Motion for inconsideration

Even before a single word had been written for a motion for reconsideration, I was told by those more experienced in legal circles that it was a hopeless case. The Supreme Court, it was explained to me, very seldom changed its mind once it had decided a case. Oh. Now comes ‘The Joker’ Arroyo making statements about the uselessness of the motion for reconsideration without a trace of embarrassment. Those who are against the principle that the people be allowed to make a proposal to amend the constitution make no bones about it. They are against it, therefore it cannot be done.

Regardless of the close vote, I am afraid, the oligarchy driven opposition is right — the people’s initiative for Charter change never had a chance. May I add that this was the situation from the start. Proponents should never have allowed themselves to be deluded into believing that the matter of a people’s initiative would be resolved through a fair assessment of competing legal principles. This is déjà vu. We made the same mistake in 1997, we are making the same mistake in 2006 presuming we live in a fair, free and democratic society when that has never been the case.

Instead of calling it the motion for reconsideration, we should call it the motion for inconsideration which is defined as "without regard for others". It also helps to know that its root word comes from the 15th century, from Latin inconsideratus which literally means ‘not thinking’ . See what I mean? We are better off using words we mean rather than words which we do not mean.

For the do-gooders who nag about changing our values, this is a good place to start. The wrong use of words leads to hypocrisy and hypocrisy leads to general mendacity, until it pervades all of society and its concerns. Be that as it may, whatever happens to the motion despite advance notice from ‘Mr Joker’ that it will be rejected, we should at least retain our pride, and with open eyes confront the fact that we are in the grip of forces that have resisted Charter change for generations. We have fought the good fight.

* * *

Since oppositionists have already said it is futile, it would be unwise not to take their word for it. I have always believed that there are forces, both within and without, I will only call ‘invisible’ for the moment that are dead-set against parliamentary rule in the Philippines. I would not go so far as to say that it is God.

It may be more revealing to look instead at the personal backgrounds of the different justices and what is being said about them by reliable sources. Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban was reported to have actively campaigned among the justices to reject the petition even if he had an inspiring dissenting opinion in 1997. Look back at back issues of news reports in which he was quoted telling opposition’s counsels immediately after the oral arguments that all they needed was to show one instance where the 3% requirement was not met and the initiative was finished. Is that the behavior of an impartial judge? Even then he had already made his decision.

By accident, I sat next to his wife, Leny Carpio Panganiban and Mrs. Callejo. Like the rest of those against Charter change in the audience both cheered when the counsels for the initiative failed to answer questions. I was provoked to ask her, "Why? Is Justice Panganiban angry with us?" In retrospect the two women’s reactions during the oral arguments were more telling than anything that both justices finally said or did on the day of decision.

Again, like Mr. Joker, Justice Panganiban preempted the decision even before an examination of the facts could be made. Can we rely on the judgment of such a justice whose decision was already made up long before the arguments or written submissions were before them? For that reason I reject Justice Panganiban’s contention that he was consistent with his 1997 dissenting opinion. (In any case although the letter from the public information office of the Supreme Court said they were furnishing me Panganiban’s concurring opinion none was enclosed.) According to the letter I may have been misinformed because the justice’s opinion reiterates in his separate opinion in Santiago and PIRMA that "RA 6735 is indeed sufficient to implement an initiative to amend the Constitution." Nonetheless, adds the letter, the justice voted to dismiss the Lambino petition because of violations of the Constitution and RA 6735 which makes the Panganiban position even worse than it already is. Huh? That means he wants to have his cake and eat it too.

Just for the record: of the 15 members of this Honorable Court, seven justices voted to set aside the resolution of the COMELEC and to remand the petition to the electoral body for further proceedings, while eight, led by Justice Panganiban voted to dismiss the petition.

Curiously only two of the majority joined the Ponencia without reservation while the rest, five of them, wrote separate opinions. On the other hand, Justice Reynato S. Puno’s dissenting opinion was concurred in by Associate Justices Leonardo A. Quisumbing, Renato C. Corona, Dante O. Tinga, Minita V. Chico-Nazario, Cancio C. Garcia and Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.

Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban and Associate Justices Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Conchita Carpio-Morales, Romeo J. Callejo, Jr. and Adolfo S. Azcuna concurred in the ponencia of Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio to dismiss the petition in G.R. No. 174153. Did  you know that Justice Ynares Santiago is the sister of Governor Ynares, a bosom friend of former President Erap? Erap also appointed Angeline Sandoval Gutierrez who was looking for God in the petition. Justice Adolf Azcuna who flipped-flopped in the end is a protege of Cory Aquino, the Time cover  girl who is dead-set against any changes in HER constitution. I once spoke to Justice Carpio and remember very distinctly his answer when I asked him about the people’s initiative and R.A. 6735. " Why does it need an enabling law?" I was so  heartened by that reply that I carried it with me until the day of the disappointing decision.

* * *

I would not hold it against those who still hope that there may just be one or two justices in that group who would give it a second hearing and think of what is good for the country. The solicitor general in his pleading wrote that the court is not a trier of facts yet it discussed and resolved contentious factual matters which properly pertain to the COMELEC. (This is not surprising if we refer to Panganiban’s quoted statements to media before the decision). It also asks why the court refuses to re-examine its pronouncement in Santiago permanently enjoining the COMELEC from entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition for initiative on amendments to the Constitution If you have a chance, get hold of Justice Dante Tinga’s opinion which was quoted extensively in the motion. It is a brilliant piece. Of the many things he wrote that is worth noting, this I believe nails down exactly what went wrong. "The worst position this Court could find itself in is to acquiesce to a plea that it make the choice whether to amend the Constitution or not.  This is a matter which should not be left to fifteen magistrates who have not been elected by the people to make the choice for them." Well said.

My e-mail is [email protected]