“Justice Antonio T. Carpio then volunteered to write his reflections on Justice Reyes’ ponencia for discussion in the next en banc session.”
by Ducky Paredes
According to the Supreme Court itself (in a resolution by all the justices), it is not true (as we were made to believe) that it was Chief Justice Reynato Puno alone who decided to withhold the promulgation of the decision in the citizenship case of 1st District of Negros Oriental Congresswoman Jocelyn Limkaichong.
The Courts, according to the SC spokesman, has fully explained what happened: “During its session on 15 July 2008, the En Banc continued its deliberations on the ponencia of Justice Ruben T. Reyes in these consolidated cases. Since no one raised any further objections to Justice Reyes’ ponencia, the En Banc approved the ponencia with a number of justices saying that the were concurring ‘in the result.’
“Justice Reyes then circulated immediately his ponencia for signature by the justices during the same session, (The Justices signed. Beginning from the most junior, Justice Brion, all the way to the Senior Associate Justice, Justice Quisumbing.)
“After the session and during lunch, Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno noted that seven (7) justices concurred ‘in the result’ of the ponencia of Justice Reyes. Justices Minita Chico-Nazario and Teresita Leonardo de Castro then informed the Chief Justice that they would concur only ‘in the result.’ Since nine (9) Justices, not counting the Chief Justice would concur only in the result,’ the Justices unanimously decided to withhold the promulgation of the ponencia of Justice Reyes.”
Apparently, there is nothing wrong in members of a collegiate body such as the SC to change their minds after conferring with other members of the Court. This is also true in other collegial bodies such as the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Appeals, the Commission on Elections and so on. (This may look bad to outsiders but, in reality, if justices and commissioners never changed their minds or their decisions, this would cause gridlock in our judicial system.)
Clearly, in the case of Limkaichong, the ponencia of Justice Reyes was only a draft as long as this had not yet been promulgated; a ponencia is not yet a decision of the Court until it has been promulgated. Thus, whatever was given to Law Student Louie “Barok” Biraogo, was a mere scrap of paper that had no value. It takes on value only after promulgation.
And, promulgation is not possible as explained in the Court’s December 10, 2008 Resolution: “If a majority concurs ‘only in the result,’ the ponencia has no doctrinal value.”
What is this “doctrinal value”?
Section 14, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution is used by the SC to explain. It says: “No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.” The SC also points out that a noted constitutionalist, Fr. Bernas points out that “failure of a member of the Supreme Court (to comply with this constitutional provision) would subject him to impeachment.”
The SC resolution goes on to explain: “Justice Antonio T. Carpio then volunteered to write his reflections on Justice Reyes’ ponencia for discussion in the next en banc session. During its session on 22 July 2008, the En Banc unanimously decided to hold oral arguments on these consolidated cases on 2i August 2008.”
Thus, did the Court set itself up for criticism from outside. Instead of being perceived as the font of judicial wisdom that it ought to be, the black-robed justices seemed like a body of persons who haggle over decisions and who can change their decisions in a jiffy. From the resolution that gives us the timeline, we see that the problem may have been with the Reyes ponencia itself.
Perhaps, one of the problems that we have with our legal system is that we use Spanish words that were obviously carried over from the time that Spanish and not English was the prevalent official language. Thus “ponencia” is given more weight than it really has. Ponencia in Spanish is simply a paper or report. In the case of the Reyes ponencia, this was a paper written by a justice – not because the case had been decided upon by the Court and assigned to Justice Reyes for promulgation; this was only his own thoughts on the consolidated cases.
Clearly, from the resolution explaining what took place, the Limkaichong case was still under deliberation and no one had been assigned to be the ponente, a word that has no special meaning and which translates simply into “reporter” or rapporteur in French. There is no additional mystical weight to “ponente” that the use of a foreign language seems to imply.
The mixed use of languages actually confuses rather than clarifies and many of the words that are legally accepted in this country as proper English words are not even actual words but are original Spanish words that have been camouflaged to look like proper English words but which have no real meaning except for how we have agreed to understand them in this country.
* * *
As part of the Asian Institute of Management annual Homecoming festivities, the traditional Homecoming Golf Tournament will be held on Tuesday, February 24, 2009 at the Villamor Golf Club in Pasay City. Over 100 AIM alumni, officials and guests are expected, including celebrating jubilarians from abroad.
The members of the lead host class MBM’89 and the 2009 Homecoming Committee invite all alumni to join this fun activity. Net proceeds from the golf tournament will help various alumni & school projects as well as some worthy charitable causes.
For more details, please call the Alumni Association of AIM, Inc. (AAAIM) and look for Ms. Marilou Virata or Jun Javellana at tel Nos. 750-6575 / 892-4011 loc 2104/2105/2119.
# # # #
hvp 01.29.09)
Post a Comment