Roilo’s Bill

Published by the Visayan Daily Star Publications, Inc.

NINFA R. LEONARDIA Editor-in-Chief & President

CARLA P. GOMEZ Editor GUILLERMO TEJIDA III Desk Editor NANETTE L. GUADALQUIVER Busines Editor CEDELF P. TUPAS Sports Editor (On Leave) RENE GENOVE Bureau Chief, Dumaguete MAJA P. DELY Advertising Coordinator

CARLOS ANTONIO L. LEONARDIA Administrative Officer

There is merit to the bill recently filed by Congressman Roilo Golez that seeks to remove the power to appoint justices of the Supreme Court from the President. The move was obviously taken by Golez because of the recent decision of the High Court on the issue of “executive privilege” invoked by the administration in the case of former chairman Romulo Neri of the National Economic Development Authority.

Although Neri has been safely moved to the Commission on Higher Education, it was during his time as NEDA head that the controversial broadband deal with the Chinese firm, ZTE, was hatched. And it was Neri who virtually blew the first whistle when he disclosed to people that he ahd been offered a P200 million bribe by another high-ranking official, purportedly for the role he could play in the approval of the deal because of the confidence he enjoys with the President.

Despite the fact that Neri had already, more or less, confirmed the incident before the Senate, he later clammed up and would no longer talk, even going so far as to risk being declared in contempt by the SC. In his refusal, he invoked what is now known as “executive privilege”, which, roughly means, the right to keep his mouth shut on matters that may affect the executive herself.

His defiance led the Senate to bring the matter up to the Supreme Court which, not surprisingly, voted 9-6 in favor of the privilege. The decision drew howls from both senators and law practitioners, and even a former Chief Justice wrote about what could be an “Arroyo Supreme Court”, a handle which caught on, considering that all the justices who voted in favor of the administration, were all appointed by this President.

For all we know the nine justices may have voted according to their consciences, really. However, the perception that the voting had been influenced by the fact that she had been their benefactor, persists among the people, and this is very damaging to the reputation for impartiality, integrity and absence of bias that people consider a given for anyone in such a position.

This is what Golez, and the few who agree with him, hope to correct. With the constitution of the membership of the House of Representatives, however, who can blame those who sympathize with Golez, but at the same time believe that his bill is already dead in the water?*