![]() ![]() For my part, since most of those stat ement s are of a subjectiv e chara cter, being matter s of perso nal belief and opinio n, I see no point in refu ting them in thes e cases. Any answer, however, would not be foreclosed by allowing the withdrawal. ![]() It is true that some of the statements in the motion are an affront to the dignity of this Court and therefore should not be allowed to pass unanswered. I could not escape a sense of irony in this Court's turning down the plea to withdraw on the ground, so he alleges among others, that this is no longer the Court to which he originally applied for relief because its members have taken new oaths of office under the 1973 Constitution, and then ruling adversely to him on the merits of his petition. Even if that right were not absolute I still would respect his choice to remove the case from this Court's cognizance, regardless of the fact that I disagreed with many of his reasons for so doing. Second - and this to me was the insuperable obstacle - I was and am of the opinion, which was shared by six other Justices The writing of separate opinions by individual Justices was thus unavoidable, and understandably so for still another reason, namely, that although little overt reference to it was made at the time, the future verdict of history was very much a factor in the thinking of the members, no other case of such transcendental significance to the life of the nation having before confronted this Court. The same destination would be reached, so to speak, but through different routes and by means of different vehicles of approach. Similarly, there was no agreement as to the manner the issues should be treated and developed. First, the discussions, as they began to touch on particular issues, revealed a lack of agreement among the Justices as to whether some of those issues should be taken up although it was not necessary to do so, they being merely convenient for the purpose of ventilating vexing questions of public interest, or whether the decision should be limited to those issues which are really material and decisive in these cases. The impracticability of the suggestion shortly became apparent for a number of reasons, only two of which need be mentioned. At one point during our deliberations on these cases it was suggested that as Chief Justice I should write that opinion. Why no particular Justice has been designated to write just one opinion for the entire Court will presently be explained. On the final result the vote is practically unanimous this is a statement of my individual opinion as well as a summary of the voting on the major issues. This is not the decision of the Court in the sense that a decision represents a consensus of the required majority of its members not only on the judgment itself but also on the rationalization of the issues and the conclusions arrived at. At the outset a word of clarification is in order. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |