Clear legal issue rendered ambiguous, going awry - I

One now isn't certain whether or not under the aegis of democracy, the Philippines is a government of men and not of laws, instead of a government of laws and not of men. And there is an eroding change of heart if sovereignty really resides in the people, and government authority emanates from them.

Likewise, one is now at sea if, indeed, the Constitution is the fundamental law of the land, upon which ordinary laws have to take life and depend on. Or, whether the highest tribunal, just as all public personnel, take their oath seriously to preserve and defend, and to hold inviolate.

Of the three branches of government, the judiciary is perceived as the weakest, but glues together the government's oneness by its power to penalize wrongdoers, plus its avowed independence. The judiciary is also presumably beyond blandishments of influence and temptation, with stronger ramparts against abuses and evil forces as the last bulwark of democracy and, like Caesar's wife, above reproach and beyond suspicion.

As a libertarian institution, the Supreme Court may still command respect and fidelity, albeit the present composition might be something else. In fact, the sagging faith in the SC is felt due to the questionable actuations of flip-flopping that surprisingly surfaced in few recent political issues.

As cited in earlier pieces, the first was on the unexpected turn of the SC decision in thumbing down the petitions of 16 towns for cityhood, only to change upon the third motion for reconsideration. Significantly, it came about when some five or six new SC magistrates were lately appointed. Thus, the decision, the first and the second motions for recon, were summarily set aside.

The second case concerned the appointive officials who ran for elective positions. The "new" SC at first resolved that they were not deemed ipso facto resigned, but later saw the light of the blunder based on prevailing election statutes, also flip-flopped by ruling that they were automatically deemed resigned upon the filing of their certificates of candidacy.

And the third and crucial test has been its decision allowing President Arroyo to appoint the Chief Justice, despite the clear prohibition or ban in Section 15, Article VII of the new Constitution. It provides, thus: "Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a President or Acting President shall not make appointments, except temporary appointments, to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety".

It came to pass that despite the clarity and simply-worded provision - no ambiguity as to engender conflicting interpretations and despite the slew of critique from various legal minds, including former framers of the Constitution - the present SC expanded it by needless statutory construction. It alleged intent of the framers which is a blatant lie, according to former ConCom members Christian Monsod, Fr. Joaquin Bernas, and Hilario Davide, Jr. who authored the subject provision. Instead of simply interpreting Section 15, the SC insisted on a skewed construction in "amending" the ban coverage to include the Chief Justice as exempt from the appointment ban.

Without any legal leg to stand on, the ruling majority invoked the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) as the alleged additional exempting factor inre the Chief Justice appointment during the prohibition. And yet, Section 15 only expressedly exempts "temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety". No mention of any JBC, or does it expressedly include the chief justice as also exempt. It's elementary principle in statutory construction that what is not included is deemed excluded.

Also significant, the SC majority didn't deign any respect to a recent Supreme Court jurisprudence as a precedent involving a similar case on the appointment proscription. In Adm. Matter No. 98-5-01 SC, the highest tribunal resolved en banc that the appointments of two judges - RTC Judges Mateo Valenzuela of Bago City and Placido Villarta of Cabanatuan City - were "unquestionably made during the period of the ban". (To be continued)

* * *

Email: [email protected]