Attack the ruling, not the court or institution

OFFICE DEMEANED: President Noynoy Aquino, like any other citizen, is free to comment on decisions of the Supreme Court.

But it so happens that he is the President, the personification of the Executive department, and that makes the political equation a bit different.

If the President feels like attacking the Supreme Court, as he has been doing as if on a campaign to bring it down, duty and civility demand that he hits its rulings and not the institution itself or any justice(s) personally.

Mr. Aquino could have avoided using the exalted office of the President to attack a co-equal branch of government. There are other ways of doing what he wanted done without demeaning his office. Doing the dirty job himself leaves him with scant space for maneuvering or face-saving.

* * *

UNPRESIDENTIAL: The President’s advisers should tell him before he throws another tantrum that when disputes are brought before the court, somebody wins and somebody else loses.

Malacañang lost its first major battle at the Supreme Court over the constitutionality of the Truth Commission that was created to investigate reported anomalies under the previous administration only.

His lawyers should tell him the reasons, based on the law, why they failed to win that one. They should also explain why they lost other cases — if only to avoid the embarrassing spectacle of his going to town denouncing the judge and the court instead of the ruling.

It is unpresidential for the Chief Executive to turn personal in venting his frustration over defeats that he and his clan have seen in the Supreme Court.

Protesting that he has suffered legal setbacks because Chief Justice Renato Corona was illegally appointed (that issue has long been settled in Corona’s favor) or that majority of the justices in the tribunal were appointed by his predecessor is lame logic.

* * *

JUDGMENT, NOT THE JUDGE: A senator-partymate of the President claimed having counted 19 decisions that the Court had handed down to favor former President Arroyo. With that, he labeled the SC an Arroyo court.

He gave no analysis of why each of the cases was lost. He failed to prove his insinuation that the rulings were INTENDED to favor Ms Arroyo. No differentiation was made between the effect and the intent of the rulings.

Neither did the senator include in his scoreboard the victories of Malacañang, such as the upholding of the postponement of the election in the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao.

When a ruling runs against their interest, Yellow partisans denounce the SC as pro-Arroyo, but when a decision is in their favor, they do not hail the court as pro-Aquino. And while they ridicule those they call Arroyo justices, they do not brand Aquino appointees as Aquino justices.

* * *

SC SOMERSAULTS: Still, we recognize that the SC has its own big problems, made even bigger by the campaign to destroy its credibility.

The Court has to live down its resurrecting, and reversing as if by extra-legal magic, some cases already decided with finality. Examples are those on the conversion of towns into cities, and on the mining or exploitation of natural resources by foreigners.

We cannot give an omnibus rationalization for these judicial somersaults. We have to revisit each case and study the circumstances.

But should such “confused and confusing” (Mr. Aquino’s description) decisions warrant bringing down the Supreme Court as the third pillar of the edifice?

* * *

EXCUSES, EXCUSES: Is the President aiming to destroy the High Court, or just batter it to submission — for whatever reason? He seems to have found in the Court another excuse (he said the SC is obstructing his programs) for the failures of his administration.

One danger here is that the rage that the President is whipping up against the Supreme Court may spin out of control and lead to a crisis that would set back the wobbly nation, again.

Besides, his picking a quarrel in the marketplace (of public opinion) may mess up his priorities and focus in addressing more urgent problems.

Many people waiting for a better life cannot see how his tangling with the Court — in addition to hitting his other hate object, Ms Arroyo — can produce jobs and food, lower prices, improve public health and security, and give their children good education.

* * *

OLD BRIDGES: About 15,000 new bridges are reportedly needed in the countryside. But the refurbishing or replacement of old spans has been overtaken by a slowdown in public spending and policy indecision.

As if to dramatize the aging problem, a bridge in Apalit, Pampanga, built in the ’70s using a steel-truss design developed in the 19th century, collapsed weeks ago as two trucks laden with wet sand passed over it.

Facing the funding problem, Transportation Secretary Mar Roxas has espoused a “hybrid” form of Public-Private Partnership tapping Overseas Development Assistance for infrastructure projects.

Bearing low interest rates, long payment terms, and a significant grant element, ODA looks a suitable form of financing. Its features match the project’s gestation period, help assure project completion, and limit opportunities for corruption.

* * *

ODA SOLUTION?: In return, ODA contracts often stipulate that suppliers come from the donor country. This need not be a drawback if suppliers can guarantee that their technology, capability, and equipment are up to the specifications of the recipient government.

The dilemma, according to Legaspi City Administrator Noel Rosal, is that properly designed bridges cost more than temporary or stop-gap solutions. He noted that many spillways built in the ’60s and ’70s atop rivers in rural areas are now problems instead of solutions.

The alternative is a bridge that could cost from P500,000 to P1.3 million per lineal meter. But Rosal said the local government does not have money for bridges that are durable and easy to maintain over decades. The solution may be in ODA.

* * *

FOLLOWUP: Access POSTSCRIPTs at www.manilamail.com. Follow us at Twitter.com/@FDPascual. E-mail to [email protected]