Lawmakers crossed partylines yesterday to express support for the
Supreme Court’s (SC’s) adoption of a strategy to avoid flip-flopping to
ensure that all decisions do not contradict previous rulings.
Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno’s move was cited by administration
and opposition lawmakers who said that strategy would further strengthen
the judicial system and fortify people’s trust in the government.
Iloilo Rep. Niel Tupas Jr., chairman of the House Committee on
Justice and lead public prosecutor during the impeachment trial of
ex-Chief Justice Renato Corona, took note of SC’s new measure. “It is a
very welcome development. We have been very clear even during the Corona
Impeachment that flip-flopping weakens the judicial system and erodes
the people’s trust in the government. The flip-flopping which should be
prohibited should however be distinguished from a decision abandoning a
previous doctrine which is of course allowed,” he said.
AKO Bicol party-list Rep. Rodel Batocabe, a lawyer, expressed
confidence that Sereno’s strategy would definitely strengthen the
independence and integrity of the judiciary. “I urge the SC to explain
based on solid legal, philosophical and even moral and economic grounds
the rationale why it is abandoning a well-settled ruling. As it is, the
SC does not usually provide a convincing rationale why it is abandoning
previous rulings when deciding differently from a previous case with the
same set of facts and legal issues,” he said.
Quezon City Rep. Winston Castelo and Misamis Occidental Rep. Jorge
Almonte, a lawyer also rallied behind Sereno’s new scheme that seeks “to
stabilize jurisprudence.”
“Ideally, the SC decisions should not change for reasons of stability
and permanence. But, this does not happen because society changes. We
do not have a problem when changes in judicial doctrines reflect changes
in society. We have problems when the SC flip-flops its decisions to
favor certain vested interests. We have to draw the line. For sure, it
will strengthen the judiciary,” Castelo said.
Almonte said “We have to live with lessons of the past; therefore,
there is nothing wrong in adopting a strategy to achieve the goal of
early resolution of cases based on established precedents.”
ABAKADA party-list Rep. Jonathan de la Cruz, member of the House
independent bloc, and United Nationalist Alliance’s Navotas Rep. Tobias
“Toby” Tiangco also ralilied behind Sereno’s move.
“Definitely, it can strengthen the judiciary as it stabilizes our legal precepts,” de la Cruz said.
“I have full respect on whatever they decide on regarding judicial
issues. They are the sole arbiter and I am glad that they are exercising
their mandate with complete independence,” Tiangco said.
Oriental Mindoro Rep. Reynaldo Umali, who earlier pushed for the
filing of an ouster complaint against some SC justices for alleged
despotism over the High Court’s flip-flopping decisions is counting on
Sereno to implement such reform. ”I just hope it (SC) does. I need to
see the supposed strategy before I can further comment,” he said.
Umali was part of the prosecution panel during the Corona impeachment
trial. He said the SC’s flip-flopping decision on the pork barrel
system and the disqualification case against fellow Liberal Party
member, Regina Reyes as Marinduque representative are among the grounds
for impeaching some SC justices.
Cavite Rep. Elpidio Barzaga Jr., a lawyer and former prosecutor
during the Corona ouster trial shrugged off Sereno’s pronouncement.
“There is nothing novel in Sereno’s pronouncement. Every law student
knows the basic rule of stare decisis – adherrence to precedents,” he
said.
He branded as “alarming” the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court
in the Belgica case. He said “the High Tribunal declared as
unconstitutional not only the PDAF in the 2013 GAA, but even the CDF
(countrywide development fund) in the GAA of 1994, and the PDAF in the
2004 GAA. He said the 1994 CDF and 2004 PDAF were declared
constitutional in the celebrated cases of Philippine Constitution
Association (Philconsa) and Lawyers Against Monopoly and Poverty (LAMP),
a group of lawyers.
“There is no more finality and stability in the SC decisions since
any decision as shown in the Belgica case can be overturned anytime by
the Supreme Court. Basic is the rule that when the SC is confronted with
the issue of constitutionality of an act made by the legislature or the
executive, the SC as much as possible should exercise judicial
restraint out of respect to a separate but a co-equal branch of the
government,” he explained.
Barzaga noted that the Belgica decision has even a stronger impact
because in declaring as unconstitutional not only the 2013 PFAF but even
the 1994 CDF and 2004 PDAF, the present justices of the SC are saying
that the justices who sustained the constitutionality of the 1994 CDF
and 2004 PDAF were ignorant of the Constitution.
Apart from PDAF rulings, the SC was criticized for flip-flopping
decisions on several cases in the past. These includes its rulings on
the constitutionality of laws passed by the 11th Congress that prompted
the conversion of 16 municipalities into cities, and the payment of
separation benefits of 5,000 employees of the National Power Corp.
(Napocor) who were illegally terminated in 2003.
