CHIEF Justice Alexander Gesmundo yesterday said the March 1999 decision of the Supreme Court (SC) ordering the heirs of the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos Sr. to pay P23 billion in estate tax liability may still be reopened as he stressed that “no decision of the court is written in stone.”
In not discounting the possibility, Gesmundo told members of the media at the Kapihan sa Manila forum that there are circumstances that the SC revisited its decision even if it has become final and executory.
He said: “No decision of the court is written in stone. Ang pagbabago ng desisyon ng korte, unang una nababatay sa composition ng korte, parang kagaya sa Amerika, may conservative, may liberal. Kapag majority ay conservative, mahirap ka na magpa-reverse ng decision, pero kapag majority liberal napakadali nilang gawin yan (No court decision is written on stone. A reversal or change in the decision of the court is based, first of all, on its composition, just like in America, there are conservative and liberal justices. If the majority justices are conservative, then it would be difficult to get a reversal of a decision, but if the majority of the justices is liberal, then it can be done easily).”
He added this is similar to the SC set-up where every justice has their own opinion on a case.
“Iisa ‘yung pinag-uusapan nating bagay pero iba iba ‘yung anggulo ng mga mahistrado diyan (depende) kung gaano kagaling ‘yung pag-dedepensa ng posisyon mo. Kaya minsan sabi final and executory na (We are only discussing one issue, but magistrates have different positions on that, depending on how well parties defend their positions. There are decisions that are already final and executory) but there are circumstances such as in the Fabian Ver case, the Galman versus Sandiganbayan, that were reopened simply because the SC determined that there was violation of due process, so there was a mistrial,” he also said.
In these circumstances, Gesmundo said the High Court is “always guided” by the principle of res judicata, that cases should be terminated at a certain point in time.
However, he continued, if there are reasons “so unique” and the parties are filing a motion for reconsideration from the division to the court en banc to have the case reopened, “there is possibility that a former decision or a prior judgment can be modified or reversed.”
But the chief justice clarified this is only on a case-to-case basis, especially during instances when due process is violated.
“What is important are the issues being brought by the parties before the SC. It is a question of constitutional rights blatantly violated then we have to take a second look,” he said.
