But that’s not really necessary since, strictly speaking, there are no "ties" to speak of. Of the three branches of government, the Court is not a rival of Congress, which makes the laws, and the Executive, which enforces them. To speak of "ties" is to suggest collaboration when the only permissible collaboration is a common adherence to the Constitution, controversies over which are subject to the Supreme Court’s interpretation.

If the opposition is triumphant, Malacañang is far from disheartened; in fact, its legal spokesmen say that BP 880 has been upheld, although it was passed during the regime of President Marcos. That’s called "snatching victory from the jaws of defeat."

On the other hand, critics and detractors are pleased to note media’s emphasis on the words of ponente Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna that CPR policy "has no place in our legal firmament and must be struck down as a darkness that shrouds our freedom."

Strange and strong words indeed: CPR can hardly be called a "policy." To legalists it even stands for "completely primitive response." And it’s really, as the Court decision puts it, "used by some police agents to justify abuses."

The question is whether the abuses included the arrest of Beltran on an old Martial Law charge and the warrants against the so-called Batasan Five, the warrants having issued by the lower courts.

The SC decision ends there, for the two executive orders are related to Proclamation 1017. That’s why some people, having received rumors about the SC decision, thought that the proclamation had been declared unconstitutional.

The decision on CPR was, of course, timely: Senator Biazon advised Malacañang to stop talking about a Labor Day coup lest it "condition" people’s mind that it’s about to issue a new proclamation to "quell violent demonstrations."

Ours is probably the only democratic government that’s wary of peaceful assemblies.