'SC decision unsound'

A law is good and valid until it violates human life and transgresses against decency, morality and conscience.

Hitler commanded the murder of two million Jews. And it was legal and devilish. While the EDSA Revolution was highly illegal yet nothing can be more right and heroic at that time.

The High Tribunal decided to allow President Macapagal-Arroyo to appoint the successor of Chief Justice Reynato Puno notwithstanding the constitutional provision that implicitly and explicitly prohibits such an act by the president under Section 15 of Article VII.

I find the judgment appalling and grossly unsound both on legal and moral grounds.

In 1998, citing the same provision in the Constitution and surrounding similar circumstances, the Supreme Court made void the appointment of Judges Mateo Valenzuela and Placido Vallarta on account of President Ramos appointing them less than two months prior to the presidential and national elections.

Absurd indeed and queer as it can be, the recent Supreme Court “ruling” penned by Justice Lucas Bersamin reads as follows: “Had the framers intended to extend the prohibition contained in Section 15 Article VII to the appointment of members of the Supreme Court, they could have explicitly done so. . . They would have easily and surely written the prohibition made explicit in section 15 Article VII as being equally applicable to the appointment of members of the Supreme Court in Article VIII itself.”

 But I contend the argument and the decision should otherwise read this way: “Had the framers of the Constitution intended to ‘exempt’ the appointment of the members of the Supreme Court or of the Judiciary, they could have explicitly done so, easily and surely…” And that definitely carries the heavier weight in the balance being the far more logical thing to do if we go by the nine justices’ line of thinking while carving their detestable ruling.

Furthermore, why the need to mention or incorporate the said Article VII provision in Article VIII as reasoned out by the justices? I contend that the prohibition is naturally set forth under Article VII and within the parameters of the Executive Department’s role and duties and especially since the provision tackles the power of the Executive Department which includes in particular the appointment of the Supreme Court Chief Justice and all the other members of the Judiciary as embodied in the Constitution.

Where then is the point to be redundant?

My ten year old younger daughter once came up to me and asked, “Papa, you made a rule in the house ‘di ba? And you posted it in the sala: No TV during school days Monday to Thursday. Does it also apply to me?”

 I was heartened and hugged her with a kiss saying, “of course, baby.” — RENI M. VALENZUELA, West Triangle, Quezon City