Inconsistent Comelec

This refers to the news report titled “3 party-list groups get SC reprieve” (Inquirer 11/23/12). The Supreme Court, the final arbiter of laws, has again issued its authoritative stand: “Three more party-list groups were given a reprieve by the Supreme Court, which directed the Commission on Elections on Tuesday not to disqualify the organizations from taking part in the May 2013 elections.”

If there is an institution in government that projects the image of stability, it is the Supreme Court. I am convinced that its decisions are carefully studied and weighed so that their applications are not only for the here and now but for posterity. Its decisions become laws of the land. And it is a well-settled rule in jurisprudence that laws are prospective in nature and character.

When the Supreme Court decides with finality, it expects that such decision will be respected by all concerned. Unreasonably challenging or dismissing it for political expediency would be an affront to its judicial independence and integrity.

The Supreme Court is an epitome of stability due to the consistency of its decisions. Its decisions are said to be impartial and objective. In my view, some party lists are complaining because of the Commission on Election’s inconsistent and incoherent decisions and policies, particularly on the unceremonious delisting of some party-list organizations. If the Supreme Court mirrors stability and resoluteness, Comelec is its exact opposite.—REGINALD B. TAMAYO, assistant city council secretary, Marikina City