So who says the rule of law and upholding the Constitution are being adhered to in the country under Noynoy Aquino?
The Constitution is constantly being raped by government officials and yet they speak as though they are all law abiding citizens who moreover claim to be walking the “straight path.”
Far from it — as corruption can still be found everywhere in a government that claims to be taking the straight path.
In the case of the Constitution being raped, what can be easily seen is the fact that the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) has been convened unconstitutionally, owing to the fact that there is no Chief Justice to call for its convening.
It is not the acting chief justice or a retired Supreme Court justice now a member of the JBC that is mandated by the Constitution to convene the JBC and open its selection process. That is already a violation of the Constitution — and the ones violating it are the very ones who are in both the high court and the members of a constitutional body known as the JBC.
Moreover, as pointed out by a candidate for the post of CJ, former solicitor-general Frank Chavez, there is yet another constitutional violation being committed, as there are currently eight members of the JBC instead of just seven.
The reason for the eight  can again be traced to politics, since the JBC is constitutionally required to have just one member of Congress, not two.
At this time, there are two representatives of Congress: A senator and a congressman, both of whom are chairmen of their respective justice committees.
Surely, the members of the JBC know that this is a constitutional violation, but they continue to sit as members, and have a vote each, making this two votes instead of one.
It also does not make any sense to have an even number of eight in any body. All boards have to always have an odd number of members, mainly because when voting time comes, and a tie occurs, the tie-breaker is always the chairman.
This eight-member voting body was not so constituted for over a decade, as members of the Senate and the House took alternate positions in representing Congress in the JBC. Only one vote was allowed for the representative of Congress.
But that was when the Supreme Court and the JBC were abiding by the Constitution — until of course the very violator of the Constitution — no need to guess — then Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr., then the ex-officio chairman of the JBC, in 2001, changed the rules — something he was not allowed to do, as he can’t amend the Charter. He gave one vote each to two JBC sitting members of Congress.
It was also the same disgraceful Davide who had no qualms in going directly against the Constitution when he and his sidekick, Arturo Panganiban, who also became Chief Justice after Davide, disregarded the Charter and swore in the then vice president as president even when there was no vacancy in the high office.
Worse, Davide and Panganiban along with their other justices, even went into a disgraceful cover-up of their grievous sin against the people by coming up with that convoluted “constructive resignation” doctrine, which appears nowhere in the Charter as a cause for the ouster of a popularly elected president.
Still, the damaged high court continues to create more damage to itself and the other constitutional bodies such as the JBC.
The question now is, would anyone who is screened by the JBC and included on the list for submission to Noynoy who would then choose his appointee who would be Palace friendly and subservient, be seen as constitutional?
Renato Corona was called by Noynoy and the yellows as a midnight appointee as they claimed his appointment was unconstitutional.
What would Noynoy’s appointee then be called, since this is yet another case of an unconstitutional appointee, such as Tony Carpio or Sereno, and on the same level as a midnight appointee?