The Supreme Court (SC) appears to have become an loyal Aquino high court, ruling as Noynoy wishes—and naturally, in his favor.
Once again, the Aquino high court essentially flip-flopped in its ruling on the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) composition regarding the constitutional edict that says there are seven members of the council, with one from Congress represented in the body.
Earlier, the high court ruled — on an immediately executory basis — that  only one member from Congress is to represent the JBC.
On a motion for reconsideration by the House and the Senate, not only were oral arguments heard, but also the high court ruled that the “immediately executory” ruling allowing just one representative of Congress to sit in the JBC be suspended, with the two members of Congress sitting, with full voting rights, reinstated — until, so said the SC, the case is finally decided — after the JBC will have been done with the voting and the Chief Justice (CJ) appointed.
As stated by the SC: “The court finds it more equitable for the present members of the JBC to resume their task of selecting nominees for the vacant position of the Chief Justice. Accordingly, pending the final resolution of this petition, Sen. (Francis) Escudero and Congressman (Niel) Tupas Jr., in their capacities as representatives of Congress may simultaneously sit as ex officio members of the JBC and exercise the functions flowing therefrom.”
It added that “it is apparent that an immediate execution of the July 17, 2012 decision poses a possibility that Congress may be left under-represented in the JBC.” In the event that the “decision would be subsequently overturned by this court, the right of Congress to be adequately represented in the JBC between now and the final resolution of the petition would have irreversibly impaired.”
The reverse then should apply, if such is the logic. If, in the event the SC does not flip flop on its earlier ruling and upholds the one member from Congress constitutional rule, it should mean then that the Congress was “overepresented” in the JBC and therefore, the constitutionality of the voting and selection process are questionable.
But hey, why aren’t the yellows — and the congressmen, including Tupas, not screaming about the Noynoy SC’s flip flop which crime they had accused ousted CJ Renato Corona for flip-flopping on the PAL case, as well as the clear SC partiality toward Noynoy and the Congress in the Noynoy High Court’s rulings?
It’s okay to flip-flop and to be partial to Malacañang as long as it is Noynoy and his yellow allies in power and position?
The thing with the Noynoy SC is the fact that it clearly went beyond its mandate and amended the Constitution though a hometown ruling but had no business amending.
The ruling of the high court on the seven -man JBC composition said that the words in the Charter are clear, in that there can only be seven members, not eight, and not two representing Congress.
Yet, when it came to the clear wording of the Constitution that the ex-officio members, such as the Chief Justice, not the acting CJ or a junior associate Justice, should convene and preside over the JBC, with the constitutional proviso clearly naming the positions of the ex-officio members of the JBC, there went the SC, digging into an old 1948 Judiciary act that states the SC justices’ succession route, and applying this to a 1987 Constitution proviso creating the JBC, claiming that it would be Justice Peralta who presides over the JBC, since the acting CJ and several justices who are nominees for the post inhibited.
How on earth can a 1948 Judicicary act apply to the JBC provision when the body was just created in 1987?
But all this was  done by this Noynoy court to justify the unjustifiable usurpation of the acting Chief Justice and Peralta of what is by consitutional rights, the CJ’s.
That was the Noynoy court amending the Constitution illegally.
That is questionable, just as the eight member JBC is questionable, as the undersecretary taking the place of the Justice Secretary’s ex-officio status is questionable.
And this Noynoy court says it wil follow the Constitution and defend it, when it is at the forefront  in destroying it and bowing to the Malacanang resident’s wishes?