BIZBUZZ
The inability of the government to properly rationalize the head on collision of two conflicting principles could potentially cost it some more money that it could not afford to lose. This unwelcome possibility recently emerged as it was reported in the press that the government could potentially lose two international cases, thus possibly making it liable for about one billion US dollars, as a consequence of the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) to junk the petition to bar the Pasay City Regional Trial Court (RTC) from implementing its decision to order the government to pay the Philippine International Air Transport Corp. (PIATCO) three billion pesos. Under normal conditions where the national interest is not at stake, it would be reasonable to expect the government, represented by the Executive Branch, to respect the principle of separation of powers, by leaving the Judicial Branch to decide as it wishes, in all court cases, at least generally speaking. Looking at this contentious issue from another perspective however, we are reminded that the principle of separation of powers is tied in to the other principle of check and balance, an ideal that is supposed to be in place, with the overall national interest in mind. Is it legal or constitutional for the Executive Branch to “meddle” in the affairs of the Judicial Branch, generally speaking, without any exceptions? As I see it, the answer to this question would depend on the perspective one would take, and the approach that the Executive Branch would make, adding as well the extra dimension that what could appear as “meddling” on one hand could be interpreted as “quiet diplomacy” on one hand. Could one government branch reach out to make “diplomatic moves” towards another? I think that the answer is yes, provided that the motivation behind these moves is rooted in the sincere promotion of the higher national interest, and not on the lower scale of personal or corporate interests. Given the vast material and human resources that are available at its disposal, it would be reasonable to think that the government would be able to expect that it would be able to look at the dimension of international linkage politics in its decision making, a dimension that is premised on the expectation that it is capable of converging its complex web of policy options, again under the overall objective of pursuing what is in the best national interest, all factors considered. According to the news, Atty. Jose Bernas, the lawyer of Ilocos Sur Congressman Salacnib Baterina reiterated as he earlier said during the oral arguments before the Supreme Court (SC) last year that expropriation was a wrong legal solution to the NAIA 3 controversy. Baterina is an intervenor in the expropriation case that is pending with the Pasay City RTC. Bernas said that the order of Pasay City RTC Judge Henrick Gingoyon directing the government to pay PIATCO three billion pesos as part of just compensation would have an adverse effect on the two arbitral cases that the government is facing before the International Courts in connection with NAIA 3 issue. As a backgrounder to this issue, the SC had earlier upheld the order of the Pasay City RTC to pay PIATCO. Judge Gingoyon was murdered shortly after he issued the order, leading to speculations that his death might have been directly related to the controversial case. Thereafter, he was replaced by Judge Jose Mupas who then ordered the creation of a panel of three members for the purpose of determining the just compensation of the air terminal that was built by PIATCO. Citing a specific scenario, Bernas said that the government would lose in the 425 million dollars case filed by Fraport AG in the International Court for Settlement of Investments Disputes (ICSID) based in Washington, DC and in the 565 million dollars claim of PIATCO before the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) based in Singapore, in an effort to get back their investment after the CA ruled on the petition of Baterina. Earlier, Baterina argued that the issue of the ownership of NAIA 3 should first be resolved before the payment to PIATCO is made. He also said that since the lot where the building was constructed belongs to the government, it would follow that the building is also owned by the government. The potential loss of critically needed money is already a serious matter of national interest by itself, but what is even more important to consider is the national embarrassment that could ensue if the government falls victim to a double whammy of court losses due to its failure to put its acts together. -o0o- Tune in to “Gulong ng Kabuhayan” on DZXL (558 KHZ) Mon to Fri 6 to 6:45 PM. Join the Inter-Charity Network. We assist you in looking for a job or setting up a small business. Email ike@kaiking.net or text 09175684855.Unit 324, Guadalupe Commercial Complex, EDSA, Makati. |