CHUA, Neil S. 1E Republic v.

Gingoyon, 477 SCRA 474 (2005)

August 12, 2013 Legal Writing

1. The point of dispute between the main opinion and dissenting opinions of Justice Corona and Justice Puno revolves around whether Rule 67 of the Rules of Court or RA 8974 (vis--vis the Courts decision in Agan) should apply to the conflict between the Government and PIATCO. Rule 67 provides that the Government is only required to make an initial deposit with an authorized government depositary, equivalent to the assessed value of the property for purposes of taxation. RA 8974 on the other hand, provides that the Government should make immediate payment to the property owner to be entitled to a writ of possession, equivalent to the market value of the property and the value of the improvements and/or structures on it. The majority decision, penned by Justice Tinga, is premised on the applicability of RA 8974 to the case, considering that the NAIA 3 facilities built by PIATCO may be subjected to expropriation. But Justice Corona upheld the applicability of Rule 67, even questioning the constitutionality of RA 8974 thus making a point which leaves one wondering why the majority decided as they did.

2. The 1987 Constitution provides for the expanded rule-making power of the Supreme Court, which happens to be one of the arguments between Justice Tinga and Justice Puno. As stated in Echegaray v. Secretary of Justice, the 1987 Constitution took away the power of Congress to repeal, alter, or supplement rules concerning pleading, practice and procedure. The constitutionality (and applicability) of RA 8974 is a pivotal element in the case.

3. Justice Tingas packaging of words won the day because the words used in his decision were more appealing; objectively addressing the issues at hand. On the contrary, Justice Coronas dissenting opinion focused on what he perceived to be lapses of judgment on the part of the majority. It would be difficult to answer why Justice Tingas decision prevailed without speculating that pride somewhat played a role in the decision of the Court; the heat in Justice Coronas words was simply too obvious. Justice Coronas words were quite harsh, just falling short of reprimanding the other members of the Court for concurring with the majority decision which he opined to be grounded on the wrong premise, and even self-contradicting. He also went as far as assailing the Courts adherence to the Agan case; thereafter providing a brief lecture on the proper application of the law of the case doctrine, and about other basic concepts in the field of law. It would be logical to assume that Justice Coronas strong (albeit eloquent) language raised many eyebrows among the Justices, and that it was no longer an objective vote that conspired thereafter. As much as the Supreme Court and its members are envisioned to be impartial and subjective, Justices are still human. For a Justice to concur with Justice Coronas strongly-worded decision would be a constructive acceptance of the errors pointed out by the latter; a blow to personal pride. But concurring with the majority decision, even if it has questionable correctness, would be the best way out of an embarrassing situation. Yes, Justice Corona might have had a point, but at least concurring with Justice Tingas decision is, figuratively, keeping ones head held up high. Had Justice Corona refrained from focusing on the mistakes of his colleagues, and instead set forth his arguments objectively, his dissenting opinion could have become the majority decision.