THE decision of the Supreme Court to reverse itself on the League of Cities case last December, after its original ruling had become final and executory last May, is a ticking time bomb placed directly under the rule of law. When it explodes, the first casualty will be the Court itself.

In the constitutional crisis that shook the country after more than a third of the members of the House of Representatives voted to impeach Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. in 2003, the role of the Court as final arbiter of legal controversies was vigorously affirmed.

At that time, we wrote in this space: ?The mere fact that some of the country?s best legal minds ... could not agree on a single position on the issue at hand is not a sign of confusion. It is a sign that the law may be a demanding mistress, but it is not an exact science. It is also proof that, if the Supreme Court did not exist, it would be necessary to invent it. Top lawyers may argue about the constitutionality of an issue, but at a certain point somebody must step in and decide. According to the Constitution, that somebody is not the Senate or the House; it is the Supreme Court.?

But last Dec. 19, a slender majority of six justices voted against this very principle. The Court?s reversal of the original League of Cities decision violated the governing idea that ?at a certain point somebody must step in and decide.? The Court had in fact already stepped in and decided on the fate of the 16 cityhood laws that were the subject of the case; they were deemed unconstitutional by majority vote on Nov. 18, 2008; a motion for reconsideration was rejected by majority vote; a second motion for reconsideration was denied by a tie vote. On May 21, 2009, the ruling became final and executory.

And yet the Court decided to open the case again. Justice Antonio Carpio?s withering dissent in the League of Cities case quoted the petitioners? view that ?[n]otably, respondents craftily phrased and titled their motions based on the Court?s last denial order or resolution, and deliberately avoided reference to the previous repeated denials by the Court.? It is a shame that enough members of the Court agreed to reopen the case despite such duplicitous conduct.

It is a bigger shame, indeed it is a cause for apprehension about the future of the high court itself, that enough justices voted to overturn the ruling.

The argument against revisiting decisions already deemed final and executory is settled consensus; it is a by-now-unremarkable part of the law of the land. Carpio?s dissent offers a vigorous restating of the Court?s previous rulings. ?Well-entrenched is the rule that a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable, no longer subject to attack and cannot be modified directly or indirectly, and the court which rendered it, including this Court, had lost jurisdiction to modify it. The Court laid down this rule precisely ?(1) to avoid delay in the administration of justice and thus procedurally, to make orderly the discharge of judicial business, and; (2) to put an end to judicial controversies, at the risk of occasional errors, which is why courts exist.??

And yet the Supreme Court not only revisited the case; it reversed itself. This unfortunate series of events can only erode the people?s confidence in the rule of law, and undermine the credibility of the Court. We can, legitimately, ask: If there is no such thing as a final and executory ruling, can there be an end to legal and judicial controversies? If the Supreme Court declines to respect its own jurisprudence, can anyone expect the ordinary citizen to respect the Court?s rulings? If sheer majority rule, not the hallowed principle of facts and the law, determines the decisions of the Supreme Court, can the public stop itself from treating the justices as the politicians they have become?

Carpio?s dissent defined the stakes. ?Such an unprecedented ruling would resurrect contentious political issues long ago settled ... Countless other decisions of this Court would come back to haunt it ... Such a ruling would destabilize not only this Court, but also the Executive and Legislative Branches ... Business transactions made pursuant to final decisions of this Court would also unravel for another round of litigation ... This Court cannot afford to unleash such a catastrophe on the nation.?

The bomb is ticking.