SC on naming new Sandigan chief: It's up to the President

The Supreme Court on Wednesday washed its hands off the reported plan of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to appoint the successor of Sandiganbayan presiding justice Norberto Geraldez, who passed away last Sunday due to cancer. In an interview with reporters, SC court administrator and spokesman Midas Marquez said it is up to the President whether to appoint Geraldez's successor based on the high court’s March 17 ruling, which allowed her to install the next SC chief justice despite the constitutional ban on midnight appointments. Marquez explained that the high court’s March 17 decision is a ruling on whether or not an appointment can be made in the Supreme Court during the election ban period. In the case of Mrs. Arroyo appointing a new Sandiganbayan chief, “whether that [SC] decision will be used by analogy or whether there are other considerations or other justifications legal or otherwise that will be their decision," Marquez said. “The [Supreme] Court will only step in if and when that act is questioned. If that will be questioned in court, the court will address that issue," he added. Marquez issued the statement after the Palace revealed that Mrs. Arroyo plans to appoint the next Sandiganbayan magistrate. He earlier said that the March 17 promulgation only covers the chief justice post and not the entire judiciary. Under Section 15, Article 7 of the Constitution, the President is prohibited from making any appointments immediately two months before the elections until the end of his term on June 30. The ban started last March 10. Malacañang, for its part, said it would just await the SC's final ruling on the legality of such appointments. "The President has to do her duty, she cannot leave… positions vacant but you know, there’s always the law, that she’s going to follow. She’ll always be lawful," said Executive Secretary Leandro Mendoza. Deputy Presidential Spokesman Ricardo Saludo agreed with Mendoza, adding that critics should await the SC’s decision before making any assumptions. “The Supreme Court, in fact, has yet to rule with finality on whether the election ban covers judicial appointments. Let all sides on this issue await the decision of the high court," Saludo said.—Aie Balagtas See/JV, GMANews.TV