Stephen Monsanto missed the point in his letter. (“Insider trading at SC?” Inquirer, 10/27/11) What he railed against was the fact that lawyer Estelito Mendoza’s “letters” to the Supreme Court dealt only with “internal matters” of procedure. What Monsanto should have hammered on was the fact that Mendoza did not present any substantial argument at all in support of his “urging” that the previous decision be set aside, except to say that it was rendered by the “wrong” division.
Whether it was the “second division” or the “third” that should have disposed of the matter is really neither here nor there under the principle that a ruling made by any of its division amounts to a ruling by the entire Supreme Court itself. Thus, the Supreme Court en banc is not an appellate tribunal to which any of its division’s judgment may be appealed. For this reason, Mendoza should be seen as just nitpicking and toying with a specious technicality, because the division’s decision he was assailing was, for all intents and purposes, the decision of the entire Supreme Court itself.
With all due respect, the Supreme Court en banc should have stated more substantial grounds to set aside its division’s judgment than the mere mix-up in the membership of that division. The reason given was manifestly lame, something the public has found hard to swallow. Hence, the instant outrage.
—GEORGE DEL MAR,
gdmlaw111@gmail.com