A corrupt executive, being pursued by a corrupt congress and the issue is being litigated before a corrupt supreme court.

oh boy, we are totally screwed.

for more shenanigans of the supreme court, please visit my blog: http://jcc34.wordpress.com/ and look for Sins of the Supreme Court.

The problem with some self-confessed constitutionalists who have inordinate opinion of their own superiority is they do not fully understand what constitutionalism is all about. There is no such thing as judicial supremacy. What I learned in Constitutional Law is the supremacy of the Constitution, not judicial supremacy.

****clears throat****

obviously you have not yet read Angara vs. Electoral Commission.

to everyone out there – you can google Angara vs. Electoral Commission. its very enlightening

take not i wrote ‘judicial supremacy’. with quotation marks!

judicial supremacy is “the power of judicial review in actual and appropriate cases and controversies, and is the power and duty to see that no one branch or agency of the government transcends the Constitution, which is the source of all authority” (Angara vs. Electoral Commission)

and which branch do you think has the task of interpreting the constitution? whose interpretation of the constitution matters – the executive’s, the legislature’s, or the Supreme Court’s?

halatang di mo na-gets yung quotation I cited earlier – an ex-US SC justice said “We are under a constitution, but the constitution is what we say it is”

obviously you’re still a freshman in law school.

iho, ad hominems won’t get you anywhere. you win arguments on the strength of your own arguments, not on the weakness
of the person holding contrary views!

The contempt power of the Senate was already legitimized by a non-political Supreme Court in Arnault in 1950. But the doctrine laid down in Arnault has been disturbed by a political Supreme Court in Neri. I believe the executive privilege is not valid. The power of the Senate to legislate and the right of the people to know the truth about ZTE must prevail over the implied right of the President to invoke executive privilege.

iho, in your 12:55 post today napakasablay ang iyung pag-cite sa Arnault vs. Nazareno and Bengzon vs. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee!

mukhang ikaw ata ang ‘self confessed constitutionalist’!

you have not heard yet from bencard!

the SC isn’t blocking the Senate from legislating.

iho, believe me, if our bright Senators are only after crafting new legislation, they wont waste time waiting for Neri to testify again without the executive privilege!

The contempt power of the Senate was already legitimized by a non-political Supreme Court in Arnault in 1950. But the doctrine laid down in Arnault has been disturbed by a political Supreme Court in Neri. I believe the executive privilege is not valid. The power of the Senate to legislate and the right of the people to know the truth about ZTE must prevail over the implied right of the President to invoke executive privilege.

****clears throat****

in Bengzon vs. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee – the Senate inquiry was STOPPED because the topic of inquiry was also the subject of a criminal case with the Sandiganbayan.

Here’s the actual ruling of the SC – for the Senate committee to probe and inquire into the same justiciable controversy already before the Sandiganbayan would be an encroachment into the exclusive domain of judicial jurisdiction that had much earlier set in (turns out the Sandiganbayan case was filed much earlier than the start of the Senate invetsigation)

in Arnault vs. Nazareno – the issue is whether Arnault can be arrested for contempt of court for refusing to answer a specific question in a Senate inquiry. the SC said no, so Arnault remained in jail until he answers the question

take note – before Neri could be cited for contempt by invoking executive privilege for refusing to answer a question, he already filed a case with the SC. naunahan na naman. mga opposition talaga, mga bobo. huli palagi!)

iho, don’t just quote rulings right away. the rulings have a context – the facts of the case

for your further education on constitutional law, read Angara vs. Electoral Commission (a pre-WW II case) for a much clearer discussion of ‘judicial supremacy’

and one more thing iho:

the issue in Neri vs. Senate is not the pending bills on the ZTE deal, but precisely on the validity of executive privilege!

“The Supreme Court abused its discretion for evading a positive duty to preserve the constitutional principles of separate of powers and checks and balances.”

no, theres no abuse of discretion here. the SC is not encroaching on the Senate’s wisdom (or lack of it) in making laws

“The Supreme Court is not supposed to be concerned with the wisdom of laws, but only in the interpretation and application of the law.”

true, yet sorry to say this, but what are you talking about? what ‘wisdom of laws’ is involved in this Neri episode before the SC?

“It is not their constitutional mandate to pass judgment upon the internal rules of a co-equal body, much more limit the power of the Senate whose authority directly emanates from the people through election.”

same statement – what are you talking about? what ‘internal rules’? take note ‘investigations’ per se aren’t the primary job of the Senate. remember, any investigation is supposed to be in aid of legislation!

as you said, the SC is not concerned with the wisdom of laws. in the Neri episode, the SC is not dictating on the Senate on what the law should be, because in the first place, the issue is not on a law or a pending bill

please remember – the issue here is on the investigation, not on a law or a pending bill

you can google the SC case about the Senate ratification of the WTO treaty in the 1990s. among other things, the SC ruled that it is a policy, not constitutional issue

Our efforts could still be ‘weed and reap’ instead of ‘read and weep.’ Remember your admonition, give them a longer rope to hang themselves.

2010 is a long time and way. Let us sweat the big stuff when we get it.

Vietnam rice may save us yet!