I Khan’t Believe It

Supreme Court spokesperson Ismael Khan, Jr. has, in my view, done something that disgraces the Court and makes a mockery of its processes.  Inq7 reports Khan as openly speculating that a motion for reconsideration in the recently decided VAT case may have legal basis.  He reaches this conclusion by revealing that a clear majority of justices felt that 20 out of 26 provisions in the VAT law were objectionable. 

In the first place, the Supreme Court deliberations are strictly confidential and never broadcast to the public.  To have the Court spokesperson engage in this kind of disclosure is an unforgivable breach of duty on the part of Mr. Khan.  He has now opened the door to speculation as to who these justices are and why they never voted in favor of striking down the VAT law provisions they felt were “objectionable.”

Moreover, the Supreme Court decision on the VAT law was unanimous with no other justice filing a separate or dissenting opinion.  So, Mr. Khan’s disclosure flies in the face of the official position of the Court. 

This is unprecedented.  At no time in my memory has a Court employee made a disclosure of confidential information, engaged in speculating as to the outcome of a potential course of action and even gave advice to the parties. 

What is the Supreme Court spokesperson trying to do?

One would think that this is a case where the media might have erroneously reported the facts — that Mr. Khan must have been misquoted.  But look at the advice he doles out to the losing petitioners:

They better be convincing enough and they should be able to advance new arguments which were never discussed before or discussed in their memoranda and arguments.

So much for that theory.

My pet theory is that he’s challenging the petitioners to file a motion for reconsideration. This would further delay the implementation of the VAT law since the Supreme Court continues to hold the TRO in place despite the fact that the Court demolished all of the petitioners’ arguments in their decision.   If the petitions are so weak, what’s the point in keeping the TRO alive?  Politically, this is perfectly acceptable to the President.  On the one hand, she can claim victory in getting the VAT law upheld and on the other she can villify the opposition for delaying its implementation by keeping it tied up in the Court.  It’s a win-win solution.

If you were one of the petitioners, you’d be in the midst of a dilemma.  On the one hand, you want to play to the public demand to have this law deferred or cancelled outright.  This puts pressure to file a motion for reconsideration. On the other hand, the implementation of the law is politically disastrous for the President whose administration may collapse upon the weight of VAT-induced inflation. If you want her out, you shouldn’t file the motion.  What, then, should you do?

To help them resolve this problem, the Supreme Court spokesperson himself announces that a motion for reconsideration might be granted and that a majority of justices might rule in your favor.  Even if Mr. Khan’s information may turn out to be false, the opposition is now obliged to file the motion for reconsideration. If they don’t, their constituents may say “Why did you give up especially when the Court spokesperson mentioned that a victory was possible?”

So, I predict the motion for reconsideration will be filed. It will languish for a few weeks (or maybe months) at the Supreme Court which can take its time releasing its decision  which I’m sure will deny the motion.