BREAKFAST NAUSEA WITH 9 SUPREME COURT MAGISTRATES

               Unless it is a day for golf  when I leave very early, the newspaper and breakfast are the first in my schedule.  This morning was no exception except that the newspaper today gave me nausea even before I could start breakfast.

               In the banner headline was that the Supreme Court, voting 9 to 6, had dismissed the petition of Sen. Leila De Lima to quash the drug charges and arrest warrant against her.  While I applauded and admired many of her official actions as chairperson of the Commission on Human Right and later as secretary of justice, I have no personal bias for the detained senator, one way or the other.  But I think I have been sufficiently trained to understand the law and this decision by the Court's majority and the casual and absentminded reasoning to support it awakened my dormant disrespect over the years for the lack of integrity and common sense of some past and present justices, a few among whom I have personally known.

            Let me remember and capsulize the legal grounds used by the detained senator in her petition: First, the drug charges were improper and without basis because she was never accused of selling, possession or otherwise trafficking in drugs but for direct bribery in relation to drug trading inside the national penitentiary which was under her official supervision as then Secretary of Justice; and, therefore the venue is incorrect because the nature of the charge and her official status indicated the Sandiganbayan not an ordinary court as the venue and, secondly, the procedures leading to her arrest and detention violated her rights as she was not given the opportunity to refute the charges in writing or in a preliminary hearing as prescribed by law for the determination of a probable cause before the issuance of an arrest warrant.  The informed public including or especially the Duterte minions still remember all too clearly how that legal process was disregarded with shameless haste. 

             This is how, casually and almost absentminded, the Court dealt with the foregoing issue in its own words as reported in the Inquirer: (1) "The judge did not gravely abuse (just simply abused) her discretion in finding probable cause (without preliminary investigation) to order the petitioner's arrest ". "The court also found that the text (Text? How about the execution) of respondent judge's order did not violate the petitioner's constitutional rights and is not contrary to (but not in accordance with) established jurisprudence in determining probable cause.  The bracketed phrases are mine to facilitate understanding of the implications of the moronic decision.  (2) In ruling that the regional trial court (RTC) and not the Sandiganbayan is the correct venue for De Lima's case, the court stated: "The Sandiganbayan's jurisdiction is limited to violations of the anti-graft laws and does not extend to violations of the drug law."

         The above pronouncements provide another revelation of the writing ability of many justices. But they sufficiently express the interpretations of the law they meant to convey.  Quite often, as in this case, the interpretation insults or alarms lawyers and others who are conversant with the law.  For instance, it should be alarming for the Court to casually rule in this case that the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan is limited to violations of anti-graft laws.  This is revolutionary!  The immediate implication is that all pending cases of government officials involving violations of other penal statutes penalizing official offenses but not specifically the anti-graft laws will now have to be dismissed by the  Ombudsman or the Sandiganbayan.  This will surely provoke debates, particularly in view of the constitutional powers of the Ombudsman which is the prosecution arm of the Sandiganbayan.  But the obvious interpretation of that statement of the court will stand until they clarify further what it actually meant.

           Many times the Court has done that.  Events, exigencies, aging lapses or other considerations of value could have been the influence why the Court has vacated judicial precedents and decisions in a number of cases, or why it would simply state that a particular ruling applies only to a particular case and not to other logically similar cases or simply say "without merit" to a petition without further explanation.  Ironically, this proclivity of the Supreme Court to flipflop offers a final chance for people to attain justice, albeit expensively while it has sadly removed the trust and respect for the integrity and fitness of most of the justices who sit there, as well the Court itself as a result.  Ask any practicing lawyer and they will agree in confidence.