Catanduanes Forum

On the very probable victory of Noynoy Aquino in the recently concluded presidential election, an issue regarding taking his oath of office arose.

In keeping with his pre-election pronouncement that Gloria Arroyo should not appoint a Chief Justice at the eleventh hour, Aquino indicated his unwillingness to take his oath of office as President of the Republic before the apparent Chief Justice to be Reynato Corona.

Viewing the same stand by Aquino as unconventional, some quarters, and people, criticized him for not knowing the law and the constitution, on the belief that the constitution requires the incoming president to take his oath of office before the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

What's the real score?

The Philippine Constitution of 1987, Article 7 Section 5, provides:

Section 5. Before they enter on the execution of their office, the President, the Vice-President, or the Acting President shall take the following oath or affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear [or affirm] that I will faithfully and conscientiously fulfill my duties as President [or Vice-President or Acting President] of the Philippines, preserve and defend its Constitution, execute its laws, do justice to every man, and consecrate myself to the service of the Nation. So help me God." [In case of affirmation, last sentence will be omitted].

Nowhere was it stated that the oath of office should be administered by, or taken before, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The Constitution simply requires him to take an oath or affirmation, without specifying before whom should the incoming President take his oath.

With this, it is necessary to resort to laws and statutes to determine who are the persons authorized to administer an oath.

Under the Administrative Code, Chapter 10, Section 41, it was provided:

Chapter 10 OFFICIAL OATHS

Sec. 41. Officers Authorized to Administer Oath. - (1) The following officers have general authority to administer oath: Notaries public, members of the judiciary, clerks of courts, the Secretary of the either House of the Congress of the Philippines, of departments, bureau directors, registers of deeds, provincial governors and lieutenant-governors, city mayors, municipal mayors and any other officer in the service of the government of the Philippines whose appointment is vested in the President.

(2) Oaths may also be administered by any officer whose duties, as defined by law or regulation, require presentation to him of any statement under oath..

It is therefore clear that even a Notary Public could administer oath to the incoming president, should the latter chooses to.

The practice regarding the incoming president's taking an oath of office before the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is therefore not a mandatory legal requirement. It is more of a tradition, premised more probably on the thinking that who else should administer the oath of the highest political official of the land but the highest member of the Supreme Court of the land. Traditions of course are not binding in as much as the same are voluntary.

Noynoy Aquino may therefore refuse to take his oath of office before the apparent Chief Justice Renato Corona.

SHOULD he do so however?

Noynoy's issue of refusing to take his oath before Corona is on the basis of the appointment by Arroyo which Noynoy apparently does not recognize, or is not willing to recognize.

Personally and as a member of the legal profession, I believe Noynoy should soften his stand on this matter.

The judiciary is the last bulwark of democracy in any free country. While I do not claim that our judiciary is as immaculate as snow, still I am inclined to extend all favorable presumptions in its favor.

While I do not agree with the Supreme Court's decision allowing Gloria Arroyo to appoint a Chief Justice at this eleventh hour, it behooves everyone to respect the said decision, for the sake of upholding the court's exercise of a jurisdiction reserved only to it by the constitution. It is a legal issue, and in the order of things, only the Supreme Court has the legal authority to resolve the same, which it did.

So that as it is now, and until it is reversed, that is the present law of the land, which everybody should respect, even the incoming president.

As I stated earlier that traditions are merely voluntary, still for the sake of national unity and in order to hasten the healing of the divisions brought about by the recently concluded elections, Noynoy should follow the tradition.

While admittedly taking an oath before any tom dick or harry (so long as authorized) appears to be so minute a matter, still the symbolism that it carries, and the implication of an incoming president refusing to recognize a Chief Justice is to me a legal nightmare. What is at stake is no longer the personalities who occupy these sacrosanct offices but the very foundation of democratic institutions.

Noynoy Aquino should therefore take his oath of office before the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Not before Renato Corona but to the institutional office that Renato Corona would represent.

Anyways, taking his oath before a Barangay Chairman may not even be a good idea since the Barangay Chairman's authority to administer an oath under the Local Government Code (RA 7160), Section 420, is only in connection with any matter relating to all proceedings in the implementation of the katarungang pambarangay.