Letter, not spirit of the law

As expected, the nine (9) Supreme Court (SC) Justices who voted for Romulo Neri on the issue of “executive privilege” did not change their minds. They just stuck to and reiterated the grounds of their previous decision obviously because the Senators failed to raise new and very convincing arguments that would change their minds.

Besides, a flip-flopping Judiciary is definitely detrimental to our justice system as it would further erode the peoples’ trust and confidence in our courts. It is a clear sign that our magistrates have not thoroughly and assiduously studied the case or have been pressured to change their minds by considerations other than the strength of the arguments presented. Hence it can be said that the nine honorable SC justices simply adopted the safer and seemingly more fitting course of action on the case.

Actually, the Senate provided the nine SC justices enough reasons to come up with such kind of decision. The weakness of the Senate position on the controversy principally lies in the manner they exercise their power of inquiry in aid of legislation. Apparently because of too much partisan politics, the real purpose of the inquiry is lost as our lawmakers pursue separate agendas in questioning resource persons. Oftentimes the rights of persons called to give information are violated especially when they are not “cooperative” in providing answers that the Senators want. The three questions Neri was pressured to answer confirm this observation. They are too leading and suggestive as to leave Neri no other alternative but to answer either yes or no only.

No one can really validly claim that the nine justices are grossly mistaken in their ruling. Their decision looks legally sound. Unfortunately, this is mainly because they adhere more to the letter rather than the spirit of the law in favoring Romulo Neri. They are correct technically speaking. To be sure, so many other controversies in this country, both in and out of court, have been resolved on the basis of technicality. So many crooks have gotten off the hook on technical grounds. This is the kind of stance that invariably impedes the search for truth. But nothing more could be done about them.

Hence the decision of the nine SC justices somehow created the impression that partisanship has infiltrated even the Judiciary. I really hope I am wrong but it appears that like the Lower House of Congress in the impeachment proceedings where the tyranny of numbers played a big role in making decision and taking actions, the same seems to have happened to the SC in this particular case. A cursory look at the nine justices reveals that they have one thing in common — they are all appointees or recipients of some favors from Malacanang. This perception is further enhanced when one of the justices who was appointed barely a few days before and was not even present during the hearings and deliberations of the case, still participated and voted in favor of Neri’s stand.

Thus a great number of people believe that the SC arrived at the decision based on the strength of numbers than on the force of reason. The dissenting stand of the six justices appears more substantially correct and in accord with the spirit than the letter of the law simply because it does not impede the search for truth. It correctly pointed out that the spirit and intent of the executive privilege is to enable subordinates to communicate and give diplomatic and national security information vital to the President’s decision making process, freely and unhampered by fear that its confidentiality may subsequently be violated. The privilege is recognized in order to promote public interest and national security. Preventing an inquiry on whether or not a crime has been committed definitely does not promote public interest or national security or diplomatic relations.

But since the court of last resort, specifically the nine justices, have already spoken and would not like to change their minds, people will just have to accept their verdict despite beliefs and opinions to the contrary. This is what law and order is all about. To be sure the tenor of the decision does not actually foreclose the Senate’s inquiry or the recall of Neri to the investigation. But the Senate must do it properly next time.

Ironically for Neri and the administration their victory does not really clear their names of complicity in that shady deal. It must be remembered that Neri himself testified that Abalos offered him a P200 million bribe. Refusing to testify further on the details of such offer by hiding behind executive privilege only fuels speculations that he must have really accepted the offer or made some other juicier deals.

The same is true with the President and other Palace people. By preventing Neri to testify further on the ground of executive privilege, speculations merely heightened that the President did nothing about Neri’s report to her regarding the bribe, or that she really instructed Neri to ignore the bribe offer but nevertheless endorsed the deal, a matter that looks more credible because the contract was indeed subsequently signed even in her presence.

Like in the impeachment proceedings, the Palace may have won the legal battle in this case. But clearly, they have lost the battle for the hearts and minds of the public as shown by the rock bottom credibility ratings of the President — the worst among post war Presidents. It is just so sad that even the SC has been involved in impeding the search for truth that has given rise to these speculations.

(Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor and Criminal Laws now available. Call Tel. 7249445 or e-mail [email protected])