As if there?s nothing else to do in Congress, the ?Reds? are now taking on Metro Manila Development Authority Chairman Bayani Fernando for coloring Metro Manila pink in traffic signs and structures. And Santa Banana, they even want a House investigation on Fernando?s alleged violation of the Vienna Convention for his use of the color pink.

Personally, I find Fernando?s color choice offensive to my senses, especially those putrid, stinking urinals he installed for motorists. I even consider these urinals Fernando?s monument of shame.

But these lawmakers? making an issue out of it, proposing even to waste people?s money and government time in another one of those useless congressional investigations, more than offends the senses. It betrays the puerile mentality of some party-list representatives.

Actually, I find it rather strange that the Reds in the House would be offended by Fernando?s pink when they should share this preference, being known as ?Pinkos.?

***

I share the sentiment of Supreme Court lawyer spokesman Midas Marquez that media predictions on the justices yet to be appointed by President Arroyo are just that?pure speculation.

Marquez was reacting to a Newsbreak article which stated Mrs. Arroyo ?will essentially have a free hand in reshaping the character of the high court according to her own desire.? The article even went further when it speculated that the perceived desire of the President to extend her term beyond 2010 will now be enhanced by her new appointees.

With the retirement of Justices Adolf Azcuna on Feb. 16, Alicia Martinez on April 30, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago on Oct. 5, and Leonardo Quisumbing on Nov. 6, the President may have her way on the issue of extending her term, according to the article. The perception given by the article is that the retirements of Azcuna, Martinez, Ynares-Santiago, and Quisumbing will tilt the balance in favor of Malaca?ang.

Records of the high court, however, have shown that contrary to what the article (and the critics of the President) say, 12 of the present justices appointed by the President had voted contrary to the stand of the Palace on key issues, like that controversial memorandum of agreement on ancestral domain.

The Constitution provides that an appointee to the Supreme Court must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity, and independence. But for anybody to speculate that a justice will remain loyal or have what they call ?utang na loob? or ?debt of gratitude? to the appointing power is pure speculation. My gulay, the facts say otherwise!

***

Because of this, I think the so-called ?Bantay Korte Suprema? movement organized by some do-gooders?who believe they have the monopoly of good intentions for this country?is useless. The Constitution already gives the Judicial and Bar Council and the President the power to nominate and appoint, respectively, those whom they believe meet the qualifications for the post.

I may have had some questions about the JBC?s selections, but now that its nominations have become more transparent and open to the public, I now give it a presumption of regularity.

I?ve asked myself, what happens then if that bunch of do-gooders, which incidentally also has media people in their group, does not agree with the JBC nominations? Will that make the JBC dependent on the whims and caprices of this group, which has no power at all in law?

As far as I?m concerned, this bunch of do-gooders mocks the law and the Constitution, giving the perception that they, only they, know what?s good for the Supreme Court and the people.

***

An interesting inquiry in the Senate that has yet to be scheduled is that ethics committee investigation of former Senate President Manny Villar for alleged ?double insertion? of the P200-million funding for the C-5 road extension, traversing Villar?s properties and the alleged overpriced purchases of right-of-way by the government of these properties.

Two questions have delayed the investigation. First, there?s this claim of some senators that the issue doesn?t concern ethics since it?s more the concern of the Ombudsman. Others claim, however, that there?s a conflict-of-interest involved and thus, is within the purview of the ethics committee. There?s also the fact that since it was Senator Ping Lacson, who exposed Villar, who chairs the committee, he will then be the accuser, judge and hangman rolled into one.

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile has yet to convene that ethics committee because the Senate minority of which Villar is a member has decided not to attend the investigation. Enrile, however, has decided to proceed with the inquiry even without the minority.

This inquiry should prove interesting since Villar has already announced his candidacy for 2010, and the ones investigating him are all known presidential hopefuls. Santa Banana, the 2010 campaign is really on!

***

Speaker Prospero Nograles reacted to my column last week where I took exception to his proposal for Congress to conduct a performance audit of members of the Cabinet. I said Congress had no business looking into the performance of the members of the Cabinet since that?s the sole prerogative of the President.

Nograles said that the audit he was proposing was an inherent oversight function of Congress. It was limited to knowing how members of the Cabinet used the funds allocated to them by Congress to their departments and agencies, and determining whether these agencies have more than what they need or less than what had been budgeted to them.

The Speaker invoked the theory of ?absorptive capacity? to implement projects these Cabinet members proposed to do when they presented their budgets for congressional approval, and whether or not they have spent the funds judiciously.

I must admit that the Speaker is right in proposing an audit performance of members of Cabinet if it is his intention to find out if the funds these Cabinet members spent were in accordance with the programs they themselves proposed. That?s the prerogative of Congress under its ?power of the purse,? being the constitutionally mandated institution to budget other branches of government.

What I was objecting to was for Congress to audit the performance of the Cabinet members insofar as implementing the policies of the President. Then, that would be crossing the line on separation of powers.

***

I find it strange that the Catholic Bishops? Conference of the Philippines, which is always vocal on political and economic issues, has remained silent over the propensity of Filipinos who continue to be superstitious about so many things especially on luck and fortune, with the onset of the New Year.

There?s feng shiu, round fruits, charms, and even going to fortune tellers, seers and crystal gazers and palm readers, who come out the woodwork at the end of the year.

The blame of so much superstition on the part of so many Filipinos lies at the doorsteps of bishops who have failed to educate Filipinos that reliance on inanimate objects for luck and fortune is against God?s commandment.