[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=” av-desktop-hide=” av-medium-hide=” av-small-hide=” av-mini-hide=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=”]
[/av_textblock]
[av_one_full first min_height=” vertical_alignment=” space=” custom_margin=” margin=’0px’ padding=’0px’ border=” border_color=” radius=’0px’ background_color=” src=” background_position=’top left’ background_repeat=’no-repeat’ animation=”]
[av_heading heading=’AN INDEPENDENT VIEW ‘ tag=’h3′ style=’blockquote modern-quote’ size=” subheading_active=’subheading_below’ subheading_size=’15’ padding=’10’ color=” custom_font=” av-medium-font-size-title=” av-small-font-size-title=” av-mini-font-size-title=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” admin_preview_bg=”]
BY NEIL HONEYMAN
[/av_heading]
[av_textblock size=” font_color=” color=” av-medium-font-size=” av-small-font-size=” av-mini-font-size=” admin_preview_bg=”]
IT IS NOW six years since Grade VI students were completing their grade school course with a view to enrolling in a four year high school program. This program would enable them, if they wished, to enter tertiary education in June 2016.
Except they haven’t.
Why not?
In May 2013, then president Aquino signed into law Republic Act (RA) 10533 which specified, retrospectively, a compulsory six year high school program which would prevent them from entering tertiary education until June 2018(instead of June 2016).
This capricious interference with young people’s lives in typical of the Department of Education (DepEd) and its high-handed ways.
But don’t we have three co-equal branches of government which would prevent this kind of inappropriate ascendancy from happening?
Yes, the Judicial branch has a duty to evaluate and pronounce on petitions which express concern on significant matters.
In fact the Supreme Court (SC) of the Judicial Branch received six petitions which suggested that all was not well with the passage of RA 10533, sometimes called the K-12 Act.
What did the SC do?
Wala!
Is this appropriate?
No. The SC should have evaluated and responded to the petitioners. In fact, the petitioners did not receive a response from the SC.
Why not?
Who knows.
We are now seeing the House of Representatives wondering aloud whether the Chief Justice of the SC, Maria Lourdes Sereno, should be impeached.
Some congressmen say she should, and base their opinion on whether she has possibly committed impeachable offenses which include “betrayal of public trust” and “culpable violation of the Constitution.” I have never been relaxed about “betrayal of public trust” because it has a very low bar. Alleged errors in public officials completing their statements of assets, liabilities, and net worth (SALN), are used by the bean counters and nitpickers to say that the impeachment candidate has, indeed, betrayed public trust. Well, members of the public to whom I have spoken tell me that they do not necessarily consider public trust to have been betrayed on possible SALN inaccuracies. Sereno earned big private sector fees as a lawyer. She should not be critiqued for this by the tsismosos.
On the grounds of what we have heard before, therefore, I hope that CJ Sereno will continue her term which, constitutionally, entitles her to (subject to good behavior) continue until her 70th birthday. Delicadeza has never been my strong point but readers should know that this means Sereno will be in post until 2030. Subject to the current Constitution, therefore, she will see both President Duterte and his successor stepping down before she does.
Sereno is primo inter pares – first amongst equals. In other words, she is not quite the big boss she may think she is. She should adopt a collegiate approach to decision-making. Anecdotal evidence from her SC colleagues presented at the House of Representatives suggest that she is not a perfectly-formed team player but, instead, goes her own way without consulting her peers. Control-freakism is not compatible with “first amongst equals.” But this is an issue which should be dealt with, in private, within the Judicial Branch.
Not by congressmen./PN
[/av_textblock]
[/av_one_full]
