth Foundation (promulgated Jan. 28, 2003). Serapio was later cleared by the Sandiganbayan of the charge.

Arroyo’s recent appointees also observed the “first-year syndrome.” Arroyo’s 11th appointee, Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr. (Mar. 31, 2006) may have voted against government interests in his first two cases—the unconstitutionality of EO 464 which barred executive officials from appearing in Congress and the Calibrated Preemptive Response Policy but he quickly paid his dues. Velasco was among the three justices who dissented from the majority’s ruling declaring the arrest of Randy David and other protesters as illegal at the height of protest actions against the President. He was joined by Justices Dante Tinga and Corona.

Velasco also joined the majority in declaring EO 420-- seeking to streamline the ID systems in government--as valid. Only Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Estrada’ remaining appointee in the Tribunal, dissented.

Arroyo’s last three appointees so far-- Ruben Reyes (Aug. 2, 2007), Teresita de Castro (Dec. 4, 2007) and Arturo Brion (March 17, 2008)—were no different. The three provided the votes in upholding the executive privilege case of Social Security System head Romulo Neri on the botched $329 million NBN-ZTE deal.

De Castro and Brion were also with the seven minority justices who sought to dismiss the Moro ancestral domain case for being moot and academic. Reyes, on the other hand, joined the majority in declaring the agreement as unconstitutional.

GMA APPOINTEES IN THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT *

*Of the 15 incumbent Supreme Court justices, 13 were appointed by Pres. Arroyo. The two others –Justices Consuelo Ynares-Santiago and Leonardo Quisumbing – were appointed by former presidents Joseph Estrada and Fidel Ramos, respectively.

Loyalty as decisive factor

Justices we interviewed said the “first-year syndrome” can be explained by the Filipino culture of paying debts of gratitude. Others however insist that loyalty to the appointing power is one major consideration in the appointment, which more often than not, may clinch the post for the prospective nominee.

Former President Estrada, in an interview, said he did not exert pressure on the justices he appointed to the SC. “I did not talk with them before they got appointed,” he said. In his abbreviated term, Estrada had appointed six---Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, retired justices Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, Bernardo Pardo, Arturo Buena, Minerva Gonzaga-Reyes and Jose Vitug. He also appointed Hilario Davide Jr. as Chief Justice.

But Estrada was not above exacting debt of gratitude from his appointees. We gathered reports that he called some of his appointed justices when the Tribunal in a unanimous decision junked his petition questioning Arroyo’s legality as president. In the interview, Estrada confirmed that he felt bad that none of his appointees dissented.

A source close to one magistrate said that during Arroyo’s first few years in office, loyalty to the President was not an issue. The source quoted the justice as saying “I did not feel I was committed (to protect government interests). I did not seek the position.”  This justice was expected to vote on a case in favor of government but when he did not, Malacanang was reportedly displeased.

But as political insecurity hobbled the administration, ensuring loyalty or obeisance has become imperative.

One SC candidate, who was already a shoo-in, reportedly did not get the President’s nod because of his supposed ties with a power bloc that had severed ties with Malacanang. Our sources in the SC said the one who got picked instead had the backing of a justice who had been voting religiously for government interest.

The core group: Corona, Tinga, Velasco

When did the pro- and anti-administration divide clearly manifest itself?

A Court of Appeals justice, nominated to the post to be vacated by Justice Ruben Reyes on Jan.2, 2009, said the pattern was observable shortly after Puno’s appointment as Chief Justice. “You notice there is a core that has been voting as a group,” the CA justice said. We are withholding the justice’s identity so as not to jeopardize the magistrate’s SC chances.

A former justice, who refused to be identified out of respect for his former colleagues, said the pattern showed “when GMA began winning critical cases.” This has given the impression that it is the Palace, not Puno “which has control of the Court.”

Our research showed that the core group loyal to Malacanang surfaced as early as under the leadership of Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban.

During Panganiban’s term (Dec. 2005-Dec. 2006), the SC showed its independence when it upheld cases that embarrassed the Palace. These politically-loaded cases— 1)the unconstitutionality of EO 464 which barred executive officials from appearing Congress without presidential approval; 2)the unconstitutionality of calibrated preemptive response policy (CPR) and 3) the unconstitutionality of the provisions of PP 1017 to suppress violence—were considered the defining moments of the Panganiban Court.

The result of the voting in the last case, like the Moro ancestral domain agreement, is instructive. It showed some justices fidelity to the Palace. As recent cases have shown, it has become a predictable pattern, some of them continuing to vote in favor of the Palace without fail.

Data show that the three justices who dissented on PP 1017 case, namely Justices Corona, Tinga and Velasco, have consistently been voting as a bloc in other critical and tight cases.

For instance, the three justices voted as one in the closely-decided initiative petition filed by the Raul Lambino which challenged the Commission on Elections’ refusal to hold a plebiscite to amend the Constitution. The SC, by a vote of 8-7 on Oct. 2006, ruled to junk the petition. Joining the three magistrates in the minority were Puno, Leonardo Quisumbing, Minita-Chico-Nazario and the now retired Cancio Garcia.

Corona, Tinga and Velasco also voted as a group in rejecting the motion to quash, filed by San Juan Mayor JV Ejercito, the subpoena issued to Export and Import Bank and Equitable-PCI bank to produce certain bank documents. Nine justices denied Ejercito’s petition, three dissented and three took no part.

In the executive privilege case of former socio-economic planning secretary Romulo Neri, the three beefed up the majority, 9-6, who upheld the invocation of secrecy. Corona, Tinga and Velasco were also with the seven minority in the Moro ancestral domain case.

In the “Hello Garci” case where the National Telecommunications Commission and the Department of Justice warned the media against airing the wiretapped conversations of the President with a disgraced poll commissioner, the three magistrates also voted as a bloc but with a twist. Tinga ruled against the justice department while Velasco against the NTC. Eight justices voted squarely against the NTC and the DOJ.

The latest case where the three justices took a similar stance was the Moro ancestral domain case. They were joined by four others to form the minority.

More Arroyo allies in the Court

Except in a few instances, this core group is supported by other justices in cases which were of interest to the government. We tallied the voting trend of the incumbent justices and in consultation with SC observers, determined whether a vote may be categorized as for or against the interest of the Arroyo government.

The voting pattern of Arroyo’s appointees is revealing.

Corona, who is now fourth most-senior member of the Court and reportedly Arroyo’s choice as next Chief Justice if she had her way, logged a high 79 % voting record for government. Velasco and Tinga recorded 75% and 68%, respectively.

Chico-Nazario, who was named to the Court just before the election ban in appointments in 2004, has practically voted for government, except in three cases, out of 17 cases surveyed. The only time she voted against government interests were the EO 464, CPR and the PP 1017 cases.

Our survey showed that three justices--Nachura, Leonardo-de Castro and Brion—form yet another solid bloc, voting for the administration’s interests.  The last case we surveyed was the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain, where eight justices ruled to declare it unconstitutional. The above three justices argued that the case should declared as moot and academic.

SC observers agree that these seven justices have manifested a voting pattern which is protective of Malacanang. “Everybody’s seeing it (pattern),” one insider commented.

If there are loyalists to the appointing power, some have managed to prove their independence based on their voting pattern. Carpio, Azcuna and Carpio-Morales have recorded more “anti-government” than “pro-government” votes. (abs-cbnNEWS.com/Newsbreak)

RELATED STORIES
• Voting pattern of Supreme Court justices shows they play politics
• Voting pattern of Supreme Court Justices

---

INTERACT WITH THIS ARTICLE