Former Rep. Jacinto ?Jing? Paras has only himself to blame for his present predicament.

He need not spend the time and money, not to mention the aggravation, of putting pressure on Supreme Court Chief Justice and the whole Supreme Court to promulgate a draft decision unseating incumbent Rep. Jocelyn Limkaichong of the First District of Negros Oriental if only he had come to terms with his brother ex-Rep. Jerome Paras.

Talks have it that Jerome, who was congressman for the district for three terms (1987 to 1998) and Jing who was the district?s representative for the next three terms (1998 to 2007) had a gentleman?s agreement.

They have agreed, according to the story, to alternately hold the post every three terms. Three consecutive terms is the maximum allowed by the present Constitution.

However, when it was the turn of Jerome to run, Jing decided to have his wife Olivia also run. Although the district was a stronghold of the Paras family, the votes of their supporters were halved and thus both Jerome and Jing were beaten by Jocelyn Limkaichong, the former mayor of La Libertad, Negros Oriental.

Jing Paras apparently could not accept the loss of his wife to Jocelyn Limkaichong and the fact that somebody else is now occupying the congressional seat that he and his brother had occupied for 18 years.

Also, he probably thinks that he would have a difficult time running against Limkaichong when he becomes eligible to run again for the post in 2010. It is not easy running against a sitting lawmaker who has delivered creditable performance in the House of Representatives and whose family has formidable resources to face the Paras family?whether Jing himself or Jerome or the two brothers running simultaneously in the 2010 election.

The opportunity Jing Paras saw to defuse the threat is to question the citizenship of Limkaichong who was born and raised in the Philippines from a naturalized Filipino father and a Filipino mother. According to news reports, questions were raised on whether Limkaichong was a natural-born Filipino since, according to those raising this issue, the naturalization of her father was still under process when she was born.

Filing the case to question the citizenship of Limkaichong and to nullify her proclamation is Louie ?Barok? Biraogo, a former Davaoe?o who is now a resident of Bi?an, Laguna.

The link between Biraogo and Jing Paras is not hard to establish. Biraogo is the fraternity brother of Paras in Upsilon Sigma Phi Fraternity. Biraogo went to the UP Law School for two years from 1983 to 1984. Biraogo and Paras were both Upsilon?s Illustrious Fellow and in fact, according to their fraternity brothers, they were roommates in the UP dorm.

Biraogo is perhaps the ideal person to file the case since he is familiar with the workings of the Supreme Court, not only because he studied law for two years but also because he was a litigant in a case which went all the way up to the Supreme Court.

It seems that sometime in 1993, Biraogo forcibly entered a beachfront property in Davao to put up Habagat Grill, a bar and restaurant. In 2005, after a protracted litigation, the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision penned by former Supreme Court Justice Artemio Panganiban affirmed his eviction from the property. After losing the case, he left Davao and offered his services to several known politicians.

Biraogo came into the public limelight a few weeks ago when he accused Chief Justice Reynato Puno of sitting on the disqualification of Limkaichong and he and Paras went on an all-out media campaign to denounce Puno.

Biraogo who styles himself as a ?public interest crusader? says that sometime in October of 2008, unknown persons left in the gate of his house in 115 Mariveles St., San Jose Village III, Bi?an, Laguna a brown envelope containing a copy of the draft decision penned by Associate Supreme Court Justice Ruben Reyes and signed by 13 other Justices.

Biraogo accused the Chief Justice, the only member of the Court who did not sign, of sitting on the case and for failing to certify and promulgate the decision.

The accusation of Biraogo and Paras against Puno is clearly baseless and unfair especially since it comes from a law student and a lawyer.

A close look at the facts of the issue shows that the decision not to promulgate the draft decision is the decision not of the Chief Justice alone but of all the 15 justices. It is clear that all the 15 justices decided unanimously to withhold the promulgation. So why are Biraogo and Paras singling out the Chief Justice?

The fact that the decision not to promulgate is a decision of all the justices is clear in the Court?s Dec. 10, 2008 Resolution: ?During its session on 15 July 2008, the En Banc continued its deliberation on the ponencia of Justice Ruben T. Reyes in these consolidated cases. Since no one raised any further objections to Justice Reyes? ponencia, the En Banc approved the ponencia with a number of Justices saying they were concurring ?in the results.? Justice Reyes then circulated immediately his ponencia for signature of the Justices during the same session. (The Justices signed, beginning from the most junior, Justice Brion, all the way to the Senior Associate Justice, Justice Quisumbing.) After the session and during lunch, Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno noted that seven (7) Justices concurred ?in the result? of the ponencia of Justice Reyes. Justices Minita Chico-Nazario and Teresita Leonardo de Castro then informed the Chief Justice that they too would concur only ?in the results.? Since nine (9) Justices, not counting the Chief Justice would concur only ?in the results,? the Justices unanimously decided to withhold the promulgation of the ponencia of Justice Reyes.?

Based on this Dec. 10, 2008 resolution, it appears that even Justice Reyes agreed to withhold the promulgation.

The same resolution explained that the withholding of the promulgation was made because ?if a majority concurs only ?in the results,? the ponencia has no doctrinal value.? Again it should be pointed out that it is clear that the ?lack of doctrinal value? view is not of Chief Justice Puno alone but of the 15 Justices.

Paras and Biraogo, based on their statement, has interpreted ?no doctrinal value? to mean that the decision lacked new insight into questions of law that might enrich jurisprudence.

But it seems the Justices have a different view. It appears that for the Justices ?no doctrinal value? as used in the case means that the ponencia was void based on Section 14, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution which provides: ?No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.?

It is obvious even for non-lawyers that a draft penned by Justice Reyes where nine Justices simply concurred ?in the results? cannot be promulgated.

If you listen to Paras and Biraogo, you would get the impression that the decision was already made and that the Chief Justice was holding it back. But all lawyers that we have interviewed in our Karambola sa dwIZ program are one in saying that a draft decision, even if it is signed by all of the 15 Justices of the Supreme Court, remains a draft until it is promulgated.

They say that the Justices can even change their votes, even after they signed, provided it is before promulgation.

With their legal backgrounds, it is certain that Paras and Biraogo know this and this is the reason why they have launched a media blitz to force the promulgation of the draft decision.