The Supreme Court has voted 7-2 in favor of rejecting the petition for Temporary Restraining order against Presidential Proclamation 572 voiding the amnesty given to Senator Antonio Trillanes.
This much awaited decision now puts to rest many burning questions that occupy the attention of all sides of the political divide regarding the crimes committed by Senator Antonio Trillanes. He will just have to face his day in court.
It simply means that it as a court will leave it to the lower courts to decide whether an arrest warrant should be issued against him. It upholds principles against warrantless arrests and affirms presidential authority to revoke amnesties previously granted. It repudiates the assertion that the amnesty proclamation granted via the signature of then Defense Secretary Voltaire Gazmin is a valid act of political agency that can be delegated to him. How can it be when the Constitution specifically vests such power on the president alone?
With this, various political groups laud the decision, despite their dislike for government.
Either way, the court has spoken. Its word on the law is the final one as far as this country`s justice system is concerned. Its authority to do so is enshrined in the consitution. Any attempt to politicize its decisions only weakens this vital institution.
Thus, those cry out in defense of judicial independence and decry what they term the "assault on our institutions" should work to protect the independence of this particular decision.
Beyond this, the call we should all sound is to respect this independence, and respect it at all times, not just when it is politically convenient or morally expedient.