Plain common sense

A law should be passed prohibiting judges from stopping the transfer or reassignment of personnel in the legislative or executive branches of government.

The courts have no business interfering in the management functions of officials in the legislative or executive branch.

The housecleaning at the Bureau of Customs has been temporarily stymied by a Manila Regional Trial Court order freezing the reassignment of 27 customs port collectors to a newly created office called Customs Research Office under the Department of Finance.

The temporary restraining order (TRO) on the reassignments would be in effect for 72 hours wherein the affected personnel would be sent back to their respective posts.

Of course, Finance Secretary Cesar Purisima had to comply with the court order under pain of being held in contempt.

But he would push through with the reassignments of the “Magnificent 27” to their new office after the 72-hour deadline lapsed.

In short, the court order was just a distraction and the judge who issued it knew that.

But what a distraction!

To an outsider looking in, like this columnist, everything—from the order with a 72-hour “life” to its compliance and then resumption of the reassignment upon the 72-hour lapse—is all a charade.

Like adults playing a children’s game of “pretend.”

But the people don’t want to watch games played by government people; they want serious business from their government.

* * *

Fifteen of the 27 customs collectors on Tuesday asked the Manila court to stop their transfer, citing “lack of due process” and “violation of their security of tenure.”

What lack of due process are they talking about?

They have not been dismissed from the service but only transferred to another unit—a newly-formed one—to help make the customs bureau improve its tax collection efficiency.

And what violation of security of tenure are they talking about?

Again, they have not been dismissed from the service, and no charges have been filed against them.

Do those 15 customs collectors mean that  “security of tenure”  makes them irreplaceable?

The Manila judge should have pondered on  why there was no violation of their “security of tenure” and “due process” before issuing the TRO.

A brilliant lawyer-friend told me that the study or pursuit of law is plain common sense.

Obviously, that judge didn’t have one.