Excerpt from speech prepared by Karen Jimeno For Rotary Club, Makati Center March 2, 2012 xxx By now,

most of you would have already heard that I signed a public statement which opposed the appointment of Chief Justice Corona on my personal view that the Constitutional prohibition on midnight appointments includes judicial appointments. This public statement was no secret. If you Googled my name before the impeachment trial began, this was something that would appear right away since the public statement is available on the internet. Nothing has changed from my personal interpretation of the Constitutional prohibition on midnight appointments. Perhaps if I were a Justice of the Supreme Court in 2008, I would have been one of those Justices that would have written a dissenting opinion on this issue. The fact that this is my interpretation of the law and that I signed that public statement does not mean that I personally dislike Chief Justice Corona or that I think he does not have the credentials to be Chief Justice. In fact, I would have signed that public statement regardless of who was going to be appointed at that timeeven if it were someone I personally admired and respected such as the former Chief Justice Reynato Puno. As a lawyer, one of the famous legal maxims I learned is Dura Lex Sed Lex: the law is harsh, but it is the law. In this case, I might have viewed the prohibition on midnight appointments as harsh if it were to prevent the appointment of a person I wanted to be appointedsuch as Chief Justice Puno. But as long as it is the law, my stand would be to apply it regardless of my personal preference. After I signed the public statement, the Supreme Court rendered a decision upholding the appointment of Chief Justice Corona and clarifying that the midnight appointment restriction does not apply to judicial appointments. I may not agree with the interpretation of the Supreme Court, but our Civil Code ordains that Supreme Court decisions become part of the law of the land. Again, Dura Lex Sed Lex. That is why even if I dislike paying Income Tax (who wouldnt want to keep all their income for themselves?) I will continue to pay it until our Tax laws are changed. Following the same vein of harsh application of the law, my opposition to the impeachment complaint does not mean that I am a die-hard Corona fan or that I am opposed to Pnoys Tuwid na Daan campaign. In fact, I even voted for Aquino during the 2010 presidential elections. Before accepting the job as spokesperson for the defense team, I read the impeachment complaint and found it defective. Worse, I found several grounds of the impeachment complaint to be an attack on decisions of the Supreme Court as a wholewhich made me apprehensive on the impeachments effect on the independence of the judiciary.

In my opinion, if the Supreme Court had already ruled that the appointment of Chief Justice Corona is legal and in accordance with the Constitution, then following the rule of law this cannot be an impeachable offense. If it were a strong ground for impeaching the Chief Justice, then I suppose the prosecution would have pursued this as a ground for impeachment since the CJs appointment is an established and publicly known fact. But the midnight appointment issue was not even retained among the articles of impeachment now before the impeachment court (Article II - SALN, Article III FASAP, Article VII TRO). Thus, even assuming that I were pro-Pnoy or that I personally like some members of the prosecution team, I believe it is contrary to the rule of law to have the incumbent Chief Justice impeached on grounds such as his alleged midnight appointment the legality of which had already been settled according to our Constitution. (Article VIII of the Constitution gave the Supreme Court the power to interpret laws). I am not saying that the Chief Justice should not be impeached if the other articles of impeachment (not including the midnight appointment issue) are impeachable grounds and are duly proven by the prosecution during the trial. That is the essence of justicethe blind application of the law, regardless of the personalities involved. That is why the ultimate symbol of justice is a woman holding the scales of justice with her eyes covered. Even highly respected individuals like Father Joaquin Bernas (a well-known authority on the 1987 Constitution) were also of the opinion that the midnight appointment prohibition covered Chief Justice Coronas appointment and disagreed with the Supreme Courts decision upholding such appointment. In 2010 Father Bernas stated: I and many others in the legal profession have disagreed and still disagree with the correctness of the decision. But our disagreeing does not change the fact that for now it is the most recent decision of the Supreme Court that is the law on the subject. (see: http://fatherbernas.blogspot.com/) But in 2012, Father Bernas also expressed his disapproval of the impeachment against Corona because of its chilling effect on the judiciary. In an official statement, several chapters of the IBP also opposed the appointment of then Justice Corona as being covered by the midnight appointment prohibition. But at the time the impeachment complaint was filed, several chapters of the IBP also stressed in an official statement that while it's supportive of President Aquinos reformist agenda, it condemns the legislatures failure to observe due process that undermines the independence of the Supreme Court and imperils the rule of law. The IBP called on all law practitioners to defend the judiciary and the Constitution from current attacks on their integrity. http://www.polbits.com/2011/12/tupas-talks-about-impeaching-other-sc.html I find that it is difficult for most Filipinos to separate issues from the people involved. But our country has, theoretically, reached a sophisticated form of government that enables us to operate under a Rule of Law. I believe we should stand firm to uphold

this because, the bottom line is, our leaders will constantly change but our laws will remain. We have to make sure that our laws are not bent to satisfy personal interests, lest we become an unpredictable nation subject to the whims of whoever is in power.