The Supreme Court’s ruling last year, which was affirmed last week in Baguio City to remove one of the two branches of Congress in the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) is a welcome development, and one that I feel is fair to the other co-equal branches in our tripartite system of government that is patterned after that of the United States. After all, the executive and judiciary only have one voice in the council so why should the legislative have two when Congress, as a whole, is a distinct and separate branch in our Constitution? I have often wondered about this and now, finally, they have come to the realization that the system must be corrected. Better late than never, I say.
The Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the former JBC setup in which both a Senator and a member of the House of Representatives have separate seats and voices in the JBC deliberations. “The Judicial and Bar Council is hereby enjoined to reconstitute itself so that only one member of Congress will sit as representative in its proceedings, in accordance with Section 8(1), Article VIII of the Constitution.†read the SC decision. The High Court has left it up to Congress to determine who among the two current representatives, namely Senator Francis Escudero or Representative Niel Tupas Jr. should remain in the JBC.
In my opinion, the most practical solution would be for both legislators to take turns in serving the full term of one year ‑ one for six months followed by the other for six months after. In this instance we’ll have a win-win instead of a win-lose situation. However, it doesn’t seem likely that they will opt for this solution. Both members of the JBC will most certainly want to remain. I guess time will tell who will be selected.
* * *
I came across a news article over the weekend that stated that universities and colleges will not be increasing their tuition and other fees for this school year. This moratorium was recommended by Commission on Higher Education (CHED) Chairperson Patricia Licuanan following the public outcry over the suicide of University of the Philippines Manila student, Kristel Tejada.
The 16-year-old Behavioral Science student committed suicide last March 15 for allegedly failing to pay her tuition. This incident was then followed up with intense anger by the public and was splashed all over social media sites with hits up to the thousands. People were outraged over the tragic loss of life over something that could have been prevented.
So the Philippine Association of State Universities and Colleges (PASUC) decided to put a freeze on tuition hikes for this year. They claim to sympathize with the majority who are struggling just to be able to pay for their education and who are only just barely getting by. According to the news piece, currently over 450 higher education institutions in the country have filed for tuition increases and CHED is currently scrutinizing each application.
This is just another step in President Aquino’s roadmap to Public Higher Education Reform 2011-2016. Among the objectives of this program is to expand the availability of higher education to a wider number of lower income and disadvantaged groups. I think this is very important, as a higher education is something that everyone strives to attain. If more of our underprivileged citizens will be granted access to higher education, it will open so many more doors for them in the future. I truly believe education can change lives and it’s important that the youth be given the chance to improve their lives through a good education.
Senatorial candidate Aurora Rep. Juan Edgardo Angara welcomed the freezing of tuition hikes and even said “This is not the time and circumstance to raise tuition fees in the wake of the tragic death of the student who killed herself after her failure to pay tuition still tugging the conscience of the nation.â€
Perhaps if this incident had not generated so much public interest this would not be happening. However, either way this happened I’m sure it will be a welcome piece of news for both parents and students alike. I’m happy to know that in situations like these, where public outcry is so strong, steps will be taken to ensure the public that their voices are being heard. It’s just sad that it took the death of a young girl to make the involved parties see the seriousness of the situation.
* * *
I’m glad that Commission on Elections (Comelec) Chairman Sixto Brillantes has decided to stay on his post from which he declared last week to quit in the midst of heavy campaign scandals. Who can blame him? His is usually a gut-wrenching and thankless position that is fraught with controversy and innuendoes. The fact that he will remain as election chief is heartening because why change horses in mid-stream. Besides, I think he has stood up to so-called party-lists which have big budgets but do not at all, represent the majority of the impoverished in society. We have had some different agreements in the past, but on this particular issue, I’m four square behind him despite the brickbats he has received.
This admission came after the Comelec received its fourth blow from the SC. As Brillantes claimed, this is not the first time they’ve butted heads, but the fourth and he can’t help but question his own position if they, as the Comelec, are not allowed to regulate the campaigning without TROs and SQA (status quo ante order). “If the SC wants to regulate campaigning then what will the Comelec be? Are we useless?†Brillantes asked the media.
That is understandable. His job is already hard enough as it is without feeling like they are not able to make decisions. This final blow came when the SC issued a temporary restraining order to stop the Comelec from implementing airtime limits on the campaign advertisements of candidates on television and radio. He noted and I agree, that it was already so late into the campaign period for the Comelec to implement electoral reforms.
Indeed, the Comelec and Supreme Court have had their differences in the past. But in this particular issue, I feel, the Comelec should be left alone to its job without other government bodies interfering in. Besides, the Commission on Elections is a Constitutional body and should be left to do its mandate.