SC peopled by tyrants

By AMADO P. MACASAET

‘It bears no explaining that the Court, in this case, comes as a tyrant enriching the State with lands bought by private persons.’

The tyranny in the Supreme Court is its abuse of a doctrine that it is right even when it is wrong after it proclaims that its ruling is final and that no more pleadings will be entertained.

An even bigger tyranny is how the High Court reverses its own jurisprudence for reasons we must all accept.

“Executory” is the word the Court uses all the time, but that does seem to be the reason the final ruling is sometimes not executed or implemented.

We love to refer to the case of the Manotoks, who were deprived by the Supreme Court of rightful ownership of friar lands they bought and paid for and continue to possess over the past 100 or so years.

In the pen of convicted Chief Justice Renato Corona, the Court ruled on a tenuous 7-7 vote that titles to friar lands that did not have the signature of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources belong to the state.

It bears no explaining that the ruling penalized the buyers of friar lands for the mistake of the State in not signing a document. It bears no explaining that the Court, in this case, comes as a tyrant enriching the State with lands bought by private persons.

The State exists for the people. The Court may not rule for the benefit of the State against the people it is duty-bound to protect. Doing otherwise as it ruled in the Manotok land dispute is an exercise of naked tyranny even a sham court has never done.

What bears explaining is the fact that the Office of the Solicitor General, not exactly in representation of the State, was asked by the Court to comment on the pleadings of the Manotoks.

After the ruling was made, the OSG wanted the Court to issue an entry of judgment and a clarification be made “on the need to institute reversion proceeding …” The opposition to the OSG’s manifestation and motion filed by counsel of the heirs of Severino Manotok tells the High Court that the motion of the OSG should be denied.

To strengthen its argument, the opposition cites the OSG’s own manifestation before the Court that says “The Republic of the Philippines or any of the concerned agencies of the government is not impleaded as party to the case at bar…”

Counsel for the Manotoks, citing the Court’s own precedent, said “generally accepted is the principle that no man shall be affected by any proceeding to which he is a stranger and strangers to a case are not bound by judgment rendered by court.”

This is not dissimilar to a ruling where one benefits from the sin of another. And that one happens to be the State which never expressed any interest whatsoever in acquiring the friar lands it believed has been completely disposed of and titles completely quieted for life for the benefit of the buyers who have shown evidence that they paid for the land, occupied it and considered it their own.

Why should this country have a Supreme Court that would rule the land belongs to the state and would go as far as asking the Office of the Solicitor General who now asks the Court for a clarification “on the need to institute reversion to the state of said land?”

The lawyers of the Manotoks naturally objected to the reversion. The lawyers cited one of the Court’s many precedents which says “(But) we deem it erroneous to order in this action that the appellant, as holder of the certificate of title, should reconvey the land to the Republic of the Philippines, when the latter is not even a party to the action and is seeking no relief therein.”

In other words, the Manotoks are now asking the Supreme Court why the state should be awarded thousands of hectares of friar land when it never wanted them. The dispute over the land is between or among several – at least three – claimants whose deeds of conveyances did not have the signature of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources.

The failure of the State to do its job should not give the Supreme Court authority to give it the friar lands it never wanted.

To put the issue on ice, the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources issued an order saying that the deeds of conveyances are deemed signed. That is a clear manifestation that the State admits having committed an error.

The Supreme Court, in the pen of then Chief Justice Corona, would not have any of that atonement. Instead, by a vote of 7-7, the Court ruled that the friar lands that did not have the signature of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources on the deeds of conveyances are not valid.

The issue is contentious as shown by the 7-7 vote. And as repeatedly explained here, then Chief Justice Corona signed the name of Associate Justice Mariano del Castillo on the latter’s authority.

It is worth noting that the ponencia became law because of the authority to sign given to the Chief Justice by a man who is supposed to be suffering from a heart ailment.

Most important, though not related to the Manotok land dispute, is the fact that Corona saved Del Castillo from possible censure for plagiarism.

Corona created a committee of three associate justices who breezed through what was supposed to be a thorough investigation and set Del Castillo free from any liability with the committee saying that the legal researcher made a mistake in helping write the decision on the case of comfort women.

Whoever wrote the decision does not depart from the fact that it as a ruling made by Del Castillo.

It is just as important to note that the Court made two rulings on that day. However, Del Castillo chose to vote only on the Manotok case on authority given to Corona.

The ends of justice will be served if the Supreme Court can make public the records of the en banc discussion of the case and the extent that Justice Del Castillo participated in them.

Did Justice Del Castillo have a full comprehension of the Manotok land dispute such that he formed a belief that the friar lands indeed belong to the state in spite of evidence to the contrary? Only the records of the en banc session can prove or disprove that.

It should not be below the dignity of the Court to disclose to the public the minds of the magistrates expressed during en banc deliberations of cases as critical as the Manotok land dispute.

The highest interest must always be the public interest.

Email: amadomacasaet@yahoo.com