Justice denied

“Nothing is to be preferred before justice.” – Socrates

1) whether the President followed up the NBN-ZTE project with Neri;
2) whether Neri was dictated by the President to prioritize the NBN-ZTE project;
3) whether he was told by the President to go ahead with the project after being told of the alleged bribe offer.

Yes the justices voted in favor of invoking executive privilege E.O. 464 in the following questions.

The following are the ones in favor of the decision:

SC Associate Justice Teresita de Castro, Associate Justices Renato Corona, Minita Chico-Nazario, Presbitero Velasco, Antonio Nachura, Dante Tinga, Arturo Brion, Leonardo Quisumbing, and Ruben Reyes.

The ones who were not in favor were as follows:

Chief Justice Reynato Puno; Associate Justices Antonio Carpio, Adolfo Azcuna, Conchita Carpio-Morales, Alicia Martinez, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago.

I can only go as far as what I know about the law but given the authority bestowed by their positions I can only surmise that the decision was made along party lines.

If it is to be perused upon most of the justices if not all are in favor of the administration not that I am sour-graping but given the decision the justices rendered I just can’t help but think of the possible consequences.

For one the ruling is more than just a precedent, but a clear manifestation of the influence and power of the administration that if placed in the wrong hands would mean detrimental to the country (which is coincidentally being done as I’m writing this). Second is the way the decision left a bitter taste in the mouth in the autonomy and credibility of the supreme court in meting out just and honorable decisions.

And lastly the administration has effectively relegated the decision and inadvertently challenged the capacity of an ordinary person to question the decision penned by the highest echelons of the judiciary.

Which becomes a debate between the haves (people knowledgeable about the law) and the have-nots’ (people who has no idea about the law).

But granting that the decision is penned by the people in authority, and ironic and moronic as it may sound coming from the supreme court, we might as well be kept mum on the issue at hand. (which to my own opinion is what the government wants)

Which leaves us with another problem to tackle at hand.

If the reasons given by the justices giving the benefit of executive privilege to Neri are with regards to diplomacy, then what are those reasons?

Is it going to be another “Lets wait and see?”

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.