The Comelec, speaking thru Comelec commissioner Art Lim, announced in a media conference yesterday that it would or it will “ratify and confirm” by resolution the Comment filed by Comm. Guanzon last Monday.
In law, to ratify means to make official, or to confirm, or to approve, or to validate, the act of a person who purports to be an agent, or representative, of the principal or a board (here, the Comelec). In other words, the act is not void but not fully valid either: the act is voidable: voidable means if not ratified by the principal, it becomes void; if ratified by the principal, it becomes valid.
Before that media conference by the Comelec was held, Chiz Escudero said he would question the “status”, or the nature, or validity (i’m paraphrasing) of the pleading (the Guanzon Comment) based on the memo of the Comelec chair that it was “unauthorized” when filed — Chiz said that “unauthorized” meant that Comm. Guanzon was not validly representing the Comelec when the Comment was filed, or was “misrepresenting” herself, as Chiz put it. “Misrepresentation” in law however is harsher because it has a criminal connotation. Not authorized to file on behalf of the Comelec — Ok, correct.
Before it is ratified, yes: question it. But after it is ratified, the matter might become mute and epidemic, er, este, moot and academic, depending on the speed of the Comelec in filing the resolution to ratify. I’m guessing fast. I’m guessing they will file it a few hours after dawn today. After all, they are fast writers — after all, among themselves they have written more than ten books some of which were for the United Nations.
Still, the Supreme Court has been known to write a full-length opinion on moot questions, “as a restraint upon the future” to quote Justice Isagani Cruz.
You know, it is not entirely moot and academic even if the Comelec commissioners are fast writers and have written more than ten books some of which were for the United Nations.
The individuals involved here are lawyers, parties, litigants, and officers of the Court. They may be members of a constitutionally independent body, but before the Supreme Court, they are litigants, lawyers, and officers of the Court, and are therefore expected to comport themselves in a manner that is in keeping with the dignity and integrity of the profession.
And the oral arguments are coming up in a few days.
(The headline in inquirer.net , “Comelec upholds Guanzon’s Comment…” is inaccurate; to uphold means to say that an act is correct; here, the act was characterized as unauthorized by the Comelec chair himself, the act was voidable, not correct. It can be validated by ratification. The lead paragraph and body of the news story uses the word “ratify and confirm”, the direct quote from the Comelec. Why would the headline –writer use “uphold” in the headline instead of the more accurate “ratify”?)
Inquirer columnist John Nery today described the response of Comelec commissioner Rowena Guanzon to Comelec Chair Andy Bautista’s memo as: “bizarre”, adding: “I do not know Guanzon; all I know is she used to write a column for the Inquirer xxx.” Ikaw naman. Read carefully, John, or listen carefully, to her statements and you will see the hallmark of an intellectual giant – here they are:
(DZBB radio interview quotes from Comelec commissioner Guanzon):
From Rappler (translation by Rappler)
Comm. Guanzon: “Ako ayoko matalo kasi ayoko na talo ako. Nanalo na ako dati sa Supreme Court. Ayokong matalo ako.” (I don’t want to lose because I’ve never wanted to lose. I already won in the past before the Supreme Court. I don’t want to lose.)
ö ö ö
Comm. Guanzon: “Ano ba ‘to? Hindi ba dapat ang Commission on Elections ay hindi biased? Hindi dapat tayo kumakampi kahit kanino. E bakit ang chair ko yata ay nakakalimot, at ipinapangalandakan pa niya sa mundo na mali ako, tanga ako na commissioner?” (What’s this? Isn’t it that the Commission on Elections shouldn’t be biased? We shouldn’t be siding with anyone. Why is it that my chair seems to forget this, and he is announcing to the whole world that I am wrong, that I am a stupid commissioner?)
ö ö ö
Comm. Guanzon, referring to the Comelec chair: “Isang boto lang siya e. Lima kami, nanalo kami e. Talo siya e. Panig siya kay Grace Poe e,” Guanzon said. (He only had one vote. There were 5 of us, and we won. He lost. He is siding with Grace Poe.)
“Itong ginagawa niya, e ‘yung mga tao, nagsasabi na, ‘Aba, panig na panig siya kay Grace Poe o. Grace Poe na Grace Poe siya o.’ E masama po ‘yon para sa aming lahat,” she said. (With what he’s doing, people are saying, “Oh, he’s siding with Grace Poe. He’s really for Grace Poe.” That’s bad for all of us.)
ö ö ö
Comm. Guanzon: “Pagod na pagod na kaming mga commissioners kakatrabaho. Bakit hindi na lang si Chairman Bautista ang magtrabaho? Anong ginawa niya? Nagbakasyon. Nagbakasyon siya sa New Zealand.” (We commissioners have been so tired working. Why not have Chairman Bautista do all the work? What did he do? He took a vacation. He took a vacation in New Zealand.)
“Ako, I come out of my vacation to work on January 2. I don’t mind, kasi sanay po talaga ako sa trabaho. Ganyan po talaga ang work ethic ko,” the Comelec commissioner added. (As for me, I come out of my vacation to work on January 2. I don’t mind, because I’m really used to work. That’s really my work ethic.)
ö ö ö
Comm. Guanzon: “If I really work fast, that’s not my fault, because I really work hard, I really work fast. I’m very studious. I read, I write fast, I think fast, I work fast. You know, I’ve written maybe about 10 books and articles. I really write fast. I’ve published around 10 books and articles, including a paper in the United Nations. It’s normal for me to be fast in writing decisions.”
ö ö ö
Comm. Guanzon: “It is Chair Bautista who is showing partisanship, not me. He voted in favor of Grace Poe; now he wants to shoot down our comment. And Grace Poe urged Bautista to probe the commissioners. Wow.” xxx “(I)n a live radio interview with dzBB’s Nimfa Ravelo, Guanzon said, “E ano bang gusto niyang mangyari, matalo kami sa Supreme Court (SC)?” (And what does he want to happen, for us to lose in the Supreme Court?)
