“I don’t know to you”. Variation: “I don’t know to your lawyer!” translation: “ah, ewan ko sa ‘yo.” and “ewan ko sa abugado mo.”
The following is the substantive portion of the Supreme Court minute resolution denying with finality the MR’s in the Sigaw cha-cha case (it’s in pdf file in the Supreme Court website at www.supremecourt.gov.ph ):
“Acting on the following motions for reconsideration of the decision of October 25, 2006, the Court Resolved, by the same vote of 8-7, to DENY WITH FINALITY the said motions for reconsideration as the basic issues raised therein have been duly passed upon by this Court and no substantial arguments were presented to warrant the reversal of the questioned decision:
xxx (Court enumerates the five MR’s by title, date, and party)
“Ten (10) Members of the Court reiterate their position, as shown by their various opinions already given when the Decision herein was promulgated, that Republic Act 6735 is sufficient and adequate to amend the Constitution through a people’s initiative.” (adv90)
“Very truly yours,
Ma. Luisa Villarama Clerk of Court”
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
The Sigaw MR’s were denied by a minute resolution. No full-length decision was issued qualifying the main Decision in this case (the one penned by Justice Tony Carpio). This means there’s nothing else that supersedes or qualifies that main decision.
The minute resolution however says, in the last paragraph, that: “Ten (10) Members of the Court reiterate their position, as shown by their various opinions already given when the Decision herein was promulgated, that Republic Act 6735 is sufficient and adequate to amend the Constitution through a people’s initiative.”
The minute resolution however does not expressly lift the permanent injunction against Comelec in Santiago vs. Comelec; so I guess it’s implied that the Supreme Court is hereby lifting that permanent injunction; I don’t know, I’m guessing; since ten justices instructed the clerk of court to write that paragraph in the dispositive portion, I’m guessing that the Supreme Court is reversing the decision in Santiago vs. Comelec and therefore the result of that is to lift the permanent injunction; but Comelec a couple of months ago issued an order “archiving” or “dismissing” or refusing to entertain the petition of Sigaw on the ground that there was a permanent injunction against it in Santiago vs. Comelec; yet Comelec today is still enjoined from entertaining the Sigaw petition because the main decision of this case was affirmed.
My question really is, was Santiago vs. Comelec revisited, then reversed?
If you’re going to revisit and reverse, aren’t you supposed to write a full-length decision on that?
I don’t know, I’m guessing.
If it had been revisited and reversed in a full-length decision, the dispositive portion of that full-length decision would have contained the usual: “WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is hereby denied with finality; the permanent injunction in Santiago vs. Comelec however is lifted, nevertheless, the Comelec is specifically enjoined in this case from entertaining the petition of Sigaw, the petitioner having failed to comply with the requirements of the Constitution….” Or words to that effect.
Anyway, the net effect is the same: Petition for certiorari and mandamus denied. The Comelec order stands. (can Comelec say, “hey, our ground for refusing to entertain has been removed, the Supreme Court said the law is sufficient, we’ll entertain it now.” No, it can’t because the Supreme Court had said the petition did not comply with the requirements of the Constitution; I don’t know, I’m guessing, because it’s implied. I like my dispositive portions express. Whoever wrote this is… never mind. The result is the same.