Prior to reading the now much maligned Supreme Court ruling on the power of the incumbent president to appoint the new Chief Justice when the present one retires on May 17, 2010, I stumbled upon the column of Ms. Patricia Evangelist in the Philippine Daily Inquirer. After going through her piece, I dare say it took one non-lawyer to blow to smithereens what is turning out to be a decision that dwells more on conjectures and mindreading than true interpretation of the law.
For a collegial body that has most of the time, if not always, been articulate, coherent and consistent, we read a ponencia* that not only is inconsistent but drives us around in circles as to what it actually means. It just proves my point that an indefensible position is just that, indefensible.
I truly admire Ms. Evangelista for her to-the-point, no mincing of words dissection of the High court's ruling. It reminds me of the story of the "Emperoro's New Clothes". While all of the articles I've read held their punches, owing in large part to the awe and high esteem the Supreme Court, though now in danger, enjoys from the people in general, this columnist said it as it is, a decision that defies logic and reasoning, this from an institution that is supposed to be the last bastion of reason.
Yes, indeed, "the sky will not fall should there be a vacancy" for the Chief Justice position. But more than that, the things that really impressed upon me about the Bersamin ponencia was that the Court took it upon itself to be read the minds of the members of a Contitutional Commission that was convened fourteen years ago. Even Superman could not have that power to go back in time and determine people's thoughts. For try as you might, read it as many times as you can, the wording of the 1987 Constitution is clear: the president cannot make any appointments two months before the holding of a a national or local elections. It does not exempt the judiciary and the framers of the constitution would not have intended it so for the simple reason that if that was their intent they would have included/written it into the constitution. Exempting the judiciary is a significant provision and the framers would not have relied on mere structuring of the constitution to put that point across.
Much ado is made of Justice Florenz Regalado's opinion, but his word is not that of the Court or that of the Con Com. As empasized, the Court, and the ConCom, is a collegial body and a single vote does not a decision make. What was decided and what won by majority rule is the view that the ban is total with the minor exception being only of temporary appointments for vacancies that might endanger public safety or public welfare if unfilled.
Indeed, these are most trying times for the judiciary, a male-dominated branch of government where recent events has shown that it is actually the women who has the balls: Judge Tolentino, for accepting the Ampatuan case without hesitation, and Justice Carpio Morales with her highly incisive dissenting opinion. Now I know why it is a woman depicted as holding the scales in the symbol for justice.
