Theories of a Brown Monkey

1st January 2012

Post with 5 notes

UST ‘breaks rules’ for CJ Corona

In a special graduation ceremony in April 2011 at the historic Puerta Real, University of Santo Tomas (UST) conferred on Chief Justice Renato Corona a  doctorate in civil law, summa cum laude.

He was one of six graduates to garner top honors during ceremonies intended to commemorate the university’s quadricentennial.

Kneeling before the UST rector and wearing a black robe and bright red cape, Corona received a “ceremonial declaration” of the graduation, apart from his doctoral degree, from Fr. Rolando de la Rosa.

It was a proud moment for UST, the world’s largest Catholic university, as it celebrated its 400th anniversary. It was as well for Corona who was appointed to the highest post in the Supreme Court in May 2010.

“This great educational institution … the oldest existing university in Asia … has made it possible for me to realize my dream of appending the hard-earned degree of Doctor of Civil Law to my name,” Corona said in his valedictory address.

It was a welcome honor for the Chief Justice whose legitimacy was in doubt as he was appointed by then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo during a supposed ban on appointments in an election period. The Supreme Court, in a ruling, exempted itself from the ban.

[Corona will go on trial starting this month in the Senate impeachment court on eight charges, including betrayal of public trust as a result of his partiality in cases involving Arroyo, who is currently detained on charges of electoral sabotage, a nonbailable offense.]

But it turns out that UST may have broken its rules in granting Corona a doctorate in civil law and qualifying him for honor.

UST rules

First, UST requires a dissertation. Dissertation writing takes all of 15 units spread out in four courses.

Second, only students who complete a doctorate degree in five years are qualified to graduate with honors: “A student who has overstayed beyond the residency limit … will also be disqualified to graduate with honors.”

Corona does not have a dissertation. Neither did he fulfill the five-year residency requirement.

Wrong signal

This unusual practice may set a precedent in UST and send a wrong signal to students that rank and influence trump academic rigor.

The UST Graduate School did not reply to our questions and repeated requests for interviews. We sent our first set of questions on Oct. 3, 2010 and again on December 12. On that day, it asked for one more day of extension but did not get back to us.

Where’s the dissertation?

What started out as a routine request for Corona’s dissertation for a book on the Supreme Court that we were then finishing led to this story.

Our search, which began last July, yielded no results, except a public lecture the Chief Justice delivered in November 2010 at the UST Graduate School. The Varsitarian, the official student publication of UST, reported in April last year (2011) that Corona’s doctoral dissertation was titled “To Every One His Due: The Philippine Judiciary at the Forefront of Promoting Environmental Justice.”

Similarly, the Supreme Court website said the Chief Justice’s dissertation was on environmental law “which he defended and lectured on in a convocation attended by some 300 graduate school students, faculty members and experts.”

When we asked the UST Graduate School for access to Corona’s dissertation, it gave us a copy of the March issue of Ad Veritatem, its multidisciplinary research journal, wherein his lecture was published. For the full dissertation, it suggested that we ask the Chief Justice himself.

Neither does the UST Law library have a copy of the dissertation. It instead referred us to the same journal where “an article based on his dissertation is available.”

Similarly, the UST main library does not have Corona’s dissertation. It is standard for university libraries to have files of their students’ dissertations. Eight months after the graduation, Estrella Majuelo, the chief librarian, had not received the Chief Justice’s dissertation.

In July, we wrote Corona requesting access to his dissertation. His office did not respond despite our repeated calls.

The public lecture, also published last year in the Philippine Judicial Academy’s sourcebook on environmental rights and legal remedies, is unlike a dissertation.

Largely descriptive and explanatory, its main point is: “courts must administer environmental justice with the goal of giving what is due to each and every Filipino, even those who are yet unborn.”

Corona ended with a promise: “That is the commitment of the Supreme Court to you.”

‘It’s up to UST’

Pacifico Agabin, former dean of the University of the Philippines (UP) College of Law, said conferring doctorate degrees was completely up to the university. “The school is free to waive some requirements. Schools are given more freedom when it comes to graduate courses,” he said.

The graduate faculty, he pointed out, could pass a resolution modifying its requirements. But it was not a “usual practice,” he said, and he was not aware if this had happened in UP.

We asked Antonio La Viña, a lawyer and dean of the Ateneo School of Government, to describe a dissertation.

He said that it was “a written study, with original ideas, backed up by citations, and of publishable quality. Most, but not all, universities require a public defense for a dissertation where the student faces a panel of academic experts who can examine him or her…”

Overstaying student

Corona told reporters after his graduation that he had worked on his doctoral degree for five years, attending classes whenever he could and spending much time on writing papers.

UST requires, as a general rule, that Ph.D. programs be completed in five years. The maximum residency is seven years.

However, in an interview in 2002, after he was appointed to the Supreme Court, he told Newsbreak that he was already working on his dissertation for his doctorate in civil law: “I am doing my dissertation already. By next semester, I will present it … After my doctorate in civil law, I plan to take a Ph.D. in history … by next March, 2003.”

At the time he was working on his dissertation, Corona was chief of staff of then President Arroyo. He enthused: “My classmates in UST are very young. They would ask: Why are you still studying? You’re already in the Cabinet. (I would reply) It’s because of my drive for academic excellence.”

This means that Corona started coursework on his Ph.D. in 2000 or 2001 since the total units required was 60. He graduated in 2011, about a decade later.

Clearly, he overstayed as a doctoral student and should not have qualified for honors.

It was unclear why Corona, knowing UST’s requirements, accepted the degree and the honors. Midas Marquez, Supreme Court spokesperson, did not respond to our questions.

This is not the first time that questions have been raised about Corona’s academic record. The book, “Shadow of Doubt: Probing the Supreme Court,” found that his claim that he graduated with honors from his Bachelor of Arts degree at the Ateneo University is not recorded in the university’s archives. With a report from Purple Romero, Contributor

Tagged: nakakahiyashameUSTgraduate schoolcorona

Source: newsinfo.inquirer.net

13th December 2011

Post with 7 notes

On Corona’s Crown and His Claim of Being Democracy Incarnate

A friend of mine from law school feels alarmed that the articles of impeachment against Chief Justice Corona has passed the Lower House and effectively igniting the machinery of Impeachment next year. She feels that the dignity of the Judiciary is being assailed since apparently Corona ‘embodies the justice system in the land’ which I find curious. I find it curious because apparently it insinuates that being a Chief Justice protects you from the only legal cudgel that can touch you, namely the impeachment process.

Of course she tells us that the Lower House reduced it to mere number games, or that they are answering a rally call from President Aquino, or that they ‘rail-roaded’ it, or that there were backroom deals that would make the Illuminati blush. Heck, when we do a quick brush on every comments section from Facebook walls to online news articles we also see this same thrust among our Citizens, the same impression on what has transpired, namely when 188 Representatives followed the procedures that our Constitution has laid herself these same Representatives also have betrayed our ‘Democracy’, whatever that means in our political temperament.

That line of thinking then forces us to ask: If following the procedures laid by the Constitution becomes a betrayal of democracy what then qualifies being faithful to Democracy?

For starters, I find it amusing that we are judging the intentions of the accusers in an impeachment case since it is very well immaterial at this point, if anything supporting the accusation to be elevated into a hearing against a public official by your representative is being faithful to the public trust you have invested into him. Especially if the complaints are valid and serious. Again, I think thinking that these Representatives are and motivated by this or that becomes immaterial since the important question becomes if these same accusers would see their accusations through. They say they would, and they say they have evidence to back them up. You see what the Lower House has done is just raise a platform, initiate a case, so we could legally scrutinize the dignity of Corona under the only valid avenue that the Law of the Land allows, namely the Impeachment Process. If anything, your representative have worked for you unlike how it has worked against you everytime someone filed an impeachment case against PGMA.

Of course Corona can and should defend himself against these accusations, moreso in the Upper House, present counter-interpretations, heck even question the validity of the evidences and of course we always should assume his innocence throughout. However, it is funny that most of us think that assumption of innocence means that one cannot question this assumption of innocence by filing a case. If there is doubt on his innocence then by all means we should bring him under the scrutiny of the impeachment process. And your Representative, by seeing a tinge of doubt (and reading the articles of Impeachment it is anything but a tinge) it favors that the case of Corona should elevate from mere gossips and hear-say into the certainty of the Law.

Now, as far as my legal know-how does not betray me, I think he has a fighting chance against let us say the questioning of the decisions of the SC by virtue of it being the final arbiter of the land, provided their decisions are done in the dignity of their office. However, as far as my memory serves me CJ Corona has done a couple of blunders betraying his office. Remember how Corona created an ethics committee to exonerate an allege member from plagiarism despite an Impeachment process in the Congress should have done it?

You see this is what makes the Impeachment process a valid, sound, and dignified avenue to convict beyond reasonable doubt an official or for this same official to maintain his innocence after confronting every accusation. If anything the Impeachment is one of the best manifestation of the separation of powers and our Republic’s inherent checks and balances. The Constitution provides then in the Impeachment process legal cudgels to beat an erring official that misuses his office and at the same time it provides legal shields for innocent officials to exonerate himself in public and consequently shaming his accusers and revealing their true colors. If anything, an innocent Corona after the Impeachment process could very well be downfall of Aquino. So one has to wonder why would Corona and his sympathizers detest this scenario?

You see if Corona worked in the clearest of conscience and faithful to his mandate he would face these accusations in the Upper House, revealing its tastelessness and malice, and in the process reveal the inanity of the Aquino Administration. Alas, he becomes poppier than the pope that he becomes frustrated with a procedural and legitimate process in the Lower House to bring him under scrutiny and sees this legitimate move towards a hearing becomes an act that would ‘destroy democracy’. Of course, if my reading-between-the-lines skills does not betray me, he apparently fancies himself to be democracy incarnate and ironically ceases to be the supreme interpreter of the law but an entity above the law.

It is just a shame that many of us cringe at due process and consequently get irritated that our representative tried to stop Corona from pissing on our face from above.

Tagged: Coronalegal opinionDemocracy is reasonable discourse not blabber and non sequiturimpeachment