Recently, Senators and Congressman criticized over Supreme Court’s actions on flip-flopping cases such as the controversial PAL case.
Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago called the decision “extremely unfortunate” on the court’s credibility.
As a former judge,
knows on how the system works; "So you file two documents. First, a motion
pleading with the Court to allow for a second motion for reconsideration, then
you file your second motion for reconsideration. My question is, was there an
order from the Supreme Court allowing this second motion for
Having second appeals allowed in case the decision was “legally erroneous”. It means the case patently unjust.
"So, the Supreme Court only has to look into its own internal rules and see if these three requirements have been complied (with),"
She added that even if the decision was issued by the wrong division, "will that technicality now suffice to overturn 13 years of legislative research and analysis on this problem?"
Meanwhile, Senator Franklin Drilon reacted on these unruly actions of Supreme Court, he said that "would appear to be not in the usual procedure."
A lot of flip-flopping cases that has been done by SC, such as Gloria Macapagal Arroyo 's plunder case ,Chief Justice Renato Corona's tax evasion case , Graft case against mayor Efren Alvarez of the Science City of Muñoz, Nueva Ecija, and Pioneer versus Keppel case
Like the case graft case against Efren Alvarez, mayor of the Science City of Muñoz, Nueva Ecija filed in the Sandiganbayan on Aug. 6, 2006, the case took over six years to resolve, with the appeal process reaching the Supreme Court. Documents of suspicious origin suggest that both the Sandiganbayan and the Supreme Court want to revisit it, risking the outbreak of violence in Nueva Ecija and hinting at massive corruption in the justice system.On June 29, 2011, the First Division of the Supreme Court (composed of Chief Justice Renato Corona and Associate Justices Martin Villarama, Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, Mariano del Castillo and Lucas Bersamin), by a vote of 5-0, affirmed the Sandiganbayan decision. The Court turned down a second motion for reconsideration filed by the convicted felon and his legal team on July 30, 2012, by a vote of 4-1 (with Bersamin as the lone dissenter), pronounced the verdict as final and executory, recorded the decision in the Book of Entries and Judgments on Aug. 29, 2012, and returned all case files to the Sandiganbayan, which then issued a warrant of arrest against Alvarez.
They also reversed the decision on the cityhood of 16 towns that were declared cities regardless of resistance from the League of Cities of the Philippines (LCP).
It says that the 16 municipalities do not have large enough population or income to qualify as cities.
When SC ruled against the 16 towns in 2010, and maintain their cityhood early this year. LCP appealed the decision but lost.