Wednesday, December 05, 2007


In a previous post, I had made mention of a case involving Attorney Alan Paguia and the Supreme Court wherein the former asked a set of questions to the SC which to this day have not been satisfactorily answered. Instead, a continuing indefinite suspension for Paguia was rendered and is still in effect. Both teachers and students of the law may relate well to these questions and then say that indeed the Supreme Court should have come up with a better and acceptable response. It sets a bad precedent to future queries on the matter.

A re-print of the whole letter is as follows:

By Alan F. Paguia
Professorial Lecturer
Colleges of Law
Ateneo de Manila University
Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila

June 30, 2003

To: Chief Justice Hlario G. Davide Jr. and Associate Justice Artemio Panganiban
Supreme Court, Manila

Dear Sirs:

I humbly write this letter as a citizen to public officers. I understand that under the law, public officers are mandated to answer queries from the public within 15 working days. My queries are:

1. Is it true that the law strictly prohibits judges or justices from participating in partisan political activities?

2. Is it true that your honors participated in a partisan political activity during Vice-President Gloria Arroyo's oath-taking at EDSA on January 20, 2001?

3. Is it true that your honors attended and authorized the Arroyo oath-taking in your honors' official capacity as judicial officers?

4. Is it true that the basic law involved in the Estrada Vs. Arroyo controversy is Article Vll, Section 8 of the Constitution ("In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of the President, the Vice-President shall become the President to serve the unexpired term.")?

5. Is it true that the sole constitutional ground invoked by Vice-President Arroyo for her oath-taking as President was 'Permanent Disabilty'?

6. Is it true that your honors authorized the oath-taking by Vice-President Arroyo at EDSA on that same ground of 'Permanent Disability'?

7. Is it true that Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. administered the said oath-taking at EDSA on that same ground of 'Permanent Disability'?

8. Is it true that your honors unquestioningly accepted Vice-President Arroyo's allegation of 'Permanent Disability' on the part of President Joseph Estrada?

9. Is it true that the administrative matter of administering the oath-taking at EDSA by the Chief Justice involved the performance of an official duty which ought to be consistent with the Constitution?

10. Is it true that there was never any proof of compliance with the constitutional requirements regarding the said 'Permanent Disability'? ("Written Declaration" by the President or majority of his Cabinet members.)

11. Is it true that your honors, as well as the other justices, later rejected that ground of 'Permanent Disability' and replaced it with a 'Resignation,' even as President Estrada never wrote any resignation letter?

12. Is it true that due process of law absolutely requires the 'Cold Neutrality' of an 'Impartial Judge' both in appearance and in substance, without which the proceedings are rendered 'void' or 'without effect' from the beginning?

Most respectfully,

Alan F. Paguia

No comments: