COURT...
MANILA, DECEMBER 29, 2011
(INQUIRER) PASSION AND REASON By: Raul C. Pangalangan Philippine
Daily Inquirer - "We have, therefore, reached the point as a nation
where we must take action to save the Constitution from the Court and the Court
from itself. …. We want a Supreme Court which will do justice under the
Constitution and not over it."
These words were uttered not by President Benigno Aquino III in 2011, but by
US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) in a fireside radio broadcast in
1937.
The alarmists amongst us don't remember much, and that is why their logic is
bizarre. The Supreme Court hurriedly issues a TRO that would let Arroyo evade
Philippine justice, and they chant "Hallelujah, the rule of law has
triumphed!"
Congress hurriedly uses its constitutional power to impeach, and they cry
"bully" and "dictatorship." We forget our history.
One. It is not true that this is all "unprecedented."
There had been an earlier showdown under the 1987 Constitution between
Malacañang and the Supreme Court where the Court was seen as an obstruction to
the Palace's chosen policies. It was President Fidel Ramos versus the Narvasa
Supreme Court.
Ramos wanted to liberalize telecommunications in the country but the old PLDT
monopoly stood in the way. The Court reversed itself only after the ponente of
the pro-monopoly decision was forced to resign by an exposé charging that it
wasn't he who wrote the verdict.
And the proof? A foreign English professor said the writing style wasn't the
justice's usual!
Now you tell me. Will that kind of flimsy evidence thrive had they gone
through a proper impeachment? Would today's critics prefer the stealth and
subterfuge of that attack, and the injustice of that forced resignation?
Two. President Aquino certainly isn't wanting for precedent in his public
harangues.
Last year, Barack Obama himself denounced the US Supreme Court in the
presence of several justices for their ruling in Citizens United v. Federal
Election Commission, that "open[ed] the floodgates" for corporate spending in
electoral campaigns.
Chief Justice John Roberts said he found it all "very troubling," lamenting
the lack of "courtesy and respect." President Aquino's in-your-face lambasting
might be a bit too forward for our tastes, but would you prefer the facelessness
of the phantom enemy that the Narvasa Court had to battle?
Three. Will this lead to a Court subservient to Aquino? Not necessarily so,
and P-Noy can take a leaf from FDR on this.
That same argument was made as well against FDR's "court packing" plan when a
conservative US Supreme Court blocked New Deal legislation, America's response
to the Great Depression: welfare state benefits, minimum wage, maternity leave,
overtime pay, etc.
It was juristic heresy at that time. Thus FDR's plan where, as allowed by
their Constitution, he would appoint an additional justice for every old (and
old-thinking) judge who would remain in office after the age of 70. (Congress
scuttled the plan but the court soon changed its tune.)
"If … it is charged that I wish to place on the bench spineless puppets who
would disregard the law … decide specific cases as I wished them to be decided,
I make this answer: that no president fit for his office would appoint, and no
Senate of honorable men fit for their office would confirm, that kind of
[judge].
"But if … the charge is made that I would appoint [judges] who understand
modern conditions … who will act as justices and not as legislators … then I
[and] the vast majority of the American people favor doing just that thing—now.
"
He concludes: "This … is no attack on the Court; it seeks to restore the
Court to its rightful and historic place in our system of constitutional
government …."
The face-off we now see re-calibrates our separation of powers and restores
the executive's proper place as the source of leadership.
Since 1986, the fall of the dictatorship has fostered a knee-jerk bias
against executive power and in favor of judicial checks and balances. But this
has led to government by stalemate, the primacy of procedure over results, where
due process is misunderstood as endless process.
This is the best time to correct that. Cory didn't want to; it was too soon
after Marcos. Fidel Ramos preferred to do it behind-the-scenes, efficiently but
not institutionally. Erap took to rhetoric, called them "hoodlums in robes" but
didn't stay long enough to disrobe them. Gloria Arroyo alone had the gumption to
flex executive muscle upfront; alas she possessed Machiavellian virtù but not
true virtue. And comes now Noynoy, riding the crest of popularity for his
anti-corruption campaign.
The real lesson here is that "We, the People" own this Constitution.
The courts do not hold a monopoly over the power to divine its meanings.
Holmes recognized that "legislatures are ultimate guardians of the liberties and
welfare of the people in quite as great a degree as the courts."
Justice (later Chief Justice) Reynato Puno would say on the impeachment of
then Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr.: "The President and Congress also have an
obligation to interpret the Constitution…. courts listen to the voice of the
President and Congress but their voice does not silence the judiciary." (See
Oscar Franklin Tan, It is Emphatically the Province and Duty of Congress to Say
What Congress Is, 79 Phil. L.J. 39 (2004)).
Presidents have an equal duty to develop our constitutional traditions.
Abraham Lincoln defied the US court's ruling in the infamous Dred Scott case
that upheld slavery, and how! He emancipated the slaves and fought a civil war.
The incivility between our political and judicial branches is no great shakes by
that standard, but I sure hope it would yield as liberating a legacy.
Chief News Editor: Sol Jose Vanzi
© Copyright, 2011 by PHILIPPINE
HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE
All rights reserved
PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS
ONLINE [PHNO] WEBSITE
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/phnotweet
This is the PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE (PHNO) Mailing List.
To stop receiving our news items, please send a blank e-mail addressed to: phno-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Please visit our homepage at: http://www.newsflash.org/
(c) Copyright 2009. All rights reserved.
-------------------------------------------------------------Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phno/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phno/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
phno-digest@yahoogroups.com
phno-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
phno-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
