Just pray that with the retirement of Associate Justice Minita Chico-Nazario on Friday, the voting on the motion for reconsideration that the Commission on Elections would be filing on the deplorable Nachura December 1 decision would change.

The vote on the Supreme Court decision penned by Associate Justice Eduardo Nachura declaring as unconstitutional the provisions in the election laws that consider appointed officials resigned once they filed their certificates of candidacy was 8-6.

Those who concurred with Nachura were Justices Nazario, Renato Corona, Presbitero Velasco, Teresita de Castro, Arturo Brion, Lucas Bersamin, and Mariano del Castillo.

Those who dissented were Chief Justice Reynato Puno, Justices Antonio Carpio, Conchita Carpio-Morales, Diosdado Peralta, Martin S. Villarama, Jr., and Roberto A. Abad.

With the retirement of Nazario, those who concurred with Nachura would be down to seven.

Pray for the enlightenment of at least one of those justices for the sake of democracy in this country.

As the CJ Puno said in his dissenting opinion, “The importance of the coming May 2010 national and local elections cannot be overstated. The country cannot afford an election which will be perceived as neither free nor fair. It is the bounden duty of this Court to protect the integrity of our electoral process from any suspicion of partisan bias. The people should see judges and justices wearing judicial and not political robes. A court that cannot elevate itself above politics cannot protect the rule of law.”

Anybody who still doubts the destruction that Gloria Arroyo has caused the judiciary should take a close look at the Nachura decision.

The decision, applicable to appointed officials, may not directly apply to Arroyo, who considers herself “elected” although the truth is she was never elected by the Filipino people to the position of president that she had held for nine years.

But I imagine that Arroyo and her advisers would hope that the Nachura decision would temper the people's outrage over her lack of delicadeza of staying while running for a congressional seat in the second district of Pampanga.

It will benefit her because her appointed officials who are running for election like cabinet secretary Silvestre Bello III.

Bello, a senatorial candidate, and others can campaign on time being paid for by taxpayers, using government facilities.

This is, by itself, already a misuse and abuse of power.

If they win, you can just imagine the kind of morality that they bring in to public service.

If they lose but administration presidential candidate Gilbert Teodoro wins, they yet remain in their positions.

The anomaly of this decision on the petition filed by election lawyer Romulo Makalintal (who is also the lawyer of Arroyo and her political spokesman) in behalf of Eleazar Quinto and Gerino Tolentino, both employees of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, is best summed up by the warning of Associate Justice Carpio: “This is a disaster waiting to happen.”

In his dissenting opinion, Carpio said, “One can just imagine the anomaly, conflict and tension that will arise if the Provincial Director of the Philippine National Police, or the Philippine Army Commander whose troops are stationed within the province, will file a certificate of candidacy for governor of the province on 1 December 2009 for the 10 May 2010 elections. If the PNP Provincial Director or Army Commander is not considered automatically resigned from office, he has until the start of the campaign period on 26 March 2010 to remain in his post, in command of hundreds, if not thousands, of fully-armed personnel.”

Ferdinand Rafanan, head of the Comelec legal department said it is the Nachura decision that is unconstitutional.

He echoed the justices’ dissenting opinions citing constitutional provisions that “[n]o officer or employee in the civil service shall engage, directly or indirectly, in any electioneering or partisan political campaign.” (Art IX, part B, Sec. 2 (a)) and “[n]o member of the military shall engage directly or indirectly in any partisan activity, except to vote.” (Art XVI, Sec 5 (3).

A lawyer/blogger, Saxnviolins, posted in my blog his strong reactions on the Nachura decision:
“Denial of equal protection daw. Goddamn nasaan ang logic niyo?

“The Constitution mandates equal treatment of people who are similarly situated. Elected officials have been chosen by the people for a specific term, while appointive officials have been chosen by an elective official. So elective officials have the trust of the people, while appointive ones enjoy the trust of the appointing authority. One (elective) holds office by direct mandate of the people, while another (appointive) holds office by the selection of a representative of the people. Clearly, they are not similarly situated.

“Since the appointing authority (president) flows from the sovereign power, that may be controlled by the sovereign. That was so controlled, when the people, through their representatives, limited the power of the appointing official. Between the power of the people (legislature) and the power of a servant of the people, the choice is quite clear.

“Now about equal protection; equal protection comes into play when rights are at stake. The right of one individual must be protected with the same degree as the right of another. But public office is a public trust, not a right. And the people have spoken (through their representatives) stating that they trust those they elected, but those appointed by the people’s representative do not enjoy the same trust.

“This issue is not only about Gloria Arroyo. This will affect future generations, in regard to the relationship of the legislature and the appointing power.

“There is a scene in Dead Poets Society (starring Robin Williams), where he asks his literature students to march, while he is talking, and do other weird stuff. His point was, if you march to the cadence of a drumbeat, pretty soon, you walk in lockstep with the others, and you cease to think for yourself. This happens all the time; whether you talk of Arroyo's justices, Nazi youth, or white supremacists.”