THE CITIZEN ON MARS

THE 8-7 DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT barring the effectivity of the people’s initiative was too close a call for comfort. Like a hairline division between two starkly contrasting realities—like that between black and white, light and dark or that of Asia and America. It could have gone either way that most probably those who were stoutly pushing for people’s initiative were fiercely snapping their fingers in utter dismay or regret. Sayang, isa na lang sana.

Yet, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo had expressed her acquiescence to the Supreme Court decision although in turgid hesitation, like she was really expecting a favorable decision all along and had done everything in the world to get that desired outcome at whatever cost it takes. Whatever that means.

It could be told that in the days leading to the pronouncement of this much-publicized SC decision, there were strong droning buzzes in the political scene about how Malacañang was moving heaven and earth beneath the public’s eye in order to cajole every SC justice to conform to the idea of changing the constitution through the new and hugely untested mechanism of people’s initiative. Chief Justice Artemio Paganiban was even barred from attending social activities like it was a crime to do that during those times; as if DOJ Secretary Raul Gonzales had owned his person, seeming to attempt to control or limit his movement, perhaps even the words he utters or the food he takes into his mouth. Whenever there is smoke, there should always be fire or at least a smoldering somewhere near. It had gotten to the point where executive interference has gotten too brazen that the Malacañang people were looking so guiltless in denying it television and radio, like the public can be fooled anyway and nobody could complain or that things like that happens anyway and we all should not be surprised by it in the first place.

Now, what if the close SC decision on the people’s initiative had gone the other way, allowing changes in the constitution thru this untried methodology?

It would have been not lesser than a historic day I am sure of that, a momentous and close-to-an-unprecedented instance in the history of our jurisprudence, where for once the highest court in the land makes a very bold move and make a radical shift in policy, a quantum leap at that. It would perhaps be the only moment in local jurisprudence where the judiciary had become a major factor in concocting a newer version of the constitution, which in effect could lead to that unprecedented situation where there’d be constitutional changes effected in huge part thru jurisprudence or by way of a judicial decision.

Amending laws through a Supreme Court decision has been happening before and is not rare at all. It had happened many times in the past. This way, jurisprudence becomes a source of law and not merely an interpreter of laws. This is an instance where judicial decisions become the main source of law and not through the usual manner of legislation, customs or norms. In fact, in the doctrine of stare decisis ( a latin term conforming to that jurisprudential policy that the courts should always decide based on previous precedents.), the court should always decide based on the trends showed by previous decisions and should not depart from it unless there is that extreme necessity to do so. In effect, previous judicial decisions become a strong basis for deciding a case, as if they are as strong as the provisions of a law duly enacted thru legislation.

If the Supreme Court had ruled the other day in favor of allowing people’s initiative to change major provisions of our constitution, the high court would then be violating this doctrine of stare decisis, and should be compelled then to show extreme cause (that indubitable reason to shift) why it had to depart from commonly accepted policies as based on previous decisions on similar cases. Let us remember that in 1997, the Supreme Court had struck down people’s initiative citing inadequacy of an enabling law in the Santiago v. Comelec landmark case. And since even until now, there is no new law enacted that should be deemed as sufficient as to bring into effect changes in the constitution through people’s initiative, the High Court should have no other choice but to based its present decision on people’s initiative and struck it down as well. That if it had gone the other way—allowing people’s initiative instead—the High Court would be put into a scandalous light and be easily accused of prostituting their judgment to the nuances of the high and mighty now sitting in Malacañang.

The fact that the recent SC decision on people’s initiative was too close for comfort at 8-7, showed that the nation was on the brink of experiencing what could have been a jurisprudential crisis of unprecedented proportion. I for one could not believe that our Supreme Court was halfly in favor of dismantling our constitution in a nearly haphazard manner, when in fact it has the sworn duty to protect our most fundamental law from the whimsical and capricious notions and intentions of some sector of our society. I am not really antagonistic to charter changes—as I have often mentioned here before—but doing such in a manner that is hugely untested and one with no sufficient mechanism to take effect is not good and clearly unideal.

That in the end, even if as a whole the Supreme Court had acted in the most wise of manner—striking down the present petition for people’s initiative— the 8-7 difference (as to those who were in favor and those who were not in favor of allowing changes in the constitution thru people’s initiative) is a scandalous situation, a shameful episode in the history of our jurisprudence, where almost nearly, the crocodiles in the seats of power could have wolfed down wholly, shamelessly and blatantly, the dignity of the High Court in the most blatant of manner—whatever is left of it.