Susan Roces and the PET

LET me state at the outset that I did not vote for Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo or Fernando Poe Jr., in the last presidential election and that, in proper cases, I have written against both of them in this column. Also, although I have also criticized the Supreme Court a number of times, quite considerably in fact, I have done so only if I felt it was in error, as when it called the Court of Tax Appeals a quasi-judicial body.

That said, let me now discuss the dismissal by the Supreme Court (acting as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal) of the election protest of Poe vs. Arroyo in view of the former's death. I will also refer to his widow's strong reaction to the PET's decision that she says sacrificed substance for technicality and in effect covered up for the irregularities committed in the last election in favor of the incumbent president.

Procedural rules should not be lightly dismissed as inimical to substantive justice. They are necessary to the orderly assertion, examination and resolution of rights by judicial and administrative tribunals in accordance with the applicable laws. Compliance with the prescribed procedure is essential to the methodical settlement of disputes as opposed to chaotic and even violent disregard of civilized conduct in a free society. This is especially important in the administration of justice by the courts of law, especially the Supreme Court.

As I observed in the case of Limpot v. Court of Appeals, 170 SCRA 367:

"Rules of procedure are intended to ensure the orderly administration of justice and the protection of substantive rights in judicial and extra-judicial proceedings. It is a mistake to suppose that substantive law and adjective law are contradictory to each other or, as has often been suggested, that enforcement of procedural rules should never be permitted if it will result in prejudice to the substantive rights of the litigants. This is not exactly true; the concept is much misunderstood. As a matter of fact, the policy of the courts is to give effect to both kinds of law as complementing each other in the just and speedy resolution of the dispute between the parties. Observance of both substantive and adjective rights is equally guaranteed by due process, whatever the source of such rights, be it the Constitution itself or a statute or a rule of court."

Susan Roces, as the bereaved wife of the late Fernando Poe Jr., recently spoke bitterly against the Supreme Court for dismissing the election protest filed by her husband against President Arroyo. She said that Malaca¤ang had cheated massively in the last election and that the Court should have allowed her, now that her spouse is already dead, to take his place in proving his allegations. The Court had unanimously denied her this opportunity on the ground that she was not a proper party and had no legal standing in the dismissed case.

Much as I sympathize with the indignant lady, I have to agree with the action taken by the Supreme Court. It was not an emotional but a legal issue it was resolving. In law, a proper party is one who has sustained or is in immediate danger of sustaining an injury that the court has the duty to vindicate or prevent, such as the injury alleged by Poe in his protest. He was the one who was claiming he was cheated and was the rightful protestant. He was the person who would have been proclaimed the winner in the last presidential election if he could prove his charges before the PET.

Not Susan Roces. The lady was the conjugal partner of Poe, but not his political or legal successor. If Poe had won, she would have been the First Lady, with much political influence over her husband but without a single shred of authority in law. Imelda Marcos shared much governmental power with the dictator, but that was when everything the couple did was "legitimized" by the Supreme Court. It is different now when we are again under the rule of law and the Constitution is no longer a dispensable pretense. As First Lady, Susan Roces would have been an ornamental beauty but not the presidential substitute.

In the exercise of her freedom of expression, she can still try to denounce the anomalies her husband was prepared to prove in his election protest. She can do this before the public and not the PET. The PET has adjourned insofar as the case of Fernando Poe Jr. vs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is concerned. But Susan Roces can now seek a bigger audience with more political force and a stronger willingness to listen than the Supreme Court. Moreover, her appeal to the people at large will be more free-wheeling and less expensive than the proceedings in the courts.

The widespread reports of election irregularities in favor of the incumbent president, and the rash of questionable appointments suspected as rewards for her supporters, have lent much credibility to the allegations in the protest filed by Poe before Ms Arroyo that he and not his rival is the rightful President of the Philippines. Susan Roces is lawfully barred from proving this before the PET but not before the sovereign people.

Back to FPJ's electoral protest | Democracy Files