ALBAY Rep. Edcel Lagman yesterday disputed Chief Justice Alexander Gesmundo’s claim that the High Court can still “revisit” certain decisions that were rendered final and executory, saying there will be no end to litigations if cases will be reopened on a whim.
“If the finality of a decision depends on the changing composition of the Supreme Court, then cases could not be put to rest and differing temperaments and outlooks of justices could rule the day,” the opposition lawmaker said in a statement.
If final and executory decisions of the Tribunal can be reopened in perpetuity, Lagman said “then litigations would be interminable or endless and the hallowed doctrine of res judicata is abandoned with impunity.”
“Res judicata means conclusiveness of judgment or ‘a matter that has been adjudicated (with finality) by a competent court may not be pursued further by the same parties,’” he said.
Gesmundo on Wednesday said the SC’s March 1999 decision 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.”
Lagman, a veteran lawyer-lawmaker, however stressed that the decision became final and executory way back on March 9, 1999 or more than two decades ago.
“Before 1999, the Marcoses were allowed starting 1991 to return to the Philippines to face corruption charges, and Imelda Marcos even ran for president in 1992, seven years before the finality of the tax case. Verily, the Marcoses were in the Philippines to contest their estate tax liability. The lapse of time has made the final decision immutable,” he said.
Lagman said “jurisprudential doctrines can be reversed in a subsequent similar case, but not in the same prior case where the verdict has already become final and executory.”
