Only a month ago, the Supreme Court spoke thus:
“PAL appeared to have deliberately omitted the portions of the Court’s Resolution…that not only referred to our original finding that PAL failed to observe the proper procedures and requirements of a valid retrenchment but…also reaffirmed (it). Thus, PAL appears to us to be less than honest in its claim.
“Wherefore it resolves to deny with finality respondent PAL’s second motion for reconsideration. No further pleadings shall be entertained.”
Now it squeaks thus: The wrong division ruled on the case. Wherefore, “pursuant to the internal rules of the Supreme Court, the court en banc resolves to accept (the case). The court en banc further resolves to recall the resolution dated Sept. 7, 2011, issued by the Second Division.”
What did it take for the Court to go in but one cycle of the moon from its Olympian stance to this head-scratching, idiot-faced grinning, “Ay mali”-spouting dance today?
A letter from Estelito Mendoza, Lucio Tan’s lawyer.
It was not a dramatic revelation that it was Fasap in fact and not PAL management that had been “less than honest in its claim.” It was not a thunderous presentation of new evidence that the flight attendants had in fact been falsifying documents or making erroneous calculations. It was not an earthshaking demonstration that PAL in fact had been overpaying its flight crew or inundating them with benefits. It was in fact:
A letter from Estelito Mendoza, Lucio Tan’s lawyer.
A letter that said the wrong division ruled on the case. A letter that had the justices piously saying, “Amen.”
That cynical, mindless, sniveling stupidity cannot possibly come from a Supreme Court. There is no other way to explain this barefaced, in-your-face, dirty-finger-shoving display of naked perfidy. It does not show how much the justices thought about this, it shows how much the justices were paid for this.
The issue here is no longer about labor, it is about integrity. The issue is no longer about Fasap, it is about the Supreme Court. The issue is no longer about whether the flight attendants, who have been dismissed unjustly, have a right to be paid what they lost. The issue is whether the justices, who have been dishing out injustice for so long, have a right to exist.
They do not. They have no right to exist on three grounds.
One is for making a mockery of justice. Or more to the point, for assuring that no one can possibly get any justice. Or still more to the point, for assuring that the rich can get away with murder.
That is what their decision to open a case that has been ruled upon “with finality” means. Final means end. There is no such thing as “more final,” or “most final,” or “most most final,” ad infinitum. This is by no means the first time the Supreme Court has done this, to the monumental chagrin of the poor plaintiff or defendant who thought he had won his case. I’ve written about this before and vituperated against this before. In the case of Fasap, this is the third time they’ve won their case only to see that victory dashed to pieces. Bob Anduiza, the Fasap president, has a point: That is like having three overtimes in a basketball game not with the score tied but with one team having already won. That is not a game, that is a joke.
There can be no justice with a finality that has no finality. Who stands to gain from this? The rich. They can always get a case that has gone against them reopened by buying off the justices. Yes, buying off, let’s call a spade a spade. Or bloody murder, which is what they will quite literally get away with. Time is on their side. Money is on their side. The crooks are on their side.
Two is for having no business being justices. What idiocy is this that the Second Division had been deliberating on PAL’s second motion without knowing all along that the Third Division should really be doing it? You hold the life of people in your hands and don’t even know you have no right to? If so, then the justices should be stripped of their robes and sent back to law school to learn the basics of court procedure, quite apart from the basics of human decency. If so, then the culprits should have nothing to do with the Supreme Court, they should have to do only with Lucky Me Supreme. My apologies to Lucky Me.
While at that, even on a procedural note, isn’t there a rule that says that someone might challenge the ruling of a division—whether it is the right division or not, or indeed whether the proper forum is a division or the Court en banc—only before it has ruled and not after?
Three is for being a–hole. That is the most solid ground of all. That is the most compelling reason of all.
Do they have any idea what they’re doing to people who have already been victims of a humongous injustice? I don’t know which is worse, an owner who runs an airline like a taho factory or judges who run their courts like a talipapa, rulings sell cheaper by the dozen. I do know what’s worse than flight attendants being tossed away like used condoms after they’ve served faithfully and well. That is being told they’ll finally get justice and restitution, only to have those snatched away from them at the last minute. Again and again. That is subjecting them to a roller-coaster ride of joy and grief with no end in sight. To appreciate how that feels, the justices should have their pay—or forget their pay, their bribes—withheld from them at the last minute. Again and again. With no end in sight.
We have only three options. One is to abolish the Supreme Court. Two is to scrap the justices and just appoint Estelito Mendoza, the lawyer of Lucio Tan, Supreme Arbiter. Three, and far more sanely:
Freaking impeach them.