By Atty. Rita Linda V. Jimeno

They say that when you throw a stone at heaven, it will come rushing down to hit you. I am not imagining Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno to be heaven. Yet, I could not help recalling that old saying as I watched events meant to bring down the Chief Justice unfold last week. Instead of going down, the Chief emerged a hero?a symbol of righteousness behind whom people rallied?to the great disappointment and displeasure of those plotting to bring him down.

Fireworks about an election case pending in the Supreme Court have been sporadically crackling and blasting since a few months back. But it was only last week, when the petitioners in that disqualification case against Rep. Jocelyn Limkaichong, namely Olivia Paras and Louis Biraogo, went on an all-out battle against the Supreme Court, nay, the Chief Justice, in particular. On Jan. 10, I received text messages from reliable sources that the petitioner Paras, the candidate who lost to Limkaichong in the congressional fight in Negros Oriental in the election of 2007, together with Biraogo, were poised to publish paid advertisements about the case. Intended to be published in the major dailies was an unpromulgated decision of the Supreme Court. The unpromulgated decision dated July 15, 2008 declared the winner, Jocelyn Limkaichong, disqualified to sit as representative of her district on grounds that she was not a natural-born Filipino.

Fourteen justices reportedly signed the disqualification decision in July 2008 but out of the 14 justices, seven of them concurred or agreed only in the result but not in the rationale or the legal basis of the decision. Thereafter, two other justices also expressed that they were also concurring only in the result, not on the ratio as written by the Justice who penned the decision. It appeared that the Justice who penned the decision missed out on certain facts. For one, the Office of the Solicitor General cited a Comelec rule that showed Limkaichong?s proclamation as valid. Yet, this was not addressed, not even mentioned, in the decision. Hence, my sources at the Supreme Court said, when the decision was presented to the Chief Justice for signing, he refused to sign it as it did not have a doctrinal value. The Justices then agreed not to promulgate the decision and to set the case for an en banc hearing in August 2008. Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio volunteered to study the case in depth. Later, he recommended that the Court either rule on the citizenship of Limkaichong or to order the petitioners to file a complaint at the House of Representatives? Election Tribunal, questioning her citizenship because it is the body that has jurisdiction over the disqualification of candidates. There has, therefore, been no decision on the case.

Given this factual back drop, do the petitioners have a legal right to publish a paid advertisement of the unpromulgated decision?

I strongly think not. Being unpromulgated, the July 15 decision was just a piece of paper. It did not attain an ?official? status. Thus, it may not be made available to the public. In fact, the resolution?s having been released or leaked to the petitioners is yet under investigation by the Supreme Court as it could indicate connivance by the petitioners with a person or persons in the High Tribunal. Moreover, the case is still pending. It would be a violation of the sub-judice rule to publish anything that would tend to influence the Justices of the Court on the outcome of the case. I am not certain if this was the reason for the eventual desistance, whether temporarily or permanently, by the petitioners from their reported intention to come out with paid advertisements. What they had hoped to do?which was to make noise about their case?they, nevertheless, achieved.

The noise they created to my mind, was, however, not how they may have wanted it to be. Clearly, they intended to embarrass the Chief Justice as someone favoring one party, their opponent. The petitioners accused him of sitting on the case. Petitioner Biraogo, in fact, said on television that the Chief Justice cannot refuse to sign the decision because it was only a ministerial act for him. I was aghast. Did he even understand what a ministerial act meant? In legal parlance, a ministerial act, in contrast with a discretionary act, means one as to which nothing is left to the discretion of the person who must perform. But if the law gives a public officer the right to decide how and when the duty shall be performed, then it is a discretionary act. For instance, it is ministerial for a Registrar of Deeds to annotate on titles to properties, deeds of mortgage on the property or contracts of lease. Did petitioner Biraogo mean that the Chief Justice has no right to think for himself when a decision is being presented to him for signing? What would that make of our entire justice system?

What amazed me at the turn of events was that suddenly, the man originally intended to be the casualty of the election case, the Chief Justice, was now noticed by the whole nation as a hero. It cannot be denied that the Chief Justice had been quietly plodding to institute many reforms in the judiciary and to make a significant difference in his term which ends in May 2010. Some likened him to President Barack Obama. Senator Ping Lacson even declared that if the Chief Justice would run for president, he would defer to him and use everything within his power to help the Chief Justice become president. A signature campaign was launched to convince him to run in 2010. The focus has shifted on the Chief Justice as material for the presidency. On the other hand, the people in a rampage to get him down were seen by the public as evil forces attempting to unjustly destroy an upright and good man.

The lesson in all these is that one should exercise caution in throwing a stone at heaven. That stone just might fall right on one?s head.

E-mail: ritalindaj@gmail.com Web: www.jimenolaw.com.ph