In the tangled weave of constitutional governance, the Supreme Court’s central obligation is not, as some critics sometimes imply, to rubber-stamp political preference or to translate constitutional text into a beloved slogan. The Court’s core duty is to interpret the Constitution — to explain what it means, why it matters, and where its lines are drawn. This is not a marginal task or a ceremonial confession; it is the bedrock of constitutional order. A Constitution that endures must be intelligible. It must provide a frame by which laws, policies, and actions can be judged.
When the Court interprets a constitutional provision, it is not merely solving an abstract puzzle. It is clarifying the living intent of the framers, the enduring commitments of the republic, and the limits within which governments may operate. Interpretation, in Justice Tijam’s sober account, is a clarifying act, not a merely decorative one. It is the constitutional version of turning on a light in a room that has long been shadowed by fragmented readings. There is a persistent, unhealthy rumor in some public circles particularly in the social media that the Supreme Court’s job is to offer succinct, bite-sized conclusions that fit neatly into headlines. To interpret is to expound, to spell out meaning, to lay bare the reasoning that supports a judgment. Short answers may please in the moment, but they do not guard against ambiguity or promote durable constitutional protection. When complex constitutional questions are distilled into a few sentences, the risk is not only misinterpretation but also the hollowing out of the protective purpose that the Constitution serves. The danger of abbreviated reasoning is not a mere academic quibble. It is, at its core, a question of constitutional resilience. The document’s authority rests upon the clarity with which its provisions are explained and the consistency with which those explanations withstand scrutiny. When the Court offers guideposts or guidelines, the fear is that some may mistake them for “legislation from the bench” or a silent amendment of the Constitution.
Constitutional interpretation, by its nature, requires the Court to spell out the why and the how, not just the what. If the Court were to retreat from detailed reasoning, it would be inviting retreat from constitutional protection itself. This is not to say that the Court should layer opinions with inaccessible jargon. Rather, it asserts that a robust interpretation should be transparent, well-reasoned, and capable of withstanding public and legal examination. A constitutional decision without a well-articulated rationale risks becoming merely authoritative decree, lacking the persuasive power that comes from a careful, publicly accessible argument. The duty to explain, then, is a democratic bulwark. It invites debate, invites critique, and invites the public to see the logical architecture of the choice made. It invites trust, because trust accrues when people can understand the grounds of a ruling, even if they do not fully agree with every detail.
A judiciary that explains itself is a judiciary that fortifies the social contract. It is a judiciary that helps citizens discern where law ends and policy begins, where protection of rights begins and governance prerogatives begin to stretch beyond their constitutional envelope. The idea that the Court’s reasoning can or should be abbreviated to satisfy partisan taste is a dangerous delusion. The Constitution does not exist to be molded into acceptable ease for the moment. It exists to preserve a framework of rights, checks, and balances that withstand the pressure of political tides.
A diverse tribunal, with fifteen reasonable minds, will inevitably cultivate a richer, more nuanced understanding of constitutional provisions. The process of collective deliberation — research, debate, divergence, and eventual consensus — is not a sign of weakness or indecision. It is the strength of a constitutional system that recognizes complexity and the necessity of steady, principled reasoning. Even when disagreement remains, the public benefit is clarity about the sources of disagreement, the reasoning that underpins any conclusion, and the faithful adherence to constitutional text and precedent. Disagreement is, in the end, not a flaw but a feature of constitutional democracy. The law’s vitality rests on the ability of different voices to wrestle with the same text and to emerge with reasoned positions that illuminate, rather than obscure, the Constitution’s meaning.
The Supreme Court’s duty is not to suppress dissent but to channel it into a principled dialogue that clarifies the constitutional landscape for future generations. Legitimacy of dissent within a framework of thorough, public reasoning reinforces a healthy constitutional culture: one in which disagreement is not a perversion of the process but a sign of its integrity. This brings us to the broader imperative: the duty to respect the Supreme Court. Respect does not mean deference that ceases critical thinking. It means recognizing the Court’s constitutional role and engaging with its reasoning as a meaningful marketplace of ideas. Respect for the Court entails reading its opinions with care, understanding the interpretive methods employed, and acknowledging that the Constitution’s ultimate protection rests on a judiciary that unflinchingly fulfills its interpretive obligation. It also means political branches recognizing the Court’s role as a check on political power, not as a subordinate branch to be humored in matters of constitutional import.
The conversation about constitutional interpretation should not devolve into a popularity contest, nor should it become a litany of political grievances about particular outcomes. It should be a sober, ongoing conversation about how best to preserve constitutional commitments in a changing world. The general public must understand and weigh the quality of reasoning over headlines and social media hype, to prioritize fidelity to the text over expediency, and to value the judicial process as an institution that binds the nation to its founding principles. If there is a moral here, it is that the Constitution’s power does not reside in the speed or simplicity of its conclusions, but in the fidelity, courage, and precision with which its meanings are articulated. The public deserves more than verdicts; it deserves reasoned judgments that lay bare the grounds for those verdicts. The Supreme Court, in exercising its duty to interpret, undertakes a solemn, ongoing project: to make the Constitution legible, to demystify its protections, and to ensure that the law remains a durable instrument of liberty and justice for all.
In closing, the Court’s interpretive work is the essential engine of constitutional order. It deserves reception not as a partisan ritual but as a principled commitment to the public good. The fifteen justices, each bringing their own insights to bear, remind us that constitutional interpretation is not a single act of will but a collective enterprise grounded in thoroughness, transparency, and respect for the constitutional project. As citizens, we should prize a judiciary that explains itself with rigor, that embraces disagreement as a catalyst for clarity, and that steadfastly protects the supremacy of the Constitution through reasoned, well-articulated, and publicly accessible judgments.#
