132

EVEN IF ONE ASSUMES THOSE "JUSTICES"  WERE RIGHT IN DENYING MY PETITION, GIVEN THAT ON ITS FACE THE PETITION DOES NOT GIVE ANY REASONABLE POTENTIAL FOR SUCH DECISION TO BE CORRECT, THERE ARE TWO CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS ON REQUIRING THEM TO EXPLAIN THAT DENIAL. 

THE FIRST WHICH WAS POINTED OUT EARLIER IS MANDATED BY THE GOOD BEHAVIOUR CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT ON THE JUDICIARY. 

THE SECOND ONE SEEMS TO BE MANDATED BY THE 

CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS. EVEN IF WE ASSUME THAT WOULD NOT FIT DIRECTLY BECAUSE OF THE DISCRETION IN TAKING CASES, THAT DISCRETION PROBABLY WOULD NOT EVAPORATE THE INDIVIDUAL DUE PROCESS POTENTIAL. INSTEAD THOSE DUE PROCESS POTENTIALS CAN COME BACK BASED ON THEIR PRIORITIES AS OBLIGATORY DUE PROCESSES FOR THE NATION AS A WHOLE.