Court of cartwheels
Don’t expect the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Fasap (Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines) case to be the last word on the matter. By upholding its October 2011 recall of its “final” decision (ordering Philippine Airlines to reinstate 1,400 Fasap members) made barely a month before, the high tribunal, voting 7-2, also ordered the reraffling of the case and sent it back to square one. It is as if nothing has happened between 1998 (when PAL laid off the flight attendants) and a dozen years later. If there’s a classic illustration of miscarriage of justice and inutility of our laws, this is it.
Even the timing of the release of the decision should reflect on the sense of urgency (or lack of one) with which the high court acts on pressing matters of law and justice. Although the 30-page resolution is dated March 13, it was only made public on March 22, or more than a week later. Moreover, the promulgation took place as the defense in the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Renato Corona started its presentation in the Senate tribunal. Not surprisingly the majority decision clears Corona of any wrongdoing in the October recall, dismissing Fasap’s claim that he manipulated the Court to change its mind. “If justice delayed is justice denied,” a Fasap official said, “ours is even worse: justice hijacked.”
The PAL case has become one of the high court’s launching sites for flip-flopping decisions. It was cited as a ground for Corona’s impeachment. Fasap had complained that the recall came about because of Corona’s meddling after the Court, in a highly irregular move, accepted four letters from PAL lawyer Estelito Mendoza, arguing that the original Supreme Court decision upholding the flight attendants’ cause was a “misapplication of the rules.”
But the new ruling also dismisses any impropriety on the Chief Justice’s part, saying he had inhibited himself from the start and that the confusion merely arose because a number of senior justices had likewise inhibited themselves and that Corona had performed the role of chief presiding officer of the Court en banc. In addition, the majority argues that the original ruling ordering PAL to rehire the flight attendants and pay them back wages had not become final. “The recall was made by the Court on its own before the ruling’s finality pursuant to the Court’s power of control over its orders and resolutions,” the promulgation says. “Thus, no due process issue ever arose.”
In short, “final” is not so final.
But the order itself basically admits that the Court has changed its mind and it adumbrates the reasons for doing so. Penned by Justice Arturo Brion, the majority decision says the recall was “a proper and legal move to make under the applicable laws and rules, and the indisputably unusual developments and circumstances of the case.” The “indisputably unusual developments” may allude to the changed complexion of the airline industry in which subcontracting has become the norm and flight stewards have been imposed age limits. All this has been argued by PAL as necessary to make the flag carrier viable and competitive. But obviously the “circumstances,” however critical, should not warrant the Court reversing its “final” decision and making a fool of itself.
As Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno writes in her dissent, the majority view has “opened a Pandora’s box full of future troubles for Philippine judicial decision-making.” She explains that the decision has opened a case already decided with finality twice by at least 10 justices in three different divisions of the high court “for a staggering third review.” Since the Supreme Court is the court of last resort, it has to rule with finality and make up its mind or else it will lose credibility.
But alas, the March 13 decision is one more addition to a series of flip-flopping rulings with which the Supreme Court, under Corona, has “distinguished” itself and with which it has transformed the court of last resort into a three-ring circus.
