The issue of whether or not there is a need for President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to appoint a replacement for Chief Justice Renato Puno from now until and after the latter retires on May 17, 2010 is putting everybody in quandary.
But, if there has been already a precedent, where a retiring chief justice has been smoothly and orderly replace by an associate justice through a process of succession according to the constitution, then what is the big fuss about?
I am not a lawyer and it is people like me who should be in dilemma, but among the proposals, arguments and statements made by officials concern, I find the opinion of former Senate President Franklin Drilon very logical and easily comprehensible.
In a statement issued in San Fernando City, La Union, Mr. Drilon asserted that Pres. Arroyo does not have to make a “midnight appointment” for the replacement of Chief Justice Reynato Puno because there is a process of succession in case of vacancy in office of the chief justice.
“Under Section 12 of the Judiciary Act, in case of vacancy in the office of the chief justice, the most senior associate justice will act as chief justice,” Drilon said.
“There is absolutely no basis for the fear that (Malacañang) is trying to raise in public that it is dangerous in case there is vacancy in the office of the chief justice.”
In forewarning Pres. Arroyo about her dubious plot to appoint a new chief justice, Mr. Drilon further said, that the Constitution bans the sitting president from appointing a chief justice two months before her term ends on June 30.
“She cannot appoint starting May 1, 2010 and she cannot appoint after May 17, when Puno retires, because that is prohibited under the Constitution,” he said.
How much more simple does one need for the explanation to be?
This being the case, if there is a need for appointment it should be to replace the most senior justice who has gone up, following the process of succession, as mandated by the constitution.
Let us not complicate matters. Let us not allow politics to interfere.
The laws of the land were not made to be vague.
Let us interpret each one as it should be, not counting that a precedent has been already established.
Quierosaber's Blog 