THERE has been a lot of news lately about the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in a prominent politician’s bail petition, which generated a very strong Dissenting Opinion from another Justice in the minority.
A layman would wonder at what’s going on. Why is there a majority and a minority in the Supreme Court? Why is there a dissenting opinion and a majority opinion which stands as the decision of the case and thus the law of the land?
To answer these questions, one must first ask, what is the Supreme Court?
The Supreme Court is the Court vested with judicial power by the 1987 Constitution. (Sec. 1, Article VII, 1987 Constitution). Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or principality of the government. (Id.) Moreover, the Supreme Court is the highest court of the land, and thus is the final arbiter of cases in the country.
The Supreme Court is composed of fifteen (15) justices of the Supreme Court, namely, one Chief Justice, and 14 Associate Justices. They typically decide based on a majority of votes on cases, either en banc (meaning the whole Court, all 15 Justices), or by Divisions of up to three, five, or seven. However, the actions of these Divisions are considered in effect, decisions of the same court or Tribunal. Thus, when a Division decides on a case, it is still the Supreme Court which has acted on, and decided on a controversy. (See generally, People v. Dy, G.R. No. 115236).
Since a case is usually decided by way of a majority vote of the Court, that decision is considered the majority opinion or the majority decision. This is then considered the official decision of the Court on a controversy/issue or case.
The next question then, and the point of this discussion is, what is a Dissenting Opinion?
Remember that some of those issues that reach the Supreme Court are highly contested and very controversial, and sometimes not all of the Justices agree with other Justices on a point of law. Thus we have Dissenting Opinions, which are essentially the opinion/s of a Justice who does not agree with the decision of the majority of the Supreme Court. Dissenting Opinions are not considered part of the law of the land, in contrast to a Majority Opinion or Decision, which is the decision of the Court, and thus forms part of the law and is the official interpretation of the Supreme Court on a contested point of law.
However, does this mean that Dissenting Opinions should be ignored by the people and lawyers?
No. Remember that cases that reach the Supreme Court are usually heavily contested cases, and these decisions depend on the majority votes of the Supreme Court. These decisions also depend on differing interpretations of law by the Justices. Thus, a dissenting opinion of a Justice, though not the official decision of the Supreme Court, can be persuasive and helpful in terms of pointing out issues in the majority opinion, or show a possible differing interpretation of law by a Justice of the Supreme Court.
In some cases, a previous dissenting opinion is used to spearhead a change in the law, and a later case may result in a majority opinion adopting a particular law that was formerly discussed in a dissenting opinion.
However, some Justices have used the Dissenting Opinion as a venue to vent their personal issues or objections to the majority decision of the Supreme Court. Sometimes some Justices even go as far as discussing in their Dissenting Opinion how a Majority decision was reached (which is typically not done in due deference to the confidentiality of Supreme Court proceedings). Some of these Dissenting Opinions even criticize their fellow Justices. Such Opinions have generated much publicity and even some controversy, as can be seen in recent news.
Whether or not this is a correct way of writing or using a Dissenting Opinion is something for the Supreme Court itself to decide on. Certainly though, such Dissenting Opinions have allowed the general public a glimpse into the inner workings of the Supreme Court. Moreover, such Dissents have made the Supreme Court more vibrant and interesting to the general public.
As to how this current issue on the use of a Dissenting Opinion will end, no one can say, except, of course, the Supreme Court.
After all, the Supreme Court, as its name implies, is Supreme.
*****
Atty. Kelvin Lee is a Partner of the Teves Cabiten Polinar Lee & Partners Law Firm. The opinions expressed herein are solely of Atty. Lee. This column does not constitute legal advice nor does it create a lawyer-client relationship with any party. You can reach Kelvin through his office at tcplawfirm.staff@gmail.com.