Perhaps you don't know anything about the process. But this means that there actually still is a process for seeking redress from the Roman Rota for cases of manifest injustice. And that would still be the case after the respondent had been given time, and free counsel, to make an appeal to a second instance court to the nearest Archdiocese and had his or her appeal rejected. So by this time there has been a tribunal from two separate diocese involved. If there was a manifest injustice involved it would have been cleared up in an appeal to the nearest metropolitan tribunal. If it is still manifestly unjust in its process which must be open and known between the two parties, then there can be a cause for appeal.
This protects petitioners from harassment and the rota from those making multiple fraudulent appeals. This prevents acts of malice on either the respondent or petitioner side. Don't believe me? Look up civil divorce cases. To allow a person to make appeal after appeal gives people with malicious intent too much power.
Given the increased requirement that the respondent has access to legal counsel which is free, and must be contacted by the diocese, and have a chance to be fully informed from its very beginning, I hardly see how there is some kind of injustice against truth going on.
You defeated whatever argument you thought you had when you said, “Look up civil divorce cases”.
Why are you comparing Francischurch annulment cases to civil divorce cases?
You apparently don't get it. Francis started the manifest injustice in the first place. Who do you think elevates people to that Roman Rota?
Francis has more cards under the table.