Business Circuit

It would be for our edification and education if the Supreme Court could go out of its way to request the magistrates to summarize what to them are their best ponencias when they agree and their best dissents if they lose by force of numbers.

I thought we have a right to know the minds of the justices in whose decisions the Constitution is best defended or sometimes violated.

The members of the Court are a privileged people. In fact, may be more privileged than the President. For this reason alone, the independence of their minds must rule the court.

The President can win or lose cases in the Supreme Court. As previously stated here, the Court is right even when it is wrong.

Thus, when the Court "errs" in interpreting the Constitution, the mistake becomes part of the laws of the hand. On the other hand, when the President loses a case, she is shown up for her ignorance while the Court shows the highest level of independence.

The danger in a constitutional democracy is when wrong becomes right because only the Supreme Court can make mistakes. It cannot be wrong.

Their ponencias or dissents will show the independence of their minds or the lack of it.

There is a perception that Justice Renato Corona, appointed by President Arroyo, is an ardent supporter of the Chief Executive.

Hard to say. All we know is Justice Corona votes for the President in nearly all issues involving her, the recent one being the MOA AD. He was in the minority.

I am hereby requesting the magistrate from my province of Batangas to furnish me copies of his ponencias and dissents.

I am making the request because, ignorant as I am of the personages in the Court, I cannot remember Justice Corona being the ponencia in any case.

Neither can I remember him writing a dissent.

What I do remember is Justice Corona concurs or dissents the way he feels. In the MOA-AD ruling, Justice Corona joined the dissent written by Justice Dante Tinga.

I am personally concerned that a senior associate justice like Corona can nurse an ambition to become Chief Justice when he has not expressed a mind of his own in any landmark case. He simply agrees or disagrees.

It was the French philosopher Voltaire (Francois Marie Arouet) who once said, "I may disagree with you but I will defend to the death your right to say it." That should be the justification for the Court being wrong and still be right or having the right to be wrong.

This makes the interpretation and defense of the Constitution extremely difficult. A majority ruling clearly in favor of the President but patently against democratic processes and institutions is considered in defense of the Constitution.

A dissent against the ruling may be the correct interpretation but it does not become part of the law of the land. A dissent, no matter how brilliant, may not be considered as defense of the Constitution. It is merely an exercise of the right to disagree.

When the majority chose to "err" in favor of the President the presumption is the Charter is upheld or defended, although in reality it is violated.

That makes the error right and the dissent wrong.

It is for this reason that the independence of mind of the magistrates must be held sacred at all times. No self-respecting official, the President included, may intrude into that mind. That mind could be wrong but for as long as it works in its best lights without fear, favor or consideration, the Court holds itself up high.

Not my lawyer

The Supreme Court sent me a copy of a resolution dated Sept. 23 which states: "…In the matter of the Allegations contained in the column of Mr. A.P. Macasaet published in Malaya dated Sept. 18,19, & 21, 2007. – The Court Resolved to EXPUNGE from the records the verified manifestation with motion to reconsider, re-open and for new trial and prayer for leave of Court with tender of payment of docket fees, dated Aug. 29, 2008 filed by Atty. Florentino V. Floro Jr…."

I want the Court to know that I do not know this Attorney Floro Jr. He is not my counsel in the indirect contempt case which has been terminated. I never had the intention of filing a motion for reconsideration.

I do not question the ruling that says I am held in indirect contempt and fined P20,000.

If Floro made the submissions in intervention, I do not know who he was intervening for.

The parties involved in the indirect contempt case, including my lawyer Rogeli Velarde, were furnished copies of the resolution.