After the public and the legal experts gave their two-cents, it is now time for the lawmakers of our land to vent out their opinions on the recent controversies that the Supreme Court is facing because of the numerous issues of flip-flopping cases that they were involved in. I have given my piece, on the Pioneer Vs. Keppel Case and the SteelCorp liquidation Case, and so does a number of other individuals and groups. Most are adamant about the reopening of previously-closed cases and retracting of prior final decisions.  After all, if the highest court of the land cannot seem to make up its mind, don’t you think it won’t be too long until the time comes when everyone will just stop putting their faith in our Supreme Court? It would be such an ugly picture to perceive, and for the love of democracy and justice, I am fervently praying the powers that be can finally put these issues to rest.

One of the most loquacious senators this country has ever had ~ and mind you, she very well knows what she’s saying and everyone is just compelled to listen whenever she speaks ~ Miriam Defensor-Santiago, a former judge herself, opines that the decision the Supreme Court made over the PAL case is “extremely unfortunate” and that it could undermine the court’s credibility. She said that under SC rules, a party cannot file a second motion for consideration, or appeal, without leave from the court.

She further opined:

“So you file two documents. First, a motion pleading with the Court to allow for a second motion for reconsideration, then you file your second motion for reconsideration. My question is, was there an order from the Supreme Court allowing this second motion for reconsideration?” the senator said, adding the appeal was not even a pleading but a letter.

Second appeals are only allowed in case the decision was “legally erroneous,” patently unjust, or will cause irreparable damage or injury, Santiago said.

“So, the Supreme Court only has to look into its own internal rules and see if these three requirements have been complied (with),” Santiago said.

She added that even if the decision was issued by the wrong division, “will that technicality now suffice to overturn 13 years of legislative research and analysis on this problem?”

“I am angry because, as a citizen, I fear that the citizenry might turn its back on the Supreme Court, the bulwark of our civil liberties. If the Supreme Court loses its credibility in this instance, it will be impossible to regain it in a number of years,” she warned.

Former justice secretary, Senator Franklin Drilon, surmised that the reversal “would appear to be not in the usual procedure,” and has the following assessment about the issue:

This is not the first time that the SC has gone back on a supposedly final decision.

It previously reversed itself on the cityhood of 16 towns that were declared cities despite opposition from the League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP).

The LCP opposed the cityhood of the 16 towns, saying the 16 municipalities do not have large enough population or income to qualify as cities.

The SC ruled against the 16 towns in 2010, and then upheld their cityhood early this year. The LCP appealed the decision but lost.

“I am no longer surprised at the flip-flopping,” Drilon said.

The Supreme Court is gearing up for yet another controversy, this time involving the Philippine Air Lines {PAL} and Flight Attendants and Stewards Association of the Philippines {FASAP}.

Here is a brief background about the case:

Some 2,600 positions of ground workers were outsourced this month after President Benigno Aquino III authorized the airline’s spin-off program.

On July 22, 2008, the SC ruled in favor of Fasap declaring as illegal the dismissal of 1,400 flight attendants in 1998.

A month later on August 20, PAL filed a motion for reconsideration but this was junked with finality in October 2, 2009.

However, on January 2, 2011, PAL filed a second motion for reconsideration, which the SC denied last September 7, saying “no further pleadings shall be entertained.”

The airline was also ordered to reinstate the affected flight attendants with full back wages.

Anakpawis Representative Rafael Mariano enthused that the SC committed severe injustice to workers due to this development, and here is the rest of his take about the controversial case:

“In the hierarchy of employees’ rights, the right to security of tenure is high, if not the highest. The paramount value of that right is recognized and guaranteed under the 1987 Constitution. The other complementary rights are meaningless to an unemployed worker,” he said.

Mariano added that the SC’s reversal of its ruling on the Fasap case completes the “triple whammy of attack” against PAL pilots, cabin crew and airport workers by various courts, the Department of Labor and Employment and Malacanang.

Some 2,600 positions of ground workers were outsourced this month after President Benigno Aquino III authorized the airline’s spinoff program.
On July 22, 2008, the SC ruled in favor of Fasap declaring as illegal the dismissal of 1,400 flight attendants in 1998.

A month later on August 20, PAL filed a motion for reconsideration but this was junked with finality in October 2, 2009.

However, on January 2, 2011, PAL filed a second motion for reconsideration, which the SC denied last September 7, saying “no further pleadings shall be entertained.”

The airline was also ordered to reinstate the affected flight attendants with full back wages.

first image is from philStar.com, whilst the second one is from untvweb.com

Old habits are the hardest to die, this is what the Supreme Court exemplified when it reversed another case decided and closed not too long ago, the Pioneer Vs. Keppel Insurance Claim. This is becoming more of a habit and concerned citizens have already voiced their opinions and views on the matter. Needless to say, much has been said by a number of people from different walks of life, legal experts, politicians, and the public. Weighing opinions here and there, what are your thoughts about this?

My two-cents? If the government is gearing towards progress and advancement, won’t it be just fair to call upon our officials to look through these controversial Supreme Court cases and decisions and trace the root of all the flip-flopping? Don’t they find it rather a very important and pressing issue which needs to be addressed as soon as they possible can? A stable judiciary system, after all, plays a very pivotal role in the success of the government’s goal to attract more foreign investors, create more jobs, and ultimately, make the lives of Filipinos better.

Here is an excerpt from a recently published article about the Supreme Court’s flip-flopping activities, peruse it and let me know your thoughts. {They might be legal jargon here and there, but noobs like us will survive. Take my word for it! ;)} :

Old habits die hard, at least in the case of the Supreme Court, which was criticized in the past for its fickle-mindedness.

This comes to mind after reports that the High Tribunal also retracted and even reversed its own decision involving a P329 Million liability claim of a property insurance company against a Singapore-based multinational company which, due to negligence, set ablaze and gutted down a WG&A “Superferry” vessel which was brought to their shipyard in Cebu for repair.

Atty. Arthur Lim has all the reasons to be alarmed on this newly-discovered flip-flopping case by the Supreme Court especially because the original decision was already recorded in the Book of Entries of Judgment.

This means that the SC ruling has already formed part of the law of the land and of Philippine jurisprudence only to be withdrawn on the basis of a prohibited THIRD motion for reconsideration filed without leave of court and after the issuance of Entry of Judgment and a mere letter addressed to then Chief Justice Corona, who ironically, was impeached by Congress and convicted by the Senate Impeachment Court amid growing frustration over the SC’s flip-flopping on its decisions, among which was the issue on the cityhood of 16 municipalities and the Hacienda Luisita case.

According to Lim, the new case involves a liability claim being pursued by Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation, which is one of the country’s biggest locally-grown property insurance companies against Keppel Cebu Shipyard Inc, which is a subsidiary of Keppel Group, a Singapore-based multinational company with interests in offshore and marine services, real estate and property development and investment.

Much has been said about the controversies our Supreme Court is facing nowadays, flip-flopping of cases, changing of verdicts long decided on, the ugly long list goes on and on. I know I have said my piece on a number of occasions and I still continue to hope that things will eventually turn out right where the supreme law of our land is involved. I needed to keep hoping, as the future of our country, and ultimately, my child and your children, depends on it.

Anyway I have recently got a copy of the manifesto expressing about 100 top legal luminaries’, lead by Dean Amado Valdez {Chairman of the Philippine Association of Law Schools and Dean of the UE College of Law}, deep concern about the Supreme Court. I have share this with you in bits and pieces in one of my previous posts, and I would like to share it with you now, in full. Give it a few precious minutes of your time and let me know what you think:

“We have been bothered in the past by high-profile incidents of flip-flopping by the highest court of the land. The Cityhood and PALEA cases are notable examples of this disturbing phenomenon. But nothing has shocked our sensibilities more than the recent case between Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation and Keppel Cebu Shipyard, Inc,” the manifesto said.

In the case between Pioneer and Keppel, the manifesto noted that a judgment had been rendered by a division of the Supreme Court in favor of Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation which became final and executory upon its entry in the Book of Entries of Judgment.Entry occurs after the rendition of judgment and is a ministerial act that consists of recording the ultimate conclusion reached by the court in the action and providing concrete evidence of the judicially imposed consequences. It serves as a memorial of the action and can be used a reference for similar cases.

“Under the Constitution, a judgment rendered by a Division of the Court is considered a judgment of the entire Supreme Court. Entry of judgment had been made, and the final and executory decision was simply to be implemented as a ministerial duty.” the manifesto said.

But through a mere letter to the then Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, and a prohibited third motion for reconsideration filed without leave of court, Keppel Cebu Shipyard, Inc. succeeded in lifting the entry of judgment and having a dead case resurrected.

The manifesto lamented that on September 18, 2012, the Court en banc surprisingly reviewed the case anew and went on to modify its own final and executory judgment, without adequately explaining why it reopened a case that involved no constitutional issues, no public policy considerations, no questions of life or death, no legal questions of first impression.

“We are alarmed beyond words. The case of Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation vs. Keppel Cebu Shipyard, Inc. transcends the private commercial interests of the parties as it involves the abandonment of sacrosanct legal doctrines that are the strength of any legal system. The case has opened the floodgate for zombie cases. From now on, no final judgment will ever remain final. Immutability of judgments will become a fiction of law. The entire judicial system will fall into disrepute,” the manifesto observed.

The lawyers said that what is even more surprising is the fact that while one of the grounds used to impeach Corona was the SC’s habit of flip-flopping on its cases, the experience did not seem to have any effect at all on the present leadership which was hoped to bring judicial reforms and judicial stability.

“We believe that a stable judicial system is the cornerstone of a healthy economic and business environment. Local and foreign investors will be encouraged to invest in a place where they are assured that courts will function normally, will observe the rule of law, and will level the playing field for everyone,” the manifesto said.The lawyers stressed that the only way to ensure the a stable judicial system is to respect “the finality and immutability of judgments, which tells us that, at the risk of occasional errors, litigation must come to an end some time and the winning party must be allowed to enjoy the fruits of his victory.”

“We respectfully appeal to the Supreme Court NOT TO ABANDON the sacred and time honoured principle of immutability of judgments but to continue applying it and thereby restore and preserve the stability of our judicial system.” the manifesto said.