The Supreme Court (SC), in the recently decided case allowing Senator Grace Poe to run for president, and overturning the Comelec decision which disqualified Sen. Poe, used unusually critical language. The SC majority decision declared: “All put together, in the matter of the citizenship and residency of petitioner for her candidacy as President of the Republic, the questioned Resolutions of the Comelec in Division and En Banc are, one and all, deadly diseased with grave abuse of discretion from root to fruits.” (Italics supplied. Page 44 of decision.)
The SC decision also said, “In sum, the Comelec, with the same posture of infallibilism, virtually ignored a good number of evidenced dates all of which can evince animus manendi to the Philippines and animus non revertedi to the United States of America.” (Italics supplied. Page 43 of decision.)
Wow! What a stern rebuke from the Supreme Court’s Ponente. In other words, don’t just note and focus on what Senator Poe put in her certificate of Candidacy when deciding on her residency. The High Court said that the Comelec “ignores the standing jurisprudence that, it is the fact of residence, not the statement of the person, that determines residence for purposes of compliance with the constitutional requirement of residency for election as President.” (Italics supplied. Page 43 of decision.)
The High Court voted 9-6 to reverse the Comelec decision and declare Poe qualified to run for President. Whether you agree with it or not, in whole or in part; whether you agree with the reasoning or not, the Supreme Court decision will prevail—subject to any motions for reconsideration.
We shall not dwell here on the detailed merits of the case, which are interesting enough. The point we make, however, is that we must acknowledge there is a process of deliberation the SC follows, there is ample opportunity for exchange of views, for research on applicable jurisprudence, for healthy debate among peer justices, even for pointed disagreements finding their way in well-crafted dissenting opinions for the public to compare with the majority opinion.
But there is one majority opinion arrived at by a collegial body, and that is the ruling to be observed, to be enforced and obeyed. Perhaps, it is not well-known enough nor appreciated but the dynamics in the Supreme Court’s decision-making process assures us that there can be no arbitrariness in the collective decision. There just can’t be with and among 15 independent-minded and, let us concede, learned jurists. The demands of collegiality allow respect for each colleague’s opinion, but the majority rules.
We are impatient that the decision did not come earlier, but precisely the dynamics of collegiality and the nature of the controversial issues required extended deliberations, even oral arguments from the parties involved.
So let us be content that we have an SC that is functioning as an accepted independent final arbiter of legal disputes. Let’s give them space to perform their constitutional mandate, as best as their knowledge directs, as their wisdom allows and their conscience dictates.
As a last word, I just find it unsavory to see an SC having to defend its decision against self-styled upstart constitutional experts who disagree with its decision.
The High Court, in this Poe case, does not have to be defensive of its ruling.