Evidence, not speculation crucial in attaining justice

But scrutiny is different from speculation.

The Supreme Court, in a recent decision, reversed the Sandiganbayan’s 2018 conviction of Marcos after finding that the prosecution failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court’s First Division, in a ruling penned by Associate Justice Rodil Zalameda, found problems with the authentication and evidentiary value of documents involving Swiss foundations and concluded that the prosecution had not sufficiently established the elements of the offense.

People may disagree with that reasoning. They may question the interpretation of the evidence, the application of the law, or the timing of the decision. They may even argue that the Court got it wrong.

They have every right to do so.

But if the criticism goes further—if it alleges political influence, favoritism, improper intervention, or a connection between the ruling and the President’s eventual choice of the next chief justice—then the burden changes. Such claims require evidence more than pure suspicion.

This matters because the judiciary is not merely another political institution to be attacked whenever its decisions prove unpopular. Courts exist precisely to resolve disputes according to law and evidence.

If every unpopular ruling is automatically treated as proof of corruption or political manipulation, the authority of the courts becomes hostage to political narratives.

That is dangerous.

The Palace is therefore right when it said that allegations that the acquittal was somehow connected to President Marcos’ selection of the next chief justice should not be treated as fact without credible evidence. The mere possibility that three justices involved in the decision could be considered for the chief justice position does not establish that the ruling was influenced by such considerations.

But defending judicial independence should not mean insulating the judiciary from criticism.

The Supreme Court is not infallible. Its justices are human. Its decisions can be questioned, challenged, and debated. Indeed, a healthy democracy requires citizens, lawyers, academics, journalists, and lawmakers to examine judicial decisions closely.

The response to a decision under question, however, is a stronger argument and evidence, not pure rhetoric.

If critics believe the Court misread the evidence, identify the evidence. If they believe the law was wrongly interpreted, explain precisely where and why. If they suspect improper influence, establish the connection with facts that can withstand independent verification.

Otherwise, criticism risks becoming accusation without accountability.

This is especially important in a country where public confidence in institutions is already fragile. Undermining the judiciary without proof can do lasting damage. Once citizens begin believing that court decisions are determined not by law but by political alliances, personal interests, or family connections, respect for the justice system can rapidly erode.

And when confidence in justice collapses, chaos is not far behind.

The Philippines needs a judiciary strong enough to withstand political pressure and public anger—and a public discourse mature enough to distinguish legitimate criticism from unsupported claims.

Justice demands both.

But we should demand evidence from those who question the courts.

For without evidence, criticism becomes rhetoric. And in a democracy governed by law, rhetoric alone should never be allowed to decide who is guilty, who is innocent, or whether justice has been done.