SC justice: Flip-flopping court allegation is 'unfair'

A Supreme Court justice has spoken up against allegations that the high court had “flip-flopped" when it reversed itself thrice on the cityhood case, where the conversion of 16 municipalities into cities was questioned. The high court recently upheld its fourth and final decision which said that the laws creating the 16 towns as cities are valid and legal. In a strongly-worded opinion concurring with the court's decision, Associate Justice Roberto Abad lashed back at critics who had labelled the high tribunal as a flip-flopping court. “This of course is a lie in the sense that it tends to picture the Court as a silly, blundering idiot which cannot make up its mind. The fact is that the shifts in the Court’s decisions in this case were not at all orchestrated as the circumstances will show. They were the product of honest disagreements," Abad said. Abad said that changes in the composition of the 15-member Supreme Court are among the factors that tipped the scales in favor of either the 16 municipalities or the League of Cities of the Philippines which seeks to block the conversion of the towns into cities. He then said that the charge that the court has flip-flopped “is unfair as it is baseless." “The Court is not a living person whose decisions and actions are ruled by the whim of one mind. As a collegial body, the Court acts by consensus among its fifteen members. And total agreement is not always attainable. This is especially true where the political, social, or economic stakes involved are high or affect a great number of people and the views of the individual members are closely divided," said Abad. Last April 12, the SC upheld its Feb. 15, 2011 ruling that the 16 cityhood laws are constitutional. These laws being questioned by the League of Cities pegged the minimum annual revenue for conversion into a city at only P20 million. In effect, the 16 towns were exempted from the P100-million annual income requirement in the Local Government Code (LGC) as amended by Congress, even as the 16 assailed laws were passed after Congress had raised the income requirement. The 1987 Constitution provides that the creation of local government units must comply with the criteria established by the LGC. First vote Its Feb. 15 ruling was its fourth decision on the case. The first judgment was handed down on Nov. 18, 2008, declaring as unconstitutional the laws declaring the municipalities as cities. The voting was 6-5-4. Belonging to the majority were Associate Justices Leonardo Quisumbing (retired), Antonio Carpio, Alicia Austria Martinez (retired), Conchita Carpio-Morales, Presbitero Velasco Jr., and Arturo Brion. Those who dissented were Associate Justics Renato Corona (now chief justice), Adolfo Azcuna (retired), Minita Chico-Nazario (retired), Jose Reyes (retired), and Teresita Leonardo-De Castro. Those who took no part were then Chief Justice Reynato Puno (retired), and Associate Justices Dante Tinga (retired), Eduardo Nachura, and Consuelo Ynares-Santiago (retired). Second vote: Seven retirements, seven replacements Acting on a motion for reconsideration filed by the 16 municipalities, the Supreme Court made another voting on Dec. 21, 2009. At that time, seven justices had already retired: Reyes, Azcuna, Tinga, Martinez, Santiago, Nazario and Quisumbing. They were replaced by Associate Justices Diosdado Peralta, Lucas Bersamin, Roberto Abad, Martin Villarama, and Mariano del Castillo. There were still two vacancies in the court. Following the change in the composition of the court, the vote was now 6-4-3 in favor of the municipalities. The new majority was composed of Corona, De Castro, Bersamin, Abad, and Villarama. Velasco, who used to be with Carpio’s group, changed his position and voted in favor of the 16 municipalities. The dissenters were Carpio, Morales, Brion, and Peralta. Puno, Nachura again took no part. Del Castillo, a newcomer, also inhibited himself. Third vote: Villarama joins Carpio Last Aug. 24, 2010, the Supreme Court made another reversal and reinstated its Nov. 2008 decision. By that time, Puno had retired as chief justice, Corona replaced him, and new justices were named to the court: Jose Perez, Jose Mendoza, and Maria Lourdes Sereno, the first appointee of President Benigno Aquino III to the high court. Because of the court’s new composition, the majority shifted anew. The vote was now 7-6-2 in favor of the League of Cities of the Philippines and against the 16 municipalities. Mendoza and Sereno joined the group of Carpio, Morales, Brion, Peralta. Villarama changed his mind and joined Carpio’s group. The minority was composed of Corona, the new chief justice, Velasco, De Castro, and Bersamin. Nachura and Del Castillo took no part again. Fourth vote: Mendoza tips the scales In its fourth vote on Feb. 15 this year, Mendoza left Carpio’s group and joined Corona’s group, making the minority the new majority. In a vote of 7-6-2, the court ruled that the 16 municipalities can be converted into cities. To summarize, the new majority is composed of: Corona, Velasco, De Castro, Bersamin, Abad, Perez, and Mendoza. The minoritty is composed of Carpio, Morales, Brion, Villarama, and Sereno. Those who took no part were Nachura and Del Castillo. ’No wholesale, massive flip-flopping’ In his concurring opinion, Abad pointed out that only Justices Velasco, Villarama, and Mendoza changed their minds once. He added that the magistrates have the right to act on a motion for reconsideration and to change their perspectives in a case. “The three Justices who changed their votes did not do so in one direction. Justice Velasco changed his vote from a vote to annul to a vote to uphold; Justice Villarama from a vote to uphold to a vote to annul; and Justice Mendoza from a vote to annul to a vote to uphold. Not one of the three flipped-flopped since they never changed their votes again afterwards," Abad said. “Notably, no one can dispute the right of a judge, acting on a motion for reconsideration, to change his mind regarding the case. The rules are cognizant of the fact that human judges could err and that it would merely be fair and right for them to correct their perceived errors upon a motion for reconsideration. The three Justices who changed their votes had the right to do so," he added. With three justices reversing their initial positions since the first ruling was handed down in Nov. 2008, Abad said it was wrong to say that there was a “massive" flip-flopping" of the court. He said that what happened was “a case of tiny shifts in the votes, occasioned by the consistently slender margin that one view held over the other." Abad also stressed that it is when tight votes among the SC justices that the high court’s decision “swing to the opposite side and at times, on a second motion for reconsideration, revert to the original side. “The losers often malign this as flip-flopping by the Court," he said. – MRT, GMA News