On April 4, I promised to give my personal take on the Supreme Court’s decision regarding the power of President GMA to appoint the next CJ. The court ruled that she can. If you’re thinking that I am going to discuss the merits of the case and answer the question, Can she really, under the present Constitution and taking into consideration as well the opinion of the Narvasa - led Supreme Court in 1998, appoint the next Philippine Chief Justice? Sorry to disappoint you but I am not going to do that instead I’m taking a different route. Don’t get me wrong. I am not avoiding the issue on the contrary I am bringing forth what I believe was missed in this legal intellectual intercourse.
Here’s the point. The Supreme Court in myriads of cases ruled that it has no authority to pass upon issues through advisory opinions or to resolve hypothetical or feigned problems (Bernas, The Constitution, citing Muskrat vs. United States, 219 U.S. 346, 362 (1911) or friendly suits collusively arranged between parties without real adverse interests. Courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions to satisfy scholarly interest, however intellectually challenging (PACU vs. Secretary of Education, supra on footnote no. 6). Before the Court can exercise its judicial power, an actual controversy between litigants must first exist. The operative word here is “actual controversy”. No actual controversy means no consideration of the issue.
At this point, it is but proper to first define what actual controversy is. There is actual case or controversy when there is a conflict of legal rights or an assertion of opposite legal claims, which can be resolved on the basis of existing law and jurisprudence. It involves a “definite” and “concrete” dispute touching on the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests. That’s why the Supreme Court in the case of Abbas vs COMELEC refused to rule on a merely perceived “potential” conflict between the provisions of the Muslim Code and those of the national law.
Now on the issue, is there really an actual controversy that would enable the Supreme Court to render a decision either for or against the petitioners in the case at bar. The current CJ is yet to retire. As of this writing, he still has a month to exercise the full power of the office. It doesn’t make sense why we have to treat him as if he is no longer there. The president is yet to exercise such power but only when there is such a vacancy. There is no actual vacancy; the president hasn’t appointed anyone thus no actual controversy. What is there to talk about? The discussion as to whether or not the president has the power to appoint indeed is a very intellectually challenging academic subject matter however as the Court said, it’s not enough so that it will take cognizance of a case.
All things considered, it is the understanding of this writer that the issue is not yet ripe for judicial adjudication there being no actual controversy which is a necessary requisite before the court can exercise its judicial power. My opinion is, the Supreme Court should not have given the petition due course.
(Note: However, since the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of all justiciable questions, we all have to abide by it. Individual opinions, no matter how intelligent they may be as one might claim, are entirely irrelevant. I agree with CJ Puno. We still have to respect the wisdom of our Court’s decision after all it’s the SUPREME Court.)
No comments:
Post a Comment