EDITORIAL – Maintaining the illusion of strength

The language of Ombudsman Conchita Morales was explicit. There was no ambiguity in her disdain for the Supreme Court ruling allowing Senator Juan Ponce Enrile to post bail, and thus gain temporary freedom from detention arising from the plunder charges he is facing. In her motion for reconsideration, Morales accused the high court of "injustice, inequality, partiality and preference."

Of course, she could have dispensed with those stinging words and still argue her case effectively, as the matter of dispute is a legal matter about which mere cold and hard facts, argued convincingly, would have sufficed. But for Morales to fire a salvo of adjectives that betray her own personal feelings, she not only opens herself to accusations of losing her objectivity, it would appear she is disrespecting the Supreme Court as an institution instead of just disagreeing with its ruling.

To be sure, there are many who may concede that the Supreme Court, by its own deeds, is fully responsible for the gradual erosion of its own respectability. Be that as it may, there is still a great necessity, more than anyone may care to admit or be able to see, for the Supreme Court to maintain that patina of respect that is so essential to maintaining order in a civilized society.

It is the duty of every citizen to help the Supreme Court, if it cannot do it by itself, to keep the perception that it is the last bastion of order in a democracy, especially in a free-wheeling but fragile one like ours. For it is unthinkable to imagine what would happen if nobody trusts and respects the Supreme Court anymore, the way the other institutions have swiftly lost theirs. As a former Supreme Court justice herself, Morales should know that only too well.

Has anyone ever given it a thought how quickly anarchy can set in if even just the illusion of a last bastion of order dissipates? Morales may be praised for her erudition and her vigilance. But what profits the world if it gains a million Moraleses but suffers the loss of civil order as a result of their inability to match virtue with probity.

Again, Morales could very well be right in her objections. She has almost the entire nation with her in that regard. In fact, it would have been a surprise if she just took the Supreme Court ruling lying down. But standing up does not mean running over. One can object without being objectionable. It is essential that for one to be right, one must also appear to be right instead of sounding so wrong.

It is the Supreme Court ruling that she must assail. And that can easily be done by a woman of great intelligence like she is. But the use of unnecessary and stinging adjectives gives the impression that it is the Supreme Court she is assailing even if she is not.

At its present vulnerable state, the Supreme Court cannot afford any ambiguities with regard to its strength. It must continue to be, if not in reality, then at least perceptibly, strong. Or else everything else collapses.