Inconsistent Comelec

A+
A
A-

This refers to the news report titled “3 party-list groups get SC reprieve” (Inquirer 11/23/12). The Supreme Court, the final arbiter of laws, has again issued its authoritative stand: “Three more party-list groups were given a reprieve by the Supreme Court, which directed the Commission on Elections on Tuesday not to disqualify the organizations from taking part in the May 2013 elections.”

If there is an institution in government that projects the image of stability, it is the Supreme Court. I am convinced that its decisions are carefully studied and weighed so that their applications are not only for the here and now but for posterity. Its decisions become laws of the land. And it is a well-settled rule in jurisprudence that laws are prospective in nature and character.

When the Supreme Court decides with finality, it expects that such decision will be respected by all concerned. Unreasonably challenging or dismissing it for political expediency would be an affront to its judicial independence and integrity.

The Supreme Court is an epitome of stability due to the consistency of its decisions. Its decisions are said to be impartial and objective. In my view, some party lists are complaining because of the Commission on Election’s inconsistent and incoherent decisions and policies, particularly on the unceremonious delisting of some party-list organizations. If the Supreme Court mirrors stability and resoluteness, Comelec is its exact opposite.—REGINALD B. TAMAYO, assistant city council secretary, Marikina City

Inquirer Viber

Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of INQUIRER.net. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.

To subscribe to the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper in the Philippines, call +63 2 896-6000 for Metro Manila and Metro Cebu or email your subscription request here.

Factual errors? Contact the Philippine Daily Inquirer's day desk. Believe this article violates journalistic ethics? Contact the Inquirer's Reader's Advocate. Or write The Readers' Advocate:

c/o Philippine Daily Inquirer Chino Roces Avenue corner Yague and Mascardo Streets, Makati City,Metro Manila, Philippines Or fax nos. +63 2 8974793 to 94

editors' picks

December 20, 2014

Down this road before

advertisement
advertisement