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.