Ateneo Law Dean Fr. Joaquin Bernas urges senators to file for a motion for reconsideration of the Supreme Court decision granting the petition of CHED Chairman Romulo Neri saying there is a good chance for its reversal.
Bernas points out that there were two justices who voted "in the result" for Neri. They were Associate Justices Leonardo Quisumbing and Ruben T. Reyes. He explains that the two justices may have voted for Neri but it did not mean that they agree with the logic of the ponencia penned by Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo De Castro.
"Even those who wrote their concurring opinions, they still might be convinced," Bernas said.
If at least the two justices are swayed to vote against Neri later on, it would make the voting 7-8, against the decision.
But Bernas says there is a stronger reason for the Senate to appeal for a reversal.
"We cannot allow this case hanging this way," he says.
Bernas says with the decision of the Supreme Court, the Senate power to investigate in aid of legislation is seriously impaired.
The High Court, in its decision, was convinced that there were military and diplomatic secrets in the Neri's conversation with the President and that the President was right in invoking executive privilege to conceal these.
"The danger about this is if this is a doctrine, nobody can answer questionS anymore," Bernas says.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
What does voting "in the result" mean?
cvj, to paraphrase fr. bernas and some lawyers, voting "in the result" means the justices agree with the result of the decision which is, in this case, 9-6 but may not necessarily agree with the logic of the decision. in layman's terms, they're not entirely sold out on the reasoning.
Post a Comment