ORIGINAL

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES SUPREME COURT MANILA En Banc Atty. Allan F. Paguia, Petitioner, - versus Office of the President, Secretary of Foreign Affairs, & (Ret.) Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., in his capacity as Philippine Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Respondents. X---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X G.R. No. 176278

Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr.,Petitioner-in-Intervention. X---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

PETITION-IN-INTERVENTION With Urgent Prayers For ORAL ARGUMENT & Early Resolution

COMES NOW, the Intervenor, Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., respectfully begs leave to intervene as petitioner-in-intervention in this case. In support of this petition, Intervenor FLORO, JR., respectfully states:1. He is a Filipino Citizen, a taxpayer, and a registered voter of 123 Dahlia,

Alido, Malolos, Bulacan, his home and postal address, where he may be served with court processes, orders and judgments.2. As a citizen, taxpayer and registered voter, Intervenor FLORO, JR. has

LOCUS STANDI or legal standing to intervene, is an interested / real party-in-interest and has direct, special and extra-ordinary interest in the subject matters of this petition, and in the outcome of this case (Sec. 2, Rule 3, and Sec. 2, Rule 2 Revised Rules of Court): Locus standi or legal standing has been defined as a personal and substantial interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged. The1

gist of the question of standing is whether a party alleges such personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.[IBP v. Zamora, 338 SCRA 81 (2000)]. Petitioner PAGUIA and Intervenor FLORO, JR. have standing since this Court had, in the past, accorded standing to taxpayers, voters, and concerned citizens, in cases involving paramount public interest and transcendental importance, and that procedural matters are subordinate to the need to determine whether or not the other branches of the government have kept themselves within the limits of the Constitution and the laws, and that they have not abused the discretion given to them (and the well-entrenched rule exception that, when the real party in interest is unable to vindicate his rights by seeking the same remedies, as in the case of the Lauro Baja who, for ethical reasons, cannot himself invoke the jurisdiction of this Court, the courts will grant petitioners / intervenor standing. Standing is a special concern in constitutional law because in some cases suits are brought not by parties who have been personally injured by the operation of a law or by official action taken, but by concerned citizens, taxpayers or voters who actually sue in the public interest. Hence the question in standing is whether such parties have alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions. As citizens, the interests of the petitioner & intervenor, in assailing the legality and constitutionality of the appointment of respondent Davide, Jr. are direct and personal. They showed, not only that the government act is invalid, but also they sustained or are in imminent danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of its enforcement. In fine, when the proceeding involves the assertion of a public right, the mere fact that he is a citizen satisfies the requirement of personal interest [SCRA 744 (1998), Chavez v. PCGG]. As taxpayers, petitioner and intervenor FLORO, JR. are allowed to sue where and since they allege - that there is a claim and accusation that public2

funds are illegally disbursed, that public money is being deflected to an improper purpose, and that there is a wastage of public funds through the enforcement of an invalid act and appointment. Invoking the power of judicial review, intervenor and petitioner specifically proved that they have sufficient interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of money raised by taxation and that they would sustain a direct injury as a result of the enforcement of the questioned act or appointment [Del Mar v. PAGCOR 346 SCRA 485, 501 (2000)]. At all events, courts are vested with discretion as to whether or not a taxpayer's suit should be entertained. Intervenor therefore begs this Court to grant standing to the petitioner and intervenor, given their allegation that any impending assumption to office of the retired Chief Justice will necessarily involve the expenditure of public funds. [G.R. No. 160261. 1110, 2003, E. B. FRANCISCO, JR., petitioner, NAGMAMALASAKIT, INC.].

NATURE, SPECIAL PURPOSE AND TRANSCENDENTAL VALUE OF THE PETITION / INTERVENTION; GENERAL, SPECIAL AND DIRECT INTERESTS OF PETITIONER AND INTERVENOR IN THIS CASE; IRREPARABLE INJURY TO THE NATION / INTERVENOR

The matter is a delicate one, quite obviously, and must thus be dealt with utmost circumspection, to avoid any question regarding the constitutionality, legality and validity of an appointment to the prestigious non-vacant post during this election period (election ban) or time, or rash, hasty action on the part of the respondents DFA / Office of the President. The petition and intervention at bar seeks the DISQUALIFICATION of respondent DAVIDE, JR., the declaration of nullity of both respondent DAVIDE. JR.S appointment and the recall / transfer of LAURO BAJA during election period, involving a constitutional issue. The issues posed by the petition and this intervention transcend the persons of both BAJA and DAVIDE, JR. These issues affect some of our most deeply held values in democracy --- the protection of political, civil and judicial rights, the disapprobation of political interference and political loyalty of political payment of debt in our temples of justice and elimination of all3

invidious discrimination in the Foreign Service nomination / appointment processes. The petition and intervention at bar concerns all these democratic values. It is the people on the line. It is we. The provision of the Constitution material to the inquiry at bar reads as follows: xxx. Art VIII, Sec. 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: (1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers xxx and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, xxx. With respect to the instant motion for intervention, Rule 19, Section 2 of the Rules of Court requires an intervenor to possess a legal interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both, or is so situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof. While intervention is not a matter of right, it may be permitted by the courts when the applicant shows facts which satisfy the requirements of the law authorizing intervention. [Gibson vs. Revilla, 92 SCRA 219]. Their tax money is being extracted and spent in violation of specific constitutional provisions, statutes, laws and Comelec Resolution, or for protection against abuses of legislative power, or that there is and will continuously be a misapplication of such funds, or that public money is being deflected to any improper purpose. Intervenor seeks to restrain respondents from wasting public funds through the enforcement of an invalid, illegal or unconstitutional appointment. [Dumlao v. COMELEC, 95 SCRA 392 (1980)].3. Intervenor FLORO, JR. tenders payment of all docket/legal fees (if

required), upon admission of this motion/Petition.4.

RIGHT TO INFORMATION: As a citizen, taxpayer and registered voter, intervenor has a constitutional right to information on all matters of public concern, not the least of which are the qualifications and disqualifications of any person seeking public office, like private respondent DAVIDE, JR. (Art. III, Sec. 7, 1987 Constitution), and the legality of the recall / transfer of incumbent LAURO BAJA despite the4

ban on recall and appointment during the election period. The petition/intervention directly raise in issue the disqualification of private respondent DAVIDE, JR. and the constitutionality and legality of his appointment by the President. EARLY RESOLUTION DEMANDED BY PUBLIC GOOD5. Until this petition is finally resolved, the citizens remain in the dark about

his true qualifications, his palpable, absolute and legal disqualification and the legality of the appointment. It is a state policy to promote equal access to opportunities for public service (Art. II, Sec. 26, 1987 Constitution). The expedient resolution of the doubts about the qualifications of respondent for public office and the legality of his appointment promotes this policy.

PARTIES Intervenor Judge Florentino V. Floro, Jr. is a Filipino Citizen, a taxpayer, and a registered voter of 123 Dahlia, Alido, Malolos, Bulacan, his home and postal address, where he may be served with court processes, orders and judgments. Public respondents: the Office of the President and Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Hon. ALBERTO G. ROMULO, are indispensable and necessary parties in this case, and their office and postal addresses, where they may be served with court processes, orders and judgments are at -Malacanang Palace, Manila, M.M., and Department OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 2330 Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City, 1300, respectively. Private respondent (Ret.) Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., is sued in his capacity as Philippine Permanent Representative to the United Nations, is a Filipino Citizen, of No. 2, H.C. Mondado St., BF Homes, 1120 Quezon City, Philippines, his home and postal address, where he may be served with court processes, orders and judgments.5

GROUNDS IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITION-IN-INTERVENTION With Argument and Authorities, The ISSUES, and DISCUSSION [With Brief Statement of Facts and Relevant Antecedents] 1. The proceedings of public respondents, are totally illegal,

unconstitutional, and without or in excess of their jurisdictions, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law; intervenor and petitioner are thereby aggrieved by such actuations, and they, based on the facts alleged hereunder, pray to this Court that judgment be rendered commanding the respondents to desist from further proceedings in the action or matter specified herein and herunder, and otherwise granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may require. I. THE APPOINTMENT OF RESPONDENT DAVIDE , JR. VIOLATES SEC. 23, R.A. 7157; FURTHER, HE IS DISQUALIFED UNDER SEC. 53(d) THEREOF, DUE TO HAVING CLEARLY SOUGHT POLITICAL INTERFERENCE FOR HIS ASSIGNMENT / APPOINTMENT AND ILLEGAL RECALL OF BAJA. 2. The Presidential Appointment of respondent DAVIDE, JR. is illegal and null and void ab initio, since it violates Sec. 23 of R.A. 7157 and he is further DISQUALIFIED by Sec. 53 (d) of the law, since respondent DAVIDE, JR. sought political interference for his promotion /assignment and simultaneous recall/transfer of BAJA, which weakened the principles of the Foreign Service. The law provides: Section 1. Title. This Act shall be known as the "Philippine Foreign Service Act of 1991." Sec. 16. Ambassadorial Appointments. The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments, appoint ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary to head embassies and permanent missions. All ambassadorial appointments shall be to a particular post only.6

Sec. 23. Compulsory Retirements. All officers and employees of the Department who have reached the age of sixty-five (65) shall be compulsorily and automatically retired from the Service: Provided, however, That all incumbent non-career chiefs of mission who are seventy (70) years old and above shall continue to hold office until June 30, 1992 unless sooner removed by the appointing authority. Noncareer appointees who shall serve beyond the age of sixty-five (65) years shall be entitled to retirement benefits. Sec. 53. Disqualifications. The following circumstances shall disqualify any officer or employee from being considered for assignmentabroad or promotion: xxx (d) Seeking political interference for his promotion/assignment which weakens the principles of the foreign

service. The provision of the Foreign Service Act above-quoted regarding employment of non-career chiefs of mission is clear. What it means is that all those who were age 70 or more on June 30, 1992 must resign and that thereafter, nobody over age seventy can serve as non-career ambassador. To make this case clear, on June 30, 1992, three non-career ambassadors who are over age seventy, retired. They are Emmanuel Pelaez, Ramon del Rosario and Sedfrey Ordonez. If we follow the public respondent DFAs interpretation, all three after their retirement, could have been reappointed say on July 2, 1992 to the service after a gap of one day and there will be no violation of law. This will make the law ridiculous. Moreover, then Sen. Ernesto Maceda when asked to explain this provision during the Senate deliberations, explicitly stated that retired Supreme Court Justice Claudio Teehankee cannot be appointed under this provision as non-career ambassador since he is over age seventy. Under our system of government, it is only the courts which shall interpret the laws. The executive branch merely implements them. But in the instant case, the respondents DFA and Office of the President, Malacanang, joined by the COMELEC (Commissioner R. Borra) have usurped the functions of the court and have been interpreting the law. If the respondent DFA, Malacanang and COMELEC are not happy with the way the law is written they should challenge its validity in court and not declare the law invalid. Hermie C. Cruz, Ambassador (ret.), one of those7

who drafted our current Foreign Service Act said that, our Foreign Service Act borrowed heavily from the US Foreign Service Acts of 1924, 1946 and 1960. In the US, when some career officers were not satisfied with the retirement provisions of their Foreign Service Law, they challenged the law in court in what became the Vance vs. Bradley case in 1979. The US Supreme Court upheld the Foreign Service Act. By way of contrast, respondents DFA and Malacanang have constituted themselves into a Super Supreme Court invalidating laws passed by Congress. Amb. H. C. Cruz laments: The climate of lawlessness which has pervaded the GMA administration has infected the DFA and our Foreign Service. We are displaying before the whole world our faults and our disregard for the law. [Ducky Paredes' Columns, Malaya - 04.29.06]. It is the law, and the respondents duty is to comply with it. The provision on compulsory retirement is clear on four points: * All career officers and employees of the Department shall be retired compulsorily and automatically upon reaching the age of 65; * All non-career chiefs of mission, 70 years or above, who were in the service when the law was enacted in 1991, could serve only until June 30, 1992; * As a consequence of the above, no non-career individual who is 70 years or above may be appointed chief of mission after June 30, 1992; * non-career individual, who is 65 years or older, may serve as chief of mission until he reaches 70 years, unless he or she is removed or leaves the service before that; but, he or she shall not be entitled to retirement benefits. Former Senator Leticia Shahani, author and main sponsor of R.A. 7157, has also said that the law puts the retirement age for career foreignservice officers at 65 while that for non-career ambassadors is 70. She confirms the contention of Sen. Francisco Tatad, who once chaired the Senate foreign relations committee, and many DFA insiders that after 1992, those past 70 should no longer be appointed to foreign-service posts. The Record and Journal8

Shahanis stand is supported by records of the congressional deliberation on R.A. 7157. Retired Ambassador Hermie Cruz points to the following passages in the deliberation transcripts: Sen. Ernesto Maceda: Mr. President, I really do not want to insist at this time. My feeling is that there is a violation and I said this in the Commission on Appointments of existing retirement laws, where the retirement law is 65 and the President can just readily extend one year, so as not to go into a lot of debate, could we just limit the political ambassadors to a 70 years maximum limit? TEEHANKEE, GUINGONA APPOINTMENTS: ILLEGAL Senate President Jovito Salonga: That would mean that persons like Ambassador Teehankee who retired at 70 from the Supreme Court cannot be appointed Ambassador to the UN? Sen. Maceda: Exactly Mr. President I think considering that our retirement law is 65 for the Executive Department, and even for the Supreme Court it is 70, why should we go beyond the Supreme Court retirement age where the job is intellectual and they sit down, research and study. The job of an ambassador is more active than the job of a Supreme Court justice. Cruz says Macedas comments later became identified as the Maceda amendment. There were some proposals made afterward, but when Salonga asked if there were any objections to the Maceda amendment that had already been accepted, there was only silence. Salonga then declared: Hearing none, the amendment is approved. Shahani, who was a diplomat before she entered politics, has also noted, The job of a diplomat is physically demanding. We cant put someone who is in a retirement mode to head an embassy. Michael Macaraig, president of the DFA Personnel Association (DFAPA), the umbrella organization composed of foreign-service officers and Foreign Service staff employees, the DFA Rank and File Association9

(DFARFA), does not see logic as well in re-enlisting into active service someone who has reached the age of retirement in another department. Pointing to the case of respondent Davide, he observes, In the Supreme Courts standard, Davide is retired. Why should DFAs standard be less? It has taken former senator Francisco Tatad, who once chaired the Senate foreign relations committee, to bring the issue at least twice now before the Commission on Appointments. Tatad had earlier objected to the appointment of former Vice President Teofisto Guingona as ambassador to China, with concurrent jurisdiction over the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea and Mongolia. One of the reasons he cited was Guingonas age, which was more than 70 years. VOID FROM BEGINNING - GUINGONA TEST CASE, MOOT. But the Commission went on to confirm Guingona, who was actually 76. Tatad filed a complaint against the Commission at a Quezon City Regional Trial Court to have Guingonas appointment void from the beginning. At the onset of the Hello Garci controversy last year, however, Guingona resigned before he was able to assume his ambassadorship. Why cant respondent Davide be as statesmanlike as former Vice President Teofisto Guingona? Meeting opposition at the Commission on Appointments on his nomination as ambassador to China, Guingona voluntarily asked President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to withdraw his nomination. FR. BERNAS DEAFENING SILENCE ON THIS ISSUE CONFIRMS JOURNALISM FRAUD AND JESUIT BIAS FOR THE ILLEGAL DAVIDE. THE REGULAR AMICI CURIAE DEFLECTED THE ISSUE TOWARDS: AD INTERIM APPOINTMENTS PARROTING MATIBAG V. BENIPAYO, TO DEFEND THE VOID DAVIDE PAPER. Intervenor Judge FLORO, JR. cannot in any manner PREDICT why Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., a well-known DAVIDE judicial activist (more faithful than a dog, who lectured at the most expensive ROCKWELL in the DAVIDE lectures, and saved DAVIDE in the impeachment cases via cohorts of ATENEO birds of the same feathers or rather puppies of the same breed, so10

to speak) maliciously and fraudulently failed to educate the reading public, the bar and the bench, using his flamboyant styles, on this issue. He USELESSLY, TERSELY wrote: BLA BLA BLA, using internet lingo - LOLSOUNDING BOARD

Davides ad interim appointment By Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J.Inquirer - Last updated 01:08am (Mla time) 01/22/2007 THERE REALLY IS NOTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT ad interim appointments. And there should be nothing unusual about the ad interim appointment of former Chief Justice Hilario Davide as ambassador to the United Nations. But, I guess, what is significant is that Davide presided at the impeachment trial of President Joseph Estrada and administered the oath of office on Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo as successor to President Estrada. These facts make him memorable in the mind of Estradas son who is a member of the Commission on Appointments. But let us just look at the legalities of the matter. First, what are ad interim appointments? There are certain important government offices, an appointment to which normally needs confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. But the Commission on Appointments operates only when Congress is in session. The Constitution therefore has provided for situations when vacancies must be filled while Congress is in recess. When the Constitutional Commission of 1986 was deliberating on the appointment power of the President, the original proposal on the subject did not contain a provision for appointments during congressional recess. But when it was remembered that the 1935 Constitution had such provision, an addition was introduced. It now reads: The President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess of the Congress, whether voluntary or compulsory, but such appointments shall be effective only until disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the Congress. This is the power which the President exercised when she appointed and swore in former Chief Justice Davide as ambassador to the United Nations. What is the nature of such an appointment? Jurisprudence is now very clear on the subject. In terms of legitimacy, it is as good as an appointment confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. As the Supreme Court put it in a 1948 decision: An ad interim appointment is one made in pursuance of paragraph (4), Section 10, Article VII of the [1935] Constitution, which provides that the President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess of the Congress, but such appointments shall be effective only until disapproval by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the Congress. It is an appointment permanent in nature, and the circumstance that it is subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments does not alter its permanent character. The current Supreme Court confirmed this in 2002 saying: The Constitution imposes no condition on the effectivity of an ad interim appointment, and thus an ad interim appointment takes effect immediately. The appointee can at once assume office and exercise, as a de jure officer, all the powers pertaining to the office. There are only two ways in which an ad interim appointment may be terminated. First, it is terminated when Congress bypasses it, that is, when Congress adjourns without any action on the subject by the Commission on Appointments. But then, if so bypassed, the President can renew the ad interim appointment. There is no constitutional limit on the number of renewals.Second, it is terminated when disapproved by

11

the commission. Disapproval is the definitive signal that the appointment should end and not be renewed.What are the chances of a disapproval of Davides appointment? It seems to me that, the fact that the appointment has been sitting there without unfavorable action may be an indication that the majority of the commission does not intend to disapprove it. But why is it not being approved? What does it take to approve it?In the answer to this question, we see how politicians behave. The law on the subject is that the commission, by constitutional command, acts by a majority vote. This means that a majority vote of Yes or a majority vote of No should end the suspense. The Senate president presides over a body of 12 senators and 12 representatives. If the body does not vote to disapprove and neither votes to approve, it can only meanthat the body wants to approve but does not wish to displease a commission member or some other influential person. So no action is taken and meanwhile the officer stays in office. Would you call that a win-win situation? Alas, the beauty of politics!

BIAS OF BERNAS FOR DAVIDE: FRIENDS SINCE THE CORY CONVENTION, DESPERATE ATTEMPT TO COVER-UP http://www.gov.ph/news/default.asp?i=9538 Bernas to lecture on Davides contribution to Constitution SUNDAY, MAY 22, 2005 | CONSTITUTION AND LAWMANILA, May 22 (PNA) Father Joaquin G. Bernas, S. J., dean emeritus of the Ateneo University Law School and an authority on constitutional law, is the scheduled speaker at the 6th Chief Justice Davide Lecture Series on June 15 at the Ateneo Law School, Rockwell, Makati City. Father Bernas' lecture is on the The Contribution of Chief Justice Davide on the Writing of the Constitution. Both Bernas and Davide were members of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, which drafted the 1987 Philippine Constitution. The Lecture series seeks to promote the Chief Justice's vision of a judiciary worthy of public trust and confidence; and a legal profession that provides quality, ethical, accessible, and cost effective legal service to our people.

RESPONDENTS OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND DFA MISERABLY FAILED TO DEFEND DAVIDE ON THIS ISSUE AS IT MERELY SANG THE PARROT SONG OF BERNAS ECHOING MATIBAG VS. BENIPAYO AND THE IRRELEVANT Astraquillo. By Cynthia Balana - Inquirer -Last updated 06:23pm (Mla time) 02/24/2007MANILA, Philippines The Department of Foreign Affairs on Saturday insisted that the assumption of former Chief Justice Hilario Davide of his new post as the countrys new permanent representative in the United Nations and the recall of Ambassador Lauro Baja Jr. were both legal and valid. DFA spokesman Claro Cristobal said that Davides appointment and assumption of office conformed with the doctrine laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Matibag v. Benipayo. The decision reads: "Whether the President chooses to nominate the prospective appointee or extend an ad interim appointment is a matter within the prerogative of the President because the Constitution grants her that power. This Court cannot inquire into the propriety of the choice made by the President in the exercise of her constitutional power, absent grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on her part." Cristobal said that the Constitution does not impose any condition on the effectivity of an ad interim appointment; thus, an ad interim appointment takes effect immediately. He said an appointee can at once assume office 12

and exercise all the powers pertaining to the office. On the other hand, the recall of Baja, who has been elected vice president of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (Ecosoc) was also valid, Cristobal stressed. He said that as a political appointee, Baja serves at the pleasure of the President. As such, there is no requirement for advance notice to Baja of his recall, unlike in the case of career officials, as in the case of Astraquillo v. Manglapus, he said. Nonetheless, Ambassador Baja was given formal and effective prior notice.

Respondent DFAs spokesman Claro Cristobals copy paste rumblings vis-a-vis veteran TATADs COUNTER-STRIKE Excerpts from the press statement of former Sen. Kit Tatad: Davide still not qualified, despite GMAs action Tatad Former Senator Francisco S. Tatad, who used to be Senate Majority Leader and chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Commission on Appointments (CA), said President Arroyo might be able to invoke her constitutional right to make appointments during the recess of Congress, but Davides appointment would still be in gross violation of the 1991 Foreign Service Act, which prohibits the appointment of anyone who is 70 years or above as chief of mission in the foreign service. Tatad expressedserious doubts that cutting corners to rush Davides appointment would serve any useful purpose.

In order for Davide to function as permanent

representative, he must first be formally accepted by the U.N. and this would require his confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. Would the Commission now be in any mood to fast-track Davides confirmation after he had been sworn in by the President without such confirmation, or would the Commission react negatively to the Presidents preemptive action and junk the nomination completely? Tatad asked. And what happens if and when the Commission of Appointments should soon decide that the appointment of 70 year-olds and above to the foreign service is in gross violation of law? Tatad added.

This is probably the first time in the entire history of the Philippine Foreign Service that the President had sworn in an ambassadorial appointee before the Commission on Appointment could extend its concurrence.13

Cabinet appointees are sometimes allowed to assume their post, even before confirmation, but never ambassadors, who have to be nominated to and accepted by the receiving states, only after confirmation. When the Constitution says in Article VII, Section 16 that the President shall nominate and, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments, appoint heads of the executive departments, ambassadors, other public ministers and consults, or officers of the armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain, and other officers whose appointments are vested in him in this Constitution, what it means to say is that the President must wait for the consent of the Commission on Appointments before appointing and swearing in an ambassador, Tatad pointed out. This incident is not at all helpful to the nations efforts to restore the rule of law at home and regain its shattered international credibility abroad. As a former Chief Justice, Davide could have begged off and advised Mrs. Arroyo to follow the normal process. That he did not do so, but heartily cooperated in carrying out the flawedprocess speaks volumes about the real character of this reputed paragon of justice,

A LESSON FROM HISTORY: BIAZON

Biazon STATED that when he was similarly situated with Davide in the past, having been once appointed during the Aquino administration as Philippine ambassador to Moscow, he was not able to discharge of his functions for failing to receive the approval of the CA. CONTENTS OF LAURO BAJA LETTER, BEST EVIDENCE OF DAVIDES FLAGRANT VIOLATION OF SEC. 53(d), R.A. 7157; HE IS DISQUALIFED DUE TO CLEARLY HAVING SOUGHT POLITICAL INTERFERENCE FOR HIS ASSIGNMENT/APPOINTMENT AND THE ILLEGAL RECALL / TRANSFER OF LAURO BAJA.

INQUIRER OPINION - LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Dont compare Davide with Boltonhttp://services.inquirer.net/express/07/02/19/html_output/xmlhtml/20070219-50254-xml.html

February 19, 2007 - Updated 05:40:22 (Mla time) Inquirer14

I WAS FURNISHED WITH A COPY of Ramon Farolans Feb. 12 column in the Inquirer. To be clear, I am not one of those officials wanting to stay on instead of gracefully bowing out from the service. I was assigned as permanent representative of the Philippines to the United Nations, even after I had reached the age of 65, to do a job. My peers have acknowledged that I have served my country well, and Filipinos, especially those in the UN, are proud to cite my achievements. I have fulfilled my mandate. I understand the feelings of Filipinos in the UN who accused Foreign Secretary Alberto Romulo of committing a faux pas when he informed UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon that retired Chief Justice Hilario Davide is the new Philippine representative to the UN and when he handed the secretary general an envelope on Davide. They consider it as an unnecessary and uncalled for lobbying of the secretary for Davide which goes against the culture of the organization they work for. They say it has to do with protocol, good taste and a sense of delicadeza. Incidentally, I advised Romulo against doing it, but I suppose he had his own reasons for doing so. It does not help to compare Davides situation with that of former US Ambassador John Bolton. The latter came to New York as a seriously flawed and weakened envoy to the UN. Certainly, we do not wish that baggage on the retired chief justice and, certainly, our country does not intend to do a Philippine John Bolton to the UN. LAURO L. BAJA JR., Philippine representative to the United Nations 2nd LESSON FROM HISTORY: JUDGE FLORO COMPARES DAVIDE TO BOLTON VIS-A-VIS AVANCENA From Statesman to Political Hack Don Claro M. Recto who could be devastatingly sarcastic, once said of the most famous son of Cebu, the great Don Sergio Osmena that, the problem with Sergio is that he is a statesman while in Manila but a politician when in Cebu. When respondent Davide decided to take his oath as our representative to the United Nations, he did so, not only arrogantly but literally and technically breaking the law. And it is a political SUICIDE. By all means, our country deserves the services of former chief justices, but no chief justice should demean himself by insisting on serving if Congress wont have him. Respondent Davide, should have waited before15

taking that oath. Theres a story about the late Chief Justice Ramon Avancena. In retirement for over a decade, he once had to fill out a form before a notary public in Iloilo. The notary public took the form and was going to stamp and sign it. Jurame, the retired chief justice insisted, which means, swear me in. The notary public said there was no need to go through the formalities in view of the chiefs high rank. If the chief justice does not comply with the law, how can anyone else be expected to, Avancena replied, gently but firmly. Jurame. And so the notary public did, though 99.99 percent of Filipinos then and now probably ignore the requirement that all notarized documents have to be signed under oath. The point of this little parable is that a chief justice even when retired, has to set the example of almost being fanatically law-abiding even if it means political suicide. Thats the only way he can be statesman in Manila, Cebu, and New York. But as it is, respondent Davide is poised to be the Filipino John Bolton. The controversial John Bolton, a known critic of the UN, was appointed US ambassador and permanent representative to the United Nations on March 7, 2005. The Democrats used every means to delay and block confirmation, including use of the filibuster. The result was that the US Congress went on recess without approving Boltons nomination. So Bush then made whats called a recess appointment, which lasts for the lifetime of a sitting Congress or until the candidate is nominated again to the Senate. Then Bolton was renominated, but a Senate fighting an election didnt act on the nomination. In November of last year, Bush then renominated Bolton so that he could be appointed before the current Congress expired. But as we know, the Republicans had done badly in the midterm elections. Knowing a Democratic-controlled Senate would give him an even harder time, on December, Bolton resigned his ambassadorship. Under our presidential system, the president appoints, and Congress confirms. But our system is rather different from the Americans. In the United States, the president appoints and the Senate provides whats formally called16

advice and consent. That is, it accepts or rejects an appointments, whether to the Cabinet, or of an ambassador. In our system, the Senate and the House approve appointments. They do so by means of a joint committee called the Committee on Appointments. In cases where theres opposition, a president would try to win the nomination fight; but if he lost, hed withdraw the nomination or the nominee would withdraw. Presidents like George W. Bush might fight for a year or two, but eventually would accept political reality and look for a more acceptable nominee. In the Philippines, of course, traditions count for less and so, Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez, for example, has been bypassed eight times. But hes still there. But Congress has a lifetime, a three-year term; and its term is broken down into sessions, each of which lasts a year; and each year has its breaks, the recesses of Congress. Now what happens if a president makes an appointment, and the Congress is in recess, that is, taking one of its periodic breaks? A paragraph from Art. VII, Sec. 16 of the Philippine Constitution tells us. The President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess of the Congress, whether voluntary or compulsory, but such appointments shall be effective only until disapproved by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the Congress. This goes to the heart of the recent, controversial appointment of Davide to the United Nations. So when Davide insisted on taking his oath to be our permanent representative to the UN during the recent Cebu Summit, Davide was being a politician a mere hireling of a president. And not a statesman, who would have never hidden behind an ad interim appointment. RESPONDENT DAVIDE, JR.S CASE IS STARKLY DIFFERENT FROM 8 TIMES BYPASSED DOJ SECRETARY RAUL GONZALES

NOTWITHSTANDING that last December 22, 2006, the bicameral Commission on Appointments has bypassed his appointment, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo reappointed 71-year old former Supreme Court17

respondent

Hilario

Davide

Jr.

as

Ambassador

Extraordinary

and

Plenipotentiary and Permanent Representative of the Philippine Mission to the United Nations. Without waiting for the Commission on Appointments to consider his appointment, Mr. Davide took his oath of office. The appointment of the former Chief Justice is ad interim, the same being made while Congress is in recess. It is effective only until disapproved by the CA or until the next adjournment of the Congress. (Section 16, Article VII, Philippine Constitution). The Office of Philippine Ambassador to the United Nations is the most prestigious foreign affairs posting. The appointment to the office should be made with serious deliberation and the official appointed should act with diplomatic discernment. The former Chief Justice will be presenting his credentials as an ad interim Philippine Ambassador. This is a diplomatic oddity. The President of the United Nations would be in a quandary on how to receive our ad interim ambassador. It would be an embarrassment to the person of the former Chief Justice in the event his appointment as Philippine Ambassador to the United Nations is disapproved or bypassed by the CA. GONZALES NEVER PRESENTED HIS CREDENTIALS TO ANY PRESIDENT. DAVIDE WILL SUBMIT INCOMPLETE, ILLEGAL AND TAINTED PAPERS NOT ONLY TO A SOVEREIGN NATION BUT TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED NATIONS. THIS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE. DAVIDE DOES A DWENDITA-THUMBELINA. II. THE APPOINTMENT OF RESPONDENT DAVIDE , JR. & THE SIMULTANEOUS RECALL / TRANSFER OF AMB. LAURO BAJA VIOLATE Comelec Resolutions Nos. 7686 dated July 17, 2006 & 7707 dated 30 August 2006. The twin resolutions ABSOLUTELY cover / ban / prohibit a) the JANUARY 14 & 18, 2007 replacement, transfer and recall of Ambassador Lauro Baja, the Philippines Permanent Representative to the United Nations (by respondent Davide, Jr.), and b) the January 14, 2007 ad interim appointment paper, commission and Oath of respondent Davide, Jr. (both absolutely and legally banned and prohibited on election period of18

January 14 - June 13, 2007 (Prohibited transfer of officers and employees - civil service (Sec. 261 (h), OEC) between July 26, 2006, and Aug. 12, 2007).http://comelec.wordpress.com/comelec-resolutions/comelec-resolution-no-7686/

COMELEC RESOLUTION NO. 7686IN THE MATTER OF THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE 2ND PAR. OF SECTION 23 AND SECTION 24.7 OF R.A. 9189 (OVERSEAS ABSENTEE VOTING LAW OF 2003) RELATING TO THE PROHIBITION OF MOVEMENT OF A PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE FOR PURPOSES OF THE 14 MAY 2007 SENATORIAL AND PARTY-LIST ELECTIONS. PROMULGATED : 17 JULY 2006 WHEREAS, the Overseas Absentee Voting Law of 2003 (R.A. 9189) provides in the second paragraph of Section 23 thereof that: No officer or member of the foreign service corps, including those belonging to attached agencies shall be transferred, promoted, extended, recalled or otherwise moved from his current post or position one (1) year before and three (3) months after the day of elections, except upon the approval of the Commission. WHEREAS, Section 24.7 of the same law provides: Sec. 24. Prohibited Acts. - In addition to the prohibited acts provided by law, it shall be unlawful:

24.7. For any public officer or employee to cause the transfer, promotion, extension, recall of any member of the foreign service corps, including members of the attached agencies, or otherwise cause the movement of any such member from his current post or position one (1) year before and three (3) months after the day of elections, without securing the prior approval of the Commission.Xxx NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the powers vested in it by the Constitution, the Omnibus Election Code, Republic Act No. 9189 and other related laws, the Commission Resolved, as it hereby RESOLVES as follows:

Section 1. No officer of the foreign service corps, including those belonging to attached agencies that have offices abroad, shall be transferred, promoted, extended, recalled or otherwise moved from his current post or position from the date of efficacy of this Resolution until 12 August 2007. Section 2. No movement of any member of the foreign service corps shall be made unless the same is approved by the Commission through the Chairman of the Committee on Overseas Absentee Voting (COAV).19

Section 3. Request for movement shall be made in writing by the authorized officials of concerned agencies stating the cause of reason for such movement and stating why said movement should be made an exemption to the prohibition. The request shall specifically identify the government personnel concerned, his current posting and his next assignment abroad.Approved this 17th day of July 2006. SO ORDERED.

Solon points out prohibition in foreign service movements First posted 05:34:56 (Mla time) 2007-02-13 - Inquirer MANILA, Philippines -- A congressman has called the attention of the Department of Foreign Affairs to a Commission on Elections resolution prohibiting the transfer, promotion, extension or recall from duty of any member of the foreign service between July 26, 2006, and Aug. 12, 2007. Rep. Hermilando Mandanas (LP, Batangas) on Monday said Comelec Resolution No. 7686 dated July 17, 2006, prescribes activities and the period within which certain acts are prohibited in connection with the May 14, 2007, elections. The resolution extends to members of agencies attached to the Foreign Service. The resolution therefore covers the replacement of Ambassador Lauro Baja, the Philippines Permanent Representative to the United Nations, by retired Chief Justice Hilario Davide, who was recently appointed to the UN post by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. If the Comelec resolution were to be strictly followed, Baja could not be recalled and Davide could not take over until after Aug. 12, 2007, Mandanas said. Davides appointment is pending at the Commission. Davides UN deployment violates poll codesolons http://www.tribune.net.ph/headlines/20070223hed4.html 02/23/2007 The assignment of former (SC) Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. as Philippine Permanent Representative to the United Nations during an election period violates the Omnibus Election Code. This was cited yesterday in a manifesto by some 60 lawmakers opposing the appointment of Davide to the UN. Davide is replacing Lauro Baja Jr. at Philippine Mission in the UN in New York. The Philippines is going to the polls on May 14 this year to elect congressmen and senators and local officials.20

The lawmakers said Davides assignment violates Resolution 7707 of the Comelec that prohibits the transfer, assignment or recall of foreign service personnel during an election period. In the manifesto, the lawmakers signed a letter urging the Chief Executive to hold in abeyance Davides deployment to New York. The unpopular appointment of Davide came in the wake of the recent achievements of current Ambassador Lauro Baja Jr., who was elcted in his personal capacity as vice president for AsiaPacific, at the Economic and Social Council (Ecosoc) and vice president of the General Assembly. Ambassador Baja has since been acting president of the General Assembly, the resolution said. On Jan. 18, Baja was unanimously elected vice president of the Ecosoc, one of the principal organs of the UN. He also spearheaded the Philippine campaign in the UN Security Council, the most powerful body of the international organization, enabling the country to win a seat and serve a three-year term from 2004 to 2006 as a non-permanent member. The signatories to the manifesto include Hermilando Mandanas, Agapito Aquino, Remedios Petilla, Constantino Jaraula, Ace Barbers, Jaime Lopez, Uliran Joaquin, Vincent Garcia, Amelita Villarosa, Christian Seneres, Rene Velarde, Lorna Silverio, Roseller Barinaga, Reylina Nicolas, Etta Rosales, Antonio Roman, Victoria Reyes, Roquito Ablan, Salacnib Baterina and Benjamin Abalos Jr. Baja seen to turn down new Manila jobhttp://www.tribune.net.ph/headlines/20070226hed5.html

By Michaela P. del Callar 02/26/2007 Ambassador Baja has been extremely popular in international circles, and it is well-known that he is a personal friend of the current UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon. Various sectors, including the Filipino community in the US, have called for a more considerate approach to the impasse, the manifesto said. The lawmakers also scored Foreign Affairs Secretary Alberto for allegedly breaching diplomatic protocol when he handed over to Ki-Moon the resume of Davide. They also accused Romulo of orchestrating Bajas21

removal from the UN post. Baja relinquished on Friday the vice presidency of the Economic and Social Council (Ecosoc), one of the major components of the UN, as a result of his reassignment to the home office. Ambassador Kenzo Oshima, Permanent Representative of Japan, takes over the vice presidency of Ecosoc from Baja. I have stressed to the president of Ecosoc, the secretariat and the members of the Asian Group that we have done enough as vice president in the preparation and organization of the July session of the Council. The coordination segment, which has completed its theme and program of work for the important July session in Geneva. I hope Ambassador Enrique Manalo, our Permanent Representative in Geneva, gets to be vice president of the important session, Baja, in a statement from New York, said. According to DFA spokesman Claro Cristobal, the formal notice and notification was served when Davide was sworn into office as the new Philippine Permanent Representative to the United Nations on Jan. 14, 2007 in a public ceremony that was very widely reported in the media. But the order reassigning Baja to the home office was transmitted four days, on January 18, 2007, after the oath-taking ceremony. Cristobal said Romulo personally informed Baja of Mrs. Arroyos decision during his visit to New York last January and informed UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon of the Presidents appointment of Davide in a meeting on Jan. 18. Respondent DFAs Cristobal cited the wrong case, as he refused to discuss the twin Comelec prohibition RESOLUTIONS and deflected the issue of the BAN or PROHIBITION to the irrelevant matter of: The Department of Foreign Affairs is confident that Ambassador Davide will bring honor and true service to the country as its new ambassador to the United Nations, the DFA official said, adding Bajas recall is also valid. As a political appointee, he serves at the pleasure of the President. As such, there is no requirement for advance notice to him of his recall, unlike in the case of career officials, he said. Consequently, the termination of their22

connection with the Foreign Service was not dependent on proof of some legally recognized cause therefore, after due notice and hearing as in the case of career officers and employees but lay entirely within the will of the President, in the exercise of her discretion, and her determination of the wisdom, necessity or convenience of such a step in the national interest, actually a political decision, Cristobal said, citing a high court ruling in Astraquillo v. Manglapus, (October 3, 1990, G.R. No. 88183). THE IMPERTINENT CASE DEFLECTS THE ISSUE: BAJAS ILLEGAL RECALL, TRANSFER WAS DONE ON ELECTION PERIOD PROHIBITED BY THE CITED TWIN RESOLUTIONS AND THE OMNIBUS ELECTION CODE. ASTRILLO WAS NEVER RECALLED ON THAT BASIS. THE FACTS ARE DIFFERENT.NARVASA, J.: As the caption indicates, this decision deals with five cases. The cases have been consolidated and jointly considered because they all turn upon a common legal issue, i.e., the validity of the termination, by authority of the President of the Philippines, of the petitioners' appointments as "political" or "non-career" members of the country's Foreign Service. Stated otherwise, the common issue is whether or not their service as Philippine diplomats was under the circumstances, at the pleasure of the president, terminable without cause or need of investigation. G.R. Nos. 88183 and 88781: Isabelo Astraquillo Astraquillo was appointed by the President of the Philippines on July 22,1986 as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary and Chief of Mission (II) to the United Arab Emirates (UAE). By these statutory standards, it seems plain that all three (3) petitioners: Isabelo J. Astraquillo, Alunan C. Glang, and Alejandro Melchor, Jr., pertained to the Non-Career Service. Their appointments to the Foreign Service were made on "bases other than those of the usual test of merit and fitness utilized for the career service;" their entrance was not 'based on merit and fitness . . . determined . . . by competitive examinations, or based on highly technical qualifications." This being so, their "tenure . . . (was) coterminous with that of the appointing authority or subject to his pleasures, . . . Astraquillo v. Manglapus, (October 3, 1990, G.R. No. 88183).

COMEDY OF ERRORS: BORRA BECAME THE SUPREME COURT - BORRA WAS CONFUSED: HE THOUGHT THAT DAVIDE WAS APPOINTED ON JANUARY 10, 2007 BY VIRTUE OF THE Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) Order No. 22-07 dated January 10. BORRA MISLED THE PUBLIC / PAPERS, THE BAR AND THE BENCH THE PRESIDENTIAL AD INTERIM RE-APPOINTMENT COMMISSION PAPER AND OATH OF DAVIDE WERE SIGNED AND MADE ON JANUARY 14, 2007, THE EXACT DATE AND BEGINNING OF THE ELECTION PERIOD WHEREIN SUCH23

APPOINTMENT IS MADE ABSOLUTELY ILLEGAL / NULL AND VOID AB INITIO. THE DFA ORDER OF JANUARY 10 IS NOT AN APPOINTMENT. ONLY THE PRESIDENT CAN APPOINT DAVIDE. THE RECALL OF BAJA ON JANUARY 18, 2007 IS DEFINITELY COVERED BY THE ELECTION PERIOD BAN (JANUARY 14 JUNE 13, 2007, UNDER COM. RES. NO. 7707, AND Sec. 261 (h), OEC; AND UNDER COM. RES. NO. 7686, prohibiting the transfer, promotion, extension or recall from duty of any member of the foreign service between July 26, 2006, and Aug. 12, 2007). Davide's UN posting is legal, says Comelec Borra committed utter disrespect / contempt of the High Tribunal, by pre-empting the decision or tying the hands of the magistrates in this case. The very LIS MOTA supposed to be discussed and ruled upon after timely agendum, was already decided by the very crossed EYES of the honorable Commissioner Borra. If only he can look straight towards the papers or commission of Davide, there would be no problem with his announcement. CRITICAL AND UNDISPUTED FACTS Davide, Jr.s paper and commission was shown on TV and he not only took his oath but signed the commission, appointment paper before the President on the BANNED ELECTION PERIOD of JANUARY 14, 2007 (to June 13, 2007). So, what is Com. Borra talking about? COM. BORRA FORGOT THAT ONLY THE PRESIDENT CAN APPOINT. HE THOUGHT THAT THE DFA ORDER DATED 10 JANUARY, 2006 IS THE PAPER OF DAVIDE, WRONG MISTAKE. BORRA MADE THIS GLARING MISTAKE OF FACTS AND DATE, AS HE IS GROSSLY IGNORANT OF THE LAWS ON PUBLIC OFFICERS AND BANNED APPOINTMENTS BY THE PRESIDENT DURING ELECTION PERIOD:

http://www.gmanews.tv/story/31872/Davides-UN-posting-does-not-violate-election-law---Comelec

02/23/2007 | 07:06 PM The appointment of former Supreme Court Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. as the countrys permanent representative to the United Nations in24

New York does not violate the election ban on appointments, Commission on Elections Comissioner Resurreccion Borra said on Friday. For this years May 14 polls, the Comelec set the election period from January 14 to June 13," Borra said, adding that any appointment made prior to that does not violate the poll bodys Resolution 7707. Davides appointment under Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) Order No. 22-07 was reportedly dated January 10. Chief Justice MALCOM wrote: Appoint is defined as to allot, set apart, or designate; nominate or authoritatively assign, as for a use, or to a position or office. Appointment is the sole act of those vested with the power to make it. Another rule of public officers is, that an appointment may not be made to an office which is not vacant. (4 C.J., 1402, 1404; 29 Cyc., 1373). The next step is the issuance of the commission. This is done by the President alone. The commission is complete upon signing by the President. Agpalo wisely put it this way: There can be no appointment to a nonvacant position. The incumbent must first be legally removed or his appointment validly terminated before one could be validly installed to succeed him. (The Law on Public Officers, 1998 ed., pp. 63, 94). Following these rules of law, Baja was never validly and legally removed, recalled and transferred. The act of respondent DFA in issuing the recall order to BAJA is not only null and void or illegal, but it is a criminal and prohibited act under the above-cited OEC. CARDINAL ROSALES QUIETLY JOINED THE CIRCUS Rosales backs UN envoys request for extension http://www.tribune.net.ph/headlines/20070224hed4.html 02/24/2007 Manila Archbishop Gaudencio Cardinal Rosales yesterday expressed support for the request of recalled Philippine envoy to the United Nations Lauro Baja Jr. for an extension. Baja wrote a letter to Rosales stating he needs some time to wind up his affairs at the UN and prepare a smooth transition for25

his replacement, former Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. In response, Rosales wrote to President Arroyo on Feb. 12 endorsing Bajas request to allow the envoy to give attention and care to some of the remaining tasks initiated in the last weeks of his term. The cardinal stressed he is not belittling Davides capacity to serve as ambassador to the UN, stressing he is leaving to the President the decision on whether to extend Bajas term. All things considered Ambassador Bajas request and this present endorsement are, in no way, made to belittle the credentials of the newly-appointed Ambassador and Permanent Representative who I also know and respect, Rosales said. Having read through Ambassador Bajas request that we kindly endorse, still the foundational intent is whatever is for the good of the country. We, nonetheless, leave the cause to Your Excellencys decision, he added. Despite the recall order issued by Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) Secretary Alberto Romulo that took effect last Feb. 14, Baja is still in New York. On Thursday, Romulo sent an assignment order to the Philippine mission in New York appointing Deputy Permanent Representative Bayani Mercado as Charge dAffaires pending the arrival of Davide. Davide was due to leave for the post on Feb. 17, but his departure was rescheduled to Feb. 24, Saturday. Theoretically, Davide cannot leave for New York and assume the post if he does not have an assignment and a travel order, a source from the DFA said. The DFA also instructed Baja to return to the home office in Manila to assume his new position as presidential special envoy for interfaith dialogue as soon as possible. Sources said Baja was given a special envoy appointment to pacify the diplomat who is not due for recall until 2009 and as recognition for his achievements and efforts in advancing Philippine interests in the UN. On Jan. 18, Baja was unanimously elected Vice President of the Ecosoc, one of the principal organs of the UN. He also spearheaded the Philippine campaign in the UN Security Council, the most powerful body in the international organization. The Philippines won a seat in the council and served a three-year term as a non-permanent member. A group of lawmakers that included Surigao del Norte Rep. Robert Ace Barbers has reportedly joined calls for the deferment of Davides26

appointment, citing as reason the Commission on Elections (Comelec) ban on the movement of government personnel during the election period. In a resolution, the lawmakers said Davides appointment is unpopular, illegal and a violation of diplomatic protocol. They also urged the Chief Executive to allow Baja, a career service officer who has reached mandatory retirement age, to keep his job as envoy. The Commission on Elections (Comelec) defended Davides appointment to the UN post, saying it did not violate the ban on appointments and movements of personnel in government service during the election period. If his appointment and assignment took place before Jan. 14, then there is no violation of Comelec Resolution 7707, Comelec Commissioner Resurreccion Borra said. The poll body set the election period this year from Jan. 14 to June 13. Davide was assigned to the UN post via DFA Order No. 22-07 dated Jan. 10.

The Resolution is reproduced hereunder: RESOLUTION No. 7707

CALENDAR OF ACTIVITIES AND PERIODS OF PROHIBITED ACTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE MAY 14, 2007 SYNCHRONIZED NATIONAL AND LOCAL ELECTIONS

Promulgated: 30 August 2006

Pursuant to the powers vested in it by the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, the Omnibus Election Code (B.P. Blg. 881), Republic Act No. 6646, 7166, 8189, 8436, 9189 and other election laws, the Commission on Elections RESOLVED to prescribe as it hereby prescribes the following Calendar of Activities and Periods of Prohibited Acts in connection with the May 14, 2007 synchronized national and local elections: DATE/PERIOD January 14, 2007 (SUN) to June 13, 2007 (WED) ELECTION PERIOD ACTIVITIES PROHIBITED ACTS Transfer of officers and employees in the civil service (Sec. 261 (h), OEC)

27

July 26, 2006 (WED) to August 12, 2007 (SUN) (Comelec Resolution No. 7686 dated July 17, 2006)

Prohibition on the transfer, promotion, extension, recall of any member of the foreign service corps, including members of the attached agencies, or the movement of any such member from his current post or position

OEC, B.P. 881, Sec. 261. Prohibited Acts. The following shall be guilty of an election offense: h. Transfer of officers and employees in the civil service. - Any public official who makes or causes any transfer or detail whatever of any officer or employee in the civil service xxxs, within the election period except upon prior approval of the Commission. IRREPARABLE INJURY AND LOSS TO THE NATION RP loses UN post after Baja recalledBy Jose Katigbak STAR Washington Bureau - The Philippine Star 02/28/2007

WASHINGTON The Philippines had to relinquish the vice presidency of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), a major UN forum responsible for promoting higher standards of living, full employment, and economic and social progress, because of the untimely recall of Ambassador Lauro L. Baja, the Philippine mission to the United Nations said. The Philippines lost an important position in the United Nations as a result of the recall of Baja, the mission said in a press statement. It added that Filipino-Americans were "aghast" Baja was not even given a 60-day transition period to make way for retired Chief Justice Hilario Davide. Baja was unanimously elected in his personal capacity as vice president of ECOSOC after the Philippines topped the elections for the Council held on Nov. 2, the first time that the country topped an election to a major organ of the UN, thestatement said. A UN spokesman, however, pointed out that a country not an individual was elected to a post and that whoever succeeded Baja would automatically assume the vice presidency of ECOSOC.

Last June Filipino Americans criticized President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo over the untimely recall of Philippine ambassador to the United States Albert del Rosario whom they rated as one of the best Filipino ambassadors to the United States. Del Rosario was also not given the normal 60-day transition period. There are some three million FilipinoAmericans in the United States and their remittances make up about 60 percent of the more than $12 billion remitted by Filipino overseas workers last year. Filipinos working

28

in the United Nations have expressed concern over reports that Davide plans to engage in official activities as soon as he arrives in New York.

3.

Intervenor FLORO, JR. respectfully begs the Court to take JUDICIAL NOTICE of all the chronological analysis / reproduction of newspaper reports, T.V. coverage, and accounts on the subject, inter alia (abovereproduced, and sourced from the Internet, and S.C. PIO / Library compiled newspaper official clippings) under Secs. 1-3, Rule 129, Rules of Court, inter alia.

EXTRAORDINARY AND SPECIAL INTEREST OF INTERVENOR JUDGE FLORO, JR., NOT ONLY IN THE SUJECT MATTER BUT IN THE OUTCOME OF THIS CASE : FIRST IN JUDICIAL HISTORY 7 YEARS PERSECUTION BY RESPONDENT DAVIDE, JR. VIS-A-VIS 8 YEARS SPIRITUAL CURSE, SPELL AND KARMA UPON DAVIDE AND HIS FAMILY UP TO THE 4th GENERATION ABSOLUTE ANGER, HATRED AND VENGEANCE. I WILL PUT STAIN ON YOUR BLOOD! HEALING JUDGE IMPRECATES, DAVIDE CUTS THE BIBLE: VENGEANCE. DAVIDE IS THE ROOT CAUSE OF ALL THE PHYSICAL AND SPIRITUAL SUFFERINGS IN THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT: MYSTIC FIRE, SUCCESSIVE DEATHS DUE TO THE PSALM 109 IMPRECATION, & THE BIBLICAL CURSE VIS-A-VIS PSALM 62. 4. ATTY. FELIMON FERNANDEZ, the law partner of Davide (ABELLA, DAVIDE, FERNANDEZ Law Office, Cebu) summarized the raison d'etre of Davides insistence or mad arrogance to stay put and to remove Baja:

Judge, as far as I know, he wants to be

with his daughter in the U.S..... and you know... he wants the Filipino community to accept that he is a man of integrity .... xxx He confronted me at a meeting ... he asked me if it is true that as you (Judge Floro) testified at the Senate ... that I told you that he is corrupt and gave bribes to the lawyers ... we became partners for JUST

29

one year, because the firm is not earning money! Xxx ... I dont think he needs that salary ... he is already very rich ... (Banco Filipino, Main, Makati).REASON WHY THE $ 30,000 monthly salary is needed by Davide Hilario Sr. has seven children, 18 grandchildren and over 20 great grandchildren. Davide is married to the former Virginia Jimenea Perez and they are blessed with five children Hilario III, Joseph Bryan Hilary, Sheryl Ann, Noreen, and Delster Emmanuel. http://beta.inq7.net/regions/index.php?index=1&story_id=79642

I NEVER FOUND KINDNESS IN MY OWN COUNTRY, BUT FROM THE HEARTS OF THOUSANDS OF MEMBERS, FORUM USERS, BLOGGERS AND JURISTS WORLDWIDE. I WAS VOTED JUDGE OF THE YEAR, BY THE THE TIMES, UK, ON THE VERY BIRTHDAY OF PONENTE JUSTICE MINITA VIRAY CHICO-NAZARIO, DECEMBER 5, 2006, THE NATAL AND DEATH DAY OF MY MOTHER MILAGROS VELASQUEZ. DAVIDE MADE ME SUFFER UNTIL TODAY, AS JOBLESS IN A PRETEND WORLD. ERGO, I WILL DEVOTE MY ENTIRE LIFE TO THE FULFILMENT OF THE NOVEMBER 5, 2006 CURSE, SPELL AND KARMA:17 June, 2006, HILARIO P. Davide Sr., the father of retired Supreme Court Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr., died on Saturday, June 17, 2006. A native of Colawin, Argao, Cebu Province, he was born on January 14, 1905. After suffering lingering illnesses and pains (together with his son Atty. Jose

30

Davide), for 7 years making parallel the pains of Judge Floro, this MAN DIED 2 months after the release of the cursed decision, 1) Hilario Davide Sr., the father of retired Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr., died of old age at 101 at past 7 p.m. on Saturday in his residence on Walingwaling Street, Capitol Site, Cebu City. 2) Hilario Sr.s wife, Josefa Gelbolingo-Davide died at the age of 94 in 1997. 3) and 4) Jose, who died in 2004, was a lawyer-engineer; and Jorge, who died in 2002, was a doctor in soil. Councilor Davide said his grandfather was in and out of the hospital for two years. In fact, Davide Sr. had been out of the hospital for just a week before he died. Before he died, he could only identify a few members of his family and could barely speak, according to Nida Davide, the wife of one of his grandchildren. 16 July, 2002, Carotid Operation of Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. by Dr. Jorge Garcia, who operated FVR in 1997. (Carotid endarterectomy, to remove anthero sclerotic plaque from the wall of the carotid artery to prevent ischemic stroke). 16 December, 2004, foot diabetes 2 months wheelchair accident of Davide at Colawin, Cebu. CROWNING GLORY OF THE PROPHET: MAGLULUKSA ANG HUDIKATURA / JBC --- Days of Glory and Mourning 6 April, 2006 Release of the CURSED DECISION on Judge Floro, 75 pp. 5 August, 2006 Lirio Lily Bautista Victorino most painful death, 6 days before the release of the spelled Resolution denying Judge Floro's Appeal, on August 11, 2006 (wife of JBC Member Justice Raoul Victorino), 17 June, 2006, HILARIO P. Davide Sr., the father of retired Supreme Court Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr., died on Saturday, June 17, 2006. A native of Colawin, Argao, Cebu Province, he was born on January 14, 1905. After31

suffering lingering illnesses and pains (together with his sons Jorge and Atty. Jose Davide), for 7 years making parallel the pains of Judge Floro, June 26, 2006 - my branch 73 malabon rtc ex-clerk of court, Fiscal Julio Taloma was murdered at Meycauayan Bulacan, Unparalleled, unprecedented and unduplicated Death of 11 Judges from Judge Floro's July 20, 1999 Suspension - December 31, 2005, 3 months before the release of the cursed decision: 12 Judges were murdered: Judge Henrick Gingoyan, only 53 years old, of RTC Pasay, who was fatally shot by two motorcycle- riding gunmen near his residence last December 31, 2005. http://www.negroschronicle.com/final/jan_15/op_4.html Judge Gingoyan was the tenth Judge to be assassinated within said period. The other nine are: Judge Milnar T. Lammawin, of RTC Branch 25, Tabuk, Kalinga; Judge Voltaire Y. Rosales, of RTC Branch 83 in Tanauan City, Batangas; Judge Paterno G. Tiamson, of RTC Branch 69 in Binangonan, Rizal; Judge Pinera A. Biden, of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Kabugao, Apayao; Judge Oscar Gaby M. Uson, of RTC Branch 52 in Tayug, Pangasinan; Judge Eugenio R. Valles, of RTC Branch 3 in Nabunturan, Campostella Valley; Judge Ariston L. Rubio, of RTC Branch 17 in Batac, Ilocos Norte; Judge Hassan T. Ibnohaijil, of RTC Branch 45 in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro; and Judge Celso F. Lorenzo, Sr., of RTC Branch 1 in Borongan, Eastern Samar. Judge Estrelita Paas suffered multiple stab wounds in her toilet at Pangasinan. While Judge Guerero was comatose upon hitting the middle barrier near the tollgate at SLEX super highwas, December, 2006. Fiscal Roldan of Pasay City Shot himself to death. The husband, Victor Padilla, of RTC QC Judge Ma. Luisa Quijano-Padilla was murdered on his birthday on September 6, 2005; while Malabon Mayor Amado Vicencio suffered accident at NLEX on June 7, 2006, with his Ford expedition, a total wreck. Up to this day, the case folder of each of the above-enumerated murders of Judges has one common marking: CRIME UNSOLVED. 5 November, 2006, 53rd Birthday of Judge Floro, who filed the IMPRECATION Psalm 109 BIBLICAL CURSE with the Court; 11 November, 2006, James Bersamin was murdered, cousin of Luis and Justice Lucas Bersamin.

32

16 December, 2006, LUIS BERSAMIN, shot dead, while his wife was in the ICU suffering from stage 4 Cancer. 12 January, 2007 Atty. EMILY REYES, Ateneo Lex Athenia founder and classmate of Judge Floro died of mysterious cancer lingering illness spending P 5 million since Judge Floro and Mayor Jerry Trenas talked on 2004 regarding the Curse. 15 January, 2007, MYTIC FIRE HALVED SUPREME COURT LOGO. 19 January, 2007 - Quezon City Judge Nathaniel Pattugalan was the 13th Judge murdered. 20 January, 2007 Raymond Pagdanganan, son of the Bulacan Governor Obet, died of vehicular accident before Judge Floros town. SAME ACCIDENT PAINFUL DEATH OF CONG. SERAPIO. 18 February, 2007 TWIN DEATHS, JUSTICE ROBERTO BARRIOS & VICENTE ERICTA. HUDIKATURA NAGLULUKSA SA PAGPANAW NG 2

MAHISTRADO - By Jay B. Rempillo http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/news/bks/2007/02/0219ERICTA.php NAGLULUKSA NGAYON ANG BUONG HUDIKATURA SA PAGPANAW NI RETIRED SUPREME COURT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE VICENTE ERICTA AT COURT OF APPEALS JUSTICE ROBERTO BARRIOS. SI JUSTICE ERICTA AT JUSTICE BARRIOS AY PUMANAW NOONG LINGGO DAHIL SA MATAGAL NANG KARAMDAMANhttp://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/news/courtnews%20flash/2007/02/02190701.php

Ret. Justice Ericta, Justice Barrios Pass Away Posted: February 19, 2007 - By Jay B. Rempillo - The Supreme Court and Court of Appeals flags are in half-mast today following the death of retired SC Associate Justice Vicente G. Ericta and incumbent CA Associate Justice Roberto A. Barrios. Both died on Sunday due to lingering illnesses.

INTERVENOR, JUDGE FLORO respectfully attaches here, marked collectively and INTERSPERSED NEXT PAGES as ANNEX A, page 1 of the NAZARIO SUIT to enthrone J.33

NAZARIO, 2 pages argument on standing and the newspaper report on the Senate COA testimony of Judge Floro and Davide.RELIEF

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Intervenor, Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., respectfully begs leave to intervene as petitioner-in-intervention in this case, and PRAYS that the attached Petitionin-intervention be duly noted, admitted, given due course, and GRANTED. Intervenor FLORO, JR. tenders payment of all docket/legal fees (if required), upon admission of this motion/Petition. Other relief and remedies are likewise prayed for. Malolos City, Bulacan, for Manila, March 1, 2007. Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., Movant/Petitioner-in-intervention,123 Dahlia, Alido, Malolos, 3000 BULACAN,Tel/#(044) 662-82-03; (Presiding Judge, Branch 73, RTC, MALABON, NCJR, M.M.) [I.D. Number: RTCJ-317 / EDP Number: 38676300; ROLL OF ATTORNEYS NO. 32800, Pg. No. 60, Book No. XIV (Note: Motion For Leave to Admit 4th Appeal to be reinstated is pending.] PTR No. 503411, dated 1-11-07, Malolos, Bulacan.

NOTICE TO: Atty. Ma. Luisa D. Villarama, Clerk of Court, En Banc, SUPREME COURT, MANILA

Please DOCKET and AGENDUM the foregoing pleading for the deliberation and Resolution of the Honorable Court, immediately upon receipt hereof, in view of the urgency of the matter. THANKS.

Judge FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., Petitioner-in-Intervention VERIFICATION and CERTIFICATION of Non-Forum-Shopping & Affidavit of ServiceRepublic of the Philippines) Malolos City, BULACAN ) S.S. I, JUDGE FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., under oath, depose and say, that: I am the Intervenor/movant in the above-entitled case and I read, caused the preparation of, and signed the foregoing pleading. And all the allegations/contents thereof/therein are true and correct of my own personal knowledge or based on authentic records.

34

I certify that: I have not theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency, and to the best of our knowledge, no such other action or claim is pending therein, and if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the present status thereof will be made, but there is none; if I should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or claim has been filed or is pending, I shall report that fact within 5 days there from to the court wherein the aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed. I CERTIFY that on March 1, 2007, I served copies of this motion with the attached petition-in-intervention and annexes in this case G.R. No. 176278, Paguia v. Office of the President, et al., upon all respondents via registered mail with return card at their offices / addresses as hereunder indicated, in accordance with Secs. 3, 5, 7, 13 and 12 of Rule 13, Rules of Court, by depositing said copies at the Malolos Post Office, as evidenced by reg. receipts hereto attached, hereunder and next page, and indicated after the names of the addressees, and with instructions to the postmaster to return the mails to the sender after 10 days if undelivered. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I signed this affidavit, this 1st day of March, 2007, at Malolos City, BULACAN.

JUDGE FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR., affiant.SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, on this 1st day of March, 2007, hereat Malolos City, Bulacan, affiant exhibited to me his CTC NO. CC12006 # 10333105, issued at Malolos, Bulacan, on 1-11, 2007.DOC. NO. 250, PAGE NO. 51, BOOK NO. 74, SERIES OF 2007. BERNAR D. FAJARDO Notary Public, Until Jan.15, 2008, PTR NO. 2417109, 1- 3,07, Atty.s Roll No. 33633, IBP OR # 687744, 1-5,07 Malolos, Bulacan.

COPY FURNISHED:

Atty. Allan F. Paguia,# 17 Lazcano St. Quezon City, M.M., Petitioner, Office of the President, Malacanang Palace, Manila, M.M. Public Respondent, Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Hon. ALBERTO G. ROMULO, Department OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Department of Foreign Affairs, 2330 Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City, Philippines 1300, Public Respondent, (Ret.) Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., No. 2, H.C. Mondado St., BF Homes, 1120 Quezon City, Philippines, Respondent, and The Office of the Solicitor General, 124 Amorsolo st., Legaspi Village, Makati, Metro Manila, Counsel for Public Respondents.

35

Explanation on Service by Registered Mail: Intervenor, in compliance with Secs. 7, 11, Rule 13, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, states that due to lack of time and messenger and impracticality, he served copies of these motion and attached petition and annexes to all respondents by registered mail with return card with attached receipts, pasted after the names of respondents.

JUDGE FLORENTINO V. FLORO, JR.

5.

The REPORTS:

SUN STAR REPORTED: http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/net/2006/04/15/palace.to.resubmit.davide.s. appointment.to.congress..html Saturday, April 15, 2006 Palace to resubmit Davide's appointment to Congress BAGUIO CITY--- Overtaken by the Lenten recess of Congress, the nomination of retired Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. as permanent representative of the Philippines to the United Nations will have to be resubmitted to the Commission on Appointments, Malacanang said. "Technically, he (Davide) was bypassed," Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita said. "Therefore, we have to submit another nomination to the Commission on Appointments." Ermita said pending approval by the Commission of Davide's appointment, Ambassador Lauro Baja will continue to discharge his duties at the UN post on a holdover capacity. A career diplomat, Baja is serving out his first extension as the country's envoy to the world body. Davide faces rough sailing at CA on UN posting By Angie M. Rosales, 10/05/2006, The DAILY TRIBUNE http://www.tribune.net.ph/20061005/headlines/20061005hed3.html http://www.tribune.net.ph/20061005/index.html

36

Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago who sits as chairman of the Commission on Appointments screening committee for Malacaang-designated diplomats yesterday disclosed that Davide will be facing rough sailing in his confirmation of an ambassadorship in New York. She pointed out that President Arroyos ambassador-designate Davides appointment drew numerous objections, one which happens to come from a colleague, Senator Estrada, who reportedly said that as long as he remains a senator of the republic, he will ensure that the Davide appointment is blocked. Under Senate rules, a senator who opposes the confirmation of the presidential appointee can block that confirmation by simply saying two words Section 20, and does not have to explain why he resorted to the Section 20 rule. A book written by now Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban. Reforming the Judiciary, also wrote about the decision made by Davide to swear in Mrs. Arroyo as president, after he cut the bible, even when the justices knew that there was no vacancy in the presidential office, as Estrada had not resigned. http://newsinfo.inq7.net/breakingnews/nation/view_article.php? article_id=36778 Breaking News / Nation Davide withstands grilling by Estrada allies in CA By TJ Burgonio - Inquirer - Last updated 09:12pm (Mla time) 12/06/2006 But what provided a light moment to the otherwise grim proceeding was the appearance of another oppositor: dismissed Malabon Judge Florentino Floro Jr., who made no bones about his closeness to three dwarfs. In the end, the CA committee on foreign affairs, chaired by Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, decided to resume the questioning at the next session for lack of time. Malacaang nominated Davide as permanent representative to the UN in late March. Floro, who claimed he was still an incumbent judge of the Malabon Regional Trial Court even though he had been dismissed by the Supreme Court in March this year for psychological incapacity, blamed Davide for his suspension. Floro moved to defer Davides nomination for37

involvement in graft, which he said he had learned through Davides partner Filemon Fernandez, and from talking to dwarfs. He also claimed Davide was in poor health. When asked if he had any personal knowledge of Davides involvement in graft, he replied: He also cut the Bible. The angels appeared to me, and this is my spiritual belief. At the hearing, an amused Senator Juan Ponce Enrile asked him if he believed, saw and talked to dwarfs, Floro replied in the affirmative. [Ive seen] three. Luis, Armand and Angel, he said, drawing laughter from the legislative staff, guests and spectators. They are world famous because they are in Google. In fact they exist. The decision points to them. They were called dwarfs by our culture but they are really angels of God. They are angels, your honor, he added. They have only one mission: to clean the judiciary. Those who are receiving bribes. Thats only my mission: to clean the judiciary and to heal the sick. Floro admitted believing in psychic visions to see the future because of his power in psychic phenomenon and confessed he had a covenant with his dwarf friends, and that he could write while in a trance. Davide denied Floros claims he committed graft and had poor health. Floro, he added, had been dismissed from the judiciary. I can guarantee you, that at this time, I am in the pink of health. Probably even healthier than the oppositor (Floro), he said. Besides, the last pleading concentrates on the so-called three dwarves. I dont think the committee should entertain the appearance of dwarves and I cannot be compelled to answer the supposed performance of dwarves, he continued, eliciting chuckles from the spectators. Earlier, Tatad argued that Davides appointment was void ab initio because Sec. 23 of the Republic Act No. 7157 or the Foreign Service Act of 1991, barred the appointment of foreign affairs officers above 70 years old. Davide, however, pointed out that the particular section referred only to chiefs of mission, career ministers, foreign service officers and honorary consuls, and did not apply to his case. Non-career officials may be appointed by the President as heads of the permanent and diplomatic missions provided that the President shall be

38

guided as much as possible by the principle that a majority of diplomatic missions shall be headed by career ambassadors, he said. This, he added, was the only limit to the Presidents power to appoint noncareer individuals like himself as head of diplomatic and permanent missions, and that even the President, in his or her discretion, may not observe the limitation. Replying to Estrada questions, Davide justified his decision to administer the oath of office to Arroyo on January 20, 2001. I would be very frank about it... a military junta may take over if the President, for instance, had no more power, and was abandoned by everybody. So there was really a vacuum of power and leadership... I felt I could administer the oath, he said. Assuming that these circumstances would come to pass, then I was prepared to this whole idea of saving the country and our people, he added.

Davide post payment for political debt http://www.malaya.com.ph/jan16/metro2.htm Sen. Rodolfo Biazon advised Davide not to assume the UN position until confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. He said it would put the country in an awkward position and decrease Davides effectiveness if he assumes the post in an acting capacity. Davide, 71, took his oath before Arroyo in Cebu City last Sunday as permanent ambassador to the UN vice seasoned diplomat Lauro Baja Jr. His appointment papers were signed in March 2006 and forwarded to the CA in April. "With the failure of the Commission on Appointments to take up Mr. Davides UN posting when we adjourned last Dec. 22, he is effectively bypassed and is now in effect holding a void appointment," Ejercito said. Her son, Sen. Jinggoy Estrada, a CA member, has vowed to block Davides confirmation. Ejercito accused Arroyo of "subjecting the country to unwanted international ridicule" through her continued abuse of the prerogatives of her office. "The Philippines is now in the ridiculous position of having as representative in one of the worlds

39

most premier bodies a man with an invalid appointment despite being a former chief justice," she stressed. Jinggoy seeks Davides UN rejection as RP envoy http://www.tribune.net.ph/headlines/20070117hed2.html By Angie M. Rosales, 01/17/2007 Another embarrassment may face former Supreme Court Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. if he insists on taking up his post as the Philippine representative to the United Nations in New York without passing through the confirmation process of the Commission on Appointments (CA). With Sen. Jinggoy Estrada out to ensure the non-confirmation of Davide despite the former Chief Justice having taken his oath of office and snubbing the CA, which had bypassed his appointment, Davide may find himself in another embarrassing position at the UN. Estrada yesterday vowed to bring up this issue before the leadership of the international body in New York. Amid his protestations over what he calls a blatant abuse of power by President Arroyo, the senator yesterday disclosed plans of himself asking the UN to reject what he said was an illegal appointment of Davide as the countrys permanent representative to the international body as he is yet to be given authority to officially discharge his functions and responsibilities as a special envoy. Estrada revealed he will be sending a formal letter to the UN in New York to inform the officials on the current official status of Davide, stressing that he is yet to be confirmed by the powerful bicameral CA, where Estrada sits as commission member. The UN cannot accept an illegitimate ambassador that has not yet been confirmed by the Philippine Congress. An ambassador cannot assume any diplomatic post without going through the legal process, and Davide who is a former Chief Justice should know what is legal and what is not, he said. He added that Mrs. Arroyo had again committed a diplomatic blunder by insisting that Davide assume his post in New York even without the required CA confirmation. Sources told the Tribune that Davide pushed his oath-taking in Cebu because he knew that with (Jinggoy) Estrada in the CA who would ensure that he40

(Davide) is never confirmed, the only way he could take up his post is to have himself sworn in by Mrs. Arroyo. Earlier, his mother, Sen. Luisa Loi Ejercito-Estrada and Sen. Rodolfo Biazon jointly issued a warning to the Executive, saying this illegal act could become a possible subject of international ridicule with Davides failure to secure the nod of the CA for his official designation to the ambassadorial post during the last day of Congress sessions last month or before the Senate went on a holiday recess. By having someone with what she called as invalid appointment as the Philippines representative in one of the worlds most premier body despite being a former chief justice, the country is now in a ridiculous situation and would be doubly embarrassed should the CA reject his confirmation, Senator Loi said. She also pointed out that it has always been the practice and the protocol observed by majority of UN members that their ambassadors need to first be confirmed before they can even present their credentials to their host. Biazon gave Sen. Loi a boost, corroborating her assertion and even adding the fact that when he was similarly situated with Davide in the past, having been once appointed during the Aquino administration as Philippine ambassador to Moscow, he was not able to discharge of his functions for failing to receive the approval of the CA. Opposition lawyer Rufus Rodriguez said President Arroyos appointment of Davide is illegal because this violates Republic Act (RA) 7157, the Philippine Foreign Service Act of 1991. This law prohibits the appointment as ambassador of anyone over 70 years old, he said. Section 23 of RA 7157 states that all officers and employees of the Department of Foreign Affairs who reached the age of 65 shall be compulsorily and automatically retired from the service provided, however, that all incumbent non-career chiefs of mission who are 70 years old and above shall continue to hold office until June 30, 1992 unless sooner removed by the appointing authority. Oath-taking can only be done after CAs confirmation because, if bypassed, government

41

would have spent for nothing a big amount in relocating him and his family abroad, Rodriguez said. Arroyo swore Davide into office before being confirmed by the CA. GMANews.TV January 17, 2007 at 12:05 am Davide cant wait to go to New York Retired Chief Justice Hilario Davide is moving heaven and earth to assume the post of permanent representative to the United Nations. Like what he did on Jan. 20, 2001, when he trampled upon the Constitution to install power grabber Gloria Arroyo into the presidency, he is trashing again the law again just to be able to live it up in New York. Last Sunday, in the margins of the East Asia summit in Cebu, Davide took his oath as Philippine permanent representative to the UN even if his nomination has not yet been confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. The next day, Malacaang instructed the Department of Foreign Affairs to find a justification for Davides assumption of the UN post even without CA confirmation. People in the DFA are aghast. Nobody has ever left and assumed foreign assignment without confirmation, a foreign service officer said. In fact, he said, all of them took their oath in Malacaang after CA confirmation. The Foreign Service Act (R.A. 7157) is very clear on ambassadorial assignments: The President shall nominate and, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments, appoint ambassadors extraordinary and plenipotentiary to head embassies and permanent missions. The CA bypassed Davides nomination last December. Without the consent of the CA, Arroyo cannot appoint Davide. But she did last Sunday. Former Senator Francisco Tatad said if Davide assumes the UN post without CA nod, he will write the UN Secretary General about the anomaly of Davides presence in the prestigious international body. Tatad, former chairman of the Senate foreign relations committee, has filed with the CA an objection to the nomination of the 71-year old Davide on the42

grounds that it violates the provision of the Foreign Service Act that All officers and employees of the Department who have reached the age of sixtyfive (65) shall be compulsorily and automatically retired from the Service. R.A. 7157, which was enacted in 1991, further provided that All incumbent non-career chiefs of mission who are seventy (70) years old and above shall continue to hold office until June 30, 1992 unless sooner removed by the appointing authority. In a letter to Arroyo last Monday, Michael Macaraig, president of DFAPA (Department of Foreign Affairs Personnel Association), plaintively asked Bakit? (Why?). He reminded Arroyo that there a