Unpleasant surprise

Except perhaps for former Palawan governor Joel Reyes himself and his family, friends and supporters, most people who read the news about the Court of Appeals clearing him in connection with the death of environmental advocate and broadcast journalist Gerry Ortega were aghast. So incredible was the decision that Harry Roque, the presidential spokesman, was allowed by the president to speak out in his personal capacity as former lawyer of the Ortega family.

Normally, a presidential spokesman acts as the voice of the president. But in this case, President Duterte must have understood how Roque felt with the turn of events and allowed the former party-list congressman to speak his mind. And speak his mind Roque did. But it may be safe to add that what Roque articulated reflected not only his own thoughts on the issue but those of many others who, like him, were, as said earlier, aghast by the decision.

Roque found it alarming that the Court of Appeals took it upon itself to "overrule" an earlier Supreme Court decision that found valid the findings of a panel that concluded there was probable cause against Reyes. Roque likewise bristled at the thought that the CA would "arrogate its own judgment" for that of the Regional Trial Court "that had opportunity to physically accept evidence, observe the demeanor of witnesses and concluded there was probable cause."

Now, before Roque explained that the president had allowed him to speak for himself in this case, I was initially discomfited to read that "Malacañang would be seeking a reversal of the CA ruling on Reyes." I thought that, as usually understood, Malacañang referred to the president and that the president, as chief executive, ought to lead in ensuring the independence of the separate branches of government.

I felt that for Malacañang to actively seek a reversal of a judicial order, no matter how apparently out of whack with popular expectation and understanding, was a step in the wrong direction. But now that Roque has made it plainly clear that he was speaking for himself (and unwittingly exposed the mistake of media in referring to him in this case as "Malacañang"), I think there is a need for everybody to rally around a cause to, at the very least, focus the spotlight on the CA.

For it appears that the Court of Appeals is fast racking up a reputation for issuing decisions difficult for the public to take, especially in controversial and high-profile case. As a backgrounder to the story on Roque reacting to the CA ruling on Reyes, it was reported that the CA was also responsible for finding Janet Napoles of the pork barrel scam notoriety innocent of a serious illegal detention charge in 2017. The Court of Appeals was also responsible for junking the compensation claims of more than 10,000 human rights victims from the Marcos dictatorship. Now the CA may have had its own reasons, no doubt based on its own legal determinations, in arriving at these controversial decisions arising from controversial cases that have captured national attention. But there is a need to bring these reasons to light.

Not that the CA must be required to hew to the popular view at the expense of what is legally right and correct. But the tremendous responsibility carried by the CA cannot be exercised and carried out successfully if it loses trust and credibility. And the surest way to lose trust and credibility is when the CA goes one way and the rest of the nation goes the other. Then the question arises what for does the CA serve, if at all?

‘The tremendous responsibility carried by the CA cannot be exercised and carried out successfully if it loses trust and credibility.’