Court’s ‘strange considerations’

Oscar Lagman Jr. was quite naïve when he  wrote: “If the decision were to be invoked by former president Benigno Aquino III and former health secretary Janette Garin when they face the Senate blue ribbon committee in connection with the Dengvaxia fiasco, and the issue is elevated to the Supreme Court, it would put Justice Teresita de Castro — and Justice Presbitero Velasco Jr. — in a bind” (“An acid test for an SC justice,” Opinion, 3/28/18).

He adverted to a decision penned for the Supreme Court in 2008 by De Castro and concurred in by Velasco et al. where “executive privilege” was upheld in favor of then National Economic and Development Authority Director General Romulo Neri, who went to the Supreme Court upon being compelled by the Senate blue ribbon committee to answer questions relating to his conversations with former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo on the scandalous National Broadband Network-Zhongxing Telecommunications Equipment (NBN-ZTE) deal. Remember  the  great  “bukol” reveal: “Sec, may 200 ka dito”?

So, would De Castro and Velasco et al. lose sleep over that decision when the time comes for them to deal with the same issue again?  From where we sit, it’s  really no big deal!

It is no longer unusual for justices of the Supreme Court to write or concur in decisions that contradict or conflict with decisions they themselves had written or concurred in previously.

So-called “past precedents” or “well-settled jurisprudence” are an overrated basis to “predict” what the Court will

1. Many cases have been decided on the basis of other strange “considerations.” Just think “humanitarian reasons,” if nothing else works!

So, Mr. Lagman, don’t hold your breath!

YVETTE SAN LUIS-PETROCELLI, ysl.69996@gmail.com