Still with due deference to the SC

Lawyers are supposedly impervious to negative feelings of dismay, incredulity, professional letdowns, etc., compared to ordinary Homo sapiens. And they are often held out as strong-hearted, and gung ho in attitude, regardless of what the circumstances dish out.

Likewise, lawyers are not prone to believe blandishments of falsehoods couched in fine words that the gullible often succumb to. However, when they are convinced – not necessarily persuaded – to uphold, or stand up for, a cause, or philosophy of life, or some insightful tenet and belief, lawyers can be the unshakeable pillar to a fault in coming to its defense.

The law profession in all climes under the democratic justice system has always respected and kept faith in the dignity and majesty of the highest tribunal. In the Philippines, the venerable Supreme Court as the highest tribune in the judicial hierarchy is expected to be consistent in its rulings, not prone to change at a drop of any political scenario, generally unerring and immutable once an issue is laid to rest by its own jurisprudence and the final arbiter on the law beyond error, infallible, and with finality!

 One recalls, like a legal doctrine, the joke obviously made by now deceased Atty. Amadeo “Matoy” D. Seno – top law practitioner of his time, law dean and professor beyond compare – when he said in class: “There’s no finality of judgment, except for Bar exams purposes”.

And it’s this one-liner of Mano “Matoy” Seno that one subliminally remembers when the Supreme Court has lately indicated some propensity to be fickle in judgment. Worse is, the SC also appears to “legislate” or go against clear and unambiguous legal provisions.

For instance, Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 or the Bouncing Checks Law, punishing issuance of unfunded checks, particularly on post-dated checks to cover due obligations, penalizes with either imprisonment or fine, or both. Generally courts applied the penalty of fine. But the phrase “or both” is addressed to the sound discretion of the lower competent courts, depending on the proven evidence of abuse, or impunity, or bad faith by the accused. Much later, the SC came up with the doctrine that only fine may be imposed and, one can’t recall of the law being amended.

Another instance was on the controversial application by the SC that, in effect, “amended” the exemption clause of Section 15, Article VII of the Constitution. Nowhere in the clear and exclusive clause, can the President or Acting President make appointments within “two months immediately before the next presidential elections… except temporary appointments to executive positions…” Thus, appointments to the Judiciary do not come within the exemption; and yet, no less than the Chief Justice vacant position then was filled up and held as Constitutional.

Then came the recent four conflicting decisions on the 16 municipalities for conversion into chartered cities could be the last straw for the lawyers and also non-lawyers that invoked disbelief and disappointment. The main common issue in these cases is indeed very simple that even laymen can make out or comprehend without conflicting biases to infuse any doubt about it.

In speaking for the highest court, Atty. Midas Marquez admitted that “this case is unusual”, which is a hyperbolic understatement. The subject matter’s issue has become moot and academic, although the ensuing ramifications and criticisms go into the credibility, competence, stability, and integrity of the entire judiciary as the last bulwark of democratic governance.

In essence though, one is hopeful that lawyers as perennial students of law, as well as the nation governed by the law, would somehow come to grips with the reality that it is for the common good that the legal system can recover from the recent letdown. After all, losing faith in the judicial institution and its magistrates would be everybody’s unthinkable misfortune.

* * *

Email: [email protected]