Last week, Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno scolded Makati Mayor Junjun Binay’s lawyers for basing their case on a “wrong doctrine”. The doctrine in question, is the Aguinaldo doctrine, which the Philippine Supreme Court itself has established and implemented since 1959. Justices Antonio Carpio and Estela Perlas-Bernabe held a much more level-headed view of raising the possibility of reviewing such an antiquated doctrine. As much as I agree with the points raised by the honorable magistrates, I cannot blame the Binay lawyers for using the Court-established doctrine in defending their client.
Dean Pacifico Agabin described the Aguinaldo doctrine as the doctrine that states that:
“…offenses committed, or acts done, during a previous term are generally held not to furnish cause for removal and this is specially true where the Constitution provides that that the penalty in the proceeding for removal shall not extend beyond removal from office, and disqualification from holding office for a term for which the officer was elected or appointed.……the Court should never remove from office for acts done prior to his present term. To do otherwise would be to deprive the people of their right to elect their officers.…When a people have elected a man to office, it must be assumed that they did this with knowledge of his life and character, and that they disregarded or forgave his fault or misconduct, if he had any.…It is not for the court, by reason of such fault or misconduct, to practically overrule the will of the people.”
So looking at things objectively, the Binay lawyers’ case has merit as it is BASED
on jurisprudence. So why should they be scolded for using an established legal doctrine? It is one thing to call for a review of a questionable law or doctrine, it is another thing to berate lawyers for using it. As retired SC Associate Justice Vicente Mendoza said:
on jurisprudence. So why should they be scolded for using an established legal doctrine? It is one thing to call for a review of a questionable law or doctrine, it is another thing to berate lawyers for using it. As retired SC Associate Justice Vicente Mendoza said:“And under the doctrine of stare decisis, that is the law until by force of better reasoning, the Court erred in adopting the doctrine and decides to overrule the doctrine”
“Appearances of siding with a theory or a party should be avoided……Usually, chief justices just listen when oral arguments are held, but maybe Chief Justice Sereno wanted to seize the opportunity to express herself against the condonation doctrine……(the doctrine) remains applicable until revoked……What the Supreme Court can do is abandon it. But until abandoned, it is the doctrine that binds all of the government.”
Based on these points, I don’t see anything wrong with Mayor Binay’s lawyers using it to defend their client.
Now should the Supreme Court of the Philippines abandon such a flawed and antiquated doctrine? Perhaps. However, if they do so I think they will have to deal with questions regarding a seemingly unbalanced and inconsistent use of judicial power. Afterall, if this doctrine would be stricken out and be used to deny Mayor Binay’s case then does this pave the way for President Noynoy Aquino’s and Secretary Butch Abad’s acquittal for their misuse of public FUNDS through the unconstitutional DAP? Afterall, their judgment was based on the High Court’s ground of “Doctrine of Operative Fact” wherein:
through the unconstitutional DAP? Afterall, their judgment was based on the High Court’s ground of “Doctrine of Operative Fact” wherein:“Acts done pursuant to a law which was subsequently declared unconstitutional remain valid, but not when the acts are done after the declaration of unconstitutionality.”
One can certainly argue that the Doctrine of Operative Fact can also undermine the Constitutional mandate of promoting honesty and integrity in public SERVICE. With that doctrine, PNoy and Sec. Abad can go scot-free for the wrong acts they have committed prior to the declaration of the DAP as unconstitutional. Why strike down the Aguinaldo Doctrine and not the Doctrine of Operative Fact if they can both undermine the promotion of honesty and integrity in public service – which is the main argument of CJ Sereno in opposing the Aguinaldo Doctrine?
. With that doctrine, PNoy and Sec. Abad can go scot-free for the wrong acts they have committed prior to the declaration of the DAP as unconstitutional. Why strike down the Aguinaldo Doctrine and not the Doctrine of Operative Fact if they can both undermine the promotion of honesty and integrity in public service – which is the main argument of CJ Sereno in opposing the Aguinaldo Doctrine?
(Image taken from gmanews.tv)
No comments:
Post a Comment