The Inquirer, in its Dec. 8 editorial titled “P-Noy vs. the Court,” said that if the Supreme Court wants to save itself from possible implosion, it must observe utmost impartiality in making its decisions.
It said it “was about time” President Aquino voiced his criticisms against the high tribunal “before the Court slides into total disrepute.”
“All the President’s harsh words—indeed, even all the powers of the presidency short of actual military force—cannot destroy the Court. Only the Court can do fatal damage to itself, and it seems to be doing it very well,” it added.
President Aquino blasted the Court in two public fora, questioning the “consistency, the soundness, the logic and the legal grounds of some important Court decisions. He had also questioned the “loyalties and sense of delicadeza” of Chief Justice Renato Corona in connection with the Court’s rulings on cases involving Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
In particular, the President excoriated the tribunal for issuing with obvious haste a temporary restraining order that would have allowed Arroyo to leave the country, ignoring the fact that she is facing several cases of graft, plunder and poll fraud against her. He asked about whatever Arroyo did “to merit such speedy relief.”
He also questioned the Court’s rulings trashing his petition for the creation of a Truth Commission, which was aimed at investigating graft and corruption during the Arroyo administration, as well as its dismissal of his petition questioning the naming of Corona and other high officials as “midnight appointees.”
The Court’s rulings in both cases were perceived as a blow to the President’s government reform program, a pledge he made in the May 2010 presidential election.
The President was elected on a platform of good governance but what we are now seeing is a Supreme Court, dominated by Arroyo appointees, as an obstacle to his program for reforms.
An administration that has willed itself to stamp out graft and corruption in government is hard to come by. This is the Aquino administration whose pledge of a “daang matuwid” regime deserves the people’s full support to make it succeed.
The high court should strive to banish the people’s fears and suspicions about its independence and impartiality.
The editorial said it well: if the Supreme Court wants “credibility, public esteem and respect,” it should earn them. It cannot command public trust and confidence.
—NICOLE LEE,
cole.lee18@gmail.com