"x x x.
OPINION
SHOWDOWN: The Supreme Court is under intense attack as an institution. Much of the bombardment appears to be coming from the direction of Malacañang and its allies. Although the Executive and the Judiciary are supposed to be co-equal branches of a tripartite system, the fight looks lopsided. Versus the billions at the disposal of Malacañang for propaganda, the Supreme Court has a measly sum for public information. Against the Palace’s panel of spokespersons, a network of information officers all over the bureaucracy, not to mention its mouthpieces imbedded in the media, the SC has only its Court Administrator doubling as spokesperson. While the President has at his beck and call the armed forces, the national police and the National Bureau of Investigation, the Supreme Court has only its sheriffs and process servers to enforce its rulings and orders. * * * ERODED RESPECT: The stakes are high. If it is unable to withstand the attack, the Supreme Court as an institution could be reduced to irrelevance. Its controversial decisions could end up routinely defied by losing parties who have the means to put up an extrajudicial fight. The open defiance by no less than the Justice Secretary of one of the Court’s recent orders has far-reaching implications. Its repeated failure to compel obedience results in the diminution of judicial power and influence all the way down to the lower courts. If the attack on the credibility of the Court succeeds, decisions with high political impact or that go against the interests of influential parties could be challenged in the streets by mobs-for-hire as they are heckled in a contrived Court of Public Opinion. * * * SC SHORTCOMINGS: The Supreme Court is partly to blame for its vulnerability. For instance, its flip-flopping on high-profile cases raises the question of what it takes — aside from invoking the law — to win a case or reverse a decision that has long become final and executory. It is unfair to the institution or to its majority, but the unsavory reputation of a few of its members stain the collective image of the tribunal. The Supreme Court must be saved — from itself and from its unreasonable detractors — and strengthened as an institution. To allow the psychological collapse of this third leg of government would be disastrous for the country. Who will move to save it as an institution? x x x." | ||||
