In his column Separate Opinion in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, issue date November 23, 2008, entitled “The Backbone of a Banana”, former Philippine Supreme Court Associate Justice Isagani Cruz made the following remarks, which, I think, deserve, some reflection by freedom-loving lawyers of the Philippines:
1. Whatever our concept of justice, I believe our commitment to it must begin with the courts—of justice, as we call them. Although holding “neither purse nor sword,” the judiciary is an indispensable ingredient of the democratic government. The lifeblood of every libertarian regime pulsates in the vitality of its judicial system and the capacity of the courts to uphold the majesty of law.
2. The Supreme Court of the Philippines was like a pure and innocent maiden until its chastity was ravished by martial law. Having savored the thrill of surrender during that lustful period, it has learned the practical benefits of accommodation with the political departments as a more convenient way of life. A regrettable example is Mabanag v. Lopez Vito, where it dismissed the constitutional challenge to the Parity proposal as a political question and thus gave Americans more rights to our natural resources than our own citizens.
3. That craven case has since been reversed by more courageous decisions, but it continues to seduce the Supreme Court to go astray every so often. We had that reasonable fear before with the present tribunal composed of all appointees of President Arroyo except for one solitary figure from a past administration. However, that apprehension dissolved in 2006 when it decided three leading cases—Senate v. Ermita, Bayan Muna v. Ermita and David v. Arroyo—that assured the overjoyed nation that its allegiance was not to Malacañang but to the rule of law.
4. But, alas, our elation was short-lived. Early this year, the Supreme Court that before seemed so righteously bold reconsidered its bravura and decided to repent, not for its sins but its ungratefulness to its benefactor. In Neri v. Senate, it sustained the President’s executive privilege covering the dark secrets of the malodorous ZTE contract despite the people’s constitutional right to transparency in government.
5. As a former member of the Supreme Court, I can say that it is easy to support any decision it chooses to make, good or bad, and for whatever motives. This can be done with jurisprudence. Chief Justice John Marshall of the US Supreme Court reportedly used to say after coming to his own unresearched but “gut” conclusion on a pending case, “That is our decision, gentlemen. Let Justice Story find the precedents.”
6. Our high tribunal during martial law found enough jurisprudence to justify the Marcos despotism even as there were also enough contrary rulings from braver courts. These better cases were buried in unmarked graves like the desaparecidos of the dictator.
See:
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20081123-173826/The-backbone-of-a-banana
