Prepare for a “judicial self-coup” — at the very least an attempt of it

 if on mobile device, pls click “Listen in browser” on the soundcloud pod below to play … 

 

 

             Prepare for a “judicial self-coup”

      — at the very least an attempt of it 

          If the sources of ABS-CBN (by reporter Ina Reformina) and GMA News (by reporter Joseph Morong) are accurate, the Supreme Court en banc and Chief Justice Meilou Sereno resolved yesterday that she would go on an indefinite leave – HOWEVER, the spokesperson of CJ Sereno had clarified hours after the en banc that she would merely file an application for a 15-day “wellness leave” to prepare for trial. Today, we’ll know for sure whether the CJ would go on an indefinite leave or a 15-day- (or longer) “wellness leave”, as the application has to be made in writing.
           An indefinite leave, not being time-bound, and not being provided for under civil service rules (except the Magna Carta for Teachers which sets it at one year) creates an indefinite vacancy.                An indefinite vacancy creates an indefinite vacuum that would prejudice judicial functions.                 An indefinite leave therefore, creating an indefinite vacancy and vacuum, would be used by Malacañang, to announce the search for a new Chief Justice following the rules that created the JBC.
         A 15-day or limited “wellness leave”, if the sources of ABS-CBN and GMA News are accurate, was not agreed upon en banc or was not agreed to  by 10 of the 15 justices — who had threatened to call for the resignation of the CJ publicly.
        Today, we’ll know for sure.
         We’ll also know for sure whether the ten justices would make good their threat.
           A statement from the ten justices calling for the resignation of the CJ would be a political act, unless it carries with it evidentiary matters of first-hand testimonies and documents that the justices are willing to attest to in an impeachment court – in which case, it would have legal effect, as evidence (if it does contain evidence). Other than that, being a political act, its nature is persuasive, i.e., not legally binding on the impeachment court that may be convened in July.
        It would be embarrassing, though, for the Chief Justice should her Court call for her resignation. (perhaps it had ceased being her Court long before).
        A forced indefinite leave of the CJ, resulting in an indefinite vacancy, is a judicial coup, or — to be more precise — a judicial coup against its own self, if ever there was one – a self-coup! or a judicial self-coup! or a self-judicial-coup! …
          Or a selfie coup.

(image credits as stated in the archives)

issue SC en banc, today: P72 B juggled to out-of-budget items thru #DAP never moot

     The Supreme Court is set to vote on the constitutionality of the so-called “Development Acceleration Program” today, according to news reports.

     During the oral arguments in the Supreme Court last January 28, the executive branch through the sol-gen  all of a sudden announced that it had abolished the so-called DAP, and argued therefore that the petitions should be dismissed for mootness.

     In the nick of time or so the DBM thinks.   

     Mootness? More than 72 Billion Pesos in public funds were  juggled then swung around to augment items that were NOT in the budget or the General Appropriations Act (GAA). (And, as revealed by some senators in privilege speeches, press conferences, and interviews, a minimum of fifty million pesos to 100 million pesos were juggled their way in the heels of the Corona impeachment, as borne by official records that can be taken judicial notice of)

      The Constitution authorizes only Congress to allocate public moneys to fund items in the different offices and departments of government thru the General Appropriations Act.

      The fundamental issue here is: Whether or not the DBM  can impound funds from departments, national agencies,  local governments,  GOCCs, previously allocated to these institutions, and juggle them to fund other items NOT provided so in the GAA.

     Where is that 72 Billion Pesos now? The Official Gazette, the official repository of all official enactments, stated that in 2011, the DAP involved 72.11 Billion Pesos (According to GMA News, 11 Sept. 2013, the official Philippine government gazette said that the development acceleration program involved P72.11 billion  from  appropriations that have not been spent by various government agencies.)

        To argue that the juggling of 72 Billion Pesos in public funds to items not provided so in the GAA had become moot just because it was suddenly stopped,  is to inveigle the Supreme Court to agree that the 72 Billion Pesos suddenly disappearing from items found in the national budget, and appearing in other items not provided so in the budget, is not an unauthorized sleight of hand but a display of accounting and book-keeping prowess.

creativecommons

(image by Nevit Dilmen published here non-commercially under the Creative Commons Attribution License)

    DBM officials and Malacañang officials should consider a career in the Cirque du Soleil.

     More important however, 72 Billion Pesos disappearing from one hat then appearing in another hat has serious legal consequences on the nature of  those disappearing-and-appearing public funds,  on the projects and items from which those funds were taken, on the projects and items so-funded by juggling, and on the senators, undersecretaries, middlemen, “NGO networkers”,  contractors,  who benefited from those juggled funds.  The 72 billion pesos exist — now you see them — then disappeared — now you don’t see them — then reappeared — now you see them — as they continue to exist in different pockets  in a state of constitutional limbo as to their nature. These flying public funds constitute 72 billion unresolved, active constitutional and legal issues.

    The 72 Billion Pesos in public funds juggled and divided up are still floating in the air and their beneficiaries still swinging as acrobats – that can never be moot.