Supreme Court: anchor of the state

Our present Constitution was prepared by venerable men and women who experienced the repression and tyranny of martial rule. Unlike previous constitutional framers, they were not elected but handpicked by President Corazon Aquino.

Most powerful court. Consequently, the Constitution they drafted in the record time of one year and ratified overwhelmingly by our still-euphoric people made sure that no president, however well-intentioned and patriotic, could ever install authoritarian rule.

To achieve this goal, the framers did away with much of the powers of the presidency, strengthened Congress and the independent agencies, wrote a detailed and lengthy Constitution (contrary to the usual “broad, brief and definite” qualities of a good written charter), and, most important, gave the judiciary overarching powers to prevent and subdue abuses and excesses of the president and the legislature.

Accordingly, our Constitution gave the judiciary the power and duty to strike down “grave abuse of discretion … on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.” Grave abuse was not defined by the Charter; instead, it gave the Supreme Court wide latitude to flesh out its meaning, scope and extent, which made the power even more awesome.

Clearly, the Constitution knighted the judiciary as the guardian of liberty and the nemesis of authoritarian rule. Even the United States, from where we copied our political system, has not endowed its judiciary with such plenary authority.

Many other prerogatives the Supreme Court was given, but the voiding of gravely abusive acts of its coequal branches made our Court the most powerful tribunal in the world. Its power is limited only by the wisdom and self-restraint of the justices themselves.

Protection of suspects. To curb human rights abuses during martial law, our Constitution requires arresting policemen to verbally advise arrestees of their “Miranda” rights: that they have “the right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of [their] own choice. If [they] cannot afford the services of counsel, [they] must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.”

The Miranda rights were invented by the US Supreme Court; they are not found in the text of the US Constitution. But our framers wrote them into our Charter. Reader Mongontawar Gubat rues that Filipino lawyers and policemen can hardly memorize these rights. “That’s why,” he says mockingly, “when the arrestee questions his arrest, the police officer would simply say, ‘Sa porsiento ka na lang magpaliwanag.’”

So, too, evidence obtained illegally and confessions extracted by force or false pretense cannot be used against the accused. For this reason, many have been acquitted, even if they are in fact guilty, because of the actual or feigned violation of these rights.

As I wrote last week, the Supreme Court has been given wide latitude in interpreting the due process and equal protection clauses when they are used and misused to delay or frustrate justice. The same case-by-case discretion should be observed in curbing the misuse of these human rights by the rich and powerful.

Perilous times. Stormy controversies buffet our country; the Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) tsunami floods the legislative and executive branches. During these perilous times, the Supreme Court can perform another major role: to be the anchor to stabilize our ship of state.

True, the judiciary has problems, like delays, corruption, incompetence and flip-flops. To maintain its moral ascendancy, it must continue cleansing itself of these barnacles. Again, only the Supreme Court has the constitutional authority to do this.

All in all, the Court, in my humble view, has performed well. If shown to be mistaken, it corrects itself. When convinced by incontrovertible facts that the PDAF was evil, it reversed its unanimous decision in LAMP vs Sec. of Budget (Apr. 24, 2012) upholding the pork barrel and struck it down a year later also unanimously in Belgica vs Exec. Sec. (Nov. 10, 2013).

On the day the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancient Domain (MOA-AD) was to be signed by the Arroyo administration and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, the Supreme Court promptly issued a temporary restraining order (TRO).

However, though the Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro (FAB) and its four annexes contain basically the same provisions as the MOA-AD, no TRO was issued before, during or after their signing. The Court merely required a routine comment from the respondents.

Also, no TRO was issued on the petitions assailing the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement despite the constitutional provision that “foreign military bases, troops, or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate…”

My point is: The Constitution should be interpreted according to the evolving needs of our people who ratified it, not rigidly according to its letter. It is a living instrument that can be construed to fight new perplexities unknown to or unanticipated by its framers.

With this mindset, our Supreme Court can use its vast powers to speed up justice, minimize technicalities and make meaningful distinctions to promote the general welfare. It can uphold our people’s paramount security, peace and economic wellbeing. Indeed, with the prudent use of its awesome powers, the Court can be the anchor of the ship of state during stormy times.

* * *

Comments to [email protected]