Carpio's major SC rulings: A rundown

GOTCHA

Carpio's major SC rulings: A rundown

By Jarius Bondoc

Perhaps the silliest argument against making Antonio Carpio Chief Justice is that he is a foe of the dismissed Renato Corona. That it is being raised by one of Corona’s three acquitters hints at its intent. Could it be that the appointer of a new CJ is being swayed to choose only from among Corona’s so-called “clique of seven or eight justices”?

Carpio was mentioned along with two hopefuls, Justice Sec. Leila de Lima and BIR chief Kim Jacinto Henares. A case possibly can be made against the two. They had testified against Corona in the trial of the first-ever impeached CJ. To name them to the post would leave a bad taste in the mouth. Senators Franklin Drilon or Francis Escudero too had been cited as probable CJ. But being among the 20 senators to convict Corona, they quickly, aptly expressed disinterest.

Corona during his trial had claimed that Carpio’s former law firm was among those behind his impeachment. At one point he said that “the enmity and rivalry (between them is) common knowledge.” But that was just one side — later proven a falsifier of sworn assets — speaking. Carpio, throughout the torturous exposure of his compadre, and college and work chum Corona, had kept silent. To react would have divided and put to ridicule the Supreme Court. It was Corona who, in trial defense, let known the animosities that marked his Chief Justiceship. He admitted to snubbing the nomination of a retired colleague as Ombudsman because he felt they “were not allies.” Incidentally Corona the condemned wealth hider now brags to have set, hear this, a higher standard of transparency in public service.

Magistrates are expected to speak only through their decisions, dissents or occasional lectures, and to socialize sparingly if at all. This is to avoid any tinge of partiality or impropriety. Yet some are seen nightly hopping from one cocktail party to another. Not Carpio. It would be best to judge him by his judicial rulings. (See Marites Vitug’s Shadow of Doubt, and researches in Rappler.com by Purple Romero.) Among these are:

• disallowing in 2005 a private corporation, foreign at that, from acquiring reclaimed, alienable land of the public domain;

• dissenting in 2006 that the transfer of a rapist American GI from jail to the US embassy was okay under the RP-US visiting forces pact;

• penning in 2007 to reject a private firm’s belated multibillion-peso claim against the state’s toll ways agency;

• dissenting last March 2012 from disquieting millions of lot titles in former friar lands in Luzon and the Visayas;

• penning in 2006 to strike down a contrived people’s initiative to rewrite the Constitution;

• declaring unconstitutional Malacañang’s ceding in 2008 of territory to Moro separatists; and

• contesting in 2008 Cabinet member Romy Neri’s use of executive privilege to hide then-President Gloria Arroyo’s role in a $200-million kickback in the $329-million NBN-ZTE deal.

In the latter three Carpio voted against the interest of his former boss and appointer Arroyo. That’s the way it should be. The Constitution states in Article VIII, Judicial Department, Section 7-(3): “A Member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence.”

Carpio has disregarded personal ties, even when his Sigma Rho college fraternity mates are concerned. He voted to dismiss two such brods, Court of Appeals justices Elvi Asuncion for graft and Vicente Roxas for dereliction of duty. Several times he decided against big clients of the ACCRA law firm, founded and managed mostly by other brods. Members of his old law firm Carpio Villaraza Cruz (now Villaraza Cruz Marcelo & Angangco) know him enough not to be counted on for legal succor. He inhibits himself from deliberations of their cases. Other justices reportedly dislike his refusal to trade cases, that is, to vote for their ponencias in exchange for their voting for his.

Carpio even ruled against his own interest in May 2010. He was the most senior associate justice and frontrunner to succeed then-retiring CJ Reynato Puno. But he stood with the minority that Arroyo would be violating the Constitution if she named a replacement during the election ban. Although automatically considered a candidate-CJ, being among the five most senior associates, he declined the nomination. That paved the way for the midnight appointment of the second most senior, the friend who called him an adversary.

President Noynoy Aquino was among the senators in 2010 who opposed the midnight appointment, in vain. He has since said of Carpio: “In some cases we agree; in others we don’t.” Perhaps their strongest points of oneness are in Carpio’s:

• resistance to the 2010 quashing of Aquino’s Truth Commission;

• voting in 2011 against the restraint on the House of Reps from impeaching then-Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez; and

• dissenting in the 2011 restraint on the justice department’s travel watch on spouses Gloria and Mike Arroyo.

In 2005 Carpio led in declaring unconstitutional the Mining Act of 1995 for not collecting just shares from profits of mining firms. The SC eventually reversed itself, but Carpio stood his ground and dissented. Today, to correct the law’s lapse, the Aquino administration is imposing a five-percent government cut in mining revenues.

A point of disagreement is in Carpio’s dissent against Aquino’s appointment of temporary officials other than governor of the Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao.

If Carpio is appointed CJ, there would then be a vacancy for another associate justice. Prominently mentioned are law school dean Amado Valdez and prominent lawyer Katrina Legarda. Having been nominated before, both already have passed interviews and psychiatric tests.

* * *

Catch Sapol radio show, Saturdays, 8-10 a.m., DWIZ (882-AM).

E-mail: jariusbondoc@gmail.com.