April 16, 2010

Iligan City

Nacionalista Party (NP) senatorial candidate and spokesman Atty. Adel Tamano laughed off allegations made by the Liberal Party claiming that the motion for reconsideration that Tamano and other NP bets filed yesterday before the Supreme Court in relation to the midnight appointments was pure gimmick.

“Ang kapal naman ng mga mukha nila to say that the filing was pure gimmick. They only have the gall to say that because unlike me, they haven’t done anything concrete in defending the rights of all Filipinos. They don’t have the balls. All they do is talk. That’s all they’re good at. They have mastered the art of pure talk,” Tamano blasted.

“Funny how they can accuse me of such a thing when the motion for reconsideration is not only for my benefit but for the benefit of all Filipinos. Only goes to show who really is sincere in serving the country,” Tamano said.

“The Liberal Party says that they’re part of the opposition and yet they’re not doing anything that could stop PGMA in appointing someone as Chief Justice, which is such a crucial role. Ano yung tama doon? If we just allow the President to appoint anyone despite the fact that there is an ongoing ban, then this sends out a wrong signal to our fellow Filipinos. Not only does it undermine judicial independence, it also destroys the image of the judiciary. Kawawa naman ang Liberal Party if they don’t understand this,” Tamano explained.

The young lawyer then threw a challenge to the Liberal Party: “Do something solid. Don’t just complain. Familiarize yourselves with the law. It is my fervent hope that you will come to realize that the Constitution should be upheld at all times.”

Tamano, a constitutional law professor and the first Filipino-Muslim scholar-graduate of Harvard Law School, filed a motion for reconsideration yesterday on the Supreme Court’s ruling allowing President Gloria Arroyo to appoint the next Chief Justice despite a “midnight appointments” ban. Tamano was joined by fellow NP bets Susan Ople, Gilbert Remulla, Satur Ocampo, Liza Maza and Gwen Pimentel.

In their petition, Tamano et al stressed that under Article VII, Section 15 of the Constitution, there is no exception for appointments in the judiciary. Hence, the incumbent President must not appoint anyone in both the executive and the judiciary.

The young lawyer also shared that the recent Supreme Court ruling was in contrast with a 1998 decision on the Villarta and Valenzuela case, which barred the President then from appointing members of the judiciary within the period covered by the ban. The ban starts two months or 60 days before the elections and runs until June 30.

“According to the ruling of that case, the judiciary is not an exception to the rule,” Tamano shared.

The constitutional law professor and former president of the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila also said that he has high hopes that the SC will not reject the motion, despite the fact that a majority of the justices voted favorably in the earlier ruling.

Tamano, the former president of the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila, is the son of the late Senator Mamintal Tamano. A constitutional law professor, Tamano was the former spokesman of the Genuine Opposition.