Civil liberties union answers Pres. Macapagal

Title

Language

English

Source

The Lawyers Journal XXVII (9) September 30, 1962

Year

1962

Subject

Civil Liberties Union of the Philippines

Rights

In Copyright - Educational Use Permitted

Abstract

[The President has seen fit to draw the Civil Liberties Union of the Philippines into the case of Dr. Paulino J. Garcia. The
Civil Liberties Union believes that he has no valid reason to complaint against Justice J. B. L. Reyes' concurring opinion in the Dr. Garcia case. The CLU stands behind the import of Justice Reyes' opinion ; No one, be he President, can condemn without a hearing. No one is above the Constitution and the law, nor immune to criticism. The president is not the State.]

Fulltext

PRES. MACAPAGAL REBUKES .JUSTICE REYES ON ATTACK IN GARCIA DECISION "The Sup1·cme Court decision has not resolved the charges against Dr. Paulino Garcia but the period of his suspension. In accordance with my general attitude of giving faith, credit, and respect to the Supreme Court, I shall comply with its decision. ';I am constrained, however, to except to statements made in the concurring opinion, penned by l\lr. (Justice J. H. L. Heyes, that the President of the Philip1>ines 'had already pi·ejudged thccase and made up his mind that the petitioner (Dr. Garcia) had been guilty of electioneering' and that 'the Chief Executives words and conduct have evidenced an attitude that is difficult to reconcile with the open mind, soberness and H$trai11t to be expected of an impartial judge.' This uncnlled-for attack on the President is :i.ggravuted by the fact that it is based on a statement ~ttributed to the President from a newspaper re1 >ort su.bmitted not in the course <.if ihe reception of evidence in a formal trial. "'There was no justification to make the gi atuitous and lrrelenrnt allusions attacking the President's good faith because the case was not yet being decided on its merits. As the President was not a party to the case, it was inexcusable to make a finding of fact about his conduct, at least without giving him a chance to have his say. By prejudging the presidential mind even before the President has decided the case, the justice is the one who· appears to ha\'e prejudged the Garcia case. '"The justice has ignol'ed that being a !awyC'r oui·selves whose sense of t"esponsibility has been recognized by no less than our people, we know the difference between pci·sonal knowledge and judicially established evidence in reiidering judgment on a case. '"Not only that-the justice has apparently fo1·gotten that the right of free speech is one of the most cherished of freedoms; that the PJ"esident should be entitled to that; that the statement alluded to was made on J ;ui. 29, 1962, when there was as yet no case peuding before a tribunal of justice, here the investigating committee; and there was, therefore, as yet no case to prejudge. Who can deny therefore the right of the citizen, here the P resident? And when, with such an erroneous basis and logic that he had to support his stand, he went to the extent of censuring my own conduct, I must submit to the j udgment of t he people that he has gone too far. "I have consistently shown respect fot· the Supreme Court and its members, and have always heeded its decisions. But to be entitled to respect, one must accord respect in return. "Any justice who unduly attacks the President of the Republic detrncts from the prestige of the Supreme Court which should be held hig·h at all times. A becoming sense of merit and l1umility should make one consider that he is not infallible; that it is not only he who knows the law; and that while the President of the country receives his position from the sovereign people, an appointive official receives his appointment from one man. "If a justice grntuitously prejudges the mind and good faith of others, he is opening the dOOl' to a suspicion of his own impartiality and good faith. In this c:ise, for instance, it is plausible that thel'e is Jess reason" to prejudge the mind and good faith of the P resident than the mind and partiality of the justice who is a long-standing and ideological colleague of the respondent, Dr. Gar, eia, in the Civil Liberties Union and who, despite such exti·aordinary a ssociation, has not seen fit to inhibit him:e\f from a ease affecting the juridical, as distinguished from the ideological and emotional standards, of civil liberties. "'Pursuant to the pooplc's mandate, this country is now going through a period of reform. 1t is desi1·able that the Supreme Court be kept above the resultant politicnl and emotional stresses, for which purpose, the virtue of the ('Ourt and its members should be assumed. It would be unfortunate if through an inordinate sense of superior righteousness that is made to replace judiciul sobriety, a justice would open that assumption to dispute." - - - - CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION ANSWERS PRES. MACAPAGAL Th~ President has seen fit to draw the Civil Liberties Union of the Phili11pines into the case of Dr. Paulino J. Garcia. Thl" Civil Liberties Union believes that he has 110 val:d reason to c.omplain against J ustice J. B. L. Reyes' concurring opinion in the Dr. Garcia case. \Justice Reyes voted with a unanimous Supreme Court in ordering the immediate reinstatement of Dr. Garcia to the NSDB and clearly expressed his opinion that there had been a denial of procedural due process, bec,ause the President had from the beginning prejudged the case and condemned Dr. Garcia of clectioneerinJ?", even before any charges were filed and heard. The President has in effect admitted that he made the co11c\emnato1~ statements, claiming "'that the statement alluded to was made on 29 January 1962 when there was as yet no case before a tribunal of justice or the investigating committee; and there was thcrefo1·e as yet no case to prejudge." If even before there was a case, the President ],ad a\J·eady openly and publicly condemned Dr. Garcia a11d adjudg<!d him guilty, what chance would Di·. Garcia have when his case came up before the President for ultimate judgment? The President who condemned Dr. Garcia is still the same P1·esidc-nt who wilt decide his case." Dr. Garcia's case was the first case of the President's "resign or face charges and be found guilty" technique. But Dr. Garcia refused to be intimidated and was immediately suspende<l by the President since last Feb. 18. T he indefinite suspension has now been deela1"ed by the Supreme Court to be in violation of the Constitution. J ustice Reyes further opined that the suspension was void at the outset for denial of due process. In either case, the Supreme Court was unanimous that there has been denial of due p rocess. No one takes away from the President his right as a citizen to free speech, but he should realize a ll his public statements are always of an official character by virtue of his position. 111 an obvious attempt to becloud the issues, the President charged Justice Reyes with partiality, claiming "the ju-;;tice is a long-standing and ideological colleague" of Dr. Garcia in the CLU. The decision of the Supreme Court was unanimous. The P resident has not challenged or denied the facts and the law of the case, as stated both in the Court's opfoion and in tho concurring opinion of Justice Reyes. Common membership with a party in a case in a civic, professional or social association has never been co11sidered a ground for a jud~ to inhibit himself. As to the CLU, its objectives si11ce its founding in 1937 have always remained the same: m i!ila1 1t Filipinism, devotion to democrncy anci opposition to diclutorship in whatever guise >Jr form, social justice and respect for all constitutional r ights. It would do the President well to pond~r whether his casting such an unjustified aspersion on a member of the Supreme Courtwhich has been the bulwark of the people's rights--cannot but lead to undermining the people's confidence 1n C•ur Courts. The CLU stands behind the impol"t of Justice Reyes' opinion; No 0:1e, be he P resident, can condemn without a hearing. No onc is above the Constitution and the law, 11or. immune to criticism. Th" I'resi<lcnt is NOT Ure State. Page 258 LAWYE RS J OURNAL Septemb~r 30, 1962

pages

258

Media