A Book Report on Hour Before Dawn: The Fall and Uncertain

Rise of the Philippine Supreme Court by Marites Danguilan

Vitug
Submitted by: Ruth Genevieve A. Lumibao, Block D
With another masterpiece exposing the realities faced by the third branch
of the government, Vitug explores and ties the loose ends that led to the
Dark Ages of the Philippine Supreme Court. Everything started with a
desperate but important political move by former President Gloria
Macapagal Arroyo: a midnight appointment. After this follows a series of
Court decisions, tilting the scale of justice in favor of those who can pay
well.
Vitug tackled the most controversial issues from the time former Chief
Justice Renato Corona was controversially appointed to the time he was
impeached and convicted. This covered a wide range of anomalies in
Supreme Court decisions including flip-flopping decisions, defending a
plagiarized decision, and protecting former President Gloria MacapagalArroyo through a rush temporary restraining order (TRO). At the end of the
book, Vitug described the immense pressure put on the new Supreme
Court Chief Justice given the new political atmosphere and raised public
awareness on transparency and accountability.1
A Brief Summary of Cases Cited and Vitugs Commentaries
Back to Where It All Began
It was only a few months before the next presidential elections when
Representative Matias Defensor wrote a letter to the Judicial and Bar
Council (JBC), urging them to start selecting candidates for Chief Justice
and immediately submit the shortlist to former President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo because Chief Justice Reynato Puno was already about
to retire.2 The reason for this impending urgency, also sustained as one of
the arguments as the issue developed, is the upcoming 2010 Presidential
Elections.3
Vitug remarks that the urgency was unusual because it seemed as if
there was a need for a Chief Justice simply for the judiciary to function. 4 In
practice, when there is a vacancy in the position, the most senior member
acts as the Chief Justice. But the seasoned lawyer, Vitug described him,
1 Marites Daguilan Vitug, Hour Before Dawn: The Fall and Uncertain Rise
of the Philippine Supreme Court, 2012.
2 Id.
3 Id.

had a different opinion.5 Estelito Mendoza, former Solicitor General, had

the most substantial petition.6 He argued on the following points: that
delays in the disposition of cases were caused by vacancies, it affected
the capability and independence of the judicial branch to perform its
functions, and that it was a critical period in the country.7
The landmark case of De Castro vs. JBC settled the clash between two
provisions in the 1987 Constitution: The prohibition in Section 15, Article
VII8 does not apply to appointments to the judiciary simply because the
provision falls under the Article concerning the Executive Department, and
not the Judiciary. 9 It is important to take note that the Supreme Court did
not have a unanimous decision on this case, and as Vitug shows as the
book progresses, there is a minority bloc among the justices that struggle
to instill sound reason and judgment in the Supreme Court. 10 Nonetheless,
the Supreme Courts decision in De Castro vs. JBC 11 gave permission to
former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to appoint her former Chief-ofStaff, Spokesperson and Deputy Executive Assistant, and recentlyappointed Justice in the Supreme Court as Chief Justice. This was the peak
of Renato Coronas career, which unfortunately, ended as badly as it
started.
Ironically, Corona asked former COMELEC Chair Bernardo Pardo to provide
a fine distinction between the two provisions (Section 15, Article VII and
Section __, Article VIII).12 This was during his time as Chief Presidential
Legal Counsel of former President Fidel Ramos. Pardo replied that even if
4 Id.
5 Id.
6 Id.
7 Id, pg. 37.
8 Section 15, Article VII of The 1987 Constitution provides that Two
months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the
end of his term, a President or Acting President shall not make
appointments, except temporary appointments to executive positions
when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or
endanger public safety.
9 De Castro vs. Judicial and Bar Council, G.R. No. 191002, March 17, 2010.
10 Supra note 1.
11 Supra note 7.

there are exceptions, the ban is absolute during the presidential elections.
Vitug remarked that had Pardo given Corona a positive reply, the latter
would have already been appointed as Chief Justice.13
The Perks of a Chief Justices Wife
Cristina Corona, wife of the impeached Chief Justice, was appointed by
former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to head the John Hay
Management Corporation (JHMC). She had multiple positions: Chairman of
the Board, President, CEO, and COO. Vitug described Cristina as a
housewife and a schoolteacher,14 and remarked that this was how
Arroyo kept a Supreme Court Justice loyal to her.15
Cristina, however, was disliked by JHMC officials. They wanted her out of
the corporation because of her unilateral actions, one of which was her
manner of approving the minutes.16 She would talk to the assistant over
the phone for three hours just to direct her what to edit, omit, or retain
especially in moments where the Board seemed to disagree with her. 17
Cristina also allegedly misused the funds of JHMC including building
another office in Metro Manila other than the one in Baguio, even if the
Commission on Audit (COA) recommended her not to do so. Despite the
complaints, she retained the position.18
Outside JHMC is Cristinas involvement in a family feud over an estate.
She became special administrator of Basa-Guidote Enterprises, Inc.
(BGEI), and was supposed to distribute the shares to the heirs but failed to
do so and to even make an accounting of their funds. 19 Despite complaints
brought to court by her relatives, she was never held liable, or at least

12 Supra note 1.
13 Id.
14 Id, pg. 55.
15 Id., pg. 55.
16 Supra note 1.
17 Id.
18 Id.
19 Id.

reprimanded. During this period, Corona was Arroyos legal counsel and
deputy executive secretary.20
When Corona was asked by the JBC about his personal interest in this
estate, he merely shrugged it off and said it was an internal matter, and
that he had no involvement.21
Vitug mainly shows the involvement of Cristina in her husbands rise to
power in a simple time frame: Cristina was never held liable, even when
there is strong evidence, while her husband was close to the President
from a Cabinet member to Chief Justice.22
Adding Insult to the Injury
Just when the Court has already received more criticisms than it can
handle because of the midnight appointment, showing the strengthened
relationship between the Executive and the Judiciary, another member of
the Supreme Court is lambasted: Justice Mariano Del Castillo.
He was the ponente for the case of Vinuya vs. Executive Secretary 23,
which denied the comfort women any relief from the Court. The petition
was submitted by a group of lawyers who handled human rights cases
involving UP College of Law Professor Harry Roque. 24 One member of that
group, which was not specifically named by Vitug, was Atty. Romel
Bagares. When the Vinuya decision was released, Diane Desierto, Roques
student and an intern in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) told
Bagares to check the sources in the decisions. 25 According to her, it was
customary for them to do so whenever a decision is released. It was
during this assignment that Bagares found the plagiarized portions of the
decision. Justice Del Castillo failed to cite his sources.26
A complaint was brought to the Court against Justice Del Castillo. The
issue was brought to the international community, where the authors
20 Supra note 1, pg. 69.
21 Supra note 1.
22 Id.
23 Vinuya vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 162230, April 28, 2010.
24 Supra note 1.
25 Id.
26 Id.

themselves of the plagiarized works were offended by the way Justice Del
Castillo used their works. Because what he did was not just plagiarize
them, but also twist their meanings to suit the decision.27
The Court decided, In The Matter of the Charges of Plagiarism, etc.,
Against Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo 28, that the he was
innocent because he completely had no intent to plagiarize the materials.
As Vitugs chapter is titled, the Court Blamed It On Microsoft. The
Justices said that Microsoft Word had no existing function that would alarm
the writer whenever something has been plagiarized. 29 And even if they
planned to buy software to detect plagiarism, Vitug found that no such
thing has been purchased by the Court yet.
Dismay in the outcome of this decision was shown even by the members
of the Court an outstanding dissent was written by Justice Maria Lourdes
Sereno, with table putting side-by-side portions of the Vinuya decision and
the original works of Ellis, Cridle-Descent, and Tams.30 The dissent was
written even if it was a per curiam decision, signifying that the Court, in
one voice, decided on the matter. Vitug would repeatedly remark in her
book that this can be attributed to Serenos background as a person who
taught in the University of the Philippines, where academic freedom and
debate is highly encouraged, she is not used to the hierarchical structure
of the Court.31
In a tearful apology, Justice Del Castillos researcher, Michelle San Juan,
admitted to her mistakes and even showed a Powerpoint presentation of
the process she went through in writing the draft. Others, however, were
not moved and took it as an admission of guilt while the Justice repeatedly
denied committing plagiarism.32
Professors of the UP College of Law condemned the decision and released
a statement that infuriated the Court. Known as the Malcolm 37, the
professors were threatened with contempt of Court. Later on, this was
27 Id.
28 In The Matter of the Charges of Plagiarism, etc., Against Associate
Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo, A.M. No. 10-7-17-SC, October 12, 2010.
29 Id.
30 Id.
31 Supra note 1.
32 Id.

reduced to a mere warning, telling the professors to use appropriate

language next time in addressing the highest court of the land.33
But the issue did not die with a battle between the academe and the
Court. Impeachment proceedings have been initiated in Congress against
Justice Mariano Del Castillo.34 The Justices saving grace was his fellow
Court members demise. With the impeachment of Chief Justice Corona,
Justice Del Castillos case was overshadowed, and later on abandoned by
the legislature.
The Courts Indecisiveness
Judicial flip-flops, as Vitug calls them, are not new. Jurisprudence
changes from time to time. Vitug cites three cases that showcase the
ability of power (and even financial) relations in determining the outcome
of a case.
In a case involving the conversion of 16 towns into cities, the Court made
a triple somersault, as Vitug described it in December 2009, it ruled in
favor of the constitutionality of the conversion; in August 2010, it reversed
itself; and in February 2011, it laid the issue to rest and declared the
conversion of the 16 towns into cities to be constitutional.35
The issue was caused by the conversion of 16 towns into cities through
bills enacted by the 11th Congress.36 While this was happening in the
House of Representatives, Senate enacted a bill hiking the income
requirement for cities to PhP 100 million, thus disqualifying those that
were supposed to be converted by the other House. This bill was
introduced by Senator Aquilino Pimentel, and is now known as Republic
Act No. 9009. The LCP is the organization of all cities in the Philippines
with about 122 members challenged the constitutionality of converting
16 towns into cities that did not even meet the income requirement. It
argued on the basis of a decreased share of the Internal Revenue
Allotment (IRA).37

33 Id.
34 Id.
35 Id.
36 League of Cities of the Philippines vs. Commission on Elections, G.R.
No. 176951, February 15, 2011.
37 Id.

When LCP won, the 16 towns led by former Leyte Representative Carmen
Cari brought in Estelito Mendoza. Mendoza argued that it was the
intention of the legislature to exclude the 16 cities from the application of
RA 9009.38 Later on, Vitugs research showed that records of Coronas
bank account featured a deposit of P1 million after the Court reversed
itself, and showed another deposit in the same account after the Court
issued a resolution to implement the ruling.39
Another case where the Court reversed itself not twice, but three times is
in FASAP vs. PAL40. When experienced its first defeat in a labor case, they
called in Estelito Mendoza fresh from his victory in LCP vs. COMELEC. 41
The case has been in Court for 14 years a result of having 5,000 PAL
employees retrenched, 1,400 of which were cabin crew personnel. FASAP
won the case, but they still had to settle payments with the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC).42 Mendoza filed a motion for
reconsideration, and argued that the mass lay-off was not due to the
companys down-sizing but due to the June 5, 1998 pilots strike 600
pilots refused to fly after the retrenchment. 43 Vitug quoted Mendoza in
saying, The sad plight of the employees is also the sad plight of PAL. 44
The Court was not convinced, so PAL lost its first motion for
reconsideration.
Mendoza, however, filed a second motion for reconsideration, which is
also known as a prohibited pleading.45 He argued that the Court did not
address some of the issues PAL raised. Shortly after this motion was filed,
Renato Corona was appointed Chief Justice and he reorganized the
divisions.46 The case was raffled to Justice Brion, who decided in favor of
38 Supra note 1.
39 Id, pg. 253.
40 Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP)
vs. Philippine Airlines (PAL), G.R. 178083, September 7, 2011.
41 Supra note 1.
42 Id.
43 Id.
44 Supra note 1, pg. 126.
45 Supra note 1.
46 Id.

FASAP.47 Coincidentally, Mendoza sent 4 letters to the Court asking who

was the ponente and who were the new members of the division handling
the case.48 In his last letter, since the Court has not yet respondent to his
previous ones, Mendoza said that he needed the information because it
may impact PALs survival.49
The Court treated Mendozas letters as a third motion for reconsideration,
and recalled the case that was already supposedly final and executory. 50
This time, the Court decided in favor of PAL.
Later on, Vitug would show that the Corona spouses have been receiving
favors from the corporation, including having a Platinum Card, allowing
them to travel anywhere they wanted free of charge and always on
business class, with an allowable 4 pieces of luggage instead of the
normal 2 pieces of luggage on trans-pacific flights.51
Political Machines
In two other cases involving the conversion of towns, the outcomes of
Navarro vs. Ermita52 and Aquino and Robredo vs. COMELEC53 show how the
Court can manipulate the outcome an election, even in the simplest way
possible.
Navarro vs. Ermita54 involved the province of Dinagat Islands the
hometown and political machine of the Ecleo family. The head of the
family, Ruben Ecleo, Sr., was able to seal the votes of residents by
establishing a new religion Philippine Benevolent Missionaries
47 Id.
48 Id.
49 Supra note 1, pg. 128.
50 In Re: Letters of Atty. Estelito P. Mendoza re: G.R. No. 178083 - Flight
Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines (FASAP) v.
Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL), et al., A.M. No. 11-10-1-SC, March 13, 2012.
51 Supra note 1.
52 Navarro vs. Ermita, G.R. No. 180050, April 12, 2011.
53 Aquino and Robredo vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 189793, April 7, 2010.
54 Supra note 52.

Association (PBMA).55 The current governor is Glenda Ecleo, and the vice
governor is their daughter, Geraldine Jade Ecleo. 56 The familys hold
over Dinagat Islands remains uninterrupted up to this day.
The Dinagat Islands was part of Surigao Del Norte, characterized by Vitug
as one of the countrys poorest provinces, even having the highest
poverty incidence of families.57 Vitug also noted that most of Dinagats
money comes from the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA). 58 This is despite
the requirements to qualify as a province. But as the author noted,
Dinagat was one of the provinces created under Arroyos watch, a
concession to her allies.59
Three years after Dinagat Islands was declared a province, its status was
questioned because its population did not qualify. Petitioners in Navarro
vs. Ermita said that it is impossible for the population of Dinagat Islands to
reach 250,000 in a small period of time. 60 According to statistical data, its
population will reach 250,000 only by 2065.61 Moreover, the population of
the entire Suirgao Del Norte (including Dinagat Islands) was 471,000
during the pendency of the case. It is entirely impossible for half or threefourths of the population of Surigao Del Norte to be in Dinagat Islands.62
But the Dinagat Islands found support from the Senate, especially then
Senator Alfredo Lim.63 He argued that the population requirement was no
longer necessary because Dinagat Islands already satisfied the land and
income requirement.64 As to the land requirement, it was exempt from
55 Supra note 1.
56 Id.
57 Id.
58 Id.
59 Supra note 1, pg. 136.
60 Supra note 1.
61 Id.
62 Id.
63 Id.
64 Id.

that stipulated in law because it was a province composed of one or more

islands.65
In February 2010, the petitioners lost. On May 18, 2010, the decision was
reversed. But a motion to intervene was filed by the Matugas spouses of
Surigao Del Norte, who were noted as political allies of the Ecleos. 66 It was
during this time that the Dinagat Islands was officially declared a province.
The decision in Navarro vs. Ermita adopted Senator Lims arguments.
Meanwhile, Aquino and Robredo67 questioned the reapportioning of
districts in Camarines Sur, which apparently coincided with the political
ambitions of Dato Arroyo, the former Presidents son.
The case would later on be known as one of President Aquinos first
frustrations with the Corona court.68 The first district was already held by
Dato Arroyo. With a population of more than 1,600,000, members of
Congress suggested that Camarines Sur was still under-represented, thus,
the proposal to create a new district that would be carved out from the
first and second districts. 69 Dato Arroyo would take hold of the larger
district. President Aquino and his Cabinet member, Jesse Robredo, argued
that the new district would not meet the population requirement.70
The Court, however, decided that it was not necessary for a province to
meet the 250,000-population-requirement.71 Section 5(3), Article VI of the
1987 Constitution provides that Each legislative district shall comprise,
as far as practicable, contiguous, compact, and adjacent territory. Each
city with a population of at least two hundred fifty thousand, or each
province, shall have at least one representative. 72 Since province was

65 Id.
66 Id.
67 Supra note 53.
68 Supra note 1.
69 Id.
70 Supra note 53.
71 Id.
72 Section 5(3), Article VII, The 1987 Constitution, February 2, 1987.

separated from city by commas, it cannot be interpreted that the

population requirement also applies to provinces.73
President Aquino would later on remark, as cited in Vitugs book, that it
was absurd for the provision of a Constitution to be interpreted based
merely on the placement of a comma.74
The Last Straw: Protecting Arroyo
Even during the election, President Benigno Aquino has disliked Renato
Corona not because of a personal grudge, but because of his acceptance
of the midnight appointment. He might have expected Corona to have
sufficient delicadeza. To publicly express this growing distaste, President
Aquino did not allow Corona to administer his oath, which is a longstanding tradition in Philippine government.75
What went on with the judiciary during the Corona court did no more to
make the Chief Justice look good in front of President Aquino. When
Merceditas Gutierrez was on the brink of being impeached, retired Justice
Serafin Cuevas came to her defense and told the Court to stop Congress
impeachment complaint because it was an act of revenge against
Gutierrez.76 When the status quo ante order came out from the Court, thus
barring the House of Representatives from proceeding, some of the
justices of the Supreme Court revealed that they were not able to discuss
the matter in the en banc meeting.77 Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, who
would later on be appointed Chief Justice, said that they were not even
handed a copy of the 65-page petition during the meeting, nor were they
given one or two hours to read it before the status quo ante order was
released.78
Gutierrez, then the Ombudsman, had close ties with Arroyo. It was
revealed, however, that the Ombudsmans performance was inept, as
Vitug described, because of the low conviction rate. 79 During the peak of
73 Supra note 53.
74 Supra note 1.
75 Id.
76 Id.
77 Id.
78 Id.
79 Id.

the issue, Gutierrez said that she will not step down from her position. 80
But after much pressure from the two branches of government, she
succumbed and resigned.81
Another case that disappointed President Aquino was the Courts
declaration of the Truth Commission as unconstitutional. 82 It was his first
executive order. Nonetheless, the Corona court, although not
unanimously, declared it unconstitutional for violating the equal protection
clause because it focused on only on the Arroyo administration. 83
Proponents of the Philippine Truth Commission (PTC) defended it and
argued that there were other truth commissions in the past that also
investigated only the administration before it. 84 Furthermore, with a nineyear deadline, it cannot investigate all administrations graft and corrupt
practices.85
It did not help the Court either when the present Aquino government
discovered PhP 1.9 billion of savings was in the hands of the judiciary,
which had more than 5,000 vacant positions. 86 To avoid the misuse of
these funds, Budget Secretary Florencio Abad took out these funds and
placed them in the Miscellaneous Personnel Benefit Fund (MPBF). 87 The
Department of Budget and Management promised to release these funds
as long as they were used to pay salaries.88
The Court defended itself using arguments in the line of fiscal
autonomy. Even if they were public officers, it was relatively harder to
get hold of financial accounts or even Statements of Assets, Liabilities and
Net Worth (SALN) of justices.89 But this time, the Court was granted a
80 Id.
81 Id.
82 Biraogo vs. Philippine Truth Commission, G.R. Nos. 192935 & 193036,
December 7, 2010.
83 Id.
84 Supra note 1.
85 Id.
86 Id, pg. 183.
87 Id.
88 Id.

compromise DBM agreed to release the budget, but the judiciary had to
ensure that they would hire more employees.90
But the last straw for President Aquino that one moment that made him
decide to have the Chief Justice impeached was the release of a
temporary restraining order (TRO), which would have allowed Arroyo to
travel elsewhere even if she was blacklisted.91
That time, Arroyo wanted to seek medical assistance from doctors abroad
even if doctors here in the Philippines advised her that it was not
necessary. At the same time, however, she was also blacklisted soon,
she was to be made accountable for graft and corrupt practices. But the
reason behind her urgent need to go abroad was revealed by Vitug in an
amusing and merely coincidental manner. A diplomat of the Dominican
Republic, Ambassador Hans Dannenberg Castellanos, visited the
Philippines apparently using Arroyos car, and revealed during dinner with
his friends in Makati, that Arroyo was going to seek asylum in the
Dominican Republic, with which the Philippines had no extradition treaty. 92
It was a smart move, but one of those who attended the dinner, John
Silva, quickly e-mailed some of President Aquinos Cabinet members and
revealed the plan.93
Vitug remarked, Two things surfaced in the oral arguments on the right to
travel of petitioner Arroyo, and they involved the use of a double standard
in the countrys judicial system. What applied to citizens who were placed
on the DOJs watch-list or hold-departure list orders did not necessarily
apply to Arroyo.94 Apparently, there was on instance where a member of
the judiciary was not allowed to travel because she failed to secure her
loans.95 If such a measly reason could justify the Courts power to curtail
ones right to travel, then the more that the Court should not have allowed
Arroyo to go abroad.

89 Id.
90 Id.
91 See transcripted interview with President Aquino in Appendix 1, pg.
270 of Hour Before Dawn by Marites Vitug.
92 Supra note 1, pg. 212.
93 Id.
94 Supra note 1, pg. 217.
95 Supra note 1.

Knowing that the Aquino government has been disgruntled by many of the
Courts decisions, Corona decided to put into play a political maneuver:
deciding on the Hacienda Luisita case. Originally, Hacienda Luisita Inc. vs.
Presidential Agrarian Reform Council96 was supposed to be decided in a
division of the Court, but Corona urged them to transfer it to the en banc.
His eagerness towards this case was only proof of his true intentions.97
The farmers would win the case, and thus marks the possibility of
achieving social justice with the Court. But later on, Corona would use this
case and tell the nation that he was impeached because President Aquino
was angry with him for leading the Court to finally decide that the land
should be distributed to the farmers. 98 Vitug would note, however, that
President Aquino kept his pronouncements on Hacienda Luisita to a
minimum.99
Ironically, it was Chief Justice Corona who used the Hacienda Luisita case
to the hilt and took the wind out of the Preisdents sails, Vitug
remarked.100
Falling from Grace
One witness was able to bring the most substantial evidence needed by
the Impeachment Court to convict Corona, and her name is Enriqueta
Vidal.101 It was a historic moment not only because it was about the
impeachment of the Chief Justice, but also because it marked a new age
of transparency and accountability in the judiciary. 102 Apparently, it was
the only branch of government that did not follow Republic Act No. 6713
or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees. The law provided that the public had the right to know the
assets and financial and business interests of those in government. 103
96 Hacienda Luisita Inc. vs. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council, G.R. No.
171101, November 22, 2011.
97 Supra note 1.
98 Id.
99 Supra note 1, pg. 229.
100 Supra note 1, pg. 230.
101 Supra note 1.
102 Id.
103 Supra note 1, pg. 233.

Vidal had access to the SALNs of the Justices. As Vitug described, the
Justices would finish their SALNs on oath, and Vidal would be the last to
hold them before they are locked in a vault.104
The evidence presented by Vidal, although reluctantly, provided the
strongest evidence against Corona. It would show that the former Chief
Justice did not declare some of his assets and dollar deposits. 105 He had an
immense increase in wealth when he became Chief Justice. His last line of
defense was that he did not declare the assets because he was just
holding them as some sort of trust fund money from his wife and
daughters. He also argued that he did not have to declare the dollar
deposits because he was bound by Republic Act No. 6426 or the Foreign
Currency Deposits Act.106 The Impeachment Court decided to send a
subpoena to banks that held Coronas dollar accounts. 107 The Court
blocked this using RA 6426, and arguing that dollar accounts are guarded
with the utmost secrecy, and may be accessed only through the written
permission of the depositor.108 Luckily, Ombudsman Conchita CarpioMorales was able to receive information from the Anti-Money Laundering
Council (AMLC), revealing Coronas dollar accounts.109
The pieces of evidence pointed towards the conviction of Corona. And in
the end, he did fall from grace.110
Vitug, however, was able to answer the question most were weary of:
Where did Corona get so much money? As cited above, there were cases
where, even when he was just as Justice, he received favors from business
tycoons.111 Large amounts of deposits are also made after decisions come
out one particularly notable is the LCP vs. COMELEC case. 112
104 Supra note 1.
105 Id.
106 Id.
107 Id.
108 Id, pg. 250.
109 Supra note 1.
110 Id.
111 Id.
112 Id.

In conclusion, Vitug said that the impeachment and conviction of Corona

opened up a new era: that of public accountability and transparency. 113
She also acknowledged that much pressure will be faced by the new Chief
Justice,114 who later on turns out to be Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno.

Themes
Marites Vitug is hailed as one of the best investigative journalists. 115 At the
beginning of the book, she even allotted on portion to tell about her runin with the Supreme Court, sharing that Justice Velasco has filed libel
suits against her but finally decided to drop them all because they were
clogging his desks.116
There is, however, one theme that I noticed: Vitug used a cultural analysis
to describe how Justices decide and act. She notes that there is a culture
of hierarchy in the Court junior members are not expected to defy the
majority, which is why Chief Justice Sereno stood out. Even though it was
helpful, it also showed that the judiciary, and effecting justice, was in
the hands of the few. It shows how the Justices biases work to the favor
of either the petitioner or defendant. More so, it shows how much
dependent the reputation of the Court is on the Chief Justice. Although we
would like to think of the judiciary as one institution several voices,
instead of one, are heard. And the effect is people doubt the legitimacy of
the decisions.
Even so, Vitugs book stayed true to its description: as an investigative,
narrative non-fiction.117
Assessment
Overall, Vitugs book provided an overview of the workings of the
Supreme Court not the technicalities, but how external forces affect
decision-making and the delivery of justice. The Court will always be
attacked for its righteousness, for its mistakes, for its indecisiveness,
and what not. The conflicting moralities and ideologies of Justices make
the Supreme Court a conflicted institution in search of its unified identity.
113 Id.
114 Id.
115Retrieved December 26, 2014 http://www.sopasia.com/wpcontent/uploads/2012/01/Bio-of-Marites-Danguilan-Vitug.pdf.
116 Supra note 1.
117 Id.

It is unavoidable for them to decide based on their intuition when the law
is silent.
But what I learned is that Supreme Court decisions are never final not in
the sense of judicial flip-flopping, but in the sense that the final arbiter of
these decisions is not the Executive nor the Legislative branches of the
government, but the people whom they serve.