|
THE AMIABLE SPOKESMAN of the Supreme Court took pains to rebut
criticisms that the Supreme Court had “copped out” and had
virtually transformed itself into a barangay mediation court on the
controversy embroiling the Senate and former NEDA Chief and
incumbent Chairman of the Commission on Higher Education Division
Romulo Neri. True, the “compromise proposal” offered by
the court was quite unusual; indeed, the effort to offer a
compromise does not even appear to have any precedent in recent
history. It was painstakingly explained by its spokesman,
however, that the Supreme Court was not taking the side of, or
assisting, the chief executive in any way.
On the contrary, the proposal would have
facilitated the earlier appearance of former NEDA Chief Neri before
the Senate, and would have allowed a ruling comprehensively tackling
the issue of executive privilege. The refusal of the Senate to
accept the compromise meant that: First, the Supreme Court would
only rule on the applicability of executive privilege insofar as the
three specific questions Neri refused to answer were concerned; and
Second, the Senate would inevitably have to run back to the Supreme
Court if executive privilege were again to be invoked on other
questions asked of Neri, and other witnesses, that is refused any
answer on ground of executive privilege.
While the explanation appears reasonable, the
fact that it had to be given at all is highly disturbing. What
appears clear is that the offer of a compromise by the Supreme Court
is an act that, by itself, is so extraordinary, which lends itself
to a multitude of speculation on why it was even made in the first
place. And the speculation on the part of some quarters
unfortunately does not give the Supreme Court the benefit of the
doubt. The suspicions are not surprising; they reflect a
pervasive distrust on the ability of many institutions under this
administration to perform their legal and constitutional mandate.
The Supreme Court is not wont to expand its
powers to dispose of an issue beyond that which is squarely before
it. The proffered explanation, therefore, that the Supreme
Court would have preferred to make a “comprehensive” disposition
through an amicable settlement akin to a barangay mediation process
does not make sense.
The court does not await the introduction of
other issues and other facts in resolving the issues of
transcendental national importance before it. The fact that
Neri, the petitioner, was absent during the Supreme Court hearing
and therefore unable to answer questions crucial to the
determination of the propriety of executive privilege does not
justify the delay in resolving the specific issues before the court.
On the contrary, if Neri was absent, then that
was his look-out. His absence amounted to a waiver on his part
of an opportunity to explain his side and would have fully justified
the Supreme Court in accepting the position of the Senate and
dismissing Neri’s petition forthwith. Correspondingly, Neri
had to testify; executive privilege could not be properly invoked by
him; his refusal to testify justified his arrest by the Senate.
Whether or not unintended, the delay in the
resolution of the petition immediately benefits Malacañang, and
provides further comfort and incentive for those who act exclusively
in accordance with its instructions to continue doing so. Whether or
not it is true, it also gives the impression that the justices of
the Supreme Court are not immune from politics, and the belief that
this must be so, given the nature of, and process for, their
appointment, which is extremely political.
The people must continue to believe that the
Supreme Court is an impartial tribunal of venerable men and women,
whose loyalty belongs to the people, and not just to the chief
executive. The people must continue to believe that the
Supreme Court is fair, because it is the final arbiter of issues,
which ultimately affect the nurturance and sustenance of the
democratic institutions and principles enshrined in our
Constitution. Because this is so, the Supreme Court should never be
perceived as yet another mechanism that enables any branch of this
government, including the chief executive, to commit acts of
corruption, fraud, graft, and crime with impunity.
The perception of the Supreme Court as a fair
dispenser of justice can only be sustained if its dispositions are,
in fact, rational. Unfortunately, the offer of a compromise, because
it is hard to rationalize does not help in achieving this
perception.
|
