"x x x.
I absolutely understand the need for confidentiality of proceedings before the Court and I would be the first to defend it. However, when a litigant's counsel writes letters ex parte[outside court proceedings] to the Court on a matter that was currently pending and succeeds in getting the Court's attention and also its action, then I would respectfully submit that this is a matter sui generis [in a class of its own] which would perhaps justify a slight deviation from tradition and perhaps a bit more transparency. I thought it was necessary when the cityhood cases were being decided but since the Court did not seem to consider letter-writing by a litigant's counsel at that time irregular, I thought perhaps it would never be repeated again – in the words of the Court it was pro hac vice [for this case only]. Or so I thought. But now, it is no longer pro hac vice and perhaps has become a habit. It is in this spirit that I ask for more explanation and less indignation from the Court, through its spokesperson.
A little more detail and transparency on the matters that led to the recall would be perhaps the best way for people to understand WHY these particular letters were so significant that it resulted in the Court “changing" its mind. I have been a lawyer long enough to know that it takes tremendous effort for the Court to change its mind; the Court's files are replete with MY own interventions (none of them in letter form though) pleading for the Court to change its mind, all to no avail. So, when the Court does change its mind – and yes, despite the technical characterization by the spokesperson, the Court did change its mind – it is something that lawyers take notice of, comment on and perhaps even disagree with. For me, engaged as I am in advocacy as well as academia, this would be of great personal and professional interest to me – that the Court has changed its mind, yet again.
If I may offer some practical suggestions together with the unsolicited advise?
1. Upload the four letters of Atty. Mendoza, the FASAP resolution and perhaps the Court's deliberations on the letters to the SC website so that the Chief Justice’s suggestion for everyone to read first before criticizing may become meaningful.
2. A clearer, less emotional, more sober and certainly less combative statement from the Court detailing the proceedings that led to the recall may perhaps be issued to lay to rest any questions that would have arisen from Atty. Mendoza’s actions.
3. For those of us who have felt the “wrath" of some members of the Court for daring to write a letter to the Chief Justice, perhaps a brief assurance that Atty. Mendoza's letters are not the same as the one we wrote would help those of us who are confused at the different treatment we got.
In times like these, when things about the law and the Court are unclear even to lawyers, there is a burden that rests on the Court to lead, to enlighten, to clarify and, perhaps in this situation, to explain. Only then could we ensure that the Court's role of dispensing justice fairly, which carries with it the perception that it is dispensing justice fairly, is discharged. Thus, more than fighting speeches, perhaps what is needed would be clearer words and more sober disclosures.
Allow me to end by reiterating my assurances that we share a common interest at ensuring the most fair, the most clear, the most transparent (under the circumstances), the most just Court because our people deserve no less.
Yours most respectfully,
Theodore O. Te
A little more detail and transparency on the matters that led to the recall would be perhaps the best way for people to understand WHY these particular letters were so significant that it resulted in the Court “changing" its mind. I have been a lawyer long enough to know that it takes tremendous effort for the Court to change its mind; the Court's files are replete with MY own interventions (none of them in letter form though) pleading for the Court to change its mind, all to no avail. So, when the Court does change its mind – and yes, despite the technical characterization by the spokesperson, the Court did change its mind – it is something that lawyers take notice of, comment on and perhaps even disagree with. For me, engaged as I am in advocacy as well as academia, this would be of great personal and professional interest to me – that the Court has changed its mind, yet again.
If I may offer some practical suggestions together with the unsolicited advise?
1. Upload the four letters of Atty. Mendoza, the FASAP resolution and perhaps the Court's deliberations on the letters to the SC website so that the Chief Justice’s suggestion for everyone to read first before criticizing may become meaningful.
2. A clearer, less emotional, more sober and certainly less combative statement from the Court detailing the proceedings that led to the recall may perhaps be issued to lay to rest any questions that would have arisen from Atty. Mendoza’s actions.
3. For those of us who have felt the “wrath" of some members of the Court for daring to write a letter to the Chief Justice, perhaps a brief assurance that Atty. Mendoza's letters are not the same as the one we wrote would help those of us who are confused at the different treatment we got.
In times like these, when things about the law and the Court are unclear even to lawyers, there is a burden that rests on the Court to lead, to enlighten, to clarify and, perhaps in this situation, to explain. Only then could we ensure that the Court's role of dispensing justice fairly, which carries with it the perception that it is dispensing justice fairly, is discharged. Thus, more than fighting speeches, perhaps what is needed would be clearer words and more sober disclosures.
Allow me to end by reiterating my assurances that we share a common interest at ensuring the most fair, the most clear, the most transparent (under the circumstances), the most just Court because our people deserve no less.
Yours most respectfully,
Theodore O. Te
x x x."
