Friday, March 19, 2010

Another wrong decision

The Supreme court keeps on making wrong decisions.
I am not sure if again, the Supreme Court will back track and take an about face on their latest ruling.
I am already noticing that in our day and age, the present Supreme Court keeps on reversing its own decisions.
An example is that decision on cityhood.
Another is the decision considering as resigned appointed government officials who run for public office.
Recently the Supreme has ruled that President Arroyo can appoint a new chief justice once the current chief justice retires on his birthday on May 17, even with the constitutional ban on midnight appointments..
According to the Supreme Court the constitutional ban against midnight appointments only applies to the executive appointments and not to members of the Supreme Court.
The court reason is placements.
According to the court , since the ban against midnight appointments is found in the chapter on the executive department, then the ban must only cover executive appointments.
I could not control but laugh and shake my head when I read this portion of the decision.
I can have an analogy on the court’s weird argument.
If a newspaper editor places an ad about a missing person in the obituary section of the paper, then the interpretation must be that the missing person must already be dead.
For what reason could there be for the editor to consciously place the missing-person ad in the obituary section, other than the suggestion that such missing person has died?
Funny argument isn’t it?
I don’t know how the Supreme Court came up with such ruling, when there is nothing in the constitutional ban that exempts the Supreme Court from being covered by the ban on midnight appointments.
The Supreme Court made additions to the wordings of the constitution.
The Supreme court resorted to interpretation on the pretext of a conflict, or ambiguity.
There is no ambiguity.
And when there is no ambiguity, you are not supposed to create confusion.
The appointment of the next chief justice should be properly left to the incoming president, not to an outgoing president who will become merely a virtual caretaker, in transition to the incoming administration.
Not a few law students are now scratching their heads.
I say to our law students: Don’t despair.
To paraphrase a Chinese saying: We are living in interesting times.

No comments: