One Way to Avoid Ruling on PP 1017

Today, legal luminaries will face off at the Supreme Court which will hear arguments for and against the Constitutionality of PP1017. 
In a nutsell, those in favor of upholding PP1017 will ask the Court to consider that the State of National Emergency has been lifted rendering the matter moot and academic.  On the other hand, those against this proposition hold that PP1017 violates the Constitution not because of its language per se but in the manner by which it was applied (i.e., the Randy David arrest, the Tribune raid, the KBP guidelines).

Since the Court is composed of GMA appointees (or at least 10 out of 15, including the Chief Justice),  I believe they would rather avoid the issue altogether without rendering an opinion.  This way, they can’t be said to have ruled in her favor.  A ruling which says the matter is moot and academic may not hold water given recent media reports speaking of continuing media regulation and the arrest of GMA critics.  It just doesn’t hold water.

 So, I have an alternate solution.

The Court can rule that it has no jurisdiction over the subject matter.  It can cite Section 5(2)(a), Art VIII of the Constitution which vests original jurisdiction over the case before the lower courts.  This means that the petitioners should have filed the case in the Regional Trial Courts whose rulings can then be appealed to the Supreme Court for review. 

The Court can further support this view by saying (as it has, time and again, ruled) that it is not a “trier of facts” and is not a proper venue to receive testimonial, object or  documentary evidence.  That falls within the exclusive province of the trial courts.  Since the PP1017 case involves the reception of evidence to determine the legality of, among others, the Randy David arrest and the Tribune raid, the matter should be remanded to a lower court for its consideration.

While the Supreme Court’s decisions form part of the law of the land, it is not necessarily the first stop when it comes to the constitutionality of executive action.  There is an “adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law” which is to file the case before the lower courts. 

They should then dismiss the petitions outright and watch the petitioners scratch their heads in disbelief.

Supporters of the decision can praise the Court for its adherence to due process and the proper administration of justice.  Critics of the decision will bewail the overall failure of the courts to act swiftly in disposing of cases and will shout at the top of their lungs “justice delayed is justice denied.”

Enter the media, debate, information overload, spent rage, fatigue, defeat, and finally, apathy.  Then it’s back to business unusual.