The Decision of The Supreme Court is Supreme

It is important that there is a coequal branch of government that has the power to decide what is constitutional and unconstitutional. Otherwise, the bounds set by the constitution, the parameters of the law will be absolutely futile. The power to decide what is constitutional belongs solely to the Supreme Court.

In one of his lectures that aired on C-SPAN, US Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Breyer explained why the Supreme Court has the power to decide what is constitutional. The reasons are the following:

The power cannot be given to the legislative branch

The legislative branch, represented by Congress is composed of the most aggressive political animals – politicians. Since they are politicians, it is innate in them to please the populace. Therefore, their decisions are always influenced by the will of the majority, or the popular view. There is a risk that everything that is popular will be declared constitutional.

The power cannot be given to the executive branch

The executive branch is headed by the most powerful individual in the land – the President. Since he is the president, he has both the power of the sword and the power of the purse. Giving the president the additional power to decide what is constitutional is most dangerous. There exist a logical and realistic risk that everything that will give the president additional powers will be constitutional. This is not even mentioning the fact that the president is also a politician.

The Supreme Court is not as powerful

Since the Supreme court is not composed of politicians and relatively holds less powers, for it does not have the power of the sword and the power of the purse, giving it the power to decide what is constitutional is less risky. The only role and power of the Supreme Court is to interpret the law. It cannot make laws. It cannot implement laws.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court is composed of unpopular individuals. They are not politicians. They don’t have the inherent characteristic to please the populace. The Supreme Court does not take into account the popularity of their decisions. Therefore, the Supreme Court’s wisdom is free and independent.

Interpreting the constitution is a technical skill

The administration’s intent to appoint a new chief justice after the retirement of Chief Justice Puno on May 17th is met with major criticisms. As presented by the media and in the commentaries made by some journalists, the constitution is very clear that the president who is in the twilight of her presidency cannot make midnight appointments. Arnold Clavio of GMA – 7 even said that even a grade one student can understand the intent of the constitution to prohibit the president to make any appointments at this point in time. One could easily agree with this statement after reading the particular provision. But according to a prominent legal luminary and a constitutional law expert, Miriam Defensor Santiago when she explained her vote on Maguindanao Martial Law, "Reading the constitution is not a mere function of literacy. Reading, much more, construing the constitution is a technical skill."


Arnold Clavio, as well as other media personalities who subscribe to a similar argument, failed to take into consideration that there seems to be two conflicting provisions surrounding this issue. In events such as these, the Supreme Court has the sole responsibility and power to harmonize two seemingly conflicting provisions of the constitution. Thus, the Supreme Court’s ruling must be treated with the highest respect.

Dura lex sed lex

In a press statement, Senator Aquino said that the president cannot appoint a new chief justice because the position is not yet vacant. While what he said is true, it is imperative to know that there is a huge difference between announcement of an appointment and effectivity of an appointment. It is my humble opinion that, should Senator Aquino or other parties concerned still oppose the appointment of a new chief justice, their questions, doubts, petitions, must not be addressed to the president, much more, to the public. Their questions, doubts, petitions must be addressed to the Supreme Court. Since we operate under the rule of law, and since he is the obvious next president, it is his obligation to uphold the rule of law. Dura lex sed lex. The law is harsh, but it is the law. The law must be upheld even though it hurts our interests.

The decision of the Supreme Court is supreme

In conclusion, I would like to express my faith and confidence in the judiciary. I believe in the fairness, intelligence, wisdom and judgement of the Supreme Court and its magistrates. I believe that the law is blind and does not recognize power and popularity. I believe that the Supreme Court’s decision is supreme, final and executory.