The PCOO is under attack

BY ANTONIO P. CONTRERAS ON AUGUST 28, 2018

MANY would like to focus on the alleged booboos made by the Presidential Communications Operations Office (PCOO) and its attached agencies, from “Norwegia” to “Rogelio Golez” to that unfortunate pineapple that was mistakenly used as the logo for the Department of Labor and Employment (DoLE).

Indeed, mistakes like these have to be called out not only for PCOO, but for any media organization.

After all, this is something that is not PCOO’s monopoly. Even the Philippine Daily Inquirer committed a mistake when it wrongly labeled a carabao as a horse. ABS-CBN and GMA-7 have on many occasions also committed booboos. Rappler’s mistakes are not even accidental, but are malicious twisting of facts.

But recently, PCOO has been under attack not from the critics and detractors of President Duterte but from among his most rabidly loyal supporters. At the epicenter of this dissension from within the ranks of the Duterte camp is Secretary Martin Andanar who many accuse of being incompetent. Recently, rumors went around that he would be replaced by former broadcaster Jay Sonza.

When one probes deeper into the criticisms, Andanar and PCOO are being taken to task for not doing enough to defend the President from attacks, and for failing to promote the positive accomplishments of the President. The government is allegedly losing the communications war, and some even say that had it not been for the social media warriors, the message of the President would be drowned by the partisan noise and misrepresentations from his critics and mainstream media.

There is this stream of argument that appears to excise from PCOO’s accomplishment and decouple from it those messages that are aired and disseminated via social media by bloggers like Assistant Secretary Mocha Uson. There are even people who seem to behave as if Uson is an island of her own, separate and autonomous from the PCOO in which she belongs, and whose social media blogs cannot be credited as part of her job. This is partly due to the stance by the PCOO to differentiate Uson’s so-called official work, bound by the conventions laid down by the ethical standards for government officials, and her so-called individual blogging, which even the President has said was an exercise of her right.

Hence, we see a thread of arguments where Duterte loyalists criticize Andanar and the PCOO, even as they deify Uson whom they consider as being by her lonesome in defending the President in social media using her private personal account. And worse, when Uson’s behavior was called out in connection with the controversial federalism video, loyal Duterte supporters accused Andanar and the PCOO not only of abandoning Uson, but even of joining those who were critical of her. PIA Director Harold Clavite and Usec Lorraine Marie Badoy were pilloried in social media for their critical view of Uson. What made the situation worse was when news came out that several PCOO top-officials wanted her out.

Hence, what is being imaged is an agency in disarray, unable to protect Uson, who is one of its own, and the President.

A closer analysis of the situation reveals that the root of all these is the failure of many to correctly understand the nature of the work of PCOO as a government agency. To an ordinary person, PCOO is not only a publicist and PR office for the President, but also his propagandist and apologist. They expect the PCOO and its officials to aggressively engage the critics of the President in the arena of public discourse as combatants in social media. They want Andanar and his officials to fight fire with fire, and use taxpayer’s money and government resources to slug it out and engage the President’s critics, including those in mainstream media, in a mud wrestling match in the gutter of name-calling and aggressive, below-the-belt political combat. An eye for an eye joust that someone even compared to how Sarah Huckabee Sanders defends US President Donald Trump, in which she can even transmogrify into a lie for every lie just to deflect public criticism.

But many forget that there is another office tasked to speak on behalf of the President, and that office is held by presidential spokesman Harry Roque Jr. More importantly, as government officials, Andanar and his people in PCOO are bound by ethical codes of conduct which include among many things an adherence to proper decorum and standards of behavior.

The main mandate of PCOO is “to serve as the premier arm of the Executive Branch in engaging and involving the citizenry and the mass media in order to enrich the quality of public discourse on all matters of governance and build a national consensus thereon.” Certainly, engaging the critics of the President in an all-out war, like the way those independent bloggers and Uson in her so-called private time do it in their social media posts, will not in any way build a national consensus. It is also doubtful if such an approach can enrich the quality of public discourse.

It is not the job of PCOO to engage the section of the public and the citizenry critical of the President in an all-out discursive fistfight. In fact, its job is to win them over so that a consensus can be reached.

Yet, others also fault the PCOO for not being able to communicate the positive things which the President does. However, this is an incorrect allegation. Communicating with the entire Filipino people, and not only with the social media base of the President’s support, occurs in various modalities, many of which happen in face-to-face interactions. The PCOO, through the PIA and its other attached agencies, has been relentless in doing this, beyond social media postings. Secretary Andanar was also able to improve the ratings and market shares of government stations, and upgrade the communication support infrastructures of the President.

Unfortunately, positive posts in social media, while done, do not get enough engagements. This is not the fault of Secretary Andanar and PCOO. This is the fault of the supporters themselves who rarely read, like and share positive social media posts about the government. Many would rather spend time on posts attacking Robredo, the Liberal Party and anti-Duterte social media bloggers, than share a post on a youth seminar organized by the PIA somewhere in Mindanao; it is not Uson who shares it in her blog.

It is unfortunate that for many, the best way to serve the President is to be in a constant state of combat against his enemies, that even those who tirelessly work for him become part of the target when they do not or are unable to join the mudwrestling contest.

https://www.manilatimes.net/the-pcoo-is-under-attack/435413/

August 28, 2018 – First Things First

Memorial of Saint Augustine, Bishop and Doctor of the Church

Matthew 23:23-26

Jesus said: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practiced without neglecting the others. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel! “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup, so that the outside also may become clean.

Introductory Prayer: Lord, I come to you again in prayer. Even though I cannot see you, I know through faith that you are present in my life. I hope in your promise to be with me. I love you, and I know you love me. Accept this prayer as a token of my love.

Petition: Lord, help me to dedicate my life to weightier matters rather than mere appearances.

1. Tithed Up in Knots: When God originally commanded his people to tithe, it was so that they would acknowledge him as the source of all the gifts in their lives. It was to be the recognition on their part that all they had was from him, that he is Lord, and that his law is the way to salvation. Yet it became easy for the Israelites to fall into legalism and forget the true purpose of the tithe. They observed the letter of the law and forgot the meaning of the law: acknowledge the sovereignty of God. In the end, all we are and all we have belongs to God. We have to use our talents, wealth and possessions all for him and his kingdom. Is there some area in which I do not acknowledge his sovereignty in my life?

2. What Really Counts: What are the weightier matters of the law? Jesus speaks of justice and mercy and faith. When we neglect these, we are distorting true religion, for true religion is not a question of formalisms and actions to appease God, but rather of turning our hearts to his word. We need to make our hearts more like his, in charity and mercy toward others. How many times do we miss the most important things and work only at side issues? How often do we try to please God in the wrong way, by supposing we are doing his will when really we are only doing our own will instead? How often do we forget the true essence of devotion to the law of God?

3. Interior Cleaning: “First clean the inside of the cup…” We should tend to our soul and make sure the intentions behind our actions are holy motivations. We need to check our heart frequently so that we can work with purity of intention. Sometimes we work only to present an appearance to others, to appear virtuous and holy, but inside we are filled with negative judgments, such as lack of charity. Virtue comes from within the heart of a person, where the Spirit dwells and inspires as he wills. We need to be attentive to the Holy Spirit and follow his lead.

Conversation with Christ: Lord, you know what is in my heart. Purify it and recast it in the image of your divine heart, so that I may love you and love others as you love them. Let me put aside all vanity and desire for appearances that does not give glory to you.

Resolution: I will examine my conscience as to the motives of my actions each day, making sure I am inspired by mercy, justice and faith.

Duterte shocks the Opposition anew in appointing Teresita De Castro as Chief Justice

August 25, 2018 - by Ilda

The bad news just keeps on coming for the Philippine Opposition. It has not been a good year for them. In fact, things haven’t been good for them since President Rodrigo Duterte won the election in 2016.

Members of the Opposition particularly those allied with the Liberal Party have tried every trick in the book to remove Duterte from office – from calls for people power revolution to filing of criminal charges against him before the International Criminal Court – but all they get in return for their efforts is disappointment. They can only moan helplessly and cry in outrage as the Duterte government turns their worst nightmares into reality.

Duterte certainly did not disappoint in disappointing the Opposition. It was like a walk in the park for him. The Opposition did not have a chance because, for one, the law was quite often on Duterte’s side and two, they base their arguments on emotion, not reason. Indeed, the Opposition’s arguments did not stand a chance in court.

The first time Duterte sent the Opposition spinning was when he allowed the burial of former President Ferdinand Marcos Sr at the Libingan ng mga Bayani or Heroes’ Cemetery. They tried in vain to stop it, but the Supreme Court ruled that the burial was not against the law. Weekly rallies did not move Duterte and his supporters. It was actually surprising they were surprised he allowed the burial considering that was one of his campaign promises. It is not surprising though that the Opposition did not file for a restraining order much earlier to stop it from happening. Former President BS Aquino did not even think about changing the rules at the Libingan ng mga Bayani to prevent a Marcos burial when he was still in office for six years. It was just another example of their lack of foresight.

The second time the Opposition got a rude shock was when Duterte declared Martial Law in Mindanao in response to clashes in Marawi City between the Philippine military and Maute/ISIS group hiding in the city. He justified the declaration as an essential one, “in order to suppress lawless violence and rebellion and for public safety.” But of course members of the Opposition went into panic mode and concluded he was using it as an excuse to declare Martial Law in the entire country and assume a dictatorship. Their attempt to put a restraining order also failed since the Supreme Court said that “the claims of violation of human rights are speculative and lack a nexus between the exercise of martial law powers and their apprehension of such violations” — meaning, the Opposition was imagining military violence against ordinary people. They were being irrational as usual.

Just when the Opposition thought things couldn’t get any worse, Duterte pulled another fast one. His solicitor general successfully removed Lourdes Sereno from the Chief Justice post through a Quo Warranto. Eight Supreme Court justices voted to nullify Sereno’s appointment. They found her disqualified and guilty of unlawfully holding the Chief Justice position due to her failure to submit all the required financial documents when she applied for the top judicial post in 2012. Her motion for consideration resulted in the same outcome. It’s quite baffling she expected the justices to change their decision considering she did not produce new evidence to support her claim that she did submit all her Statement of Asset, Liabilities and Net worth.

Fast-forward to today, one of the eight justices who voted against Sereno and considered to be her staunch critic Teresita De Castro has been appointed the new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Sereno’s supporters have been crucifying De Castro even before Sereno was removed, now they have gone all-out in saying her efforts to demonise Sereno has paid off. Never mind that De Castro is reportedly the most qualified justice for the position…

In 1998, Pres. Ramos awarded now Chief Justice De Castro with the Presidential Medal of Merit for Exceptionally Meritorious & Valuable Service Rendered & Remarkable Accomplishments that have served the interest of peace, unity and progress in Southern Philippines

Most importantly this…

In 2012, then Associate Justice and now Chief Justice De Castro was the only CJ applicant who obtained a grade. of “1” in the psychiatric and psychological tests. “1” is the highest score in the 1-5 range in the 11-page JBC Psychiatric and Psychological Report

They still can’t accept that Sereno’s appointment was void from the beginning. They are still in denial even after the motion for consideration was denied. Sereno’s illegitimate appointment was BS Aquino’s legacy. It is now on record he did not do his due diligence in choosing the Chief Justice. It is another blow to his ego.

But with De Castro retiring in two months when she turns 70 years old in October, it seems her appointment as Chief Justice is more symbolic than anything else. It is Duterte flicking the middle finger on Sereno and the rest of the Opposition. Since his move is above board, all they can do is cry and gnash their teeth in despair. That’s what happens to people who think they are above the law. They should try sticking to the rules and perhaps then, they will have a chance to win the battle next time. But I doubt it. The next round will put the final nail in the coffin – the removal of Leni Robredo as Vice President once the allegation of electoral fraud is proven. Most of us already know the law is not on their side especially now with De Castro as Supreme Court Chief Justice.

About Ilda

In life, things are not always what they seem.

I have moved on, and so has the country, except the Yellows

BY RIGOBERTO D. TIGLAO ON AUGUST 27, 2018

SEN. Koko Pimentel the other day said that only the victims of Ferdinand Marcos’ strongman rule have the right to say that, “It’s time to move on.” He was reacting to Imee Marcos’ recent comment for people to “move on” from what she described as the “Aquino-Marcos feud.”

Well, in that case, I do have the right to urge us to move on, since I could be classified as a martial law victim. I, with my late wife Raquel, was arrested in 1973. I was beaten up (just a bit, since I was from a school for the rich, the Ateneo), injected with truth serum, and incarcerated in three different political prisons for two years.

There’s an important detail left out there—the kind many “martial law victims” of course also omit in their outrage at Marcos, and their desire to show that they deserve to be compensated. I was heading then the metropolitan Manila organization of the Communist Party of the Philippines, financed by Mao Zedong and the anti-Marcos oligarchs, which had vowed to overthrow through violence the electoral system and install its dictatorship in the name of the “proletariat.”

Another detail: We were organizing then the first “sparrow units” in Manila. That romantic label, copied from Mao, referred to teams tasked to assassinate police and military men in the metropolis, to signal that the armed revolution had arrived in Manila. Two decades later, those kinds of teams would become the dreaded Alex Boncayao Brigade.

Now, do you think the Philippine Constabulary that captured us, together with my subordinates Benito Tiamzon and his wife Wilma—who would then go on to become the party top honchos three decades later—didn’t have a right to do so?

There were indeed horrific human rights abuses during martial law. But not even the vociferous anti-Marcos critics have come up with any evidence that there was a Marcos policy—as there was during Chilean strongman Pinochet’s game—to jail and kill those who went against his regime.

Marcos’ trusted cousin
Filipinos in fact have implicitly rejected the narrative of massive human rights abuses during Martial Law, and have moved on: They elected as president in 1992 Marcos’ trusted cousin, the Philippine Constabulary’s head, Fidel V. Ramos. The general had total control of the police apparatus during almost the entire martial law regime. If there were state-directed human rights abuses during Martial Law, Ramos would be responsible. But Filipinos have obviously moved on, with Ramos still a very respected former president, sought out for his views and even writing a column in a national newspaper.

To be honest though, even after I left the Communist Party in 1974, disgusted over its refusal to admit to its cowardly bombing of the Liberal Party’s miting de avance in Plaza Miranda on August 21, 1971, I couldn’t “move on” for many years more.

My decision to be a journalist in fact was to some extent motivated by my aspiration to expose the “evils” of the dictatorship—which I did during my Business Day years, when one of my exposés was the central bank’s padding of the country’s international reserves to portray a healthy economy.

A decade later, I would realize that faced with a financial meltdown, Marcos technocrats had to do everything they could to stave that off. They were just too stupid to think they could pull it off.

One has to move on, if one is loyal not to comrades or ideologies trapped in that era, but to one’s rationality.

I find it a bit funny that those who refuse to “move on” and are so vociferously anti-Marcos are people who had never been “victims” of martial law or were blissfully apolitical during those years.

Many of these hypocrites – like Liberal Party stalwart Chito Gascon and two academics-turned- columnists – became anti-Marcos activists only in the last waning years of the regime in the 1980s, which was triggered not really by the Ninoy Aquino assassination nor by outrage over human rights abuses but by the severe economic depression that resulted from the oil crisis in 1980, and the far worse global debt crisis of 1983.

Victors’ propaganda
That adage attributed to Bavarian playwright Ernest Toller and popularized by Winston Churchill is so true: “History is written by the victors.”

The faction of the oligarchy that Marcos had beaten to a pulp, led by the Lopez and the Osmeña clans, returned with a vengeance after his fall. Marcos’ toppling was crucially helped by the US, which made the calculation—very wrongly as it turned out—that Corazon Aquino would ensure that the US military bases would stay after the 1947 treaty expired in 1991. The bases had become very strategic for the Americans at a time when the Cold War with the Soviet Union was intensifying, even to the brink of a nuclear war, recent disclosures show.

The Cory years, it has become crystal clear now, meant the return to power of the oligarchs Marcos had routed and the rebirth of the overall system for the rule of the elite. Disguised as electoral democracy, this was a clever scheme for rotating the leadership of what Lenin called “the executive committee of the ruling class.”

They were able to conceal these by demonizing Marcos, as if everything wrong with the Philippines had been due to the dictator. Without Marcos as the “Evil Incarnate,” Cory’s oligarchs wouldn’t have been able to fool us. It’s similar to the clerics’ old trick since ancient times, who wouldn’t convince anybody that an imaginary Deity exists if people didn’t believe Satan existed.

The truth of course, as we have come to realize in recent years, is that our real problem is an oligarchy which, in contrast to those in other countries, aren’t even nationalists.

Cory for instance turned over PLDT to her Cojuangco nephews, whose father was a corporate dummy who helped conceal Marcos’ controlling stockholdings. Meralco was reverted back to the Lopezes, despite the huge loans the clan had incurred when it controlled the firm before martial law.

Incompetent jerk
What happened to these two of the country’s largest firms, is a microcosm of what transpired after strongman rule ended: Both ended up being owned not by any Philippine oligarch, but by an Indonesian, Anthoni Salim, though his Hong Kong-based First Pacific Co.

That Bongbong Marcos would have won roundly as vice president, that his sister Imee is even considered as a possible presidential candidate in the future, that more and more posts in social media have been pointing out Marcos’ achievements (especially in infrastructure) are due to two things.

First, after Cory came three administrations that didn’t subscribe to the narrative of Marcos as a Dark Ruler. Ramos, Joseph Estrada, and Gloria Arroyo even detested the attempts of Cory’s oligarchs to control them. You’d need a president fully committed to the Yellow narrative to prevent the truth from coming out eventually, even in trickles.

Second, while it moved heaven and earth to strengthen that false narrative, the second Aquino regime, that of Benigno Cojuangco Aquino 3rd, proved to be so totally incompetent, and his cronies more corrupt than the so-called Marcos cronies. This made Filipinos think: If this jerk is so incompetent, then he’s so mentally challenged that his claims that Marcos was so bad is likely false.

There have been 20 countries in the post-war era that had peaceful “revolutions” similar to our ESDA uprising in 1986 – nonviolent, extra-constitutional regime changes, transitions from dictatorship to democracy. Thirteen of these were the so-called “color revolutions,” said to have been inspired in some way by the EDSA “Yellow Revolution.”

All of them have moved on, with hardly any celebration of their revolutions. Compared to Indonesia’s Suharto (whose assumption to power resulted in over 500,000 Indonesians of ethnic Chinese origin, labelled as communists, massacred) and South Korea’s Park Chung-hee who ruled his country with a bloody iron first for 17 years, Marcos in his 13 years of strongman rule was a benign, ill-starred ruler. He even let his arch enemies, convicted by a military court and sentenced to death by musketry, either escape abroad (like Ninoy Aquino) or bide their time to be freed by another regime (like communist chief Joma Sison).

Most Filipinos in fact have moved on. It is only the Yellow Cult, and their naïve and not-so-naïve minions in the academe, most especially at the Ateneo and UP, and in the media like Rappler who haven’t. And the likes of the Yellow Cult member Koko Pimentel, whose father was after all Cory’s interior government minister, who single-handedly decided what governor and mayor were to removed or to be retained during her revolutionary government.

Email: tiglao.manilatimes@gmail.com
Facebook: Rigoberto Tiglao
Twitter: @bobitiglao
Archives at: www.rigobertotiglao.com

https://www.manilatimes.net/i-have-moved-on-and-so-has-the-country-except-the-yellows/435074/

NAGA NASA TOP 5 SA LISTAHAN NG PNP 'Solusyon ni LENI is to LEGALIZE ang DR0-GA' - Dante Maravillas

August 26, 2018 – The One and Only

Twenty-first Sunday in Ordinary Time

John 6:60-69

Many of Jesus’ disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?” Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you? What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.” As a result of this, many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him. Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?” Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”

Introductory Prayer: I believe in you my God. You called me into existence from nothingness and carefully watch over me. You have even numbered the hairs of my head. I trust in your infinite goodness and I abandon my fears, my hopes, my needs, my desires, everything into your loving hands. I love you Lord, and wish to love you with all my mind, heart, soul and strength.

Petition: Lord Jesus, help me to make you the center of my life.

1. “Does This Shock You?” Jesus never painted the picture of a rosy, comfortable life for his disciples – one that fit into their scheme of things. Rather he challenged them to new heights that demanded a paradigm shift. We don’t have to search hard or look far to find groups that demand that the Church change its teaching, which they characterize as “too hard” or “old fashioned.” But Christ’s Mystical Body remains faithful in fearlessly proclaiming truth. Christ also asks me today, “Does this shock you? Do you also want to leave?” He asks me to humbly submit to the Church’s teachings. He challenges me to heroically give witness to my faith in my state in life, even if it will result in ridicule or rejection from my colleagues or friends. He lovingly exhorts me not to return to a life of sin. He invites me to carry my cross daily by denying my pride and self-love to follow him.

2. “No One Can Come to Me…” Using the words of St Peter, we ask, “Then who can be saved?” (Luke 18:26). Jesus tells us that God the Father has prepared the hearts of men to receive his Son. God has set a time and place for everyone. When and how he calls is as mysterious as his infinite love for us. Yet, for better or for worse, through good times or bad, in sickness and in health, our acceptance of the Son of God must be constant, persevering and faithful. If God the Father enables me to believe in and proclaim Jesus Christ as the Messiah, to believe in his presence in the Eucharist, to trust in his forgiveness in confession, then what more do I need?

3. “Master, to Whom Shall We Go?” Only truth can quench the thirst of our intellect. Only the Source of Life and Goodness can satisfy the continuous desire of our will. Only the sacrificial Lamb of God, who shed his blood to save us, can liberate me from the chains of sin. Only love can conquer my heart and fill it with unending joy. To whom could we possibly turn? To what creature, idea, or worldly treasure could we long for in the face of eternal life? Peter’s question is really an affirmation in disguise: You are the “One and Only;” there is no other, no equal. It is not a mindless remark or a default logical conclusion. Rather it emerges from positively recognizing Christ as the bearer of eternal life.

Conversation with Christ: Lord Jesus, grant me the grace to accept and to embrace the Gospel and the faith with love and humility, especially when it is humanly tough to accept. Let me join in the response: “We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God” (John 6:69).

Resolution: Through my words and deeds, I will resonate my faith to all those I encounter today.

De Castro gets short stint as chief justice

BY CATHERINE S. VALENTE, TMT ON AUGUST 26, 2018

PRESIDENT Rodrigo Duterte has appointed Supreme Court Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo-de Castro as the country’s new chief justice, just weeks before her mandatory retirement from the judiciary.

Chief Justice Teresita Leonardo-de Castro FILE PHOTO

Special Assistant to the President (SAP) Christopher Lawrence “Bong” Go and Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra told reporters on Saturday that Duterte had chosen de Castro to replace Maria Lourdes Sereno, who was stripped of the chief justice post via quo warranto in May.

“I have been informed that the President’s choice has been publicly announced by SAP Bong Go and that the formal appointment will be released by [Executive Secretary Salvador] Medialdea on Tuesday,” said Guevarra, a member of the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), the body constitutionally mandated to screen applicants for the judiciary.

“Her appointment as chief justice is a fitting finale to her illustrious career in both the Department of Justice and the judiciary,” he added.

In a separate statement, Palace spokesman Harry Roque Jr. hailed de Castro as the “best choice” for chief justice.

“Bravo! Best choice for CJ! Proven competence, known nationalist, and a streak of being a judicial activist!” Roque told reporters.

De Castro was among the three associate justices who were included in the shortlist submitted by the JBC to Duterte.

The 69-year-old de Castro, however, will only serve for a few weeks. De Castro will retire on October 8 upon reaching the mandatory retirement age of 70.

In her interview before the JBC, she said her short term would not get in the way of her effectiveness as chief magistrate.

“It is not as if I am going to start today working on projects that will benefit the court,” de Castro had said.

Sereno’s nemesis

De Castro was among the eight justices who voted to unseat Sereno, one of the youngest magistrates ever appointed.

The high court, in May, voted 8-6 to oust Sereno over missing wealth declaration documents. The tribunal affirmed the controversial ruling in June.

De Castro made headlines in April after trading barbs with Sereno during oral arguments on the quo warranto petition filed by Solicitor General Jose Calida to void her appointment.

De Castro had said she did not let emotions get in the way of her work, without admitting her rumored rivalry with the younger justice.

Former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo appointed de Castro to the Supreme Court in 2007.

De Castro has served the government for 45 years. She began as law clerk at the Supreme Court in 1973 after earning her law degree at the University of the Philippines in 1972.

She also served as state counsel at the Department of Justice in 1978, assistant chief state counsel in 1997, associate justice of the Sandiganbayan in the same year, and presiding justice of the anti-graft court in 2004.

Estrada’s judge

De Castro was head of the Sandiganbayan Special Division that convicted deposed president Joseph Estrada of plunder in 2007. Arroyo would later pardon Estrada.

When de Castro retires in October, the next five senior justices will again be automatically nominated.

They are: Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio and Associate Justices Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Mariano del Castillo and Estela Perlas Bernabe.

Carpio and Bersamin will retire in October 2019. Peralta retires in March 2022, del Castillo in July 2019 and Bernabe in May 2022.

‘Endo CJ’

Sen. Francis Pangilinan on Saturday questioned the logic behind the appointment of de Castro as the new chief justice.

The senator said the “appointment of ‘endo’ CJ (chief justice) does not help in the strengthening of the rule of law.”

“Why appoint someone who will only sit as chief justice for less than two months? What public purpose does it serve?” the opposition senator asked.

“What public value does it create? The appointment leaves much to be desired,” Pangilinan said.

Administration allies, Senators Gregorio Honasan 2nd and Richard Gordon, said de Castro deserved the post.

“The appointment of a new Supreme Court chief justice whoever he or she is, in this case Justice Teresita de Castro, introduces elements of stability, continuity and predictability not only to the judiciary but to our democracy,” Honasan said in a text message.

Gordon believes de Castro “will do very well with her experience as a legal luminary for 45 years.”

“I’m just comfortable that she was there. She knows what to do. Remember that she has been a justice for a long time. It’s a great reward for somebody who has been there for a long time,” he said in a radio interview.

https://www.manilatimes.net/de-castro-gets-short-stint-as-chief-justice/434689/