Tuesday, May 18, 2010

The principle of Stare decisis in the CJ appointment issue

Stare decisis et non quieta movere. This is one of the legal principles by which Philippine jurisprudence rests.

The issue of Mrs. Arroyo's appointment of the Chief Justice should be respected by all, simply because the Supreme Court has said its piece and by that, all parties are required to obey it. Call it a midnight appointment. Call it a desperate move. Call it a self-preservation tactic. Fact is, the Highest Tribunal has said its piece and allowed an exiting president to appoint a successor even during the election period. Whether or not that ruling was erroneous, the fact is simply, the Highest Court said so, and as a member of the Philippine bar, every one who respects the law must recognize that this is now part of lex terrae or the law of the land

Chief Justice Renato Corona's appointment does not violate any law, according to the Supreme Court. Hence, by all means, it is legal. It might not be entirely moral or ethical, but it is simply legal. 

In the minds of certain quarters, especially the Firm, the decision was wrong. And since the Firm has a direct and firm stake at Aquino's candidacy, it has every single right to try and reverse the ruling using the Executive department as its platform.

Wrong. Crap. Bull. 

The Supreme Court is a co-equal branch of government. It is independent. What Aquino and the Firm planned to do is pressure or force the Court to abide. Democracy does not operate this way. Democracy is about respect. Democracy is about free choice. 

The incoming Chief Executive and his legal factotums may have a differing view of this thing but it is simply the height of tyranny that they try to muster dissent over something which has been decided firmly and with finality. Tradition states that respect should be accorded the Court, otherwise, how then will the justice system be respected by all?

This is also, not a tit-for-tat game, that the Court did this against the People, so the People has the right to do this also against the Court. 

This is also a direct affront against democratic principles to allow a mere law firm to force its weight down upon the Highest Court. 

It would have been a very good issue yet, the fact that the Firm is in the thick of things and is leading the charge, smells of rat dung.