Erudite is a word often used to describe officers of the court. It’s like intelligence, but it is something more than intellectual ability. It’s akin to wisdom, but is more grounded on actual examples.
Simply put, it is knowing better, all the time.
Magistrates of the Supreme Court are perhaps the people one would associate with this quality. Handpicked by a stringent council and appointed by the highest official of the land, justices of the high court are presumed to be the best of the best, untainted and oblivious to the trappings of money, influence and other human concerns.
This is why the nation is now watching all 15 justices as they deliberate, and hopefully decide swiftly, on the case involving the frontrunner in the presidential race, Senator Grace Poe. Poe is facing a serious challenge to her run after the Commission on Elections cancelled her certificate of candidacy on grounds of material misrepresentation. This concerns the facts surrounding her citizenship and residency, issues on which the Constitution is explicit and specific.
Poe has appealed her case before the Supreme Court. Oral arguments have been heard and the Supreme Court is reportedly nearing a vote—if it has not voted, already. Meanwhile, even as the cases are pending, Poe’s name remains on the ballot.
The question is simple: is Poe eligible to run for president according to the qualifications listed in the Constitution?
Apparently, getting to the answer is much more complicated. We have heard varying opinions as to how liberal these constitutional provisions must be construed. Even the poll conducted by this newspaper’s resident pollster showed that most Filipinos would prefer that Poe be allowed to run despite the pendency of her cases. Let them decide, in other words.
Then again, it is not just a function of interpreting the letters of the basic law. There are, first and foremost, political considerations. What will be the implications of a disqualification? If she is allowed to run, and she then wins? It is also not surprising that President Aquino’s appointees to the high court are said to staunchly support the senator. Is it payback time yet? Some say they are advocates of the marginalized, like foundlings. Is this even counted as judicial activism?
The Supreme Court justices must be insulted at the assumption that they could be prevailed upon to decide a case by the very people who put them where they are. They have the sworn duty to uphold the law, specifically the Constitution in this instance, regardless of the appointing power or their previous working relationships with other agents of the government.
For everybody’s benefit, and for practical considerations come election time, the justices must decide soon. We trust that they would know better, all the time.