Bohol Tribune
Opinion

Stare Decisis

By Atty. Julius Gregory B. Delgado

THE ROLE OF THE OFFICE OF SOLICITOR GENERAL AS TRIBUNE OF THE PEOPLE

Last of Two Parts

Finally, and the main topic of this column, the Supreme Court directed to Solicitor General to conduct a self-examination on when to exercise and invoke the People’s Tribune prerogative. When you say People’s Tribune, it is the act of the Office of the Solicitor General taking an adverse position to its client, the Republic, when it is what the law and evidence really posits. In the case of Marcos vs. Robredo, supra, the Supreme Court the term in this manner:

“An instance when the Solicitor takes a position adverse and contrary to the Government’s because it is incumbent upon him to present to the Court what he considers would legally uphold government’s best interest although the position may run counter to a client’s position.”

For example, in an appeal in a criminal case, the Office of the Solicitor General represents the State to defend the ruling of the trial court and appellate court convicting the accused. However, there are occasions that evidence are lacking and the conviction was unwarranted. The Office of the Solicitor General will then submit a comment/manifestation/memorandum contrary to the interest of the State in advocating the acquittal of the accused.

In the instant case, the Supreme Court chastised the Solicitor General for invoking the People’s Tribune like a magic wand. The Court held that “the Office of the Solicitor General is the law office of the government. Its default client is the Republic of the Philippines, but ultimately, “the distinguished client of the Office of the Solicitor General is the people themselves.” Hence, the Court further held that “its status as People’s Tribune is properly involved only if the Republic of the Philippines is a party litigant to the case.” In Marcos vs. Robredo, supra, the Court held that the OSG cannot invoke the doctrine of People’s Tribune because the Republic is not a party litigant in the case:

“Here, the Republic of the Philippines is not a party litigant. Protestant filed this election protest in his bid to oust the elected Vice President. Simply, this involves private individuals only. Yet, the Solicitor General comes to this Tribunal without, at the very least, asking for leave of court as courtesy to this Tribunal.

Basic procedure dictates that parties must move for leave if they seek any action from this Tribunal. With more reason should a nonparty file the appropriate motion to intervene in a case concerning them.

This Tribunal reminds the Office of the Solicitor General that it has been previously admonished that ‘in future cases, however, the Office of the Solicitor General should be more cautious in entering its appearance to this Court as the People’s Tribune to prevent further confusion as to its standing.”

The Court then ended the admonition by ruling that “if indeed the Solicitor General was genuinely concerned about the protracted resolution of the protest and its effect on the people who ‘deserves nothing less,’ then he should have confined the issue to the supposed delay in the resolution of the protest, as this was the only matter with relevance to the public.” Instead, “the Solicitor General imputed impartiality and incompetence not only against a sitting member of the Tribunal but also against the entire body.”
In analysis, it is clear that the Solicitor General miscalculated how the Supreme Court will act on his submission. He was confident that the Court will go his way in the same manner he was successful in his Petition for Quo Warranto against a former sitting Chief Justice. This time around, while Justice Leonen has unresolve cases, Justice Leonen has a relatively good working relationship with his colleagues. The Solicitor General should have taken a cue on how Justice Leonen paid homage to “his mentor and his manong Chief Justice Diosdado Peralta” in his passion-laden speech during the Oath Taking of the 2019 Bar Examinations passers. Chief Justice Peralta, Solicitor General Calida and Justice Leonen have one in common, Ilocano roots. Solicitor General Calida and Justice Leonen are adverse in this particular case. In the end, the Chief and his colleagues (that is why it is per curiam) protected their own and their turf.

Related posts

Amicus Curiae

The Bohol Tribune
11 months ago

Editorial

The Bohol Tribune
2 years ago

Medical Insider – Dr. Cora E. Lim

The Bohol Tribune
2 months ago
Exit mobile version