Critical remarks on the Supreme Court.pdf

Media

Part of Panorama

extracted text: ■ The independence of the courts does not mean that they should be free from criticism. The fol lowing is a unique and courageous stand on the subject. CRITICAL REMARKS ON THE SUPREME COURT A middle-aged practicing lawyer, in renouncing his license to practice law as a protest against what he con sidered a grave injustice com mitted by the Supreme Court against his client, accused the high tribunal of offenses so serious that the Court must clear itself. In a written petition to the court, Vicente Raul Almacen of Iloilo, a senior partner in the law firm of Villareal, Almacen, Navarra & Amores, stated: “. . . our own' Supreme Court is com posed of men who are cal loused to our pleas for jus tice, who ignore thdir own applicable decisions and com mit culpable violations of the Constitution with impunity.” Lawyer Almacen was pro voked into his outburst by what he called “short-cut justice” administered by the high court. He had lost an appeal before the Court of Appeals on a technicality; his motion for reconsidera tion of a lower court decision ordering his client to^ay Pl20,000.00 failed to include a notice of hearing. Almacen argued that the omission had caused no harm, that the op posing lawyer was duly noti fied. Almacen appealed the case to the Supreme Court which, in its resolution of denial, gave no reason whatsoever. He filed a motion for recon sideration. It was again de nied without explanation. He filed a motion for reconof court to submit a second motion for reconsideration which the high court again denied. This was the straw that broke the camel’s back for Almacen. Supreme Court justices are subject to impeachment. Sec tion 1, Article IX of the Constitution states: "The President, the Vice President, September 1967 35 the Justices of the Supreme Court and the Auditor Gen eral shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, or other high crimes.” Almacen has charged the high tribunal with “culpable violations of the Constitution.” His charge is one of the constitutional bau& for impeachment. The Supreme Court cannot let his charge pass without challeng ing its veracity. Perhaps, Almacen had in mind Section 12, Article VIII of the Constitution which states: “No decision shall be rendered by any court of rec o r d without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.’ Is a reso lution denying a petition a decision? Evidently the Sup reme Court does not think so. Maybe a resolution is a routine action that does not deserve to be classified as a decision and, therefore, needs no elaborate reasoning. Perhaps, also, the Supreme Court had in mind the rule that any decision rendered by the Court of Appeals on a case involving only ques tions of facts is final. If this is the case, the Supreme Court need not explain it to a lawyer. A lawyer is pre sumed to know so elemen tary a rule. Yet, what would it cost the high tribunal to state in its resolution that the denial is based on the law defining the Court of Appeals’ jurisdiction? It is evidently the think ing of the . framers of the Constitution that in the ad ministration of justice in a free society there is no room for summary and arbitrary action. The power of the courts is perhaps the highest in the state in the sense that it includes the authority to deprive a person of life, liberty and property. Pre cisely because this power is the ultimate, it may not be exercised without due process of law. Does the arbitrary denial of a petition satisfy the requirement of due process? There is no appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court except by petitioning it for reconsideration. If the original decision is rendered by the high tribunal itself it is understood that it has com plied with the constitutional requirement that the facts 36 Panorama and the law on which the decision was based should be expressed. But where the de cision appealed is from the lower courts, it should not be amiss for the Supreme Court to explain the basis of its action, even if it is a mere denial to review the case. This procedure would seem to be more in conformity with the constitutional re quirement. Almost at the same time, the newspapers reported that the Supreme Court also dis missed the appeal of the three senators convicted by the Senate Electoral Tri bunal of election overspend ing in a resolution without explanation. The reason could be lack of jurisdiction or the principle of the sepa ration of powers or the fact that three Supreme Court justices had voted for con viction. But whatever be the reason, there is no deny ing that the senators concern ed would have been less un happy if there had been even the briefest of explanations. As the court’s decision was also precedent-setting, Jt would have been better#-all around if its basis in law had been expressed. Be this as it may, the charge of “culpable viola tions of the Constitution” should be nailed down and exposed as empty — if it is in fact empty. — Vicente Al bano Pads, Manila Chroni cle, Sept. 1967. September 1967 37
Rights