MANILA, FEBRUARY 21, 2012
(INQUIRER) EDITORIAL - Does the fact that the Constitution
makes the Senate "the sole judge of all impeachment cases' make it superior to
the Supreme Court in everything relating to impeachment?"
Fr. Joaquin Bernas, in his Feb. 11 blog, asked the question, a definitive
answer to which the public cannot seem to agree on, with every Juan and Juana
postulating their views on the matter even as legal experts have been offering
opinions different from, if not completely opposite to, one or the other. The
Senate's Feb. 13 vote to respect the Supreme Court's temporary restraining order
on the subpoena involving the Chief Justice's dollar accounts in PSBank only
added to the public's confusion over the issue; and the statement of Senate
President Juan Ponce Enrile, the impeachment court's presiding officer – that
"It is my humble view that the (Court) cannot assume jurisdiction over the sole
power of the Senate to try and decide this impeachment case" – didn't help clear
the air either.
The dispute seems to revolve around the separation of powers and
check-and-balance principles enshrined in our Constitution. There is no
disagreement that these constitutional commands must be adhered to. The main
question is really about judicial interference in the impeachment proceedings
and how to maintain the balance of power among the three branches of our
government.
Father Bernas cites Philippine jurisprudence in providing the answer to his
question: "…. in the Davide impeachment case and the Gutierrez case the Supreme
Court came in to resolve matters of interpretation of the law on impeachment."
He likewise pointed to cases in the electoral tribunals, which the Constitution
also says shall be the "sole judge of all election contests," but where the
Court ruled on whether or not these tribunals committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
Senator Pia Cayetano, explaining her vote to defy the Supreme Court's TRO,
quoted "The Federal Impeachment Process: A Constitutional and Historical
Analysis" by Michael Gerhardt: "Judicial review of such an impeachment procedure
would undermine the impeachment's effectiveness as a check on… especially
judicial abuse of power. Judicial review of the impeachment process would give
judges the last word on the propriety of the procedure for their own removal,
and thus the chance to make their own, or their colleagues' removal virtually
impossible by ensuring that Congress could achieve such outcome solely to the
most complex and time-consuming ways."
In his Feb. 17 column, Inquirer columnist Raul Pangalangan chastises the
anti-Corona camp for not being frank enough and forgetting "that the controlling
rule here is the decision where the Supreme Court actually stepped in and
altogether stopped the 2003 impeachment of (Davide)." But, he goes on with an
admonition: instead of going into "all sorts of intellectual contortions to
distinguish the Davide and Corona cases (which is pilit)…. What they
(anti-Corona camp) should do is to boldly confront the rule laid down for
Davide, rather than pretend that they can be reconciled without having to
reverse the earlier ruling in the Davide case….
"[W]hat we're actually doing here… is to correct the doctrinal fallacy of
judicial overreach and to restore the political branches of government to their
role as the voice of the sovereign people."
Former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban, in his column today, hews to the
middle ground: "In the Philippines, the answer is also 'No' but it is not simple
and absolute; it is subject to an exception…. our Constitution gave our
Judiciary the 'duty to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch
or instrumentality of the government'."
The Constitution does not lack for safeguards against abuses by any of these
branches. The Executive, supposedly the most powerful of all three branches, may
be restrained by the Judiciary through judicial review, and by the Legislature
through impeachment. Any legislative action may be subjected to judicial review.
Abuses by the Judiciary can be checked by the Legislature through impeachment.
If the safeguards fail to serve their purpose – i.e., check excesses – in the
case of the Executive or the Legislature, they can later be removed by the
people in an election. However, in the case of the Judiciary, the people have no
such recourse (except, as some are suggesting, People Power, which would be
messy and is extra-constitutional).
Is this really what the 1987 Constitution has in mind? The question seems
ready to haunt the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Corona every step of the
way.
Chief News Editor: Sol Jose Vanzi
© Copyright, 2012 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/
