Suppose the Lower House convened itself into constituent assembly sans the Senate’s participation and introduced amendments to the Constitution. Let’s suppose further that a Malacanang-funded plebiscite was called by the Comelec for the purpose of amending the Constitution. Let’s finally suppose that the Supreme Court affirmed such acts of the Lower House and the Comelec via a final unanimous decision.
Clearly, the ruling of the Supreme Court in the above situation is erroneous, wrong and unconstitutional.
My lessons in constitutional law teach me that a Supreme Court’s decision is invariably right, right or wrong, and becomes the law of the land. No other department of the government can overrule such decision.
Who can then correct the decision of the Supreme Court that is obviously unconstitutional? My lessons in constitutional law say that only the Supreme Court itself may reverse its earlier decision that is perceived to be unconstitutional through a proper case. This is a long process and may not even occur if no similar case occurs.
There’s another way and it’s also a long shot and very theoretical, i.e., the people in their exercise of sovereign power (or through their representatives) may change the constitutional provisions interpreted wrongly by the Supreme Court in accordance with the amendatory provisions of the Constitution.
In my view, there is no better action against any infidels of the constitution than the exercise of direct people power.
6 comments:
That is why it is so important to understand the aspect of Separation Powers. In 2001, SCORP already cuckolded the Senate by usurping the jurisdiction of the Senate Impeachment Court over Erap. SCoRP has pulled off a coup d'etat to overmatch even Marcos in Executive Sec. v. Javellana.
But "direct people power" is revolution, a final solution that we ought to reserve for truly impossible situations that has not in the past really led anywhere very good that lasted.
There is still impeachment as a check and balance, though that weapon has long been blunted. By SCoRP!
Let's pray we don't reach the point of revolution. But we may have to resort to it if it's the only way we can prevent a military take-over.
Revolution is not something we discuss. It's something we are only forced to do because we are in fact trying to avoid it. That is the true meaning of "forebearance"--that we prefer peace, but that preference has limits. Still, I simply would not follow those who are likely to lead this revolution. That is the problem of most Filipinos: the alternatives are not clearly better than the status quo.
Hi Dean. I appreciate your posts.
what do you think of this green activist running for president?
http://nicanorperlas.com/site/index.html
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/features/06/18/09/green-activist-bares-presidential-bid
Anon,
funny, I sat next to him for two hours at the 2nd ANC Leadership forum. but he never mentioned his plans. He's a good guy, very thoughtful very progressive. but maybe Congress or the Senate first?
Randy David will oppose a GMA run in Pampanga. So this sort of thing could be trend. let's encourage and help it along!
unlike a teacher who errs and then simply erases the board, an erring sc will have itself and this country finally wiped out. maybe this is the ml scenario the dark elvens of the nuno ng punso by the pasig are cooking? hmmm.
i.n.e.
Post a Comment