SC shames President

By AMADO P. MACASAET
MALAYA

“Again it must be said that the Court voted on its best lights. But the voting shows the deep division in the Tribunal.”

A President with a hardly changed high popularity rating in the middle of his term usually commands the respect of co-independent institutions like the Supreme Court.

Apart from widening the poverty gap as a result of its decision to suspend for 120 days the reproductive health law which petitioners describe to be unconstitutional, the Supreme Court might also have “shamed” the President.

Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, the most senior justice who was sidestepped by the President when he appointed Ms. Maria Lourdes P.A. Serreno as chief justice, was one of five dissenters to the majority decision. The other four, including the Chief Justice, are appointees of PresidentArroyo.

Carpio, one of 12 appointees of the former president, is a known dissenter. Which means he was on the side of the Constitution according to his interpretation of the Constitution and also on the side of the President who fought the Catholic Church hard and long to make sure the bill becomes law.

Associate Justice Bambit Mendoza, appointed by former President Arroyo, is the decision’s ponente. The court voted 10-5, with the Chief Justice joining Mr. Carpio in the dissent. The presumption must always be the justices voted in their best lights. But if we consider the politics in the Court we might say that the Chief Justice failed to herd her peers on the side of the President.

Which means that, as earlier said here, the new Head Magistrate who will run the Court for 18 long years from the time she was appointed by President Arroyo two years ago, cannot lead the court to her wishes which, in this case, is not merely for the President but for the starving millions of Filipinos whose number will multiply as a result of the decision. That will happen if the Tribunal’s decision becomes final.

If there is politics in the Court as there always is, the ruling means the Court is controlled by the appointees of Gloria Arroyo. If that is so, the decision has the effect of retaliating against President Aquino who vowed to prosecute the former leader for plunder and other high crimes but after more than three years hardly any big case against her has been filed in court.

The majority, all GMA appointees, could have tempered their 120-day TRO by considering that the RH controversy is an economic issue. It becomes a religious question if we consider the violent objection of the Church against the RH Law. The small comfort we get is the Tribunal has not ruled on the issue with finality.

In a manner of speaking the Catholic Church beat President Aquino black and blue. The beating was done by the justices appointed by a former leader the President swears he would send to jail or to trial.

If this is a portent of things to come, we may not expect conviction of Gloria Arroyo for any alleged heinous crime including plunder. If the Court controlled by her appointees can go against the President in a question that the majority declared unconstitutional, what can we expect of Gloria’s majority when her own case or cases reach the High Court?

I cannot be optimistic.

The persuasion of the Court might have changed if President Aquino had picked as Chief Justice an appointee of Gloria Arroyo who incurred her ire by almost consistently dissenting on all cases involving Malacanang when GMA was the tenant.

Again it must be said that the Court voted on its best lights. But the voting shows the deep division in the Tribunal. This is shown by the dissent of the magistrates appointed by President Aquino but one of her own presumed guardian who has always been a recalcitrant was not with the majority. That is why the result of the voting was 10-5. It could have been 11-4.

If Gloria’s majority can rule against the future of the poor people of this country in defense of the Constitution as such defense is always presumed to be the guiding light in every magistrate’s vote, we wonder how they will vote when the criminal cases of the patron comes before them for decision.

The cases of Gloria Arroyo that President Aquino pledged to prosecute with vigor may end up as a futile effort. The deep division in the Court case may also indicate the disappointment of senior magistrates over the appoint of Ms. Serreno.

Practical sense should have been considered in appointing an insider, not necessarily Mr. Carpio but one who is, say, two years away from retirement. Doing that would leave the senior justices hoping to be appointed even for a very short period.

The ruling of Gloria’s majority, as always, is in defense of the Constitution but the truth is it may well be in defense of the former leader. We are now beginning to see how Mrs. Arroyo so skillfully planned her “great escape” from the ire of the Court or the Constitution and the laws by appointing magistrates who will interpret the Charter in her favor.

It is unfortunate that the 53-year-old Chief Justice does not seem to have a semblance of influence over her peers. On the contrary, the Arroyo magistrates have openly despised her.

It has long been held that the Court is right even if it is wrong. The injustice here is there is no institution that will “right” the wrong of the Court. In this sense the Tribunal is more powerful than the President. That power was flagrantly displayed by the vote on the RH question.

Based solely on the RH TRO the conviction in the impeachment trial Chief Justice Renato C. Corona was a successful but unproductive exercise. He seems to have a looming presence for and on behalf of Gloria Arroyo. His person is not in the Court. But the justice he led while serving as Head Magistrate are intact and voting as one like they did when he as Chief.

The bottom line is, as shown by the refusal to cooperate with her and the mistake she made by making an en banc decision with only her signature, the new Chief Justice cannot lead the Court.

In this sense, President Aquino may not expect “cooperation” until the 11-man majority of GMA is cut down to seven by retirement. The President himself would have completed his term when that time comes.

email: amadomacasaet@yahoo.com